Skip to main content

Night Owls
At The Atlantic, James Joyner explains why he thinks Obama's Plan to Strike Syria Makes No Strategic Sense:
Chemical weapons account for less than one percent of the more than 100,000 killed in this conflict. Yet, while I'm sympathetic to international relations expert John Mueller's argument that chemical weapons are not inherently more horrible than many modern conventional weapons, their "development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use" are technically prohibited as a matter of international law. While Syria is one of seven states who have not signed and ratified the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, they acceded to the 1925 Geneva Protocol in 1968.

But enforcement of these agreements is the province of the UN Security Council, not the executive branch of the U.S. government. And, rather inconveniently, Kerry's speech was delivered on the same day that Foreign Policy reported that the U.S. government aided and abetted Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1988.

If the goal is to send the message that using chemical weapons is unacceptable, as security specialist Charli Carpenter notes in Foreign Affairs,  it would be unfortunate to use "Tomahawk missiles, which are capable of carrying cluster munitions and which have been decried on humanitarian grounds by numerous governments and civil society groups." Additionally, "the planned strikes would likely involve the use of explosives in populated areas, which is in violation of emerging international concerns about such behavior."  If, on the other hand, the primary goal is protection of the civilian population, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine:

requires policymakers and military planners to weigh just cause against the question of whether there is a reasonable prospect of success at reducing civilian bloodshed, given the available resources and constraints, and to select the best type of intervention to meet the goals, which generally means a much longer commitment of blood and treasure than punitive air strikes.
Leaving aside the niceties of international norms—odd though it might be when they are ostensibly the entire point of the operation—there's little reason to think that punitive strikes actually have the intended deterrent effect. A Los Angeles Times analysis notes that similar actions, including strikes against Libya and al-Qaeda in 1986 and 1998, respectively, were not only ineffectual but quite probably counterproductive. The Libya raid was followed by—and apparently inspired—the Lockerbie bombing. And, of course, al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack three years after the widely derided strikes on the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. [...]

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2005Katrina:

The last four days I was in an isolated cabin in Clinton, Montana, with only tenuous links to the outside world. Today was the first time I was able to truly get a handle on the New Orleans disaster, and it's almost too staggering to comprehend. It's downright biblical.

This is the greatest disaster to hit our nation in most of our lifetimes. Worse than 9-11. New Orleans is underwater. Biloxi is 90 percent destroyed. Who knows how many dead. Who knows how many homeless. Who knows how many jobless. We have a bona fide refugee crisis on our hands.

There will be a time for a full accounting of what went wrong, both preparing for this thing and relief efforts afterward. I don't know if the time is now or later. Honestly, I don't much care. I'm too horrified by what I'm seeing today. It's overwhelming.
I just wish that the president gave a damn about what's happenend. Unfortunately, he's too busy playing 'country rock star".


Tweet of the Day:

So the US is determined to bomb an Arab nation without international support, UN approval or an exit strategy. What could possibly go wrong?
@garyyounge



On today's Kagro in the Morning show, Greg Dworkin's back, and rounding up news on flu vaccinations, the NYC mayoral race, Syria, and... hummingbirds. More "Snowden Effect," this time sparking debate on the size and scope of intelligence operations funded by the so-called "black budget." The British Parliament rejects intervention in Syria. And an extended visit NYC City Council candidate, Kossack & netroots fellow traveler Debra Cooper. Reminder: Dem primary is September 10th!




High Impact Posts. Top Comments.

Poll

Given what you have heard, do you support U.S. military intervention in Syria?

4%276 votes
10%649 votes
1%99 votes
7%434 votes
2%120 votes
12%765 votes
22%1317 votes
35%2118 votes
2%135 votes
1%60 votes

| 5975 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  975,139 registered users on dKos now. (21+ / 0-)

    Here are the 10 newest registered users on dKos.  Hope to see their comments and diaries here soon!  (If they're not spammers.)

    onceuponatimeinthelandof
    amy53bingk (user #975,131: already banned)
    LisaDMiller (user #975,132: spammer)
    JaniceJWalker (user #975,133: spammer)
    rosenfrink
    jordansty23 (user #975,135: spammer)
    elain59eve (user #975,136: already banned)
    Pantherdau
    jane23bott (user #975,138: already banned)
    healrch11 (user #975,139: already banned)


    And since our society is obsessed with numbers that end in a lot of zeros as milestones, here's a special shoutout to user #975,100: tequila23 (spammer).

    We've added 95 more users in the last 24 hours.  We're no longer being flooded with all those fake users.


    And for your Diary Rescue music pleasure, here's Sarah Brightman's "La Califfa".

  •  Reminder: New Race/Gender Daily Kos Series (16+ / 0-)

    Aji will post a diary on Sunday, September 1st morning at 11:00 am Pacific. Have a good Labor Day weekend, everyone.

    Thank you.


    RaceGender DiscrimiNATION is a new Daily Kos Series
    This Sunday Aji is posting at 11:00 am Pacific Time




    RaceGender DiscrimiNATION is a group focused on the historical and contemporary issues of prejudice, discrimination and hate based on race and gender as well as the intersection of race and gender.  We will discuss the impacts on our rights to equality and fundamental human rights and freedoms in all aspects of our lives, including political, social, cultural, educational, personal and economic.

    The group's editors are Aji, Avila, BroadBlogs, dopper0189, GenXangster, Glen The Plumber, hepshiba, JekyllnHyde, mallyroyal, Nulwee, Ojibwa, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, rb137, remembrance, rserven, shanikka, Vyan and tim wise.


    Please remember to republish these diaries to your Daily Kos Groups.  You can also follow all postings by clicking this link for the RaceGender DiscrimiNATION Group. Then, click 'Follow' and that will make all postings show up in 'My Stream' of your Daily Kos page.

    Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue - A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma

    by JekyllnHyde on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:30:45 PM PDT

  •  Yes! Someone posted the full video! (13+ / 0-)

    From last week's The Newsroom, here's the full dinner scene where Neal goes off on the Ron Paul fan.

