Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama makes the right choice and will present his case on Syria to the whole Congress for a vote (521 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  He has not provided any evidence that (7+ / 0-)

      Assad used the chemical weapons.   Only pompous statements.   He should answer the question that Putin asked.

      The lies are coming from the jihadist rebels who claim that Assad used weapons.  I find it much more likely that they did.   They are the only ones who had the motive.

      •  "Only pompous statements", huh? (33+ / 0-)

        That's a pretty "interesting" statement about a President who just decided to put this up for a vote by Congress, to say the least....

        Or are you saying that our democratic government is at the beck and call of autocratic Putin?

        I see you dodged the question about providing proof that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are lying.

        Why is that?

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:45:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama said that the chemical weapons in Syria (9+ / 0-)

          are a threat to us.   To the US citizens.   Same as what Bush had said about the chemical weapons in Iraq.

          Can you please explain how that is a true statement?  Please provide some evidence.

          •  Chemical weapons in a failing/disintegrating (14+ / 0-)

            state are a danger to virtually everyone on the planet.

            To the US citizens.
            Interesting sentence structure there.

            And yes, they are a danger to U.S. citizens throughout the world.

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:58:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No they are not a threat to US citizens (7+ / 0-)

              thats ridiculous.   By the same token, the nuclear weapons of Russia are a threat also.  Should we attack Russia?

              •  Are you having trouble reading what my comments (17+ / 0-)

                actually say or are you being purposefully obstinate?

                Please re-read:

                Chemical weapons in a failing/disintegrating state are a danger to virtually everyone on the planet.
                Russia is not a failing/disintegrating state.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:03:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  your argument is beyond ridiculous (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Treetrunk, Boris49, InAntalya

                  You argue that chemical weapons are a danger in Syria because the Syrian State is failing/disintegrating and the solution is to bomb the Syrian state?

                  Think about it.

                  •  Actually, I think you need to think (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    El Mito, Lawrence

                    whether than get carried away by emotions.  The person actually has a point that I had not considered -- an unstable country with chemical weapons.  Weapons that can end up in the hands of every terrorist group with an itching to create holy jihad against Americans.  

                    Not that I'm in favor of military action, but at least I do understand the logic here as to why it would be considered.  This is too serious of a deal to be emoting all over the place.  I think that everyone should understand what is at stake and why.

                    Then a reasoned debate can occur.  I don't think you are there yet.

                •  That's the same neocon playbook (9+ / 0-)

                  Those weapons don't threaten the United States and to claim that because some idiot American might wander into Syria that we have the right to go war with Syria to protect Americans is crazy.

                  This makes me as angry as anything.  It's the utter absurdity of the GWOT.   There is someone somewhere who might get his hand on a weapon someday and some American somewhere someday might run across this fellow THEREFORE we have the right to visit carnage on some other people just because we can.  

                  You might as well say that beer is a security threat to the United States because an American might get hit by a drunk driver on a foreign vacation.

                  •  That is not the only way those things (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lawrence

                    can be a threat to Americans.  There are Americans living abroad.  There are American interests abroad.  There can be breeches of security here that would allow such weapons in this country.  The scenarios are many.   It's not about being hawkish, either.  It's about understanding what can really happen.  

                •  Lawrence, how did Syria become this (0+ / 0-)

                  "failing/disintegrating state"???

                  US says it will give military aid to Syria rebels

                  The BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut says the US announcement is one that the Syrian opposition has been pushing and praying for for months.

                  It seems clear that President Obama has finally been persuaded, as Britain and France have argued, that the battlefield cannot be allowed to tilt strongly in the regime's favour, as is currently happening, he adds.

                  -cut-

                  A spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the BBC that he remained against "any further militarisation" of the conflict in Syria, saying the people there need peace not more weapons.

                  We've been giving aide and comfort the traitors in Syria for years.  Just like we fomented "revolution" in Iran 60 yrs ago. Just like we've been doing so for the last 10 yrs in places like Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

                  If we kept our dirty little militaristic paws at home, these countries couldn't become "failing" states.

