Skip to main content

File this under hubris. I know I'm no genius. But you've been given advice by people who are apparently way more stupid than I am.

Dear President Obama,

I know that when you were first elected President of the United States, you pledged to be president of all the people. But that does not mean that you have to follow the advice of stupid people. You just have to look out for their welfare.

It is a very, very bad idea to intervene in Syria. Now people at FOX News and in Congress will tell you that we are morally obligated to intervene in Syria. Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his people. Another Middle East dictator used chemical weapons against his people. You remember how the war in Iraq turned out, right? Not such a good idea after all. Tens of thousands, maybe more than a million have died due to the Iraq War and people are still dying as a result of it. And the region is far less stable than it was before we invaded. War did not increase political stability.

There were plenty of articles by people with cooler heads in the media detailing the history of the region before the US invaded Iraq the second time. Those sane voices were drowned out by people waving the infamous bloody shirt and it's being used again to get us into Syria. Do not be fooled. As soon as something goes wrong, it will be all your fault.

So according to your critics, it will be all your fault if we act in Syria, and it will be all your fault if we don't. People will suffer either way. You cannot stop that. What you can stop is our part in that suffering. The US is not responsible for everything that happens in the world. That is hubris as well.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar. (13+ / 0-)

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:05:29 AM PDT

    •  It's not hubris to hold feet to fire. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lily O Lady, CIndyCasella, PhilJD

      He asked us to do that, demanded it of us. It's the only other part we can play beside campaigning and voting.

      "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes

      Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

      by OleHippieChick on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:22:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is not hubris to want to stop people from using (7+ / 0-)

      chemical weapons on other people. There are rules of warfare which are in place because of the unspeakable cruelty that some methods of engaging in war have upon humans in general.

      The President is of the mindset that attacking innocent men women and children with chemical weapons that will inflict the most suffering and torture upon individuals before they are released through death is wrong.

      These chemicals will also play a role in the deforming of generations yet to be born. You and the President disagree. Because he disagrees with you, it does not mean he is exhibiting hubris.  He was elected to make decisions on grave matters such as before us, he was not elected with the proviso of  making decisions only when you agree with them.

      •  The problem with this is the assumption (4+ / 0-)

        that lobbing in a few cruise missiles or anything else will make Assad LESS likely to use chemical weapons. I don't buy that. Assad has already shown that when his back is to the wall there is nothing he won't do. I fully expect that he'll let hell rain down upon his own people and Israel as a last and final act if he sees his end is imminent.

        No, I suspect bombing him will make him MORE likely to break out the bad stuff...and if that DOES happen, what then? Ground troops?

        I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

        by pajoly on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:50:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How many people should he (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordcopper

          be allowed to kill before justice comes in to play?

          I'm not saying that you think his actions are okay but everyone is rationalizing what would happen if we do something..."If we do this, then this will happen."

          If there is a line in which we are to get involved, what is it?

          Lots of bad stuff will happen either way.  How much bad stuff has to happen before we do something about it?

          Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

          by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:56:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think Assad is so defiant, so narcissistic, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            costello7, NWTerriD

            that he will let it all rip if he thinks he's making his last stand. That includes sending chemical warheads into Israel.

            Our playing Lone Ranger in the pursuit of justice sounds great, but in practice does not work out so well. Without global support, or at least allied support, risks an outcome worse than the cure. This is not like the Balkans, where we had NATO support and a reasonable calculated chance of success.

            I want to see debate on the floor of the House. I don't want this left up to a single person whose first rationale (a point that can be argued) here is to save face.

            We can and should try to stop atrocities when we can reasonably calculate success. I don't see that calculation here yet; all I see are people making an idealist argument about needing to do something because what's happening is terrible (which it most horrifyingly is).

            My personal preference it to provide refugee protection and aid, with any offensive military action withheld unless the Gulf states take a primary role AND the President has Congressional authorization (I want Congress FORCED to do its Constitutionally-chartered job with each member going on the record and vote yay or nay to be accountable to constituents).

            ..Hell, I'd be supportive of seeking primary challenges for any Democrats who cede his/her responsibility to vote up or down. It's complete political cowardice and an abdication of their responsibilities.

            I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

            by pajoly on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:35:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think (0+ / 0-)

              demanding a vote on action is any less idealistic than what anyone else is suggesting.

              So if we have a vote in congress that somehow it makes it okay, doesn't really make sense.

              Even if congress votes yes we are still going in alone.

