Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (181)
  • Community (80)
  • Baltimore (76)
  • Bernie Sanders (57)
  • Civil Rights (46)
  • Freddie Gray (43)
  • Elections (35)
  • Culture (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (27)
  • Labor (26)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Education (23)
  • Media (23)
  • Economy (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site