                  What's clear, the Assad government is winning the war we started with him when we funded, armed and trained the mercenaries in his country.

                  What's also clear, these US backed "insurgents" are the ones committing these crimes against humanity and attempting to destabilize the country.

                  Syrian Insurgents Force Prisoner to Become a Suicide Bomber

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:19:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry dude, but the whole theory that the Arab (0+ / 0-)

                    Spring is caused by the U.S. is pretty silly and, tbh., reeks of a type of supremacism that borders on racism to me because it robs Arabs of their agency.

                    The fact is that the internet and the increasing interconnectedness of the world has had a profound effect on the world, and the Arab Spring is a result of that.

                    That's why the Arab Spring has been ideologically blind, dethroning mostly pro-western dictators, but also hitting former Soviet Bloc client dictators.

                    Syria became this failed state because Assad decided to cling to power and shut down the Arab Spring with the utmost of brutality when it arrived in Syria.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 12:45:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What part of me being a woman don't you accept? (0+ / 0-)

                      Our M.O. is the same world over.  The thing is we have proof of Western intervention in the most bizarre pot stirring I've ever seen.

                      British special forces caught dressed as Arab 'terrorists'

                      You may wish to claim it's all some grass roots movement AGAINST SYRIA, I don't buy into the propaganda presented by our media.

                      Thousands rally all over Syria in support of Bashar Al-Assad.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:18:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oops, sorry about that. (0+ / 0-)

                        I understand that you don't accept it and would rather see some big, U.S.-driven conspiracy.

                        You shouldn't trust the MSM and should filter it but you shouldn't trust non-msm news sources either.  Many non-MSM "news" sources have their own agenda and are even less objective than the MSM and have even worse journalistic standards.

                        And you really should try to understand the Arab Spring as a whole in order to understand how it played out in Syria and why it went so bad there.  

                        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                        by Lawrence on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 02:15:44 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks for the apology, I am a woman....;) (0+ / 0-)

                          I really don't want to believe anything but the facts, honest.

                          We have no right to go after any sovereign nation that has done nothing to us.

                          It went bad there because we funded, trained and armed the rebels.

                          What would our government do if the Chinese funded, trained and supported any of the militia groups the SPLC rants on about???

                          We created the mess, it's not much more clear than that.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 07:38:30 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I'll try and do my best to remember that. (0+ / 0-)

                            I really don't understand how you come to the conclusion that "we created the mess, it's not much more clear than that."

                            The mess in Syria has really deep roots that go all the way back to the Roman Empire and the later Arab Empires.  There are all kinds of factors at play there and, tbh., we are a far more minor player there than you seem to realize.

                            As for going after a "sovereign" nation...

                            Syria isn't really a sovereign nation anymore, but more like a nation with multiple zones that are at war with each other.  The three main zones are:

                            The zone in the west and southwest that is controlled by the regime.

                            The zone in the east and north that is controlled by Sunni Arab rebels of all kinds of different stripes, from moderate to extreme.

                            The zone in the northeast and some enclaves in the north that are controlled by the Kurdish PYD.

                            I'm also not sure that the whole concept of sovereignty is necessarily a good one when governments start killing by using genocidal weapons like Sarin Gas.  The whole concept of sovereignty dates back to aristocrats using the concept to stake their claims to conquered territories, no matter what the inhabitants of those territories actually wanted, much like the autocrat Assad is attempting to do.

                            There are no easy answers in Syria, as I attempted to explain in a detailed comment yesterday:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 10:19:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  So, it's better that the rebels manage the (4+ / 0-)

              chemical weapons?

              I would think a stable government would be better safe keepers. So why are the Saudis pushing so hard to topple Syria?

              Another view, can I post this {mintpress}? And Wall Street journal had article on Saudis too.
              How do we know there is not more to the story that we are given?

              http://www.mintpressnews.com/...