              I guess I have to go back to my question.

              How many people should Assad be allowed to kill before we get involved (by ourselves)?

              Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

              by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:44:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, it does (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pajoly, NWTerriD
                So if we have a vote in congress that somehow it makes it okay,
                That is absolutely how it is supposed to be done.

                If this makes no sense to you, you may want to break out a copy of the War Powers Act or the Constitution.

                And before any of you responds with the notion of the "authority" granted the Presidency via Mr. Obama's predecessor (so they could all lie their asses off and go on to commit war crimes), the President of the United States is NOT supposed to be able to kick off a War without presenting it to Congress and seeking approval.

                It's bullshit--blatant, government-usurping bullshit--if a POTUS fails to do this.

                 

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:17:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am SO with you on this. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lunachickie, Lily O Lady

                  I sent an email to the White House to this effect a few minutes ago, and then came here to see whether anyone else was advocating for that approach.

                  For Constitutional reasons, for legacy reasons, for policy reasons, and for political reasons, giving the decision to Congress is absolutely the best move the president could make here. It is the only way he doesn't come out of this badly damaged, and it has the benefit of putting us back on the constitutional path for how decisions are made about war in this country.

                  "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

                  by NWTerriD on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:01:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Again, (0+ / 0-)

                  you can't complain about idealism and make that argument.  

                  Consent from congress is boilerplate stuff in most cases and in no way makes it okay.  Just makes it legal.

                  I guess, we can keep telling ourselves that it should be done the way it is supposed to be done even though the practice has been in place for 60 years.  Like I said yours is an equally idealistic position.  

                  Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

                  by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:22:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Saddam Hussein did all this and worse... (0+ / 0-)

            ...to his own people and others, yet most everyone here despised the war effort...even as 58% of Democratic senators voted for the Iraq War resolution.

            You know the saying...fool me once...

            Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

            by Love Me Slender on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:53:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's the difference between (0+ / 0-)

              doing what you want and doing what is right I guess.  

              I don't really think we should go either but I'm not going to pretend that the people that die will be better off because it wasn't our bombs that did it.  

              Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

              by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:05:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It depends on the targets (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too

          If it severely limits his air force or makes it harder for him to wage war against the rebels, it might be sufficient enough to deter him from future use of chemical weapons.  

          "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

          by Texas Lefty on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:02:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt it will be just a few ground missiles. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          costello7

          They said they were going to Afghanistan for just a short time, but...

          They don't do body counts.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:04:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You don't believe attacking his chemical weapons (0+ / 0-)

          site will do anything to stop him and or have the effect of having individuals think twice before attempting to douse their own people with chemical weapons in the future, in fact you think it will make Assad and other leaders like Assad use more chemical weapons. This goes against the concept of punishment as  deterrence, but ok....

          It may not stop him, may not...... But doing nothing won't stop him at all...no "mays" in the equation....

          •  Bombing his chemical weapons caches (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, costello7, Lily O Lady

            will set off the chemical weapons themselves, according to our own intelligence. And we can't be sure we're not going to hit them, because we don't know where they are or who has control over them. Again, according to our own intelligence.

            I don't even think there's solid evidence that Assad ordered this--not yet. And even if there were, it wouldn't justify this action, which is going to do no good that anyone can quantify or justify to me rationally, at least not so far. And which could do harm.

            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 Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:33:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  then the intelligence is telling us one thing (0+ / 0-)

              and telling the President something else. Unless you're suggesting the President is doing this without consulting his own intelligence.

              In terms of whether Asaad has attacked his own people with chemical weapons, what you think is one thing. But, John Kerry seem to think Assad is behind this, unless Kerry is really making things up. I have never known Kerry to be the kind of individual to make stuff up, just for the thrill of commencing a military exercise.

              •  John Kerry--the new Colin Powell. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SouthernLiberalinMD, PhilJD

                "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

                by costello7 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:51:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I guess it's OK to accuse Kerry of now not being (0+ / 0-)

                  a true Democrat or Progressive, or whatever you might not deem him to be.

                  I'm sure Kerry is used to this...having been "swiftboated".

                  •  As one of Kerry's longest-lasting, most loyal (0+ / 0-)

                    supporters:

                    How dare you.

                    For your information, I am capable of disagreeing with my leader, and making serious objections to what he's doing, and even questioning whether he has gone down the wrong road morally, without ever Swift-boating him.

                    How dare you.