    And this scene from this week's episode with Jane Fonda was just awesome.  Classic.

    And here's a preview of the next episode, which takes place on Election Night 2012.

    The race he referenced was very real.  The EXTREMELY anti-gay Jan Pauls (D) did indeed crush pro-gay pro-choice Dakota Bass (R) after beating the openly gay son of a former KKK member Erich Bishop (D) by only 8 votes in the Democratic primary.  Oy.

  •  After Snowden(et al): should we trust? (6+ / 0-)

    A "1984" sense of government has been instilled in us by administration after administration going back to the 60's(MLK and Hoover, for example). Now, they say we should trust them. Again.
    I spent most of the day reading up on, Syria. The range of comments was nothing short of astounding. I learned more than I ever bargained for. My mind was so expanded, I had trouble getting my head through the door.
    The evidence of poison gas is more than remarkable. It's Spock "fascinating". It is overwhelming. I would probably have a devil of a time getting someone to lay down a bet against it. I think, from what I read, that most feel that way, but is that good enough in this day and age, after Iraq; after Viet Nam; and, even as pissed off at Assad as we are?
    Of course, this is only one of myriad questions, before the bombs start bursting in air, but it would be nice to hear from my fellow Night Owls on this.
    How suspicious of us are we?

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:33:46 PM PDT

    •  well I actually am fairly sure... (5+ / 0-)

      ...that gas was used by Assad forces and even if Assad didn't order it, it is rather heinous and he probably shouldn't even have these gasses.  That said why does the US always have to be the one to act.  It would seem to me theses gasses are much more of a threat to the regional countries since lack of delivery systems might limit the likelihood we would get attacked by Assad. et them take the lead.  If it is a worldwide moral outrage let them at least have the responsibility for the blowback.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:45:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Saudi Arabia (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, franklyn, Not A Bot, dinotrac

        Yes, why isn't Saudi Arabia using its own military to stop Assad from gassing fellow Sunni Muslims? Instead of letting Israel get the props from Allah.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:33:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The House of Saud is concerned about one thing ... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          delver rootnose, franklyn, duhban, claude

          ... maintaining oil prices at high levels, and retaining their grip on power in their own land.  Okay, that's two things.  They don't care if the rest of the Middle East burns to bare sand, people and all -- compassion is not integral to their philosophy.

          Romae in die non combureretur.

          by Not A Bot on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:21:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's the Reason (0+ / 0-)

            Saudi Arabia's airforce bombing Syria's military would drive oil prices even higher than they've been on speculation the US would do it. And of course stopping a chemical war on their Sunni sect by a proxy for their existential enemies in Iran (which has SA surrounded, by Iran + Syria) means retaining their power grip, not to mention having the "policeman" role there that could put down the jihadists among the rebels that threaten the Sauds next.

            No compassion required, nor expected. It is precisely the Saudi military that fits this bill, if any does.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:18:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  FWIW: Saudi Arabia closely supports the rebels (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          franklyn, nextstep, duhban

          They are probably the main backers.

          •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

            So they should put their actual asses, not just their secret foreign meddling budgets, on the line. They have a military that could do this job just as well. And indeed Iran is their actual direct rival. Iran is the US rival because it is the Sauds' rival.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:11:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Trust is almost a meaningless word in politics (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, franklyn, dinotrac

      and diplomacy.  I suppose I'd probably believe someone in D.C. who told me it was 92 here today, but only because I saw the thermometer with my own eyes.  Beyond that, my incredibility meter pegs the needle on pretty much anything I hear.

      How do you trust people who build their careers on deceit?

      Romae in die non combureretur.

      by Not A Bot on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:16:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm very suspicious of us (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      franklyn

      We are the prisoners of a pro-war extremist media and a political system that has a history of spin and lies.

      As Amy Goodman said in a 2-hour interview on Cspan last night. The Media is not "mainstream" it's present "an extremist point of view.

      One example given was about a FAIR survey of all the talking heads and guests on corporate TV in a two week period surrounding the lies by Powell to the UN, just prior to the last war on Iraq. Of the 300+ experts, all were pro-war except for  three, and this was at a time that when the country was mostly devided evenly on the Iraq war issue.

      I often speak out strongly against war on this site. Many to not like my criticism of American war crimes. I am often viewed, it seems, as un-American. I think that as someone who served in combat 24-hours a day for more than half a year--without ever an hour off, it's probably easier for me to be critical of all American war-mongering.

      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

      by frostbite on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:37:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Hayes on Syria (8+ / 0-)

    He devoted almost the whole show tonight to Syria.  Here he talks with NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Bill Richardson.

    Here he talks with Tom Perriello, Amy Goodman, and Eli Lake.

    And he finally has on the NYT's David Sanger.

  •  Tweeter left off "No Plan B" (17+ / 0-)

    Well one more elaborate than

    Make Plan A work

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:34:44 PM PDT

  •  I picked.... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, LinSea, Jeff Y, Aunt Pat, DocGonzo, JeffW

    ...number 7 in the poll not because I necessarily think no intervention should happen just that the US should not be doing it.  Let the people in the region do it, they are the most at risk from Syria's chemical weapons.
     

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:35:44 PM PDT

    •  I picked #4 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, Lying eyes

      Mostly because I know the House of Reps are so dysfunctional and clownish that they probably couldn't even get it to the floor for a vote.

      ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

      by Jeff Y on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:44:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well while I see where you are... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeff Y, rbird

        ...coming from I personally just wish for once the politicians would not use the decision to use or not use our military as an opportunity to score political points.  War is too damn, important is too damn weak a word but I can't think of the right word now, to be used as a political football.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:55:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are correct (2+ / 0-)
          The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
          Sun Tzu

          Tell me what to write. tellmewhattowrite.com 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

          by rbird on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:39:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Have a great holiday weekend everyone! (5+ / 0-)

    ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:37:14 PM PDT

  •  Here's an idea. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, JML9999

    Let's let it pass(Syria). If it happens here, I don't want to hear one goddamned word of umbrage.

