Skip to main content

View Diary: Senators Heitkamp and Manchin float diplomatic alternative to military strikes on Syria (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How is demanding Syria stop using them and (5+ / 0-)

    demanding Syria sign the international agreement against using them in any way "greenlighting" more chemical weapons attacks.

    Honestly, your comment is rather despicable.  

    Regardless of whether people favor or oppose military strikes or US involvement with Syria, NO ONE wants to "greenlight" chemical weapons attacks.  

    It is an odious accusation against anyone and making it as a general statement like that is really repugnant.

    No one. Wants. Gas. Used.  Period. End of story.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:20:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  People need to consider that consequences (0+ / 0-)

      Sure, no one wants to see chemical weapons used, just as no one wants to see the war continue.

      However, when people forcefully advocate a course that would effectively give Assad a green light to continue (I refer here to the true "do nothing, walk away" approach, not this proposal) then it is fair to link the course of action to the consequences of that course of action.   Since Assad would have no disincentive to launch more attacks, there does not seem to be any credible argument that he wouldn't continue to use them.  (This may simply be because this side of things gets little discussion. All attention is one the effects of strikes, with little on the effects of no strikes).

      So, it is fair to point to the likely outcome in order to clarify what we are actually debating.  I don't think trying to close ones eyes to these realities is sensible

      •  There are many people who strongly advocate for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Heart of the Rockies, onionjim

        humanitarian aid and for diplomacy and for international action to oppose chemical weapons use.

        That is not anything like

        when people forcefully advocate a course that would effectively give Assad a green light to continue (I refer here to the true "do nothing, walk away" approach,
        You're interpreting being opposed to military strikes -- we destroyed Iraq over chemical weapons which didn't even exist, after all -- as being the equivalent of "do nothing."  

        You are saying military strikes will deter chemical weapons use, but Assad took no lesson at all from the utter destruction and occupation of Iraq.

        It is a false argument. It is dishonest. It is putting words in other people's mouths. It is drawing false conclusions.

        Again: you have an odious argument.

        It's not helping you make the case for the USA to kill Syrians in the false belief that Assad cares about Syrians being killed.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 10:38:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think (0+ / 0-)

          You are in any position to claim anyone else's position is odious or dishonest.  The idea that either humanitarian efforts or diplomacy will restrain Assad is laughable.  If we give a lot of money to refugee camps why on earth would that make Assad stop attacking civilians?  Explain how that leverage is supposed to work.  Similarly, diplomacy has been ongoing for two years with the result of attacks on civilians.  Again, what possible mechanism or process is going to work?  We can't even get a statement of condemnation out of the UN and I don't think it is credible that Assad cares what the west thinks anyway.  We already have pretty stuff sanctions in place.  What leverage is there for diplomacy?

          We don't know if a limited military attack will work, but we know that humanitarian aid won't work and diplomacy is extremely extremely unlikely to work.  Assad is clearly betting that the west won't launch another Iraq style attack, and he is clearly correct.  Obviously, that's not a particularly good argument because no one is threatening to launch such an attack, so it doesn't enter the calculus.  I am sure he isn't dissuaded by our nuclear arsenal either since he knows we won't use it. Since neither

          So, we are left with a choice of military actions that might work, and diplomacy and humanitarian aid which are nearly guaranteed to fail.   So, yes, people who are pushing for doing nothing or for doing clearly ineffectual things are failing to consider the likely consequences of such options.  Since neither has any chance of success, I think it is safe to say that those options de facto give Assad all the room he needs to attack civilians with CW. I don't see how one can avoi that conclusion. Not odious, just the reality of a bad situation

        •  And (0+ / 0-)

          He certainly does care about his military being bombed.  Without it he will lose this war.   It is not credible to maintain otherwise

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site