                    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 Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:57:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you want to speak for costello7 who described (0+ / 0-)

                      Kerry as the new Colin Powell, but more than that, to suggest that Kerry is manufacturing evidence, how dare you even attempt to "how dare me?" In light of this suggestion. You should apologize to John Kerry. I mean, really.

                      •  No. Kerry needs to explain his change of views (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        costello7

                        on the Presidential use of military power and the rule of law, as well as his change of views on the relationship of morality to dissent and especially to questioning the official narrative of an upcoming war. Some additional explanations on his change of views re: barreling into complex and volatile situations with undefined goals but with faith that our planes dropping bombs will solve everything might also be warranted.

                        He has lived by one set of values on those points (well, for the most part) all his life since he was in the Navy. And now he's taking a very different line. His loyal supporters--and everybody else, actually--have every right to question why he's giving a speech that could easily have been lifted from the 2003 run-up to the war with Iraq, as well as why he made an ad hominem attack on critics of the war--in particular an attack on those who question the official version given out by the Administration.

                        His supporters have every right to question this uncharacteristic behavior. In fact, it's more loyal to question it than to accept it.

                        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 Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:37:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  The implication was made (0+ / 0-)

                    that we can believe the evidence exists--even though they can't show it to us, because its classified--and that it is overwhelming BECAUSE John Kerry said so and John Kerry wouldn't make something like that up.  The exact same thing was said when Colin Powell did his little off-Broadway show at the UN.  How many people bought into that pack of lies BECAUSE of who was put forward to sell them?  Lots and lots and lots and lots.

                    No, sir, I will never accept personality over proof.  I don't care who it is.  And those who would are the sheep the right wing always accuses us of being.

                    Like Colin Powell before him, John Kerry works at the pleasure of the President.  So he can either follow the orders of his boss and tell the American people what his boss orders him to tell them or he can resign.  That's the way it works.  Doesn't matter who you are or what party you belong to.  So either anti-war activist John Kerry honestly believes this is a war worth getting into, sacrificing American blood and treasure when no American interests are at stake and, in all likelihood, our intervention will make things worse--in which case I have a lot less respect for him, or he believes that it is possible to lob a few missles in and not become entangled further--in which case he's a fool and I have a lot less respect for him, or he's just following the orders of his boss and spreading it thick precisely because he has the kind of credibility to sell it to some who would otherwise not buy in--in which case I have a lot less respect for him.

                    Do yourself a favor, for consistency's sake.  Look at any policy initiative and listen to any speech--especially one advocating war--imagining someone you don't trust in the least were making it.  If I wouldn't trust a Bush who was saying he was going to cut Social Security to "protect and stregthen it", then why would I trust those words or ideas coming from Obama or anyone?  That's not comparing Obama to Bush; its focusing on the substance of what's being proposed without being blinded by the little "R"s and "D"s after the names.  Did I trust Colin Powell--a well-respected general who, at the time, had lots of cross-over appeal and credibility--when he said we had overwhelming evidence that Sadaam had WMD?  No.  Do I trust John Kerry when he essentially says the same thing?  No.  Any argument that ends with "you can trust us"--spoken or implied--is a bad argument that is not trustworthy...regardless of who is making it.  That's not swiftboating; that's reality.

                    It seems pretty clear to me that this is all about Obama saving political face after making his "red line" remarks.  And that is a horrible reason to go to war.  Presidents are always so obsessed with looking strong.  I thought we'd elected someone who was more concerned with being smart.

                    "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

                    by costello7 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:10:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I can't help it that the IC has decided that (0+ / 0-)

                this time they want to cover their ass by leaking information to the press about how little they know while the White House and State insist in angry speeches that it's certain that Assad did it and therefore we must start attacking Syria right away.

                AP Intelligence Sources Say "No Slam Dunk."

                Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.
                Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials.
                U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.
                In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

                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 Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:05:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The American intelligence community is in fact (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SouthernLiberalinMD

                telling us that it has no clear idea of where the Syrian chemical caches are, nor of who controls them.

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:10:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  *May* set off the weapons, anyway. I suppose (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SouthernLiberalinMD

              a direct hit could incinerate them "safely." It's absolutely correct though that we have no clear idea where the damn things are.

              I think the earnest DKos supporters of intervention are going to be very surprised and disappointed when our "surgical" strikes target airfields and other "conventional" military assets and stay far away from anywhere chemical weapons might be hidden.