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:38:36 PM PDT

    •  If it happens here I want Russia to send cruise (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1, OLinda, atana, aliasalias

      missiles to my neighborhood because they can't think of anything else to do, 'cause I care more about somebody else's moral dilemma than I do my wife and kids...

      /snark

      •  What else is there to do? (0+ / 0-)

        What dilemma?

        Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

        by franklyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:01:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The right solution is always to bomb somebody (5+ / 0-)

          Makes ethics classes so much easier if you know the only answer that you need to.

          We want to punish Assad for using chemical weapons which are evil because they kill indiscriminately.   Since we can't take over Syria the only response is to drop bombs on them from afar, an act that will kill people indiscriminately.

          The problem with the whole situation is that the treaties and conventions that we all somewhat follow in wartime are based upon reciprocal action.   We have some of their guys as prisoner, and they have some of ours so there is strong incentive to be reasonable and humane.   We don't bomb your cities if you don't bomb ours.   The idea of an outside actor working as a referee in a civil war was not contemplated by the conventions and treaties.    All we can do by bombing case is kill Syrians, so it makes our outrage at Syrians being killed moot.

          Now the way out of the box is that there are a lot more ways to deal with this than tossing missiles around.   Convince Russia that Assad needs to be tried as a war criminal and progress can be made.    Obviously not easy, since it would require agreement on who to slot into the "dictator of Syria" position.    (It is too bad that we don't support the international criminal court because we don't want to be reciprocal, U.S. soldiers are above question.)  

          •  A country that doesn't respect the international (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fran1, truong son traveler, maryabein

            criminal court has no moral authority to prate about international law. That talk is clearly aimed at the gullible.

            We aren't being told the real reason. It's at least partly about Obama "saving face" -- since the time-honored way for a US president to stand tall is shoot missiles at someone. But the people working Obama's strings probably hope the whole thing will escalate into a really lucrative war.

            •  I think it is more complex than that (0+ / 0-)

              It has a lot to do with who is controlling Syria's allegedly large supply of chemical weapons.   Once they start letting them out of the box (or they start being let out of the box) we have a problem.

              The ludicrous thing is that all of the responsible actors in this situation agree that the weapons should not be released, yet they are on opposing sides and are acting in a way to ensure that they are.   Iran and Israel definitely do not want unregulated chemical weapons floating around in a neighboring country.   (Remember Iran suffered greatly from chemical weapon attacks.)   Russia has good cause to fear CW in the hands of Islamic militants, and the Saudi's delicate tete-a-tete with their band of semi-state-supported militants would be thrown seriously out of balance of those militants had CW rather than boxcutters to throw around.

            •  Hillary = really really really lucrative war (0+ / 0-)

              The comment and the link are ironic

      •  actually (0+ / 0-)

        I bet if the US government is threatening to gas your wife and kids, you might be happy about Russia sending missles against the government that threatens to kill them.  

        •  same thing for Drone attack victims? after all a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          lot of women and kids have been killed by Done attacks.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:12:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Missiles that hurt only governments and leave (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          people unharmed.   What a wonderful invention, kind of like a Neutron Bomb in reverse.   Who came up with it, General Dynamics?

          Once the bombs start falling all that you want to do is have the bombs stop falling.

          •  Two recommendations (0+ / 0-)

            That was the rule for a while:  the armies go find  afield and fight.

            However, first, I'd recommend taking a look into the Halabja massacre and the Hama massacre, if you haven't already.  Of course, there's always the holocaust.

            Ideally, only combatants get killed in wars, but the targeting of civilians resisting central government in mass killing is a whole other step beyond.

            Second, you might check out Insignia.  It's a sci fi book where teenagers are recruited to fly remote aircraft to fight wars remotely for corporate alliances.  Your comment reminded me of it.

    •  New version of the mushroom cloud meme? nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, CenPhx

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:33:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let me clarify, Orcas and Mindful. (0+ / 0-)

      I meant an internal "terrorist" attack with gas. Why should anyone care about us, and possible future American troops, if we don't care, now?
      Even at that, Orcas George could have been speaking for the Syrians.
      Sorry, Mindful Nature, I should have been more explicit.

      Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

      by franklyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:44:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  for your... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y, high uintas

    ....listening pleasure.

    The whole show.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:39:23 PM PDT

  •  Oh yeah... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, Jeff Y, LinSea, devis1, annieli, koNko

    anyone notice the UCLA shout-out on The Newsroom last week?  :-)

    As some of us on the UCLA sports message boards noticed, the game Will was watching was actually not from last year, but from the 2006 UCLA-Cal game, when Cal was ranked #10 in the country at the game.  (And UCLA lost, because we always freakin' lose up there.)  The episode took place right around the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, and we didn't go play at Cal last year until October 6, 2012.

    But hey, their discussion over that football game ended up being a key plot point.  ;-)

  •  You Have to Hand it to Her (8+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton was either extremely smart or very lucky, but she got out of this sinking-ship-of-an administration in the nick of time.  Just think of how much more difficult her political life would've been if she'd been in the position of Colin Powell, I mean, John Kerry.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:47:28 PM PDT

  •  so it appears most would let it go on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, Lying eyes

    Gassing people isn't reason to do anything? So Hitler gassing the Jews, what about that I wonder? I for one am against the gassing of people.

    •  well at least we, the US,... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, CenPhx, CcVenussPromise

      ...is consistent on this point.  We didn't enter WWII because of the gassing of Jews either.  What about if this is the start of WWIII, or a WWI redux, do you think we should be the start.

      BTW I call Godwin's law for the win.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:04:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm inclined to agree with you (5+ / 0-)

      tho' I've found that it's usually flame bait to compare anything to Hitler. Only Hitler was Hitler.

      BTW, welcome to Daily Kos obamaisgreat. I hope to see more of your comments and learn about you.

      I'm high uintas, an old hippie who lives in Utah. I've been here almost 9 years and if you are anything like me you will find that you have now got yourself a new addiction. dkos is hard to quit.

