Skip to main content

View Diary: Operation Accidental Diplomacy (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seriously? "Accidental Diplomacy"? Really? (11+ / 0-)

    There's ample evidence that we were pursuing a multi-pronged approach to Syria:

    * arming rebels,
    * economic sanctions,
    * personal sanctions against Assad and his inner circle,
    * discussions with Russia,
    * efforts with/via Saudi Arabia (to reach the Arab League),
    * military posturing
    * UN actions (months ago, which Russia and China both vetoed),

    and more - and have been doing so for months.

    This is how international diplomacy is conducted; one pursues mutliple avenues, one of which is military posturing.  Military action is (or should be) the last resort in all but the most immediate of cases, but it's always part of the picture.

    This is ALWAYS how international diplomacy has been done; a quick reading of US history will provide countless examples of this behavior.  I recently wrote a diary with details of one such example.

    Even the act of going to Congress (even in the absence of a vote to date) is construed as a diplomatic move in the foreign policy context, in that it's yet another "we're serious about this" signal to Assad and his supporters.

    When one pursues multiple avenues toward a goal, is it "accidental" that one of them begins to bear fruit?

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 07:57:53 AM PDT

    •  What getting ears deep in ANOTHER middle east (4+ / 0-)

      nation?  Whoa, that is why I voted for Obama, you betcha!  Just what I wanted!  

      Who needs Social Security when you can arm rebels in some country you don't give a damn about fighting over what you don't give a damn about in order to achieve something you don't give a damn about for interests you don't give a damn about.

      •  That YOU don't give a damn (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueyedace2, Radiowalla, rainmanjr

        about. And just FYI, regardless of years of breathless outrage that the president would change Social Security it hasn't happened. Don't you (yes, the actual you) have enough things to hyperventilate about without pre-hyperventilating about things which haven't happened?

        I give a great big goddamn about the use of chemical weapons. YMMV.

        •  Social Security impacts me NOW (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Syria CW will impact me NEVER.

          •  And President Obama (5+ / 0-)

            has changed Social Security how? exactly how? Social Security will impact me too -- I totally understand that -- but the President hasn't changed it. So what I"m responding to is this kind of "well he hasn't done it yet but he wants to" narrative. Similar to the "he wants to bomb Syria" narrative. "He wants to gut SS narrative" How 'bout we address these horrifying failings of the President when / if  they actually happen?

            •  Obama is the least of my problems (5+ / 0-)

              It's the whole DLC, 3rd Way, neo-liberal guns before butter agenda that I oppose.  Obama is merely one of its enablers.   We can no longer afford BOTH a military the size of the next 10 combined AND the maintenance of the physical and social infrastructure here at home.  

              Wake me when he gives a prime time speech from the east room on food security.

            •  Here, here. Applause to you. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I agree 100%.  The denigration of our President, by our own Party, over shit that he hasn't done has been breathtaking.  It makes his job so much harder when such dissention makes him look weak.  He is not and the absurd abuse needs to stop.  This is a great time to do so, as well.

              "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

              by rainmanjr on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:08:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Only you know why you voted for the President, (0+ / 0-)

        if you voted for him.
        From what I've seen of your comments you're all about Randism when it comes to foreign policy.  The President never ran as an isolationist or pacifist, but maybe you weren't paying attention to the campaigns.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site