Skip to main content

View Diary: Radio intercepts convince German intel that Assad neither ordered nor approved the chemical attack (320 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i also hope assad does that (5+ / 0-)

    i also hope obama does, with out own war criminals. would set a nice standard.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:02:20 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  focus (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CS in AZ, Sylv

      "with our own war criminals"

      Nothing would please me more than to see Bush, Cheney, Wolfy, Rumsfeld and the gang behind bars.  But it is not going to happen and the continual references to that among the discussions of the Syrian situation are not much more than a distraction.

      There are too many distractions and ineffective arguments right now at DK and that is getting in the way of a more rational discussion of events.

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:19:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  right now (4+ / 0-)

        what matters is that there is no casus belli for war, even if assad doesn't turn over his cw. but let's hope he does.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:22:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well that: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv

          there is no casus belli for war

          is not what's getting discussed at DK.  What's getting discussed is Kerry's suitability for the SoS job or "We can't execute a bombing attack Assad's forces because white phosphorus".

          I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

          by Satya1 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:34:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  um (4+ / 0-)

            those conversations are appropriate in posts involving kerry, or double standards. this post is about casus belli.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:36:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

              those comments should be in the diary where you equate (at least implicitly) Rice's mushroom cloud comment in the Iraq context with Kerry's Munich comments in the Syrian context.

              My apologies.

              You still haven't made the case in this diary that there is "no casus belli for war, even if assad doesn't turn over his cw".  And when people put up a decent argument that undercuts your second sentence of this diary, you don't have a good answer - yet.

              I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

              by Satya1 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:37:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  depends how low you want to set the bar (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cotterperson, Johnny Q

                for a casus belli. i'm not into playing limbo for war. your mileage may vary.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:45:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I thought the bar was high enough (0+ / 0-)

                  for you to walk upright under it.  Your entire logic hinges on your second sentence IMHO, but when challenged on that point you chose to turn away from the discussion with a diversion:

                  i also hope assad does that i also hope obama does, with out own war criminals. would set a nice standard.
                  On the other hand if you responded to the substance of my original comment in another thread with something not quite so evasive, then I would be glad to know of it.

                  But don't tire your fingers.   You "win".  I've got to get back to work and am having ever shrinking confidence of an honest conversation of these issues at Daily Kos.

                  I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

                  by Satya1 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:28:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The "casus belli" is the same as it ever was (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sneakers563, PhillyJeff

          I oppose a military strike on Syria, just to be clear. I am not saying the reasoning they have given up to now has been enough to justify dropping American bombs, or that the rationales provided are convincing.

          But I do think it's important to keep to the facts and reality in arguing against it, and claiming that Assad personally was not responsible for a chemical weapons attack on a neighborhood of civilians in his country, so therefore nothing can or should be done, is a weak argument that doesn't even make sense.

          Imagine the derision if something like that happened here and people tried to say "well poor Obama, he's the victim here, he didn't say they could!" So he's blameless then, for losing control of the military and the country's weapons, for the lives of his citizens, and so everyone should just shrug and go on about their day. Come on, no one would accept such an argument. Assad is the leader of the country, ostensibly in control, therefore he responsible for its actions and for controlling its military and weapons.

          But that's all irrelevant anyway, because the rationale for wanting to drop bombs on them is the simple fact that chemical weapons were used. On a neighborhood of civilians and children. It frankly does not matter whether Assad ordered it, or knew about it and intentionally maintained deniability, or if he's a clueless fool who had no idea what was going on and his military doesn't care what he thinks. Or his military actually doesn't have control of its weapons, and someone else got ahold of some and did it.

          In any of those cases, the justification for the dropping of bombs is the same:

          The attack happened, hundreds died, there is video. Syria's chemical weapons are not under the control of someone who can or will ensure they are not used. Ergo, "something must be done."
          To me the only convincing arguments have to deal with that basic premise. That "something must be done" in response to this event. That's the first thing we have to either agree with, or not. Then if you go with yes, something must be done, then the discussion is about what to do, and what the objective is. Who is to blame and why it happened ARE good questions in that case. If Assad really didn't want this, that might be why he's now saying he is willing to bring in outside oversight. We will see.

          I can also see by now that the US posturing and blustering about dropping bombs on them may be part of the strategy to get the situation under control without dropping any bombs. Whether that was planned and deliberate or a happy accident, I don't care. I'm not even convinced yet that "something must be done" -- but I was planning to listen to the President make his case tonight and try to keep an open mind.

          I don't think he likes or wants war. As far back as the Illinois state senate he focused on arms reduction and control. So, we shall see what case he can make, and what he will say now that Syria has moved to negotiate.

          I know he will say that the option to strike must be available, as it's clearly now become the "stick" that is getting them to the table. Removing it at this point would make any move on Syria's part to secure the weapons unlikely, so the threats and drama about how "something must be done" and that 'something' may involve dropping bombs, will certainly continue. This is why he cannot say that if congress votes no, there will be no bombs. It would remove the only incentive for them to negotiate or turn over the weapons.

          So I expect he will ask congress to give him the authorization, and he will say it would be used only as a last resort and he hopes for a peaceful resolution, and he will also leave open the option to drop the bombs even if congress votes no because saying or implying that the US might decide no, something does not have to be done and we are not going to do anything, will end any hope of them giving up the weapons to international control.

          I believe he wants that outcome, unlike Bush, so even though he says many of the words (painfully to my ears), unlike Bush I think he means it and will avoid dropping bombs if at all possible. But I also think he is more than willing to follow through on his threats if they don't. Because he seems absolutely convinced that something must be done.

          My sincere hope is that the 'something' we have to do will not be dropping bombs, and the diplomatic path will lead to better control and securing of a few more of the world's ridiculous arsenal of destruction.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site