      Welcome, again.

      "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

      by high uintas on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:05:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  dkos is hard to quit (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW

        yeah, it was hard.  but when it turned into "obama is right no matter what he does" i left.  i've been severely disappointed by obama (and i was exhilarated when he got elected, so i am not a sour hillary voter), and just as disappointed by progressives who turned into apologists.

        just came back to see whether this is the day that will break the camel's back at dkos.  the votes look hopeful, but i see the apologists are out in full force in the comments, because clearly we must bomb the village to save the children from the evil gas.

        insanity.

        in regard to the jews and hitler:  the US didn't bomb then and did in general not cover itself in glory when it came to helping jews who had already escaped from germany.  but that sure is no reason to act with military intervention now, because you know?  dead is dead, no matter whether it was gas or a bomb or mines (which the US still uses) that kill guilty and innocent alike.  have you learned nothing from iraq?

        if the US really wanted to save people rather than rattle its overly large sabre for whatever egotistical reasons, then they'd start a campaign to drop massive amounts of field medicine over syria.  because sarin is survivable and can be treated, and the meds are dirt cheap.

    •  So (8+ / 0-)

      If I'm against the bombing that would likely kill more innocent people and has no guarantee of success, but a good chance of making things a hell of a lot worse, I'm cool with allowing more people to get gassed, and by extension, must be cool with what Hitler did.

      Do I have that about right?

      In wording your comment the way you did, I think you're trying to make my choice for me.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:34:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  300 People (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, aliasalias, dinotrac

      It's not the gassing, it's the actual genocide.

      Are you volunteering to go to Syria to stop it? I am not.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:35:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, everything would be OK, if he just bombed (8+ / 0-)

      these people? I mean if planes just dropped a bunch of 1000 pound bombs on the neighborhood, then it would be OK, right.

      It's just the gas that's the problem?

      I totally don't get this site sometimes.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:38:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He has been bombing them (0+ / 0-)

        and using artillery, pummeling them to get rid of them. It hasn't worked so he's now resorted to gassing them. We have an agreement concerning chemical weapons with only five nations who have failed to sign on.

        There is a reason we treat CWs differently than conventional weapons, just as we treat nuclear weapons differently. They are horrific.  

        "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

        by high uintas on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:51:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are also agreements about mines, and (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          atana, CenPhx, fran1

          I think we are one of the few countries who have refused to sign. Mines are sadistic and breed terror in populations, yet we still use them.

          I don't think Syria has signed on to the chemical weapons agreement--that makes us similar.

          Have you ever been on a bomb damage assessment?

          You don't think that's horrific?

          In any case, it still looks to me as if you are saying that we only should get involved because of the gas. So, if he had lined them up and shot them, no worries.

          My mind is a blur.

          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

          by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:06:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry that your mind is blurry (0+ / 0-)

            What I am saying is that to the best of my knowledge we are intending to bomb military targets, weapons delivery systems, airplanes, ect. The machines of war.

            The reason is the hope that we can cause other nations along with Syria to think extra hard before using chemical weapons.

            I've said before I've lived only about 20 miles from a large chemical weapons storage facility. We only finished burning them up a couple of years ago. Maybe I'm just sensitive about them.

            I need to go to sleep before my mind gets blurry.

            "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

            by high uintas on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:19:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So if he only intended to gas military targets (0+ / 0-)

              and happened to kill a whole bunch of civilians, that would be OK?

              So the next time that there is a hostage situation at a bank, the police should go in and napalm everybody to make any bank robber think twice before robbing banks?

        •  If some of the estimates I've seen are correct, (0+ / 0-)

          it's been working pretty well.  Well enough, apparently, to kill 100,000 people.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:00:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If the US has (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Orcas George, CcVenussPromise

        really conclusive evidence that Assad is responsible, bring him to The Hague and judge him there - if needed even in absentia. That might save hundreds of childrens of being killed by US cruise missles.

        Read the European view at the European Tribune

        by fran1 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:08:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So we should have bombed the concentration camps? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fran1, CcVenussPromise, maryabein

      That is the analogy.   The only people we will be hurting are Syrians, and we don't even know who the "good" Syrians are let alone where they are.

      The argument is not for "doing nothing."   Prove that Assad is behind this and despite being against the death penalty, I'll bring the rope.   But I am pretty sure you are not for a wholesale invasion of the country, so the only military option is just something that kills Syrians and makes us feel better.    This is how we solve the killing of Syrians?

    •  Gassing people is reason to bomb people (6+ / 0-)

      The logic is as clear as day.

      To paraphrase a saying that was popular when I was an undergraduate: Bombing for peace is like fucking for chastity.

    •  And Hussein gassing the kurds. (0+ / 0-)

      History is not on the side of intervention here.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:57:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bin Laden is dead. I am glad Obama went alone (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y

    And didn't need to read some polls. Bin Laden knew how to manipulate the US psychic. Obama realized that. Who won?
    Same thing with Assad. He will be dead soon. Whether you support him or not. More than 7 millions syrians are refugees. Russia knew that they were gassed. Again and again. France warned the West long time ago, but couldn't do anything alone. Obama is the only one who can stop their suffering. I don't think he needs to read polls before any action. This is an ethical issue.

    •  So you think tossing a couple of cruise missles (11+ / 0-)

      into Syria is going to 'stop their suffering'?

      Don't you see the problem with that?

      ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

      by Jeff Y on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:01:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama went after bin Laden under .... (12+ / 0-)

      ...congressional mandate of the 2001 authorization to use military force against terrorism.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:04:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  well with one big differance... (7+ / 0-)

      ...Bin Laden actually attacked us.

      If this is a worldwide moral crisis then waiting for the worldwide backing shouldn't take too long now should it.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:06:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Real Change (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, aliasalias, atana

      Bush went into Iraq alone too.

