Skip to main content

View Diary: Ignatieff Advocates War to "Protect Civilians" (43 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So when the serious alternative to (0+ / 0-)

    the neocons, when he finds that our backs against a wall against a son of a bitch who slaughters tens of thousands of his own citizen, with the rest of the civilized world taking a "pass" on dealing with Assad, formulates a restrained, focused, minimal effort to stop the slaughter, without putting a worse butcher in his place, is opposed by the "anti-war" left who find common cause with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Vlad Putin, and Bashar Assad?
    That sucks.
    How about something different.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:16:01 PM PDT

    •  Well, if "something different" is more bombs, (12+ / 0-)

      More missiles, more killing, and more destruction...then it's pretty much "more of the same".

      "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." --Townes Van Zandt

      by Bisbonian on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:27:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the slur. IMHO, your comment, asserting (14+ / 0-)

      that I am aligned with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Valdimir Putin or Bashar Assad is despicable.  Nothing like being a dick in the first comment.

      Let me help you with these words from the introduction to the diary:

      To be clear, international law and international decision-making must be respected. The USA should stop acting unilaterally and seek to reinforce coalitions, diplomacy, international pressure, sanctions targeted against leadership not civilians, and avoid a default to warfare.

      No one will step forward, or need to, if the USA always acts first and negotiates later.

      Maybe you'd like to explain how
      our backs against a wall against a son of a bitch
      like Assad?

      Our backs?  He's attacked us?

      Then, take a shot at explaining which of the dozens of other nations who are also led by ruthless dictators we should bomb, invade or attack next.

      What is the level of murder which triggers our missiles?  100,000 sounds pretty high. Let's fire away at Mexico!  It is convenient. The human rights abuses are obvious, the killing rampant.  Shouldn't we send special forces to take Calderon captive? Since Peña is continuing the policies of Calderon, albeit more quietly, let's grab him up too. What's not to like?

      The killing in Syria and Mexico are at very similar levels. Let's attack them both!  

      Hell, let's just attack all the nations in the world with brutal murdering dictators, even those we've been endorsing.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:29:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All of those are good points. Normally I would (0+ / 0-)

        agree with you totally. However, in this instance, we're dealing with Syria. The President has avoided getting mired down in Syria because of the "problematic" nature there. Meanwhile he's being hammered as "dithering" on the right and left. Then when there's convincing evidence of Assad's use of CW, the left here claim that it was the rebels.
        Then after it is clear that the evidence points to the Syrian gov., they're claiming that it was a 'rogue general" and that Assad is totally innocent, (according to German intel. )
        Bottom line, equating Bush with Obama is wrong.
        Either you agree, or you disagree.
        It's possible that the one thing he needed to square the circle and demonstrate resolve to Assad was at least a fair hearing from the country.
        Yes, I'm tired of war, and I don't want another. I don't think Obama would have gotten us into another.
        When Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is elected Pres., I promise you we will be in another war.
        As for being a dick, I'm sorry, but I really think that many here are susceptible to being played by Putin. There's nothing peaceful or non-murderous about that guy. You make a lot of serious points.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:25:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  More help: (9+ / 0-)
      Civilians always, always suffer disproportionately in war. Invasions kill people -- men, women, and children -- even when we target only military installations.
      All those killed by a focused attack will surely be appreciative of our efforts to protect them.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:44:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People die when something isn't done, as well. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I share your worry about civilian deaths. I understand the ramifications of action and non-action. It's a very serious situation.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:04:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not really. People *might* die if nothing is done. (8+ / 0-)

          People will die, certainly, if missiles are launched and bombs dropped.  And the blood would be on our hands, not Assad's. That's a quantitative and qualitative difference.

          If we don't execute murderers more people might die at the hands of other murderers. Might.

          But if we execute the murderer, we know for sure there will be more death: the convicted murderer. The state will have been a killer as well as a "protector."

          Does the possible deterrence effect of executions justify the execution - the certainty that the executed will be dead?

          I don't think so. I don't think we ever have that certainty. Not in capital punishment. Not in war.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:13:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  " 'Anti-war' left who find common cause..." (9+ / 0-)

      "...with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Vlad Putin, and Bashar Assad."

      That's some stupid shit you just said right there.

      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:55:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, how about something different? (12+ / 0-)

      How about:

      not getting involved in another country's civil war?

      not supplying arms to rebels linked to Al Qaeda, whom we have been fighting (unsuccessfully I might add) in Afghanistan for 12 years?

      not toeing the line dictated by the most autocratic, theocratic, feudal, anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East: Saudi and Qatar?

      not being the country that has started more unilateral wars of aggression than any other since 1950?

      not being the country that has wrecked Iraq and Libya and caused endless death, misery, displacement of people, and wholesale destruction for the last 12 years?

      not being the world's biggest supplier of arms?

      not being a non-ratifier of the ICC, so that our own war criminals will get away scott free?

      not being the country that has castrated the UN by vetoing every motion concerned with Israel?

      not being the country which used agent orange in VN, white phosphorus and depleted uraniam in Iraq?

      not being the country with a drone program that has killed infinitely more innocent civilians than allegged terrorists?

      I could continue....

      We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

      by Lepanto on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:24:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What the fuck are you on? (3+ / 0-)

      The side of Cheney, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Kissenger, and the whole lunatic faction of the establishment, obviously.

      Now, explain again why we need to hit Assad but not the al-qaeda dominant faction of the rebels? The faction which, according to the UN's lead investigator has used Sarin in Aleppo and at least one other Syrian town in March 2003; the faction which is committing genocide of Christians.

      Seriously, why the fuck hasn't any single politician of this day advocated bombing al-qaeda and their affiliates in Syria?

      (ps the links are available on google, I'm not going to fucking argue what the rest of the world knows and has known for months now. Hint: UN May 6 sarin al-qaeda syria)

      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 01:28:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site