Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Obama's Syrian plan lacks a 'logical premise and a well-designed goal' (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What else is there to do? (0+ / 0-)

    What dilemma?

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:01:00 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The right solution is always to bomb somebody (5+ / 0-)

      Makes ethics classes so much easier if you know the only answer that you need to.

      We want to punish Assad for using chemical weapons which are evil because they kill indiscriminately.   Since we can't take over Syria the only response is to drop bombs on them from afar, an act that will kill people indiscriminately.

      The problem with the whole situation is that the treaties and conventions that we all somewhat follow in wartime are based upon reciprocal action.   We have some of their guys as prisoner, and they have some of ours so there is strong incentive to be reasonable and humane.   We don't bomb your cities if you don't bomb ours.   The idea of an outside actor working as a referee in a civil war was not contemplated by the conventions and treaties.    All we can do by bombing case is kill Syrians, so it makes our outrage at Syrians being killed moot.

      Now the way out of the box is that there are a lot more ways to deal with this than tossing missiles around.   Convince Russia that Assad needs to be tried as a war criminal and progress can be made.    Obviously not easy, since it would require agreement on who to slot into the "dictator of Syria" position.    (It is too bad that we don't support the international criminal court because we don't want to be reciprocal, U.S. soldiers are above question.)  

      •  A country that doesn't respect the international (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fran1, truong son traveler, maryabein

        criminal court has no moral authority to prate about international law. That talk is clearly aimed at the gullible.

        We aren't being told the real reason. It's at least partly about Obama "saving face" -- since the time-honored way for a US president to stand tall is shoot missiles at someone. But the people working Obama's strings probably hope the whole thing will escalate into a really lucrative war.

        •  I think it is more complex than that (0+ / 0-)

          It has a lot to do with who is controlling Syria's allegedly large supply of chemical weapons.   Once they start letting them out of the box (or they start being let out of the box) we have a problem.

          The ludicrous thing is that all of the responsible actors in this situation agree that the weapons should not be released, yet they are on opposing sides and are acting in a way to ensure that they are.   Iran and Israel definitely do not want unregulated chemical weapons floating around in a neighboring country.   (Remember Iran suffered greatly from chemical weapon attacks.)   Russia has good cause to fear CW in the hands of Islamic militants, and the Saudi's delicate tete-a-tete with their band of semi-state-supported militants would be thrown seriously out of balance of those militants had CW rather than boxcutters to throw around.

        •  Hillary = really really really lucrative war (0+ / 0-)

          The comment and the link are ironic

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site