      So what you want is more of the same, "Real Change"?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:37:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I keep getting the feeling... (0+ / 0-)

        ...Obama is just following the Bush template as another attempt at Bi-partisanship.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:49:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not exactly. (0+ / 0-)

        He didn't have the coalition his father had, but he wasn't alone.
        And ... he had more legal backing in terms of UN resolutions and the fact that the agreements reached after Desert Storm were breached when he began taking pot shots at no fly zone enforcement.

        Bottom line:

        Bush went into Iraq on much more solid footing than Obama presently has for a strike against Syria.

        Think about that and tell me with a straight face that attacking Syria makes sense.

        If that still doesn't have you at least questioning the wisdom of a unilateral "strike", consider this: France thinks a strike makes sense.  France, the same country that so happily traded lives for money as it helped Saddam Hussein bypass UN sanctions against Iraqi oil exports -- not to mention looking the other way as he starved half a million shi'ite children who were the intended beneficiaries of legitimate oil exports under the UN protocol.

        That's the kind of moral authority at play here.

         

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:14:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are You Talking To Me? (0+ / 0-)

          You are making my argument, because we agree.

          Bush Jr's "coalition" was such a joke that it wasn't much different from "alone". Obama evidently didn't even ask Germany, and is "partnering" with only France, whose pipelines interest in Syria makes the whole operation an obvious oil industry operation.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:09:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am making your argument. (0+ / 0-)

            Bush's coalition wasn't quite a joke. He did have Great Britain, and there's not good reason to demean the other nations that took part.  All told, 4 countries took part in the initial assault and 3 dozen more took part in the "after party".

            But  ... yes.  Given the world's judgment on Iraq, you'd think Obama would try to meet or exceed that standard.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:55:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Nobody has uploaded this clip... (6+ / 0-)

    from The Newsroom, but I was struck by Will McAvoy talking about how tiny details and decisions can have major ramifications, altering the entire course of human history.  He brought up the black woman who refused to move to the back of the bus in Montgomery, who then became attached to the court case challenging the racist practice.  And how Montgomery's black leaders decided she wouldn't help their movement, as she got pregnant while unmarried.  That was Claudette Colvin.  Rosa Parks refused to move 8 months after Colvin refused to move.  But that was enough time for a new young preacher to start attracting attention, who was then tapped to lead the bus boycott, someone by the name of Martin Luther King, Jr.  Had they gone with Colvin, perhaps King would've remained just a regular ol' preacher nobody ever heard of outside of Montgomery.

    BTW, Colvin is still alive to this day, and gave an interview to Amy Goodman back in March.  It's well worth watching.


    Or how Guiseppe Zangara was standing on a wobbly chair, so when he fired his gun, he assassinated the mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak, rather than what was assumed to be his intended target, newly elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Had FDR been assassinated, his VP John Nance Garner would've become President, and guess what?  No New Deal.  Garner was a fierce opponent of FDR's economic policies.


    Or how about NASA testing these things called O-rings under every possible condition... except for extreme cold?  Because when does it get cold in Florida?  Well, it did get unusually cold on January 28, 1986.


    That scene, and the episode as a whole, was just incredible to watch.

  •  If we do attack, any attack should be on purely (4+ / 0-)

    military targets, preferably equipment and not people, that would severely diminish Assad's ability to not only attack rebel forces and civilians who aid  or sympathize with them, or are aligned with them ethnically, but to defend himself against their attacks. E.g. planes, helicopters, APCs, tanks, weapons and fuel depots, ports, etc. Anything else would be pointless.

    If you're going to fight a war, win it, or stay out of it.

    •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lying eyes, kerflooey, duhban

      I don't see this as a war. I see it as a hand slap one nation to another. I hope we do go after their military equipment, not people and I wish that we had Congress and our allies with us.

      I've always believed that chemical weapons are taboo, should be anyway. I find it very disconcerting that things that used to be verboten are now just shrugged at. It happens in our country with open racism and Jim Crow type laws and in the greater world with terrorism, torture, and now gassing people.

      "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

      by high uintas on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:12:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yea but I got to ask... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, CenPhx, DocGonzo, JeffW, rbird

      ...if Assad falls, into who's hands does his war gasses fall into unless we have boots on the ground.

      It is a real clusterfuck with no winning scenarios by now.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:14:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I do think that's the plan. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, kovie, rbird

      Did they consult with you?

      I'd feel better if they did, actually.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:15:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's what it looks like the plan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas

      would be.  

    •  Well, our magic unicorn missiles are pretty good (0+ / 0-)

      but I'm not sure they are that good.   Tanks are much more robust than human flesh.

      Really, look at our record in this area.   It is not good.

    •  There are several problems with this... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW

      ...that might not be readily apparent.

      Assad might have a little bit of cunning in him.  He certainly has no moral inhibitions, which makes him a very dangerous man.  A man like that would disperse his heavy hardware into civilian areas, next to mosques, schools, and hospitals.  Everything he values most would be hidden away, buried underground, or heavily defended.  I should note that we have seen this sort of thing before.

      Russia and Iran back Assad.  They will make good most of the losses he takes.

      Cruise missiles can be shot down.

      Since tomahawks run at about $1,000,000 a pop, we can only lay so much hurt on Assad.

      I suppose we could use JDAMs, only $25,000 a pop, from very high altitude, dropped by B-2s, but with Russia having supplied upgraded antiaircraft technology to Assad, do we really want to risk a $1 billion plane in a possible high-threat environment?  And for what, blowing up empty buildings?

      What would hurt Assad?  Getting Russia and Iran to back away from him.  We can't do that if we're dropping bombs on Syria.  But maybe an indictment from the Hague or a condemnation from the UN or the Arab League would do it.  Worth a shot.

      One thing's for certain, dropping bombs on Syria is a complete waste of time.

      Tell me what to write. tellmewhattowrite.com 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

      by rbird on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:07:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rubio booed by Tea Partiers (10+ / 0-)

    Looks like the bloom is off the Rose for Waterboy.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) came face-to-face Friday with how his support for a bipartisan immigration deal has hurt his standing with the GOP’s tea party wing, facing loud hecklers during a speech to a group of influential conservative activists.

