Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Obama's Syrian plan lacks a 'logical premise and a well-designed goal' (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is a dumb post. I feel bad for saying that. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pleochroic, CcVenussPromise

    We are excusing a terrible form of death because it's basically as bad as another form of death. And where does that stop? We shouldn't accept chemical weapons because they are not much worse than explosive weapons. We shouldn't give ground on that. If "death is death", that is what that should mean. If death is our enemy, we shouldn't shy away from where death is occurring, should we?

    On topic: If Assad had shelled that many people to death, what would be the reaction?

    Too many people are using the fact that it was chemical weapons to escape the fact that "death is death". A weird Orwellian calculus is taking place, wherein because chemical death is equal to explosive death, both are equal but the media's conversion rate means that we discount chemical death because it's inflated by neo-conservatives.

    I would say it's ironic, but that triteness seems worthless.

    Meteor Blades is the shining light on this blog. I, myself, do not want strikes on Syria. But this community is viewing the issue the wrong way. "Death is death" is being seen as an excuse to ignore death. It's odd. I don't get it.

    You want the moral high ground? Fine. Many more people die of malaria. Of tuberculosis. Of lack of food, water, vaccines, self-determination...than will die of any weapons exchange. Take up your rhetorical arms there, if saving lives is your goal. Syria is a mess. Syria is where false change will go to die, and where people who still accept US hegemony will focus their attention.

    But "death is death". Don't use it as an excuse. Look where people are dying, and use it as a cause. But, more importantly, don't use "death is death" as an excuse if you're not willing to follow through with it. It's not just jingoism, it means you are against human death...and that means a lot more outside of US foreign policy.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:46:35 PM PDT

    •  So, the converse of your argument is that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delver rootnose

      it would be alright if Assad had those people killed with bombs?

      You think that makes sense?

      If you ask me, this entire fucking conversation about the type of weapons used is insane.

      If you don't want someone killing innocent people, then it shouldn't matter how they did it.

      Am I missing something?

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:57:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think we're on the same page... (0+ / 0-)

        ...with the exception of this: why limit it to war and weapons? If "death is death", that cuts both ways. Weapons, stupidity, policy, illness...if "death is death" we've got a lot more to account for, and a lot more to do, than we're doing.

        On this particular issue, if Assad had killed that many people with bullets, we wouldn't be entrapped by this WMD/Iraq War narrative. It's an odd confluence of opinions. If WMD is mentioned we dismiss death in the name of respecting death as an equalizing factor.

        But, of course, the leading causes of preventable death is not warfare of any sort.

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:04:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, Assad has killed way more than 1500 (0+ / 0-)

          people with bullets (or whatever the number is supposed to be today.)   So have the rebels.

        •  But he's killed way more people with bullets (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          and bombs. I didn't say death is death or anything else like that. I think the entirety of the conversation is completely absurd.

          It's fucking bizarro world.

          Now you want to talk about preventable deaths not related to warfare, like cancer or something? WTF??? As far as I know, no one's purposely giving other people cancer or heart disease.

          We don't bomb countries because their diets are high in cholesterol.

          We just might be bombing someone because they used chemical weapons. So, the discussion here in bizarro world has turned away from the possibility of U.S. intervention into some fucking insane debate about what's more horrible. How about making a list of the most awful ways to die, from worst to best and we can discuss the details?

          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

          by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:18:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  well to continue your... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler

      ...analogy bombing would be like spreading DDT all over a country to kill vectors of malaria.

      Unintended consequences is the problem.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:44:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  First of all the "evidence" is very shaky (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, koNko, CcVenussPromise

      This is from Asia Times Online  29 August

      a ''moderate'' Syrian ''rebel'' thinks about all this. Haytahm Manna, in exile for 35 years, is a key member of the non-armed Syrian opposition (yes, they do exist). But he's not following the script; he's resolutely against Operation Tomahawk ...

      Worse; he debunks the US government's ''evidence'' of a chemical weapons attack as ''propaganda'' and ''psychological war''. He stresses the chemicals were launched with ''artisanal weapons''; that ties up with Russian intelligence, which is sure gas that it was delivered by a homemade missile fired from a base under opposition control (extensive details compiled here; scroll down to ''Qaboun rocket launches'').

      The link (compiled here - above) is in French. Here is a portion of it translated by Google:
      This is a setup. It is known that chemical weapons have been used by Al Qaeda. But the Free Syrian Army and groups linked to Al Qaeda leading 80% share of their operations to the north. A month ago , Ahmad Jarba [ which coordinates the armed opposition ] claimed that he would change the balance of forces on the ground. But the opposite happened , the loyalist army took over the land. Only direct intervention could therefore help rebels get away ... If Al Qaeda is responsible , it must be said loud and clear . If this is the plan, you must obtain a UN resolution. And do not let two or three countries unite their friends, not all advisable elsewhere.

      Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

      by truong son traveler on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:45:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site