Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I support authorizing the President to use military force in Syria (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't agree we'll be adding fuel to the fire (11+ / 0-)

    I think weakening Assad will lower the heat and ultimately save lives.

    `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

    by seanwright on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 11:57:53 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Do you not see the slightly confused (31+ / 0-)

      nature of launching a strike for "human rights purposes" against a regime we are already engaged in a covert, illegal war against? Not to mention the fact that the strike itself would be a violation of international law, according to the head of the U.N.

      If stopping the violence in Syria is the goal, how about stopping the arms shipments and demanding that our allies stop sending mercenaries and Jihadists (who are themselves committing atrocities) into the country?

      •  Yes (12+ / 0-)

        It's like jamming a stick in a hornet's nest and then looking shocked when you get swarmed.

      •  I think superficially that's a compelling argument (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mookins, ronnied

        but poke it a little bit and it falls apart. That's the equivalent of saying "Do you not see the confused nature of sending policemen with guns in reaction to a bank robbery being committed by other men using guns, especially in light of the history of police brutatlity in this country? Maybe if we just let the robbers take all the money, nobody would get hurt."

        `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

        by seanwright on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:03:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's really not the equivalent of that at all (6+ / 0-)

          And not sure why you would reduce it to such a silly analogy. When it comes to Syria, the U.S. is not just guilty of unrelated, generalized acts of "brutality" elsewhere in the world. The CIA has set up operational bases and training camps for the rebels, and our allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia have poured billions in arms and funding into the country.

          Among the forces unleashed in Syria by our allies: foreign Jihadists and death row inmates forced to fight as slaves. The rebels have slaughtered civilians and even committed suicide bombings.

          If an U.S. adversary was doing this to an ally, we would correctly call it "supporting terrorism." But the larger point is that we are already engaged in a proxy war in Syria, and our actions are perpetuating, not reducing, the violence and bloodshed there.

          Covert U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war is itself a violation of international law. A unilateral strike on Syria without U.N. approval, the kind you are urging, would be a second violation of international law.

          It's a bit detached from reality to ignore all of this, and urge intervention for the sake of "human rights" or "upholding international norms."

        •  more like sending in competing robbers (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ukit, James Hepburn, Linda Wood, Johnny Q

          also heavily armed, to compete for the bank's riches.

          we are not playing the role of a cop. To the contrary, we went to Iraq for power, oil, and for control in the region. going to syria will prove to be no better.

          What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

          by agnostic on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:52:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Let's do something good even if it's hypocritical. (5+ / 0-)

        And stopping the flow of arms to the rebels means accepting the terrible vengeance Assad will wreak everywhere he regains control.

        "The war on drugs followed by the war on terror has eliminated protections we have had since the Magna Carta." -Horace Boothroyd III

        by mookins on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:11:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  About stopping arms shipments... (4+ / 0-)

        Do you mean US arms to Syrian rebels? Among the many news articles I've read in the past few days, one (maybe WSJ) claimed that although Congress authorized arms for Syrian rebels, no arms had been delivered yet.

        About the strike being a violation of international law, that doesn't concern me because the structure of the UN Security Council means that the Council abrogates its responsibilities on issues such as this. Russia or China, both friends of Syria, can and likely will veto any motion for sanctions or strikes against Syria. And I would expect any statement by the UN General Secretary to be in support of UN rules, not the statements of a single member nation.

        Please note that I consider the UN a valuable organization except for the UN Security Council.

        I'm not attempting to address the first statement in your comment because it would take too long. I am leaning on the side of no strike against Assad.

        “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

        by SoCalSal on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:24:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Council is OK in theory (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SoCalSal, seanwright, ronnied

          However, when the veto is held by a government of thugs that represents organized crime, then the Council system becomes inoperable. In that situation, it is reasonable to look to regional security organs like the Arab League to set the agenda.

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

          by FischFry on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:02:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I want to see an ROI and cost benefit analysis (5+ / 0-)

      What is our track record on surgical strikes?
      Is there an end game? How do we define it?
      How do we get there with success?

      I don't want any more BS from Kerry who shouldn't be playing SOD, he should be the SOS looking for a diplomatic solution. It should be a two tiered approach of Kerry with the carrot and Hagel with the stick.

      It all seems half assed up to this point. I dread to see this go any further until we get our act together.

      The White House hasn't shown us that this can be a successful operation and that is why I am opposed to it.

    •  how will Assad be weakened? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Linda Wood, Johnny Q

      Explain that.  Besides hiding the military equipment he wants to keep, and putting air defense weapons in residential neighborhoods, there are many complexities that will be unleashed by our adding fuel to the fire.

      We will be assisting rebels, many of whom are radical islamists along the lines of al queada.  And there are all the other folks in the middle east looking for validation that the US is a murderous evil empire. They will find it each time civilians are killed by our air strikes.  

      How about the risk of escalation if Iran or Russia decides to engage?  

      How a thinking person could even consider opening such a can of words is beyond me. It's just plain stupid.

      Power to the Peaceful!

      by misterwade on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:59:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Assad won't be weakened, then how are we (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ronnied

        assisting rebels aligned with al Qaeda? It seems to me that the anti-authorization arguments you are presenting are contradictory.

        `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

        by seanwright on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:26:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not at all (0+ / 0-)

          We can give assistance to rebels (have been already actually) without weakening him. It may even strengthen him if people on the sidelines oppose us getting involved.  

          But let's say he is marginally weakened? So the fuck what?  What good does that do? Does that stop anyone from being killed?  Does that put the CW back in the box?

          And you didn't answer the fucking question (and on one else has either- right up to the White House), how is he going to be weakened? Insert "significantly" before weakened if you like.  

          Power to the Peaceful!

          by misterwade on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:32:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't believe that he can just hide all of his (0+ / 0-)

            most precious assets from us. I think we can, in fairly short order, bomb his forces to the point where he is in a much weaker position post-bombing than he enjoys today.

            `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

            by seanwright on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 03:37:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  agree to disagree about this (0+ / 0-)

              Power to the Peaceful!

              by misterwade on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 03:51:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  and how will a cruise missile get his testacles? (0+ / 0-)

              Oh, those aren't his most precious assets? prey tell, what is?

              We have been, are, and will continue to meddle in a sovereign state's civil uprising, and so far our report card sucks like a hooker who advertises that chrome on a towing hitch is at risk because of her talent.

              No, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Mr. Kerry made a very, VERY bad deal. He figured out a way to get Bibi and his racist supporters to sit down with equally reprehensible Palestinians (no, folks, tossing missiles into a crowded city is NOT how to negotiate a peace) and start talking peace. He promised Bibi that we would attack the Basher Assad to help protect Israel from the northeast. Perhaps even making a permanent dent into the Heights, and allowing Israel to steal that land, as well. In exchange for these talks, Kerry may have promised Bibi that we will attack Syria, and find some almost believable excuse to support it.

              I also suspect that China, Russia, and a few others suspect that this deal was made, and that they are somewhat against it.

              What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

              by agnostic on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 06:21:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  and China. (0+ / 0-)

        What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

        by agnostic on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 03:31:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  consider that Assad has Russia, Iran, China (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, agnostic

      in his corner. Doesn't that make it less likely that US involvement will simply and cleanly weaken Assad than that US intervention will fan the flames, draw Assad's defenders in, and morph Syria's horrible civil war into a protracted global proxy war?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site