              All the "humanitarian" double-speak notwithstanding, our assault on Syria will be designed to "punish" Assad for past transgressions. It will do little or nothing to deter his use of chemical weapons in the future.

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:49:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Correct. I don't believe it. (0+ / 0-)

            That's one of the problems with chemical weapons. They have to be dismantled and properly disposed, they cannot be rendered inert by blowing them up.

            Also, if Assad, in his last ditch FUCK YOU WORLD! fires chemical warheads towards Israel, Iron Dome won't help. If you blow up a chemical warhead overhead, all you do is create an airburst that sends the toxins further than if they were to dispersed at the ground on impact.

            When you speak of deterrence, you necessarily assume your adversary is rational. Assad is NOT rational and he's already said if he's backed into a corner, he'll let loose with his worst.

            I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

            by pajoly on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:41:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What you suggest is impossible. I would have to (0+ / 0-)

              defer to the experts.

              WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has spent more than a decade trying to develop weapons to neutralize chemical weapons, the threat that has the United States poised to launch a missile strike on Syria, according to military planning documents and officials.

              The weapons, which would be attached to a bomb dropped from an aircraft, are supposed to neutralize chemical weapons where they are produced or stored. U.S. and western officials accuse Syrian President Bashar Assad and his government of unleashing chemical weapons on civilians. Hundreds of Syrians died Aug. 21 in a suspected chemical attack, and the Obama administration has said Assad's government is responsible for it.

              http://www.usatoday.com/...

              Many of the discussions that are held here are held with such absolute certainty that few are prepared to admit they just don't know. What is militarily possible, I leave up to the military experts.

              My belief in all of this is that it is wrong to let those who are so deposed feel it is permissible by the world for them to be able to attack innocent men, women, and children with chemical weapons. It is sad that more nations, and people throughout the world, do not hold this sentiment.

              •  I hope you are right. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NedSparks

                Though I'm a veteran who served within a missile battery, that was long ago and I claim no expertise on current capabilities. I would also love to be wrong and will join in an I-was-wrong group hug if we've developed a capability that can neutralize them via missile strike. That's be welcome news. I'm just not as optimistic, though I'd sure like to be.

                I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

                by pajoly on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:57:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  But when our bombs fall on equally innocent (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, Kimbeaux

        men, women and children they will not be appreciated by those who survive. These people may very well rail against the US and vow to attack and kill Americans. We can only add to the misery.

        "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

        by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:53:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  and (0+ / 0-)

        there are rules that govern the rules of warfare

        somehow those rules seem OK to break

        this has absolutely ZERO to do with human life and everything to do with politics

        they Egyptian military continues to receive US dollars and weapons.
        Saudi Arabia received cluster bombs (called WMDs by most other nations)

        the US govt does not give one rats ass about a human life in syria.

      •  Perhaps you can familiarize yourself with white (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        costello7

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:34:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I wish there was a team of sock puppets for peace (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lily O Lady

      who could mojo your diary onto the recommended list immediately.  

      There are no sock puppets for peace, since there aren't any corporations or special interests who stand to benefit by peace who could finance peace trolls, who would be, BTW, very cute and cuddly, not ugly and cutting.

      Peace activists do not control the MSM, either.

      Sadly, we are outflanked and cannot get your message out there.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:02:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depending on whether you believe Reuters or NBC (0+ / 0-)

        the message may not need to get out there, as the American people agree with us already.

        60% opposed, 9% in favor, according to Reuters as of Aug 25.

        And in any case, for some reason not all the MSM is on the same side of this one:

        CBS' take on the matter. Surprisingly close to real journalism.

        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 Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:39:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Remember the huge percentage of (0+ / 0-)

          American people who were for stronger gun control laws? We don't count for much in Congress.

          As for the media being on both sides, it just makes it easier for somebody to say, "I told you so," to Obama. They're setting it up so he's screwed either way, I'm afraid.

          "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

          by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:22:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "sock puppets for peace"! I love it! Wish I (0+ / 0-)

        had me some.

        "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

        by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:23:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think we should be getting in to another (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too

    war either.

    I also don't want to be involved with what you are talking about either.  

    You make a pretty bad comparison to the situation with Sadaam and the currect situation.  

    In the case of Iraq the use of chemical weapons was long before we went in there and the results of the war were unrelated.  

    It sounds like you are asking the president to make his decision based on politics and not policy.  

    It's one thing to fear the results of war, it's another when we prioritize our fear over the actual lives of other people.

    Better advice would be to think more about a potential action.

    Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

    by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:51:30 AM PDT

    •  Whether it was last week or 20 years ago (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD

      the fact remains we are going to kill people who are just as innocent as those who died in the chemical attack. And their surviving family and friends may well blame us. Maybe not all of them, but those who do will recruit help for revenge far and wide.

      There is no such thing as a surgical strike. The innocent will suffer. Do we want to be the authors of their suffering? Because we will pay the price.

      "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

      by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:10:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We already are... (0+ / 0-)

        You said yourself that either way we get the blame.  

        I don't see the difference.  People are going to be no less pleased with us if we put ourselves in a position to say, "you can't blame us."

        Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

        by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:41:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because if we don't go in, the blame will (0+ / 0-)

          largely emanate from the US. Russia and China will not object if we stay out. Our inaction is less concrete than if they can point to the crater in which their loved one died.

          "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

          by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:41:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not comfortable (0+ / 0-)

            looking at this from such a politically motivated viewpoint.

            Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

            by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:44:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I mourn the lives of the tens of thousands of (0+ / 0-)

              Iraqi civilians who died as a result of our invasion during Dubya's Iraq War. Do not imagine me to be unconcerned about the death of others. I just don't want the US to make things even worse in Syria, and I think it is quite likely that we will. Labeling my objections as purely political is inaccurate.

              "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

              by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:16:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  The long arc of history (0+ / 0-)

        has proven you wrong on this.  

        Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

        by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:50:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What long arc of history. Afghanistan? Iraq? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't know where you think your proof lies.

          "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

          by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:42:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Germany for starters. (0+ / 0-)

            The civil war to back that up.
            Rwanda would be another good example.

            Don't get me wrong I understand what you are saying but in the end those conflicts don't have much different going on than Syria.  

            In the end, the world will have to make a determination as to how many innocent civilians must die before they get involved.  

            Those three are perfect examples of what can happen when we do nothing and when we do something.  

            So I guess that is always the question because we are going to get involved at some point.

            How many people are you comfortable with having die before we do?

            It's a simple judgement call that doesn't say anything about your character.  Whether we get involved now or later, innocent people will die because of the bombs we drop.  Should we wait until they are so desperate that they won't care, because that is kind of what you are suggesting.  

            It worked in Germany.  Even though the death toll was well in to the millions we enjoy pretty stable relations with both countries involved (Germany and Israel).

            The United States is still United even though we waited 100 years give or take a few to intervene in our own genocide.

            I'd say our relationship with Rwanda is cordial at best.  

            Dancing around whether it is appropriate at this time kind of side steps the real issue which is that we are going to get involved but the question remains how many innocent people will have to be added to the death toll before we do.  

            I don't think you could soundly argue otherwise considering how involved we already are.

            I say 1,500 and chemical weapons use is pretty damn close to involvement time...what about you?

            Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

            by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:42:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wars like WWII are unusual. We really did (0+ / 0-)

              have to get into that one. But Vietnam was a bad idea. The Korean War is still technically going on as we only signed a cease fire with North Korea. WWI did not end all wars, but contributed to WWII. The arc of history isn't as clear as you seem to indicate. But I will respectfully consider examples you cite.

              "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

              by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:13:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Afghanistan and Iraq (0+ / 0-)

            would make a short arc of history.  

            Specifically why I said "long".  Don't get snippy with me because I disagree with you.  I'm just dealing with the reality of the situation we are in.

            Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

            by mim5677 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:43:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  where was O's outrage (0+ / 0-)

    and cowboy comments regarding Egypt where thousands were slaughtered for daring to stand up for democracy?

    this is a sickening moment in US history

    •  Answering your comment will be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG

      tricky. Are you referring the violence under Mubarak or the more recent violence in Egypt? The recent violence started with protests by the people of Egypt against President Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood. The people said they wanted him to step down. The military removed Morsi from office, apparently to restore stability to Egypt. Then there were riots because Morsi was no longer in office, possibly led by Morsi's party, the Muslim Brotherhood.

      How do you determine who is wrong and who is right? How do you intervene? What is truly the will of the people and what is the will of factions? Can a faction truly represent all the people? It's a real can of worms.

      "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

      by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:32:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  great questions (0+ / 0-)

        all of which can be applied directly to Syria

        in Egypt we have a very simple option which is to stop sending their military US weapons and dollars

        •  So then (0+ / 0-)

          the Muslim Brotherhood regains power and clamps down on everybody. They hate us and decide "Enough of this no war with Israel crap. We hate those guys too." Then the Middle East gets really interesting, but not in a good way.

