Skip to main content

View Diary: A list of intellectuals who support the war with Syria (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  2 problems I have with this.... (0+ / 0-)

    First -- I don't know about the folks you cite, but the people in power have no intention of going to war with Syria now. They plan to hit the country with some missiles, maybe a few bombs and then walk away. Whatever you want to call the action, it's not a war. It's too limited in time, scope and aims to be called a war.  

    Second -- There are plenty of people on the left -- or those who don't have the association with the Iraq war that makes your post so amusing -- that do support a show of force in response to Syria's breach of international prohibitions on using chemical munitions.

    Just because folks who have been so horribly wrong once before support an aggressive posture doesn't mean that Obama's choice is wrong. More to the point, most of those folks have been arguing for an actual war with Syria, long before the chemical attack to which the President is responding. So, it's a specious argument even if one does accept that guilt by association is a legitimate form of argument.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 08:01:20 PM PDT

    •  war is when a Country attacks another NOT because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treetrunk

      they bombed them for 'x' number of days or a certain amount of ordinances and don't forget that this 'bombing' will be killing people which also plays into what we call making war.
      If thats' not he case then all the Countries we've been bombing can all hit us with 'limited strikes' and surely this Country won't see that as War as long as it doesn't last beyond a certain date?

      One more thing  regardless of any laws we pass in this Country that does not negate International Law and actions like bombing weddings, funerals, and social gatherings and 'double tap' strikes in particular are specifically war crimes.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:48:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you're talking about International law (0+ / 0-)

        ...something I have studied extensively...even have a master's degree in....

        The principle of humanitarian intervention is long recognized and also reasonably well-established by practice. Ideally, you have the blessing of a collective security organization with appropriate jurisdiction, like the Security Council offered to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or NATO's decisions to defend Bosnia and Kosovo, or the African Union's missions in places like Somalia.

        However, there are singular actions as well. The US in Somalia, France in Chad, the recent intervention in Libya, etc...

        When people suggest that there will be deaths occasioned by US strikes, they're ignoring the simple fact that there is an amazingly bloody civil war going on there. Moreover, what you describe as double tap strikes -- striking a site twice, the second time as rescue response is ongoing -- not what we do. Nor will we be targeting weddings or funerals. That's what Assad has been doing. And, yes, that's a war crime.

        If you're asking the significance of what the other country's view is -- Will Syria wish to escalate and get into a prolonged war with the US, or will they absorb the strikes and move on? If it's the latter, then calling it a war, when neither side sees it as such, seems overdone.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 07:04:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  we HAVE been doing 'double tap' strikes and they (0+ / 0-)

          are a war crime.
          http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/...

          The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of  civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.
          The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a ‘targeted, focused effort’ that ‘has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties.
          But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children.  A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

          Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.

          There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days. Because the attacks are carried out by the CIA, no information is given on the numbers killed.

          There are a lot more sources on this and adding more bombing to the area will not lessen the bloodshed.
          One more thing how about another method of resolution to this other than by more war.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:04:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site