Skip to main content

View Diary: The war supporter's weak case for war (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm for this one. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb, Loge, walk2live

    I was against a few of them, but this one seems like a much better idea than Iraq or Vietnam. Most likely, this one will be over in less time than we're spending talking about it. I also give Obama credit for pursuing it in spite of its unpopularity. Most people in the US (75% actually, according to one poll) can't find Syria on a map. So should the president really be looking to us for guidance here? Whether you agree with him or not on this particular issue, you have to give him credit for not letting the polls dictate policy. He's willing to risk political capital to do something that we all agree has limited upside, just because he thinks it is the right thing to do. He couldn't avenge the children of Newtown, but he can avenge the children of Damascus.

    •  On the map? Syria is right next to Iraq (10+ / 0-)

      When Americans see that, they'll get the picture.

    •  So we want less guns here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, corvo

      but want to spread more of them over there? We will answer murder with murder?

      "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

      by just another vet on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:17:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Avenge? Seriously? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, vacantlook

      It's no comfort to the dead that they're avenged.
      And what about avenging the people we kill?

    •  Because 75% Americans can't find Syria on the map (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, vacantlook

      Obama doesn't need our support to strike? How about if Americans can't find a place on a map; we don't interfere with military aggression in that region?

    •  So (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, wonmug
      Most likely, this one will be over in less time than we're spending talking about it.
      I presume by "this one" you mean US military involvement.  And the war in Syria will slog on for quite some time.  

      So we bomb for a few days, then actually expect the administration to not pursue any further military attacks in the months and years ahead as more and more news of atrocities pours out of Syria?

      "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

      by Calvino Partigiani on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:43:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not getting your logic here (4+ / 0-)
      [...] this one seems like a much better idea than Iraq or Vietnam.
      Are you saying we should bomb Syria because it's not as bad an idea as invading Iraq and Vietnam? I can think of lots of things that are not as poorly conceived as either of those wars, but that's not a reason to do them.
      I also give Obama credit for pursuing it in spite of its unpopularity.
      So you give him credit for hippy punching? Though it's a lot more than just DFHs this time.
      Most people in the US (75% actually, according to one poll) can't find Syria on a map.
      I don't need to know the physical geography to know this is a horrible idea that has no chance of resulting in anything positive for the United States or the people of Syria. On the contrary, our involvement will almost assuredly make matters worse in the long run. What objective can possibly be met by lobbing a few cruise missiles and calling it a day? Or are you seeing this as something that will be greatly expanded over what is currently being discussed?
      He's willing to risk political capital to do something that we all agree has limited upside, just because he thinks it is the right thing to do.
      How is that a virtue? If he thought dropping bombs on LA were the right thing to do despite advice to the contrary, would that that be a good thing too?

      I'm really not trying to be a dick, I'm just having a really hard time understanding your train of thought here.

      •  And for the record... (0+ / 0-)
        What objective can possibly be met by lobbing a few cruise missiles and calling it a day? Or are you seeing this as something that will be greatly expanded over what is currently being discussed?
        I don't for a second believe that all Obama is looking to do is shoot a few missiles and be done with it. I don't see how anyone can believe that will accomplish anything. I think the proposed "limited" intervention is just paving the way for something much larger after this fails.
        •  Well, that is sort of weird, since the (0+ / 0-)

          man has no history of wanting to lead us into unnecessary wars. Sounds like you just don't trust him, that you think he is some sort of natural liar. Not sure where you get that from, but I see a very honest and honorable man who is trying to do the right thing. There is no reason for him to secretly want a giant war, and it is disappointing (though not surprising) that some on this site think the very worst of him.

          •  This isn't about Obama (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Claudius Bombarnac

            This is about the United States once again trying to force its will on the rest of the world. There are times when we should intervene in the affairs of other countries, but it shouldn't be us going it alone just to make a point about credibility, which -- if you believe what Obama and Kerry have been saying -- is what this is about.

            Every dictator isn't Adolf Hitler and it isn't still 1941. This isn't about the subjugation of a large portion of the world's population; it's a civil war. Atrocities happen on both sides. That's war. It's not our job to get involved in every conflict and the use of gas doesn't change that.

            So if you do believe what Obama is saying about this being a limited engagement with no US troops on the ground, what do you think we'll be able to accomplish? I have yet to hear anyone answer how firing a few missiles into Syria will accomplish anything other than giving the warhawks boners. So is the point of this just to save our "credibility"? If not, what is the goal and how will firing missiles and dropping bombs accomplish whatever that goal is?

    •  weak tea (4+ / 0-)
      He couldn't avenge the children of Newtown, but he can avenge the children of Damascus.
      If it really were about kids, bombs are the very last thing that should come to mind in wanting to help them. If it were about kids, think about how actions like this will be adding another burden to their futures, here and there. If it were about kids, chemical weapon excuses would be unnecessary as thousands of kids have already been killed in this war. If it were about kids, we would be providing a lot more help to the millions of refugees that this war has already produced of which many are kids.

      How do you avenge the children of Damascus by killing more of them? You know that more of them are going to die, we call it collateral damage, it always happens. Can you or the President guarantee that less children are going to die in this war if we intervene as opposed to not intervening? Make the case, you might change some minds, but until then you are just making an emotional case with no basis on fact or reality. And finally, is this really about avenging? Sick.

      "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -John F. Kennedy

      by basquebob on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:59:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A small number of kids may die in (0+ / 0-)

        our attack, I admit that. The rationale is that in the long run this is going to save more children than it kills. That is a worthwhile tradeoff. Of course, we may kill zero of them since we're attacking military sites. But it is always possible that some will be killed accidentally, and that should not dissuade us for trying to help the children of Syria against this thug who would like to kill all of them if given the chance (and in a very painful manner to boot).

        •  You mean as few as died in Iraq during the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Claudius Bombarnac

          no-fly zone era due to our sanctions, and as few dead during and after our invasion, and as few as the ones that continue to die now in the ongoing strife after our failed attempt to institute "democracy"? That's what you call a small number? Remember how everything we did in Iraq was done under the pretext of saving lives? Under the pretext of removing a thug? Children in Iraq have been dying needlessly for over 20 years now, 20 freaking years thanks to our failed policies. So I am not sure what you mean by  "some will be killed accidentally", but if Iraq taught us anything, that "some" can turn out to be tens of thousands.

          Sorry, your rationale is not believable anymore, we've been down that path with disastrous results.

          "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -John F. Kennedy

          by basquebob on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 12:37:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Me too... (0+ / 0-)

      Seems we're in about the 27% minority here at DKos. I'm glad that we're actually having a debate about it, and a vote in Congress. I think it sets a good precedent for the future... Presidents have gotten way to trigger-happy for my tastes.

      Now, if the vote fails, and Obama acts anyway? (as he hinted he might) might lose me there...

      Freedom isn't free. That's why we pay taxes.

      by walk2live on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:15:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the vote fails because of (0+ / 0-)

        Obama haters like Michele Bachmann, I expect him to go ahead. He can't let a bunch of racists and right wing ideologues determine our foreign policy (and I don't think he will). The 73% or so here who are against this are worried that it won't go well. But if it does, if it is over quickly with limited casualties on our side, and is effective at halting future gas attacks on civilians, I think people here (most of them) will be glad we did it. They are just apprehensive about the outcome, which is understandable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site