    Rubio’s address at the opening session of the “Defending the American Dream Summit,” sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, was punctuated repeatedly by calls of “No amnesty!” from attendees scattered throughout the audience of about 1,000 people...

  •  Neo-cons war cries leave too many unanwsered.. (8+ / 0-)

    ..questions writes ex- CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar @ consortium news
    Dangling Questions on Syrian War - By Paul R. Pillar Agust 29, 2013

    The President’s reluctance to get dragged into this war has, however, boomeranged on him regarding the CW issue. As of several months ago it may have seemed a convenient way to resist the pro-intervention pressure by saying in effect, “Not now, but if they use chemicals then I’ll do something.”

    Now we hear lots of talk about how given Mr. Obama’s earlier statements on this subject, he has to act to uphold his and the country’s credibility. That is another misplaced motive, because the historical record demonstrates that governments simply do not assess the credibility of other governments that way.

    But even if the notion about upholding credibility were valid, for this to be a reason to launch a military attack on Syria now would not be a case of two wrongs making a right. It would instead be an example of an administration compounding a mistake and digging itself into a deeper hole.

    Perhaps the CW topic of the moment is now also serving for the administration a purpose similar to what it serves for the neocons: as a convenient peg on which to hang an intervention taken for other reasons. Except that for the administration it is not because it always wanted to intervene in Syria but instead has decided — after a couple of years of unrelenting nagging from others for it do so — that it finally has to act in some forceful way.

    Using a CW incident as a peg saves it from looking like it is changing a policy for no other reason than that it is succumbing to political pressure.

    A glimpse of the underlying political calculations comes through in a comment from an anonymous U.S. official that the level of military attack being contemplated is “just enough not to get mocked.” Politically, that is an understandable calibration. But it is not a sound motive to enter a foreign war.

    With a wider look: The Saudi-Israeli Superpower - by Robert Parry - Agust 29, 2013
    Egypt’s counterrevolution and Syria’s civil war could herald the arrival of a new superpower coalition, an unlikely alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, one with great political clout and the other with vast financial wealth, together flexing their muscles across the Middle East, writes Robert Parry.
    Too many question: something I tried but lack the skills to expess
    •  Heh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      This will never happen.

      an unlikely alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia,

      ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

      by Jeff Y on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:42:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I certainly am not the one to ask but Robert.. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, Jeff Y, CcVenussPromise

        ..Parry usaully has good information sources and puts things together logically:

        According to intelligence sources, Jordan has been the principal site for bilateral contacts between Israelis and Saudis, a behind-the-scenes alliance that finally went public with their joint support for the Egyptian coup. While Saudi Arabia arranged the finances for Egypt’s new military regime, Israel deployed its potent lobby in Washington to dissuade President Barack Obama from labeling the coup a coup, which would have forced a shutoff of U.S. military aid.

        New Superpower

        Now, this new powerhouse combo is teaming up on Syria, where the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states have been financing the rebels seeking to destabilize and possibly overthrow the Assad government, while the Israelis have been deploying their political and propaganda assets to increase international pressure on Assad.

        Both the Saudis and the Israelis stand to benefit from having Assad’s regime bled over time into either a weakened state or its demise. For Saudi Arabia, regime change in Syria that would mark a strategic victory against its chief rival Iran.

        And what you say;  sound unlikely, at least on the surface, but beneath tat  escaping MSM notice there does seem to be a combined effort.

        Maybe sort of like the "enemy of my enemy..."?

        Don't know but it's an interesting read imo

      •  What the hell is unlikely about the alliance? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler

        Proves that the writer of the article has not even a cursory understanding of the Middle East.    Keep in mind we are talking about the rulers of Saudi Arabia.

        What is the one thing that the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Israel both fear?   The Arab "street."    Why did the Saudis support a brutal repression in Bahrain?    Why are they supporting the coup in Egypt?   What side of those issues has Israel been on?    Do either want democratic reforms where a nation's actions reflect the will of the people?

        I'm trying to think of any issue that the House of Saud and Israel actually disagree upon.    They talk about Palestine but do absolutely nothing.

    •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      I'll read the articles before I go to bed....probably give me nightmares.

      Tell me what to write. tellmewhattowrite.com 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

      by rbird on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:10:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this weekend (14+ / 0-)

    I don't have a life

    :=)

    I'm going to see if I can clean this mess up while the water is low.

    Untitled

    there really isn't much I can do about Syria, the banks, or NYC's election

    0_0

    but if I keep at my project
    the place I work will look a little better.

    Untitled

    Happy Labor Day weekend to all

  •  I don't think Hillary would have boxed Obama... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver rootnose

    into this no win corner the way Kerry has.

    The modern Democrat is one who promotes old GOP ideas and calls them progressive in comparison to new GOP ideas.

    by masswaster on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:25:11 PM PDT

    •  No, She Quit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masswaster

      You don't think she was somehow unaware of where Syria was going, do you?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:43:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think she bailed for the 2016 election... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        But I don't think she would have drawn a line in the sand the way it was done with Kerry. That played right in Assad's hand and gave him the power to involve the US whenever he chose and thereby turn it from a civil war into a muslim vs. American conflict. Also bringing, Russia, China, and Iran more to his aid.

        Dumb diplomacy. Dumb politics. Dumb Kerry.

        The modern Democrat is one who promotes old GOP ideas and calls them progressive in comparison to new GOP ideas.

        by masswaster on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:31:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Agree About Kerry Etc (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          masswaster

          I don't give Clinton any credit. She quit so soon before this came to a head, and after the May chemical bombing there, that there's no indulging in hypothetical scenarios. The reality is she saw this stuff coming, and quit. And didn't quit with a public message pressuring it to go a different way - or, evidently, even a private one that worked.

          Clinton's role in this was to drop the hot potato. She gets no credit.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:01:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not giving Clinton credit. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DocGonzo

            Calling Kerry a dumbass for drawing a line in the sand that Assad used to drag the US into his civil war. Or maybe Kerry wanted a war too. That makes him a dumbass too.

