Skip to main content

View Diary: our 2016 Dem Pres nominee Hillary Clinton backs strong military response in Syria (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Making two sad things in your title. (14+ / 0-)

    And once again, since it hasn't sunk in, opponents of military action do not advocate doing nothing about genocide.  Your last paragraph is nothing but flamebait.  All heat, no light.

    •  Exactly (9+ / 0-)

      The conflation of "doing something" with "military action" is intellectually lazy and morally repulsive.

      •  Oh, it's not "lazy" (4+ / 0-)

        at least IMO. It's not intellectual, either. It's a writer's deliberate application of leading words in an attempt to mislead others.

        There's a name for that, you know...

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 05:49:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, so what alternative to military action might (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lawrence

          be effective, in your opinion?

          Not that I'm supporting Hillary.

          •  That's fine to ask (2+ / 0-)

            This has been addressed any number of times already, but it's possible to address it again.

            In order for "other alternatives" to be "effective", they must actually be tried. Of course, as with "missile strikes", nothing is "guaranteed" to be effective...

            *economic sanctions
            *establishing "buffer zones"
            *financial aid to certain factions not sympathetic to Assad
            There are surely others that don't yet spring to my coffee-less brain this morning...

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 07:10:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for this list. All I can say to it is that (0+ / 0-)

              these don't look workable to me...

              Sanctions have been tried, and so far the results (according to http://www.oyetimes.com/...) are:

              In 2010, Syria's GDP was $59 billion with an economic growth rate of between four and five percent; nominal GDP dropped to between $21 and $35 billion by June 2013, a decline of between 41 and 64 percent.  Around 28 percent of the total GDP loss in 2011 and 2012 was due to international economic sanctions with the majority of the loss ($3.9 billion of the $6.8 billion decline) due to sanctions on the oil industry.
              Buffer zones would mean a no-fly zone or troops on the ground, no?  That's more war.

              And I'm not sure what giving money to Assad's opponents would do.  Not much, I don't think.  We're already giving them arms, which is what they'd be using the money to buy, unless they should decide to just take it & move to Monte Carlo.

          •  also (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo, Lost and Found

            note that "propaganda" would have been the name we were looking for in the original post...

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 07:14:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  But accurate, unless someone suggests an effective (0+ / 0-)

        alternative.

        •  An answer (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, lunachickie, unfangus

          The Nation, "The Case Against Military Intervention in Syria"

          Instead of bombing Syria, the United States should join Russia in its effort to renew the Geneva negotiations. Moscow and Washington are in conflict over Syria, but they share an interest in not widening the war and strengthening jihadi extremists. It’s long past time for the two powers to concede that neither Assad nor the rebels are going to be defeated anytime soon. A peace agreement isn’t feasible now, but if the United States and Russia work together, they could use their combined influence to choke off the flow of arms from the outside and contain the conflict as they work toward a cease-fire. If they don’t, Syria’s disintegration will spread throughout the region.
          Phyllis Bennis in a Mondoweiss:
          O WHAT SHOULD THE U.S. DO?

          First thing, stop this false dichotomy of it’s either military force or nothing.  The use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is indeed what Secretary Kerry called a “moral obscenity.”  Whoever used such a weapon should be held accountable. So what do we do about it?

          ·         First, do no harm.  Don’t kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm.

          ·         Recognize that international law requires international enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop.  Move to support international jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team, this one to determine who was responsible for the attack.

          ·         Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court, understanding that timing of such indictments might require adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria.

          ·         President Obama can distinguish himself powerfully from his unilateralist predecessor by announcing an immediate campaign not only to get the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court, but to strengthen the Court and provide it with serious global enforcement capacity.

          ·         Move urgently towards a ceasefire and arms embargo in Syria. Russia must stop, and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. The U.S. must stop, and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements. That won’t be easy – for Washington it may require telling the Saudis and Qataris that if they don’t stop, we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with those countries.  (As my colleague David Wildman has said, why don’t we demand that the Pentagon deal with arms producers the way the Dept of Agriculture deals with farmers – pay them NOT to produce weapons. And then the money can be used to retool their factories to produce solar panels instead of Tomahawk missiles, and the workers stay on the job….)

          ·         Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by voting NO on any authorization for U.S. military strikes.

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          That's not accurate at all. One is not required, nor compelled, to "suggest an alternative" in order to prove that they do not advocate for "doing nothing in the face of chemical weapons use".

          That's not only intellectually lazy, morally bankrupt thinking, it's complete bullshit.  

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:07:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bolding, Italics, throwing shit around does not (0+ / 0-)

            make the case, luna.

            How again is it that choices aren't made among alternatives?

            I have not seen any rational alternative suggested to an attack on Assad's regime, other than doing nothing.  The so-called "sternly-worded letter".  

            One can make a case for this if one wants, but that's the choice.  Unless someone comes up with another alternative.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site