Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site