            The modern Democrat is one who promotes old GOP ideas and calls them progressive in comparison to new GOP ideas.

            by masswaster on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:36:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Hell No (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, CenPhx, claude

    The current stated goals combined with the rationale just do not line up for actionable military force in my mind.

    It's basically being sold as "We're America, and damn it, we need to go in there and whack them on the nose and tell them to knock it off, and hope that they do".

    No. That's not good enough any more.

    I don't remember being bothered by Libya, and it at least seemed like the was the inkling of a plan there.

    This scenario is too damn murky, and it's too unpredictable the results of what might happen if this goes down.

    It would be nice if at the end of the day, no missiles actually launch, but we'll see I guess.

  •  Is He a Republican? (0+ / 0-)

    The way Obama is insisting on sending the US into yet another dumb war is giving weight to arguments that he's really a Republican.

    But, by definition, he's not a Republican. He is most certainly a Democrat.

    Another hope dies.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:31:54 PM PDT

    •  Every president since FDR has committed the US (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, rbird, annieli, truong son traveler

      to some military engagement, from both parties:

      FDR: WWII
      Truman: Korea
      Ike: Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Lebanon, Israel-Egypt
      JFK: Vietnam, Cuba
      LBJ: Vietnam
      Nixon: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia
      Ford: Angola
      Carter: Afghanistan
      Reagan: Granada, Lebanon, Central America
      Bush I: Iraq
      Clinton: Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan
      Bush II: Duh
      Obama: Duh

      There haven't been many presidents who haven't.

      •  How did Carter get us into Afganistan? (0+ / 0-)

        I believe that was Regan.   Carter is unique in that he did not get into a military engagement with the exception of the attempt to rescue the hostages (and that didn't get that far.)

        •  Carter.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          ...I believe started the funding for the Afghan rebels that later became the Taliban.  And I just adore Carter so if anyone would cover for him it would be me.  But I could be incorrect.

          We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

          by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:41:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Carter authorized arming the Mujahadeen (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DocGonzo

          to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. I've read accounts that claim that he had the CIA provoke the Soviet invasion. Reagan just continued this policy.

        •  Brzezinski (0+ / 0-)

          Zbgniew Brzezinski was Carter's Secretary of State (his daughter Mika is the ventriloquist's dummy on the Scarborough MSNBC show). Brzezinski had the CIA organize jihadist "mujahideen" in Afghanistan to "give Russia its own Vietnam" by attacking the Russian puppet government, drawing in Russian troops for inevitable failure. It worked.

          That foreign policy by CIA also created Al Qaeda as one of the mujahideen bases. And it boosted the Haqqani gangs that now are one of the primary enemies there. Plus it set up the drugs/weapons triangular trade that continues to plague us.

          Yes, Reagan/Bush, Al Haig, Oliver North, etc all turned that peripheral Cold War operation into the blowback that has been the catastrophic center of our foreign relations ever since, including several ruinous wars. But it was Carter and Brzezinski who created it, and kicked off all the risks that have come home to roost ever since.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:46:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Ruth Bader Ginsberg to officiate (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y, kerflooey, CenPhx, koNko

    at John Roberts' gay marriage. No, seriously, it's true:

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will officiate a gay marriage in Washington, D.C., this weekend, making her the first Supreme Court justice to perform same-sex nuptials.

    The Washington Post reports that Ginsburg will oversee the Saturday wedding of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and economist John Roberts.

    Ok, different John Roberts, but still.
  •  i've got two gloomy posts for you: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx, aliasalias, koNko

    one via emptywheel, and one by emptywheel.

    since we won't sleep well ever again, we can discuss a bunch of minutiae, whether or not we reach an agreeable conclusion, even without munchies.

    @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution. * Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:39:52 PM PDT

  •  Impeachment? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    The Rs have been anxious to impeach Obama since the day after he beat John McCain.

    They have had nothing to go on.

    But if Obama does this, would it become a viable issue?  I know that Reagan and others have attacked without authority from Congress, so Obama could argue precedence, but that might not be enough.

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:45:21 PM PDT

  •  This is a dumb post. I feel bad for saying that. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pleochroic, CcVenussPromise

    We are excusing a terrible form of death because it's basically as bad as another form of death. And where does that stop? We shouldn't accept chemical weapons because they are not much worse than explosive weapons. We shouldn't give ground on that. If "death is death", that is what that should mean. If death is our enemy, we shouldn't shy away from where death is occurring, should we?

    On topic: If Assad had shelled that many people to death, what would be the reaction?

    Too many people are using the fact that it was chemical weapons to escape the fact that "death is death". A weird Orwellian calculus is taking place, wherein because chemical death is equal to explosive death, both are equal but the media's conversion rate means that we discount chemical death because it's inflated by neo-conservatives.

    I would say it's ironic, but that triteness seems worthless.

    Meteor Blades is the shining light on this blog. I, myself, do not want strikes on Syria. But this community is viewing the issue the wrong way. "Death is death" is being seen as an excuse to ignore death. It's odd. I don't get it.

    You want the moral high ground? Fine. Many more people die of malaria. Of tuberculosis. Of lack of food, water, vaccines, self-determination...than will die of any weapons exchange. Take up your rhetorical arms there, if saving lives is your goal. Syria is a mess. Syria is where false change will go to die, and where people who still accept US hegemony will focus their attention.

    But "death is death". Don't use it as an excuse. Look where people are dying, and use it as a cause. But, more importantly, don't use "death is death" as an excuse if you're not willing to follow through with it. It's not just jingoism, it means you are against human death...and that means a lot more outside of US foreign policy.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:46:35 PM PDT

    •  So, the converse of your argument is that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delver rootnose

      it would be alright if Assad had those people killed with bombs?

      You think that makes sense?

      If you ask me, this entire fucking conversation about the type of weapons used is insane.

      If you don't want someone killing innocent people, then it shouldn't matter how they did it.

      Am I missing something?