          "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

          by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:37:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  interesting assumption (0+ / 0-)

            certainly not one that I would share

            •  Because even though the Muslim (0+ / 0-)

              Brotherhood is the only party well organized enough to field a viable candidate, you imagine that this time someone else would come out on top. That would be nice, if it were to happen. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

              "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

              by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:48:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Well if Americans are finally ready to start (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lily O Lady, costello7

    Making omelets, we should start breaking a few eggs here in America first. Get out own house in order before we try to tell others how to clean their house.

    There are no profits in ensuring human rights so don't expect your government to do so.

    by The Green Nugget on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:08:36 AM PDT

  •  Irony..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lily O Lady

    Senator Obama likely beat Senator Clinton to become the presidential nominee because of his opposition to the Iraq War.

    But for once, and God help me, I agree with the letter sent by Speaker Boehner to President Obama:

    What are the interests of the American people in intervening in Syria?

    Little has changed from a month ago, save the fact that chemical weapons were used.

    As I recall, this has been the argument of Kos as well.  Dead is dead, regardless of the means.

    Assad is brutal.  But his replacement(s) can be far worse for American interests.

    And while I respect that President Obama drew a line in the sand - no use of chemical weapons - that would prompt American intervention, this must be reconciled with defining our interests.  Military intervention does not clear-up and define our interests, it make things worse than they already are.

    In the end, I believe that the consensus builder inside Barrack Obama will NOT act unilaterally and strike Syria.

    •  SOS Clinton (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, poco

      Urged intervention in Syria quite some time ago.

      Before Syria descended into war, Clinton was a strong backer of engagement with Syria, greatly underestimating the nature of the Baathist regime, famously referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” in April 2011
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/...

      Bill Clinton recommended action back in June, too.

      In sharp remarks directed against his Democratic successor and his wife’s former boss, President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that President Barack Obama risks looking like a “wuss,” a “fool,” and “lame” for not doing more to influence events in Syria.
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

      As to your conclusion

      I believe that the consensus builder inside Barrack Obama will NOT act unilaterally and strike Syria.
      Don't know I could say "I believe", but certainly would say "I hope".

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:21:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But the President drew a goddamn line! (3+ / 0-)

    Why can't people understand that!?

    s/, a bit on the bitter side.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:24:18 AM PDT

  •  Suck it up President Obama-no to war on Syria (3+ / 0-)

    What is this some kind of loss of face- what's important is not going forward with the brinkmanship situation you set up by declaring your red line?  

    Really who can afford this?  Not this country.  Take the example of the English parliament and back the heck off.  It's despicable what Assad has done, it's terrible beyond words what happened to the children and families who perished.  But we don't need or want to engage in barbaric behavior that in the end means nothing such as retaliating. Wrong, just wrong for you to proceed.

    Peggy Reskin Barefootfrontunners.com

    by preskin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:24:36 AM PDT

  •  America surrendered its moral authority (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD, Lily O Lady, rhedfish, schumann

    to say or do anything about attrocities committed by others when we employed torture.  Obama surrendered his moral authority when he failed to prosecute those who committed torture in our names.  Until we do something about our own War Crimes, we have no business chiding or punishing others for theirs.  Hell, if I'm Assad, why wouldn't I use chemical weapons...when America tortures and brags of it and, apparently, the world is just fine with that.

    Yes, there are Rules of War.  And WE broke them.  And there was no accountability for having done so.  I'd say all "rules" are off the table now.

    There is no such thing as "limited action".  There are no good actors in Syria; nothing good will come of supporting one group of terrorists over another.  And, somehow, when they kill their own people, its a brutal massacre and an attrocity, yet, when WE kill their people--civilians, innocents, women and kids--its "collateral damage".

    The situation in Syria is precisely why the UN exists.  And if the UN can not bring itself to condemn and intervene when chemical weapons are believed to have been used, then it is a useless joke and its time to stop paying their rent.  Of course, we already knew the UN was a worthless joke when they would not sanction the US for torture.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

    by costello7 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:48:12 AM PDT

    •  Good point, costello7. Should Bush, (0+ / 0-)

      Cheney, Rumesfeld, et. al. be hauled into the World Court as our bombs drop on Syria? Maybe we should throw in John Yoo for good measure.

      "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

      by Lily O Lady on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:17:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site