Skip to main content

View Diary: Is someone now trying to convince me that this farce was deliberate? (795 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  At considerable risk. And assuming things don't (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, Enzo Valenzetti, Johnny Q

    still go terribly wrong. And assuming this isn't actually a Likud or Saudi-driven foreign policy move that puts us on the road to Tehran.

    We sure are willing to pay a high price in risk for our moral stand against sarin gas, which would be more convincing if we didn't still operate both black sites and Guantanamo Bay right now. To say nothing of having used white phosphorous on Fallujah a few years ago.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 07:44:58 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  And if things go terribly wrong (8+ / 0-)

      then what... more Syrians die?

      As opposed to ... more Syrians dying?

      BTW, all black sites have been declared closed in 2009 and the only known prisoner outside Gitmo held by the US was a Somali pirate held for two months aboard a navy ship.

      Now "we don't know what we don't know" of course, but barring evidence to the contrary, making the affirmative claim that they continue to exist requires evidence.

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:07:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. I am stunned in a way that you could ask. (6+ / 0-)

        If things go terribly wrong, we have to make good on our threat and go in. And some of our military die, or are maimed. And then Assad responds, lashing out as tyrants do when their backs are against the wall. His response could be solely within Syria, or outside it. An attack on one or more of our embassies by allies of Assad would be not unlikely. Even a terrorist attack on one of our cities might be possible. And we have to get in deeper. Maybe we even have to secure all the chemical weapons in Syria. Maybe we have to remove Assad from power ourselves. We put boots on the ground. We get in deeper. Iran gets involved. We get in deeper. Maybe, god help us, Russia gets involved against us directly, which is unlikely barring a horrible mistake or a deliberate attempt at manipulating the situation by some amoral non-state actor, like, say, al-Quaeda who hates us, hates the Russians, and hates Assad, and would probably like nothing better than to see all three players tear each other to shreds.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:27:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  .... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bonsai66, Gurnt, CenPhx

          Well, that's definitely a doomsday scenario, and not entirely outside the realm of possibility, but I hope you would agree that such is a highly unlikely outcome.

          I could come up with a similarly improbable but not implausable outcome of inaction, too... After all, Russia has quite a large stockpile of chemical weapons too, and other state and nonstate actors have some too....

          In assessing risk in my career (software development) we look at two factors: likelihood, and severity. Those risks factor into our QA work.

          You're describing a scenario where the severity is very high but the likelihood is very low (it would require stunningly incompetent strategy from multiple players).

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

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

          [ Parent ]

          •  The first 3-4 sentences are not unlikely at all. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, CenPhx

            I stacked the possible bad outcomes by probability from beginning of the comment to the end.

            The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:40:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They're (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SouthernLiberalinMD, Gurnt, CenPhx

              less unlikely than the later stuff. (I like how you stacked them by probability; nice touch, and I agree with your hierarchy). But still fairly unlikely as our forces are not likely to be placed in the path of harm's way.

              So let's think about the path of inaction:

              Syria continues to destabilize, Jordan and Lebanon falling into chaos. With control of Syria in flux, its existing stores of chemical weapons and/or their factories for producing the same fall into other hands, including those of Al Qaeda, who use their access to these weapons to deploy terrorist attacks both within and without Syria, including potentially on US soil. Perhaps a Sarin gas attack in the NYC subway system or Times Square. Or mustard gas. Or VX gas. All of which are known to be in Syria's stores. With nonstate actors in possession of deadly chemical weapons they become almost impossible to trace or contain. And state actors, seeing that even this blatant use of chemical weapons went unanswered, reject the CW ban and start producing and using their own.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:00:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It looks to me, raptavio, like *both* military (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx

                action and inaction result in al-Quaeda very likely getting its hands on chemical weaons (and other weapons of course). And nonstate actors, by all accounts, are already in possession of deadly chemical weapons in Syria (weirdly enough, we're arguably responding by allying with them, albeit loosely). This is something the entire world needs to be in on stopping, we need all the help we can get. One country sweeping in with a military attack is not going to help contain the mess. It's just going to heat it up further (IMO, of course). In fact, I don't really think a military coalition is what's needed to contain the mess either, but rather an economic and diplomatic one.

                Despite all the um, contempt thrown around about the idea of sending food, I'd suggest that if the rest of the world could offer something that would help stabilize some of the chaos (part of which was caused by some really horrible climate change) that might sweeten the pot for Assad--and before you tell me what a monster he is, I'm not suggesting that the man actually cares about his people in any way. But the aid--if it actually got to where it needed to be--could calm and stabilize part of the chaos, and I think, at this point, Mr. Assad would probably like it if any of those groups stopped fighting him, no matter what the reason.

                 But if we're wanting to stop it, I'd suggest the first step is to tell Mr. Bandar bin Sultan that we would like it very much if he would stop giving people who want to kill us chemical weapons. In private, of course, and very tactfully. And if he keeps on funneling weapons into the hands of dangerous, non-state actors, I'd respectfully suggest that the CIA should get some new allies and that the Bush family should bug the eff out of our foreign policy. Finally.

                The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:34:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Oh--my first statement (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx

                that either military action or inaction would cause al-Quaeda to get its hands on chemical weapons--rests on the assumption that we're not going to put at least 75,000 troops on the ground in Syria to find and secure all the chemical weapons caches and destroy the factories.

                The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:36:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  "Make good on our threat to go in"? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bonsai66, mmacdDE, Gurnt

          I don't even remember that being a threat.  

          HEY COGNITIVE INFILTRATORS! I googled "confirmation bias" and Daily Kos raided my house! And and and smashed my hard drives! Ask CNN, it's all truthy!

          by Inland on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 08:45:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm a little confused (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gurnt, sviscusi

          how do any of our military die if we send missiles from ships and other unmanned drones?

          Are they going to attack the ships and the drone control posts in Nevada?

          Because if they do, they're a lot more powerful than they let on. And way more stupid.

          No way will the Russians do anything. Putin might be a tyrant, but he's not stupid. And the Russian military is pretty much a shell of its former self. Putin knows that, it's far from a secret.

          •  I thought we were sending planes in? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx, JesseCW

            and the Syrians have anti-aircraft capability.

            The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:44:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Or is this a 100% drone strike situation? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            Because, in that case, I think you can expect to see terrorist attacks in response.

            In that case, of course our military wouldn't be in danger. Our embassy workers and possibly our civilians stateside would be.

            And our allies. Which makes me wonder why TF Israel wants this. Again.

            The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:45:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site