Skip to main content

View Diary: Rand Paul asks Americans to form alliance with Assad regime (150 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I haven't listen to this guy... (8+ / 0-)

    …until recently but the more I do the more I believe he's whacked. Why are people embracing him?

    For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    by Maroon watch on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:43:39 AM PDT

    •  Any who's anti-war is good, according to some. (3+ / 0-)

      The doves haven't exactly been paragons of principle throughout this.

      Did you know that chemical weapons suddenly became no big deal as soon as Assad used them?

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:38:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's pretty hypocritical of you (0+ / 0-)

        US policy has been to ignore chemical weapons unless they are used by "bad guys." We were cool with Sadam gassing the Iranians and then his own people because it was in our "National Strategic Interest."

        Chemical weapons are aweful, and Assad is a monster, but bombing him has very dangerous and bloody implications. US bombing will lead to even more killing down the road, and that blood will be on our hands.

        "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

        by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:43:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of me? What am I, Ronald Reagan? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gator Keyfitz

          My opinion of chemicals warfare is exactly the same now as it was a month ago, a year ago, and twenty years ago.

          That others - Ronald Reagan, Syria doves, that sort of people - have allowed their responses to chemical warfare to bob and weave according to momentary whims and convenience says absolutely nothing about me.

          People's opinions about chemical warfare should not depend on what they want our Syria policy to be.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:47:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't just mean you, I meant Syria hawks (0+ / 0-)

            I highly doubt Obama, McCain, or any of the Syria hawks would be talking about intervening if this were Saudi Arabia gassing it's citizens. We picked Syria because they were "bad guys," not because we really care about chemical weapons.

            And if we care so much about Chemical weapons, why don't we make Israel and Egypt sign the weapons ban. They're one of 7 states (including Syria) that hasn't signed it.

            Finally, one can oppose chemical warfare without supporting incredibly stupid interventions that will only lead to more killing. If this was an African, East Asian, or European civil war, I would support intervention to stop chemical warfare. But even an "unbelievably small" military action by the US will have HUGE implications in the middle east.

            "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

            by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:22:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a Syria hawk. Obama's a Syria hawk. So's Kerry (0+ / 0-)

              I've seen nothing to suggest that our position on chemical weapons is a pretext; after all, we're not the ones who've invented a new position on them since August 21.

              As someone actually does care about chemical weapons, let me take a crack at the difference between Syria and Israel/Egypt: Syria is gassing people by the hundreds. Israel and Egypt aren't. Surely, you can see the difference between a guy who has a rifle in his closet and a guy who walks into a theater and starts killing people. Surely, you can see this even if you don't think people should have rifles in their closet.

              Finally, one can oppose chemical warfare without supporting incredibly stupid interventions that will only lead to more killing.
              It would be nice if a lot more Syria doves knew that, and didn't feel the need to write "Dead is Dead" diaries in order to argue against the intervention. I'm not the one you need to explain this point to; the people who suddenly discovered, thee weeks ago, that chemical weapons are no big deal should be the ones you make this point to.

              You raise an interesting point in your last paragraph. But let's turn that around; if US strikes would have huger implications if they happened in Syria than in East Asia, wouldn't the waging of chemical warfare itself have similarly huger implications?

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:45:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, chemical warfare is more dangerous in ME (0+ / 0-)

                Especially in Syria when there are so many terrorist groups in Syria right now (Hezbollah, Al Qaeda etc.). But if we bomb Syria, it will draw in more terrorist groups, particularly Shia militants.

                I hope Assad turns over the weapons, but who knows if he's even able to turn them all over. Some might be in rebel controlled areas, and some might be in contested areas. How are we supposed to secure those weapons?

                This could turn into a regional war between Shia and Sunni (with Kurdish Nationalists fighting for their own territory). Iraq could be totally destablized. Iran and Saudi Arabia may get involved to fight for domination of the gulf region. Terrorist groups and national armies will all be vying to control the chemical weapons. It would be a bloodbath and a tragedy, but not one we should participate in.

                The role for the US right now should be to provide a home for the refugees and deescalate the situation through diplomatic means. Throwing bombs at Syria is a very provocative act, and  could drag us into a long and costly war.

                "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

                by Johnnythebandit on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:45:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The threat of "throwing bombs at Syria" is... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Gator Keyfitz

                  the only reason there is any possibility of resolving the situation through diplomatic means.

                  That possibility didn't exist two weeks ago.

                  Art is the handmaid of human good.

                  by joe from Lowell on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:39:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site