              •  That's a valid point. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too, SoCalSal

                But anyone who thinks that Assad will manage to re-establish a stable state with such a large percentage of the population being against him just hasn't been paying attention to Syria.

                Sunni Saudi Arabia is pushing to damage their Shia rival Iran.  

                That mintpress(who the fuck are they anyway?) article has lots of holes.

                I only see two options for securing the chemical and biological weapons:

                a.  Put enough pressure on Assad to come to the negotiating table and give up his chemical and biological weapons arsenal.

                b.  Insert troops into Syria, secure, extract, and destroy the chemical and biological weapons and weapons facilities.

                It seems to me like the Obama Administration is going for option a.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:39:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sometimes I just google subjects (0+ / 0-)

                  and read alternative sites, especially as I have been very disappointed in the lack of debate in MSM. I also like reading foreign press.

                  What gives us the right to intervene in a civil war? Ever?

                  •  Potential genocide, use of wmd's, and massive (5+ / 0-)

                    war crimes give us the right to do so.  

                    In fact, international law stipulates that we should do so.

                    That being said, I'm not sure that a strike is the right course of action.  I am, however, tired of quite a few people casually brushing aside the use of chemical weapons while they make their case against some kind of reaction to that use.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:36:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I watched cspan House of Commons (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Laconic Lib, gerrilea

                      debate on Syria.

                      Several people argued that no one did anything when Israel used white phosphorous.

                      I am tired of hypocrisy, too.

                      No one ever speaks out against Saudi Arabian on their human rights abuses, or any other of our "friends".

                      So this leads me to conclude, there is a larger agenda. imo

                    •  How so? Where does it state that USA must act? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Laconic Lib, gerrilea, driftwood
                      In fact, international law stipulates that we should do so.
                      No sarcasm or attack here (I'm giving that up for Rosh Hashanah) - what law forces our hand here?

                      As of 9pm 8/30/13: RETIRED Pie Warrior. Substance over Sh*t Flinging (as best as I am able) ~ JV

                      by JVolvo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:51:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  No, that doesn't give US the right to intervene. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      driftwood

                      Only the U.N. can authorize launching an act of war on a sovereign country.

                    •  Not accurate. The founding principles of the UN (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      driftwood

                      charter make clear if we act without authority, we are committing crimes against world peace.

                      The UN has not authorized any such attacks, period.

                      Syria resolution dies at U.N., and British lawmakers balk

                      WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's move to punish Syria's government for allegedly using chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week appeared to suffer a setback Wednesday when the U.S. failed to get United Nations approval for use of force and British support was thrown into question.
                      It's really important we keep to the facts here.

                      CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:27:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  NONSENSE!!! (0+ / 0-)

                        The last time the UN stopped aggression was 1950 -- the Korean War. Since the UN is completely incapable of doing anything, your position essentially is a license for every tyrant to commit every kind of mass atrocity thinkable and unthinkable. The League of Nations was just as bad when it failed to stop Mussolini and Hitler.

                        •  The rule of law IS NOT NONSENSE. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          driftwood

                          The biggest threat to world peace is and has been the United States.  We've killed millions since the end of WWII.

                          The treaty our Congress ratified IS part of the Supreme Law of this Land.  WE agreed that world peace was to be negotiated in a civilized manner.   Shooting missiles and dropping bombs IS NOT PEACEFUL NOR CIVILIZED.

                          If and when force was deemed necessary, the entire world would agree, period.

                          If "we go it alone" then our government becomes like any other rogue nation we've demonized, threatened and attacked.

                          If the world says "NO", then we are bound by law not to do anything.  We are not the world.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 08:58:27 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll take stopping genocide over the rule of law (0+ / 0-)

                            The world has failed at that way too many times.

                          •  And you are sadly naive (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Lawrence
                            If and when force was deemed necessary, the entire world would agree, period.
                            Those of us who remember the six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis and how the world turned its back disagree.

                            Not to mention the millions of Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Empire earlier in the 20th century.

                            Or the tens of millions murdered by Stalin.

