Skip to main content

So, many of us have joined the White House and some in the international community in the earnest exploration for a reason for our necessary intervention in Syria.

I admit that I've nothing substantive to add: I, too, remain utterly defeated in my own attempts to produce any significant explanation for our forthcoming acts of war. Like many, I thought about a good human rights angle, something maybe relating to allies, etc. Heck, I even thought about maybe it could help with the war on Al Qaeda.

I have to throw in the towel finally and admit it:

There is no fucking reason to do this and it is neither in our interests, nor those of allies, nor will it help any good opposition groups.

This is super fucking easy.

Sorry for the crap diary.

Tags

Poll

Must we "do something" militarily?

24%11 votes
73%33 votes

| 45 votes | Vote | Results

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 (7+ / 0-)

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:22:07 PM PDT

  •  There's a Fucking Reason to Do It, and That Tepid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeff in nyc, jan4insight

    answer is not pretty or polite, and it's all I've got. It's not an endorsement of action in this case.

    The issue if our governing morans would focus on it is to deter use of chem warfare everywhere else any other time. So you punish this instance to establish around the world that the cost of using this weapon is not worth the return.

    I lived and played alongside WW1 trench fighters into my 20's, I know what soldiers who'd faced machine guns, bombs, bayonets, mortars and gas had to say about gas, and about returning to civilian life living among gas victims.

    And that was from the end of the clean war era when soldiers mostly lined up against other soldiers while innocent civilians weren't the greatest casualties of war. These warriors told me that other warriors couldn't be evil enough to justify this class of weapon.

    Coincidentally I was hearing the same from my combat service peers about another chemical weapon, napalm.

    It's a reason, to my thinking the only credible reason to intervene in the morass that is Syria. The fact that this isn't the laser focus of messaging is very troubling in terms of what our motivation might really be.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:35:50 PM PDT

    •  What, SPECIFICALLY, would you have us do? And what (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, twigg, jeff in nyc, Blue Wind

      SPECIFICALLY do you see as consequences of those actions?

      I'm pretty tired of comments that say we have to do something without having any idea what that something should be or what might happen should we do it.

      -7.38, -5.38 (that's a surprise)

      Why must we struggle to protect the accomplishments of Democrats of the past from Democrats of the present? -- cal2010

      by 84thProblem on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:45:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I could be ok with that, if really the UN (0+ / 0-)

      Came down with such a ruling and looked to us for leadership. Thanks.

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:46:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I quite agree. But . . . . (0+ / 0-)

      International law must be enforced. International law makes the world a better place, and ignoring it and allowing it to go unenforced makes the world a worse place.

      BUT

      We cannot allow the US to be the world's police force.  The US has itself ignored international law for 75 years, has itself refused to accept the jurisdiction or authority of the World Court, and has blocked all efforts at enforcing international law on any nation it likes (including itself). Allowing the US to be the world's police force will only lead to "international law" being unilaterally enforced against nations we don't like, and blocked against nations we do like.  It's just a legal figleaf for superpower imperialism. It is intolerable and cannot be allowed.

      If international law is to be enforced, then  it MUST be enforced by an international body like the UN or NATO. Not unilaterally by "the world's only remaining superpower".

  •  Agree: (8+ / 0-)
    There is no fucking reason to do this and it is neither in our interests, nor those of allies, nor will it help any good opposition groups.




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

    by DeadHead on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:35:56 PM PDT

  •  This isn't hard (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead, greenbell, PhilK, JesseCW, Emmy, Blue Wind

    We're overthrowing another government.

    All the rest of the reasons are obfuscation from the fact that we are overthrowing another government.

    Cripple his military and the rebels can go take him out.

    I don't understand why people don't see this crystal clear situation.Why do you listen to our government's stated reasons for going to war? They are almost never the truth.  

    Bare naked colonialism and imperialism.  

    Everybody forgets the one big thing Obama said a year or two ago.  He said that Assad has to go.  He's got to pretend the "rebels" did it, which is exactly what happened in Libya.


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:49:14 PM PDT

  •  Intellectual honesty is always commendable. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead, jeff in nyc

    It's also depressing every way that you examine the proposed action and rationale in this particular case.

    Everyone of sane, good character hates the use of chemical warfare and all of the other abuses of intentional inflicted suffering and death in the world today.

    There's no way that I can see an attack on the Syrian people as legal, ethical, or logical.

  •  Meteor Blades just posted a way better diary (0+ / 0-)

    With excerpts from a good article.

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:57:51 PM PDT

  •  The whole thing is insanity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeff in nyc, DeadHead

    Makes no sense.  Neocon logic prevailing and creating another major war.

  •  Here I go again, (0+ / 0-)

    The reactionary.

     I think of a poison gassed neighborhood.  Folks cowering in fear, their families died horribly in front of them.  They know they are doomed to choke to death in the next gas attack--when--tomorrow?  They have no hope.

