Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Others sure have (0+ / 0-)

    "Pure evil" is my personal favorite. I am talking about a wider group that just you.  You are a model of civility (much better than I obviously)

    However, it is not bullshit that people must consider the likely outcomes whatever course they advocate for.  Yes, war has risks.  But so does doing nothing or even taking a middle approach like this.  

    The questions are the same:  will it work? What are the likely outcomes?  

    Here there is a serious risk that Assad signs the treaty and then attacks other civilians right away.  What is the next move then?

    •  And they are wrong to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wonmug

      and I have said straight out they wrong to and HR'd where I thought it crossed the line.

      I'm gong to take off my HR of you because I think you get my point. Maybe you do not agree, but I see no point to keeping it on as "a message."

      I'm hoping you don;t do it again instead.

    •  We don't even have proof of who (3+ / 0-)

      set off the CW. Assad had no gain in it. Killed civilians not rebels. He already knew that it would cause a shitstorm.

      Who did gain from the CW attack? Israel. The peace talks stopped immediately, which Israel likes. Israel has long wanted to use us to attack Iran, which now seems more likely than before. So the players with most to gain from the CW attack are Israel and the US MIC.

      They've never done anything covert and horrible, though, have they.

      A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

      by onionjim on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 10:02:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        onionjim, Heart of the Rockies

        a few  pictures and maybe truth, maybe CT

        Some of the circumstances around the incidents in Lebanon in 1983 and now thirty years later in Syria are familiar.  U.S. intelligence agencies were aware of potential trouble but did not report the problems in sufficient time for actions to be taken.  President Obama said that the U.S. had intercepted signals indicating the Syrian government was moving equipment into place for an attack, but the U.S. did not warn the Syrian government that the U.S. knew what was happening and did not warn civilians that a chemical attack was imminent.

        Thirty years before, on September 26, 1983, "the National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted an Iranian diplomatic communications message from the Iranian intelligence agency, the Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS)," to its ambassador, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, in Damascus. The message directed the ambassador to "take spectacular action against the American Marines.”  The intercepted message, dated September 26, was not passed to the Marines until a month later on October 26: three days after the bombing.

        Geraghty wrote 20 years later, “The coordinated dual suicide attacks, supported, planned, organized, and financed by Iran and Syria using Shiite proxies, achieved their strategic goal: the withdrawal of the multinational force from Lebanon and a dramatic change in U.S. national policy. The synchronized attacks that morning killed 299 U.S. and French peacekeepers and wounded scores more. The cost to the Iranian/Syrian-supported operation was two suicide bombers dead.”

        I believe (and I hope I am wrong) that Israel is using us as a tool to smite Iran.

        If someone wants to claim our purpose in our National Security Strategy is to protect the US..., they'd have a hard time. It would be much easier to make the case that the conscious purpose is to spread chaos, confrontation, and terror. Jim P

        by sailmaker on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 10:47:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  God can we put this nonsense to bed? (0+ / 0-)

        Enough with the CT.  I would recommend reading Juan cole and look at some of the financial times coverage from the time before and after the attack.  In fact, Ghouta was already and active battlefield where conventional weapons had failed to dislodge or slow rebel advances on the capital.  The Assad military was largely tied up around Homs and the rebels had been taking advantage for some time before the attack.  The attacks in fact are reported to have killed 46 rebel fighters.   So, yes, Assad had a significant gain here, even without considering the obvious psychological value of gassing civilians supportive of the rebels.  So, no, the "Assad had no reason" theory is woefully misinformed and needs to go away now

        Finally, those who are pausing the notion that Obama (and France and Germany) are all lying about their intelligence must confront the fact that Obama has consistently rejected calls to intervene for the last two years.  Germany is likely not to act this time.  So, the Israel/Obama CT also needs to go away (especially since te intelligence is largely corroborated by eyewitnesses on the ground)

        I hope that helps.  I know it is a lot to keep track of

        •  You know it all (0+ / 0-)

          Any other ideas "need to go away now." Got it.

          A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

          by onionjim on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 05:22:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is a remarkable position. (0+ / 0-)

            I cany beleive anyome would suggest continuing to repeat things that have been shown to be false, but maybe that is the state of the debate.  I guess Rove was correct.  Fcts dont matter anote.  I think that statements that have been repeatedly debunked should go away, yes.   Otherwise we are in denialist mode.   The idea that Assad had nothing to gain is demonstrably false.  Knowing that, why would you suggest people continue to repeat what they know to be untrue?   How is THAT defensible?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site