                            Or the tens of millions of Chinese murdered by the Japanese during World War II.

                            Or the hundreds of thousands who died as the result of the partition of India.

                            And I'm only up to 1947. The list of mass murders in the six figure range since is even longer. The entire world did not agree to stop it.

                          •  You have got to be kidding me? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            driftwood

                            And I mean: you've got to fucking kidding me!

                            You're trying to equate the crimes perpetrated in Syria to the Holocust?  Who you trying to zoom here?  Assad IS NOT HITLER!  Is he invading other countries? Is he attacking and annexing territories?  Has he made his intentions clear that he wants to install his own race as the masters of the planet????

                            I call bullshit!

                            We Americans and our foreign policy has resulted in over 8 million humans being exterminated throughout the world SINCE WWII.

                            There is no morality in what we do.  Our foreign policy is dictated to us by the neocons that have taken control of our government.  

                            The Iranian Coup led by the CIA resulted in a million Iranians being exterminated.  Why??? To protect British Petroleum.

                            In Guatemala 100,000 die to protect Rockefeller's United Fruit Company.

                            Then there's Laos, Cambodia, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, Chile, Greece, The Congo, Ecuador, Haiti and the list goes on and on!

                            Millions dead because of us!  Over a million Iraqi's dead from the embargo in the '90's!  

                            Then we have 62 million the Chinese killed since WWII.

                            I'm not the one being naive here. Or the one claiming that working together as one "human" race can only be accomplished by the military might of the fucking United States!

                            You've just attempted to justify our Corporate Imperialism and hid it with moral platitudes!

                            Disgusting.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 02:06:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm NOT kidding. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your comment,

                            If and when force was deemed necessary, the entire world would agree, period.
                            is such total BS that I can only assume that you are ok with all the abuses that you and I have described. The fact is that the entire world will NEVER agree, and the UN is in fact set up to prevent anything from ever being done.

                            Your history is also bogus. Neocons are a recent phenomenon; most of the examples you gave are long before the word even existed. And the US had nothing to do with the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, the Japanese occupiers in China, with Mao, with Sri Lanka, or with many other examples you give.

                            WAKE UP!!!! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!! We finally have a President who wants to intervene against this kind of horror and you are pulling the isolationist crapola of the 1930s.

                        •  This isn't true. (0+ / 0-)

                          The last time was 2011, in Libya.

                          You are correct that the UN security council kind of is a joke nowadays, because two autocratic nations can block anything if they want.

                          Hell, the Assad Regime could wipe out a whole city of 100k people in just one day and just 1 of these autocratic countries could still block it.  

                          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                          by Lawrence on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 12:18:46 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  How is he doing this? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo
                  a.  Put enough pressure on Assad to come to the negotiating table and give up his chemical and biological weapons arsenal.
                  Obama has painted himself into a bit of a corner. There doesn't seem to be much chance that Congress will approve military action in this situation yet Obama is asking them for approval.

                  As far as I can tell, Obama is now left with two viable options, barring some Syrian military attack on another nation. The first is to fail to act and use the excuse that Congress didn't approve. The second is to, after having asked for the consent of Congress and after being denied, act anyway. The first defangs any "red line" with the threat of military action talk from Obama for the remainder of his term. The second shows him as an indecisive leader (did he, did he not, think Congress should be consulted?; was he just looking for political cover?) lacking confidence to act - a weakness psychopathic dictator thugs understand intuitively.

                  Given these two options, Assad will (likely, rightfully) conclude that the best thing (politically) for Obama to do is let Congress reject his request and let the next big news event bury the story so the public forgets about it.

                  Obama got himself in this box with his "red line" talk trying to be tough from the bully pulpit, he made a mistake there.

                  I really don't see how this puts more pressure on Assad, rather it seems to do just the opposite.

                  Hopefully the final result is that we don't attack (esp. since a "no boots on ground" attack is unlikely to achieve the goal) and Assad decides that it's best to negotiate for some other reason. But think the actions from the Administration make this less, rather than more, likely. Historians will decide in the end.

