Skip to main content

View Diary: Marco Rubio takes exceptionally bold stand against Vladimir Putin (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If the rebels had gas, they'd use it on Assad. See (0+ / 0-)

    my comments upthread on this. Only Putin is still peddling this asinine conspiracy theory that speculates without a shred of evidence that somehow some unnamed rebel group carried out a huge and highly coordinated chemical weapons strike. There is nearly universal agreement that Assad did it. It is sad to see people on dkos still clinging to this or praising Putin for anything.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:54:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Asinine? (0+ / 0-)

      What possible reason would Assad have for using chemical weapons? None. The rebels have a great reason - getting the US to bail them out. There are well trained groups supplied by the Saudi government who could certainly have carried out the attack. We don't have conclusive evidence and may never get it.

      If we are able to praise Obama when he does something good, why not praise Putin? Are we teabaggers here who see everything in black and white?

      •  "Asinine" is perhaps the kindest word for the (0+ / 0-)

        type of groundless conspiracy drivel Putin is promoting. This isn't about conjecturing why Assad used the chemical weapons. When you try to guess someone's motives, you will probably be wrong 99% of the time. Sometimes dictators make bad decisions. Sometimes they are just outraged at the thought that their subjects are disobeying them. But, there is ZERO evidence to show that any known rebel group has access to chemical weapons, much less the delivery system and training to pull of a very large scale and precisely timed attack like this. However, there are mountains of evidence that show that intercepted communications from the Syrian army were discussing the use of chemical weapons, telling their troops to pull back from these neighborhoods and telling them to put on gas masks. There are even satellite pictures of the rockets being launched from Syrian army territory and landing in these rebel controlled neighborhoods. Even the direction the rockets pointed when they landed and the amount of fuel consumed show that they were launched from government territory, not rebel territory. So, we actually do have quite strong evidence and Putin appears to be hoping that he can prey upon peoples' unawareness about this information to advance his kooky claims. I also have trouble trusting that someone who was purveying an asinine conspiracy theory a few minutes ago will truly follow through will the commitment to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons. I think it will be a nightmare dealing this he will continue killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:31:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Groundless conspiracy theories (0+ / 0-)

          When it comes to excuses for war, our government almost always uses groundless conspiracy theories to convince us that we should attack another nation, whether it's Iraq's WMD or the threat posed by Grenada, or the "absolute fact" that Assad ordered the August chemical weapons attack.  There is independent data that supports the idea that the "rebels" were supplied with chemical weapons by the Saudis and that the US provided training to them in how to handle it.  http://www.zerohedge.com/...

          Whenever the US government tells us it has an airtight case for going to war, we need to be very, very skeptical.  Can you name one instance since WWII when the government did not lie to get us into a war?  The record is clear and we have to acknowledge that war is very good business for those who lavish money on our politicians.  

          The question we need to ask, is not about which side is responsible, but about how best to defuse this situation in such a way that the people of Syria, the children of Syria, the Syrian refugees, can most rapidly return to life of peace and security with the minimum loss of life and limb.  Attacking Syria will make matters worse.  Pretending to enforce international laws that we break with impunity should be seen as the lie it is and always has been.  If it takes a Vladimir Putin to point that out, then so be it.  Lord knows now politicians in Washington are stepping up to tell the truth.

          •  Zerohedge is full of conspiracy theories, which (0+ / 0-)

            apparently you are not skeptical about, but you are skeptical of things involving physical evidence.

            By the way, we have not been lied into every war since WWII. The Korean war was pretty clearly a case where they launched a pre-meditated sneak attack. We then fought them under the UN banner. There are many other examples of conflicts that we did not get lied into. In the first Gulf War, even though I think it could have been avoided and was largely created through the incompetence of Bush and Ambassador Glassby, for whatever reason, Saddam went ahead with his attack. You could also say that it didn't make sense for him to do this or that he could have just left and suffered no consequences. That may be true, but dictators get a certain type of sickness after years of absolute tyranny. They no longer think like normal people. Kosovo was also no based on a lie. In fact, it was a NATO operation that involved no gain to the US. It also showed the world that we were not anti-Muslim and, in fact, we would stand up against genocide, even if the UN, and the liberal fringe in the US lost their minds over it (and were dead wrong, as usual). Libya is another example of a NATO operation where Obama was right and the hard-Left was dead wrong.

            But, what sickens me the most is hearing people who are enabling Assad to continue slaughtering 5-10,000 people per month for years to come say they care about peace or care about the children in Syria. I am in favor of a large scale attack on Assad because I believe that would bring this tragedy, which was caused by isolationist pacifist thinking, finally to an end. However, that is not what Obama proposed. He had the courage to open debate in Congress about the stopping the genocide in Syria and the leftwing and rightwing loonies savaged him (with peace).

