Skip to main content

View Diary: The public has spoken on Syria. Perhaps "growled" more then spoken. (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So the whole world can use chemical weapons with (0+ / 0-)

    impunity now, is that what you are saying?  That's the message we'll be sending if we don't enforce the rules that we, the human race, have collectively agreed upon.

    •  That's nice staging. (7+ / 0-)

      What your saying is that anybody, anywhere does something wrong, we have the responsiblity and the power to stop them.  

      We don't have either.  We can blow up anything, but we can't necessarily change governments into what we want.  If we intervene over there and went in guns blazing, even if we changed the government, past experience teaches us it will be worse.

      By the way, welcome to neocon land.  Your using their logic now.

      Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

      by martianexpatriate on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:44:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Incidentally, if we have collectively agreed on (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx, fly, allenjo, Australian2, Sunspots

        these rules, then we should attack Israel next.  They used phosphorous rounds on Palestinians repeatedly, according to the reports I've read.

        I don't know whether its true, but so long as we are the world's cop but I suppose next we need to convene a trial and sit in judgement of Israel?

        Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

        by martianexpatriate on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:48:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't be opposed to that (0+ / 0-)

          though there's a far cry between white phosphorous and mustard gas, which is what assad is rumored to have used.

          Praxis: Bold as Love

          by VelvetElvis on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:51:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ok... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chantedor

            I'll get us ready for that court we should convene as word's cop to determine that.  After we deal with Israel, it's time for us to judge some countries in Africa, and I have no doubt that there will be new criminals in the next few years.

            I'm sure we can go from one corner of the world, shooting one person after another until the end of tine, or at least until the budget runs out.  It will make you feel like a really big man, but I doubt the victims will feel any better off.  In the end, you may find that even the Syrians.

            I don't agree with you about the gas incidentally.  Phosphorous rounds set buildings on fire and tend to murder hundreds of people rather then dozens.  Slowly cooking to death in a burning building is not really so much better then being gassed in some cases, but it's a better headline I suppose.

            Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

            by martianexpatriate on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 08:02:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  UN report will not be out for at least 10 days (4+ / 0-)

            so what was used is only a rumor, as you say. But why spread rumors when we will know soon enough?

            "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

            by allenjo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:26:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  How am I a neocon for wanting punishment for war (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jan4insight

        crimes?

        I hail from the far left and have met many people who will go to great lengths to excuse the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin, all in the name of ideology.   I'm getting the same vibe off a lot of people here who are looking for any excuse they can find to not hold Assad accountable.

        Praxis: Bold as Love

        by VelvetElvis on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:55:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are using the logic of a neocon. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Australian2, chantedor, Sunspots

          I'm not namecalling, I've grown to recognize this tactic because I see it from neocons almost constantly.

          If an injustice occurs, we must deal with it, and we have the power and ability to go into someone else's country and deal with it.  Time and time again, when we have done this we've left a broken country that suffered more under our protection then it did under the dictator it was previously under, but none of that history matters.  Examples would be Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

          This never works out and I am sick to death of it.  If someone wants to propose en embargo, economic means, negotiation, or maybe a joint action of nations, I'd consider it.  

          We must stop playing god.  If you haven't figured that out  with our recent history, then I doubt you ever will.

          Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

          by martianexpatriate on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 08:31:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree about a joint action (0+ / 0-)

            I'm presuming that depending on what the UN inspectors find, more parties will come forward in support.

            I never said I supported a unilateral action or the whole unitary executive thing.  

            Praxis: Bold as Love

            by VelvetElvis on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:16:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  So does that mean you are willing to enlist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chantedor

      if the airstrikes don't work and a ground invasion is necessary?  Or will you just let a bunch of 18 year olds get drafted instead?

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:45:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The rules we, the human race, have collectively (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sunspots

      agreed on are clear that the President requires approval from both Congress and the UN before acting, so you are good with that, right?

      They are clear that the Iraq war was an illegal war and that many members of his administration should be arrested and tried for war crimes.  You are good with that, right?

      They are clear that many members of Congress committed a war crime by approving the AUMF.  You are good with that, right?

      They are clear that many U.S. soldiers participating in that illegal war are war criminals because following orders is no defense.  

      You are good with all of that, right?  Just checking.

      My clear impression was that the Navy intended us to know our obligations under the Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Nuremberg Conventions. These Conventions have legal standing as US law due to their having been ratified by our Senate.

      If the war is acknowledged as illegal that means admitting that everyone who participates in it, plans it, or orders it is a war criminal.

      This is what the Nuremburg Conventions demand. One cannot be excused from illegal acts simply because one was ordered to commit those acts. We are all moral beings, even in the military, and as such have a legal and moral obligation to refuse to participate in War Crimes. And yet tens of thousands of military personal, not to mention the entire military command up to the president, are by definition War Criminals.  Common Dreams

      Principle VI

      The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

       (a) Crimes against peace:
         (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

         (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). Nuremberg Principles

      Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war not out of self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

      The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." War of aggression

      On 16 September 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal." Iraq War
      The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. Nuremberg Principles
      •  I have not, nor has my country, agreed to (0+ / 0-)

        go out and enforce every ruling of the Hague.  I do not, nor would I, nor I will agree, to the idea that every time a mysterious atrocity happens in a far corner of the globe, it is our job to go attack.

        I think the Hague should look into crimes.  I think we should look into them too.  I do not think that at this point, we have a lcear understanding what happened.

        I'm not okay with much of anything you said in your post.  There is a far distance between saying somebody committed a war of aggression and saying that we are then ready to go mobilize over it.  We never agreed to that, and you need to get your head together.

        You are good with all that right?  Just checking.

        Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

        by martianexpatriate on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that we are violently agreeing. (0+ / 0-)
          I do not, nor would I, nor I will agree, to the idea that every time a mysterious atrocity happens in a far corner of the globe, it is our job to go attack.
          Agreed.
          There is a far distance between saying somebody committed a war of aggression and saying that we are then ready to go mobilize over it.
          Agreed.  And the "somebody" that commited a war of aggression that I am referring to is the United States.

          I was replying to VelvetElvis, upthread.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site