                  •  The Assad Regime already has been negatively (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    julesrules39

                    impacted, merely preparing for strikes.

                    They have had to scramble all kinds of assets and the wealthy, Assad-loyal citizens have been fleeing the country to avoid air strikes.

                    The pressure already is on and the Assad regime is far from being in a stable position.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:05:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  There's strong bipartisan support for this war. (0+ / 0-)

                    The process of seeking Congressional approval can only delay - not stop - the impending attack. When put to a vote, it will pass with a solid bipartisan majority - my guess is something like 75-24 in the Senate & 290-130 in the House.

                    All the "serious" Democrats are on board, including Pelosi. The Republicans will heap scorn on Obama for the "limited" nature of the attacks & for not intervening sooner & doing regime-change. But they want this war. Really, this is an ideal situation for the Republicans. They're getting the policy they want - militarism in the Middle East, unilateralism, contempt for the U.N. & international law - but the Democrats get to own it when it goes bad (as it surely will). Furthermore, this creates a huge wedge between the Democratic policy elite & the Democratic base.

                    But at least this buys us some time. Perhaps Obama will realize the degree to which he's gone out on a limb on this. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail within the administration. Or perhaps enough world leaders will speak out about the folly of this adventure that Obama would change his mind. But I'm just dreaming now - the decision to go to war has already been made. Unilaterally.

                    •  Rand Paul (0+ / 0-)

                      can be counted on to oppose it.

                      Which itself is a good argument in its favor.

                      •  Maybe we'll get a "List of intellectuals opposing (0+ / 0-)

                        intervention: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, etc.."  diary?  hehe

                      •  Rand Paul is right on this one. (0+ / 0-)

                        I never waste an opportunity to point out the fallacy of Randism, & I couldn't see myself ever voting for Rand Paul, but I'm perfectly willing to team up with him & the teabaggers on this one, if we can put a stop to this lurch toward war in Syria. It's a long shot, but at this point it's the only shot we have. To enter the war in Syria would be supreme folly; at least Rand Paul has the courage of his convictions to stand up & fight against it.

            •  true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity

              but proposed military actions are not designed to eliminate those weapons or prevent their use. Unless we are being lied to about the "limited" scope of the mission. Air strikes will do nothing to limit the use of those weapons, and may even spur their use. Or lead them into the hands of international evil doers.  .... Off the point of your asking for evidence of lies

              Power to the Peaceful!

              by misterwade on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:35:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Try This Counter Argument On Then (0+ / 0-)

              If chemical weapons in a failing/disintegrating state are a danger to virtually everyone on the planet, then the SMART MOVE would be to make sure that state DOES NOT FAIL.  Under that logic, we should be supporting Assad, to make sure the weapons don't fall into the wrong hands.  

              Of the two contending forces in Syria, Assad and anti-Assad, only one has really threatened the US at all, and that force is not the Assad regime.  Only the anti-Assad forces and their affiliates have threatened and in the reasonably close past actually attacked (multiple times if one counts the failed efforts) the US or its interests.  Therefore, attacking Syria to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of the forces which are more likely to attack the US works against the interests of the US.

              Why do you hate America?

              "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

              by PrahaPartizan on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:17:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Increased use of chemical weapons (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            highacidity, VPofKarma

            Will lead to increased research and development of new chemical weapons.  Chemical (and biological) weapons have the potential to be an equalizer that would allow a smaller state to inflict more equal damage upon a state such as the US with superior conventional weaponry.  Beating down use of non-conventional weapons is partly about preserving American military superiority.

        •  What the difference if he not lying? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treetrunk, JVolvo

          So what if he's not lying?
          Getting involved in Syria is a fools errand.

          Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

          by olo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:03:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That is preposterous (6+ / 0-)

        Did you even read te report?  No. Of course not

      •  Ol' ex-KGB leader Putin is your hero now, huh? (14+ / 0-)

        He never lied about his political enemies, huh?