            You do not have the right to say that things would get worse in Syria with the limited intervention that WAS (but no longer is) being proposed. That is a ridiculous and groundless claim. First, you have no evidence of that. The Libya campaign is a good counter example to your point. Second, it is hard to be WORSE than someone who has killed 100,000 of his own people, displaced a third of his country, and every sane person in the world knows that he used sarin nerve gas on a civilian neighborhood, killing hundreds if not thousands of non-combatants. In the absolute worst case imaginable, US attack would never kill even a fraction of the innocent people Assad has killed and there is 0.0000000% chance that a jihadist rebel group could ever take control of Syria or that a country with thousands of years of pluralistic religious and multi-ethnic traditions would ever support such a group. The FACT is, NO ONE is worse than Assad. So, just keep watching the slaughter in Syria and saying, oh what a shame, but there's nothing we can do. You made sure of that and you should be ashamed.

            Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

            by tekno2600 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 11:53:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lies (0+ / 0-)

              All the wars since WWII were unconstitutional and all were avoidable and none had anything to do with defending the US from attack.  All of them were elective wars and aside from Korea, all were in violation of international law as well.

              It's really interesting that you use Libya as an example of a good intervention by the US.  What did we do there?  We overthrew a stable regime that had the support of a large number of the populace with a collection of jihadi terrorists who still haven't been able to form a coherent government.  We took a nation which was a model for the continent in terms of social programs and education and turned it into a cesspool of warring factions.  Is that what would happen in Syria - yes, almost certainly.

              Also let's understand that Assad was not killing people any more than his contemporaries in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia before the jihadi violence that marred the Arab Spring in Syria.  No government faced with an armed opposition is going to sit idly by and let them take over.  But we can stop the slaughter in Syria and the quickest way is for the US and its proxies to stop aiding the terrorist "rebels".

              •  The fact that you would defend Gaddafi and (0+ / 0-)

                actually praise the "stability" of his government tells us all everything we need to know about you and your views. He regularly visited schools to decide which school girls he wanted to kidnap and rape. He traveled with a group of slaves whom he regularly beat in public. He was outraged when Swiss authorities caught him beating his servants at a hotel and demanded he stop. He killed people at whim and often asked other people to kill someone for him as a sign of their loyalty. This included telling children to kill their parents.

                But, you say that helping his people overthrow him and moving away from dictatorship under one of the most brutal and psychotic tyrants of all time was a bad thing because you don't like the factions and that came after him (which you arrogantly and ignorantly call jihadi terrorists). That's how Democracy works. It's not up to arrogant, self righteous people like you to impose your idea of order on another country. The people get to decide how their government will look and how the transition toward life after a tyrant will be. Just because you think a tyrant is convenient or keeps things looking orderly from the outside doesn't mean people should have to live under his brutality. You haven't the fainted clue what a government in Syria will look like after Assad and his thugs are defeated. But, he has already established himself as the most viscous and evil leaders in Syrian history. So, whoever comes after him would automatically start out less bad...and again, it's not your choice. You don't get to decide to selectively enforce the international treaty on genocide--which obligates member nations to act to stop it when they see it happening, even without UN authorization of force--just because you happen to like a certain dictator or arrogantly want to control who comes next when his brutal reign of terror ends.

                Your other assertions about all wars being illegal and unconstitutional are just as ignorant as your claims supporting brutal tyrants. At least I schooled you a little on Korea. But, I learned long ago dealing with so-called peace activists (including a number of Quakers) that they are neither gentle, peace-loving, or even nice people. They can actually be some very mean, self righteous and conniving people, just in a passive aggressive way. They are simply fanatically devoted to the proposition that anything involving military force is automatically bad, even if it would save lives. If the Holocaust happened again, right in front of their eyes, they would oppose any intervention to save innocent people (just as they did oppose WWII). They'd claim the situation would be "worse" if we intervened. They'd say Hitler wasn't such a bad guy. They resort to all kinds of lies and excuses, because they think the ends justify the means. In that way, they have a self-righteousness that is a lot like anti-abortion activists. They are so convinced they are right, despite their highly flawed and twisted ideology, that they think practically anything they do is ok in the service of their goals. Well, to hell with that and all the other fake peace advocates who have blood on their hands through their sins of omission: Failing to stop slaughter right before their eyes and even making excuses for it.

                Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                by tekno2600 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 06:26:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not worth the trouble (0+ / 0-)

                  Someone as misinformed as you and as dedicated to the religion of the Democratic Party and our noble and ever truthful government is simply not worth the trouble to argue with.

                  Don't bother to compare Gaddafi or Assad to the leaders of Bahrain or Saudi Arabia,  major US allies in the region.  Don't bother comparing the situation for the mass of people in Libya now to what is was under the Gaddafi government, or look at any of our other success stories in the region like Afghanistan or Iraq.  No, just swallow the government's narratives whole and don't bother examining the facts.  That's how you can be a good Democrat and continue to piss of the right wing nuts.

                  •  There you go again saying Gaddafi was better than (0+ / 0-)

                    the current situation in Libya. I know people in Libya right now. This isn't just theory for me. You think you know things, but you are utterly full of crap. You read conspiracy website and then tell people who actually know what is happening over there that we are misinformed? You're a freakin piece of work! And the rulers in Saudi and Bahrain are aholes, but not remotely the kind of psycho that Gaddafi was or Assad is.

                    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                    by tekno2600 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:47:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site