    What to do? I dunno, not being an Air Force officer like my dad.

    Rwanda.  Kosovo.  Cambodia.

    Doing nothing is really the best decision?

    Prayer is no solace.

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:57:24 PM PDT

    •  Who's saying we should do nothing? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeff in nyc

      What we do end up doing doesn't need to include bombs that kill more people and exacerbate the problem.




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

      by DeadHead on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:05:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At Daily Kos (0+ / 0-)

        the overwhelming majority opinion is to do nothing in response to the gas attacks, according to the poll.

        I am assuming the Gov't did the attacks, I hope I'm not mistaken.

        “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

        by 6412093 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:13:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your "overwhelming majority" at DailyKos (0+ / 0-)

          is based on what poll, exactly?

          Surely not the one in this diary, I hope. You know, the one that qualified its question with an important word : militarily.

          Because I really don't want to have to ridicule the idiocy of that approach.




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

          by DeadHead on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:48:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So doing just wildly crazy something is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6412093

      Better? How does our lobbing misses in the general area help anyone, including Syrians, our friends, and ourselves! Or even our oil?

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:13:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really don't know. I'm probably wrong. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jeff in nyc

        I just keep thinking Rwanda.  Kosovo. Cambodia.

        “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

        by 6412093 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:17:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok...but it sounds like you agree that our attack (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          6412093

          Won't even help anyone, quite apart from other concerns, right?

          “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

          by jeff in nyc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:24:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know. I'm not in the Air Force. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jeff in nyc

            I'm not sure what an attack would do. It would probably kill some of the perps, and some innocent children, best case.

            “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

            by 6412093 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:32:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I keep thinking . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jeff in nyc

          Iraq. Lebanon. Vietnam.

          This is a raging, brutal sectarian war. So one thinks the U.S. is going to put an end to the slaughter by firing a few cruise missiles? Really? It's more likely to be just more gasoline on the flames.

          In any case, does one really think that saving lives or protecting civilians is the motive for intervening? Intervention is ALWAYS carried out in the interest of the intervener, "humanitarian" guise or not. The motive here is to "flip" Syria out of its alliance with Iran in order to hand that country a strategic defeat & cut the supply lines to Hezbollah. The reason the U.S. didn't do humanitarian intervention in Rwanda in 1994: it wasn't of any strategic value to the U.S. & offered no political gain for Bill Clinton. The reason we did do humanitarian intervention in Iraq in 2003: oil, strategic location, to whack the Democrats, to diminish the U.N.,, to put fear into America's adversaries, to show the Muslims who's boss in the region.

          If the U.S. were really interested in saving lives or protecting civilians, it would sit down at an international summit that would include ALL the players with a stake in the conflict - including Iran. The first step would be to pressure the warring parties to accept a cease-fire with international monitoring, which would be an essential precondition for any political settlement. (No matter how this plays out, it's unlikely that Syria can be put back together again.) Russia tried to do arrange such a conference, but the U.S. & France balked when Russia insisted that the Iranians be invited. The U.S. & France refuse to negotiate with Iran over Syria, because this would, in their view, "legitimize" its government & divert focus from its nuclear program. So instead the Obama administration is choosing the path of war.

  •  Syria, gateway to Iran (0+ / 0-)

    Even with our very short attention span some of us should still remember the neo-con's plan to go through Syria to take out Iran? I agree with joanneleon, this is:

    "Bare naked colonialism and imperialism.  "

    America's "ratty" little brother (Israel) wants Assad dead because he supplies weapons to Hezbollah who dare to defend themselves against the "chosen ones". Syria is a major ally to Iran; taking out Assad would leave Iran isolated and ready for the kill.

    A few facts from Dennis Kucinich:

    "FACT: There is no definitive proof that Syria’s Assad knew of and directed the chemical weapons attack on August 21st.
    FACT: Intelligence which overheard Syrian military officials discussing the attack—far from implicating them—finds them denying they initiated an attack.
    FACT: There are at least two instances where the opposition is said to have used chemical weapons. One incident, which occurred in March, was referred to the Security Council by Russia. Another, which occurred in April, was cited by special U.N. investigator Carla Del Ponte.
    FACT: Some rockets identified near attack sites were described as “homemade.”
    FACT: A coordinated effort was made by U.S. officials to discourage a full U.N. investigation.
    FACT: The biggest beneficiary of the attack on the Syrian government is al-Qaida, which leads the opposition.
    FACT: Syria is not an imminent threat to the United States.
    FACT: Absent an imminent or actual threat to the United States, only Congress has the authority, under the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, to declare war."

    http://www.truthdig.com/...

    •  However, if we're just lobbing explosives for a (0+ / 0-)

      A few minutes, admittedly for no reason, how are we advancing even nefarious ends?

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:57:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site