        He never created a whole class of political prisoners who filled Soviet and Russian jails because they were dissidents?

        Again, shit.

        "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

        by Wildthumb on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:04:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And you trust anything coming out of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tony Situ

        Putin's mouth?  That's the best you can do?  Please.

        •  So, why shouldn't we believe him again? (0+ / 0-)

          What credible evidence can you present that he's lying to us about these facts.

          Didn't they just accept one of our political refugees from torture and death, ie Snowden?

          I believe him over anything our government can claim.  And it boils down to credibility here.  Our government lied us into perpetual war.  They lied to us about WMD's, lied about the NSA, lied about the torture, they've lied, lied and lied.

          And we have proof of their lies.  

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:33:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  He said the weapons were a threat to us and (14+ / 0-)

      that is a lie.  That's the very same kind of bullshit we got from Dubya Rummie, and Cheney.  He said it was about our national interest.  Yeah, right, a civil war on the other side of the earth.  

      •  They are a threat to us whether we go or not. (6+ / 0-)

        Anyone, Assad or the rebels could concievably get them, or their components, bring the components here, mix them contain them and trigger them in the middle of the next Boston Marathon scenario.  The sticky part is, will our intervention cause this?? or deter it?  Nobody, not the President or the military or Congress knows for certain.

        Dear budget cutting GOP'ers: Public transit is my “car.” And frankly, I’d like it back.

        by imfunnytoo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:53:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In Iraq there were no weapons of mass destruction. (15+ / 0-)

        In Syria, there very clearly are.

        Weapons of mass destruction in a failing/destabilizing state are a threat to virtually everyone on the planet.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:55:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Particularly to Greenland (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treetrunk, Fixed Point Theorem

          There could be a strong wind from the south.

          •  Particularly dangerous to neighboring countries, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            julesrules39, Lawrence

            where distribution of chemical weapons could cause strife, wars, global economic instability, significant loss of life. That could most certainly have negative effect on Americans and American allies.  

            “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

            by SoCalSal on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:07:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We need to make distinctions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea

              If the weapons threaten the neighbors, the neighbors have the right of self-defense to do something about it.  

              But an attack on Israel or Turkey does not threaten ME.  Now, if they were attacked, they might invoke an alliance and we might then have a reason to participate but we are not their poodles.  They don't have the right to have the United States defend them without doing a damn thing.  If they want that kind of commitment, then they need to petition for statehood.  

              •  Oh right, because it's all about YOU. YOU!!! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                julesrules39, Lawrence

                That explains everything.

                “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

                by SoCalSal on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:25:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Since when was this personal? (0+ / 0-)

                  Our government is going to use our military to attack another nation that has NOT attacked us, cannot attack us and will not attack us!

                  Despite the fact we've been attacking them through the mercenaries we've paid, armed and trained to go into Syria.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:37:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  How is a fleet of drones not WMD's? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib

          I wish we would avoid the term.

          And who gave us the right to be final arbiter of WMD ownership?  God?

        •  Does one honestly believe the fabrications on WMDs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HCKAD

          . . . in the lead-up to the Iraq debacle were the ONLY thing about that war that was problematic? Never mind that the Iraq invasion lit the fuse to the powder-keg of sectarian war that is in the process of consuming the entire region. Never mind that it was born of the hubris & vainglory of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. Never mind the 100,000+ deaths, the 2 million refugees, the demise of thousand-year-old religious communities, the stain of torture & war crimes, the hundreds of billions of dollars pissed away.

          Weapons of mass destruction in a failing/destabilizing state are a threat to virtually everyone on the planet.
          So logically, the U.S. should precipitate the failure of such state? Foment more chaos? Pour gasoline on the flames of war? Enter that war on the side of jihadis so as to prevent WMDs from falling into their hands? Sorry, I can't see the logic of this.
      •  What POTUS said: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanbrooker, edwardssl
        This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.
        Has the ring of truth to me.

        “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

        by SoCalSal on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:16:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • International (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site