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:57:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think we're on the same page... (0+ / 0-)

        ...with the exception of this: why limit it to war and weapons? If "death is death", that cuts both ways. Weapons, stupidity, policy, illness...if "death is death" we've got a lot more to account for, and a lot more to do, than we're doing.

        On this particular issue, if Assad had killed that many people with bullets, we wouldn't be entrapped by this WMD/Iraq War narrative. It's an odd confluence of opinions. If WMD is mentioned we dismiss death in the name of respecting death as an equalizing factor.

        But, of course, the leading causes of preventable death is not warfare of any sort.

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:04:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, Assad has killed way more than 1500 (0+ / 0-)

          people with bullets (or whatever the number is supposed to be today.)   So have the rebels.

        •  But he's killed way more people with bullets (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          and bombs. I didn't say death is death or anything else like that. I think the entirety of the conversation is completely absurd.

          It's fucking bizarro world.

          Now you want to talk about preventable deaths not related to warfare, like cancer or something? WTF??? As far as I know, no one's purposely giving other people cancer or heart disease.

          We don't bomb countries because their diets are high in cholesterol.

          We just might be bombing someone because they used chemical weapons. So, the discussion here in bizarro world has turned away from the possibility of U.S. intervention into some fucking insane debate about what's more horrible. How about making a list of the most awful ways to die, from worst to best and we can discuss the details?

          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

          by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:18:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  well to continue your... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler

      ...analogy bombing would be like spreading DDT all over a country to kill vectors of malaria.

      Unintended consequences is the problem.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:44:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  First of all the "evidence" is very shaky (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, koNko, CcVenussPromise

      This is from Asia Times Online  29 August

      a ''moderate'' Syrian ''rebel'' thinks about all this. Haytahm Manna, in exile for 35 years, is a key member of the non-armed Syrian opposition (yes, they do exist). But he's not following the script; he's resolutely against Operation Tomahawk ...

      Worse; he debunks the US government's ''evidence'' of a chemical weapons attack as ''propaganda'' and ''psychological war''. He stresses the chemicals were launched with ''artisanal weapons''; that ties up with Russian intelligence, which is sure gas that it was delivered by a homemade missile fired from a base under opposition control (extensive details compiled here; scroll down to ''Qaboun rocket launches'').

      The link (compiled here - above) is in French. Here is a portion of it translated by Google:
      This is a setup. It is known that chemical weapons have been used by Al Qaeda. But the Free Syrian Army and groups linked to Al Qaeda leading 80% share of their operations to the north. A month ago , Ahmad Jarba [ which coordinates the armed opposition ] claimed that he would change the balance of forces on the ground. But the opposite happened , the loyalist army took over the land. Only direct intervention could therefore help rebels get away ... If Al Qaeda is responsible , it must be said loud and clear . If this is the plan, you must obtain a UN resolution. And do not let two or three countries unite their friends, not all advisable elsewhere.

      Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

      by truong son traveler on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:45:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Joyner's article is troubling since claiming that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    no strategic goal exists is based not on citing von Clauswitz, or selectively describing the payload options for cruise missiles (you want moral approbation, include the tactical nukes), or even omitting the apparently successful 2011 Libyan cruise missile campaign while mentioning the 1986 and 1989 Libyan attacks. Mr Joyner, the absence of your goals does not mean that goals don't exist and that the objectives require the kind of strategic process we are only beginning in a situation with many moving policy parts in order to get to an "acceptable price" since it may emerge in the context of or even despite distinguishing among the red line, bright line, line in the sand memes.

    Cohen prefers a more robust campaign with "serious targets" such as the air force, air defense system, and airports. But the reason we haven't already done that, despite a stated goal of regime change, is that we have no way of achieving that objective at an acceptable price. In his letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee a month ago, Joint Chiefs chairman General Martin Dempsey outlined our military options, which ranged from horrible to awful.
    Dempsey warned then that it "is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state." He added, "Should the regime's institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control." Red lines or not, that hasn't changed.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:50:08 PM PDT

    •  My take on Joyners piece is not that goals .. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, CenPhx, truong son traveler

      ..don't exist..but that bombing in order to save lives doesn't cut it.
      James Joyner writes:

      If the goal is to send the message that using chemical weapons is unacceptable, as security specialist Charli Carpenter notes in Foreign Affairs,  it would be unfortunate to use "Tomahawk missiles, which are capable of carrying cluster munitions and which have been decried on humanitarian grounds by numerous governments and civil society groups."
      So innocents will be hurt or killed.

      And then Joyner references  Joint Chiefs chairman General Martin Dempsey who points out that if Assad is toppled:

      "Should the regime's institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control."
      So it may unleash more CW on civilians in the end.
      •  my (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson

        beef is with the straw man of "logical premise and well-designed goal" since for example once any battle starts all planning changes, as well as Joyner's own shoddy logic

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

        by annieli on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:41:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sometimes I just don't understand this place. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler, claude

    Lately, people are arguing over what's worse, chemical weapons or conventional ones. Fucking pathetic.

    So, I suppose if Assad has just dropped lots of bombs or artillery on that suburban neighborhood, we wouldn't be discussing the possibility of attaching Syria.

    People wouldn't be talking about those children who were killed.

    But damn, he used gas! Let's get the motherfucker!

    It doesn't make any sense. There is no rhyme or reason to any of this shit.

    Now the U.S. killing a bunch more people will set everything right I suppose.

    Surreal

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:52:50 PM PDT

    •  Been the general idea for the last 2 years. (0+ / 0-)
      So, I suppose if Assad has just dropped lots of bombs or artillery on that suburban neighborhood, we wouldn't be discussing the possibility of attaching Syria.

      Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

      by franklyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:58:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, so why all of a sudden is it time to bomb? (4+ / 0-)

        It's not really about protecting the civilians. Many more have been killed through conventional means.

        This is just about the "red line" commitment and saving face.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:09:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be honest it is about more than a comment (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          delver rootnose, CenPhx, duhban

          The problem is that Syria has a hell of a lot of chemical weapons, and if they are starting to let them out this is a problem.

          I am against bombing Syria, I'm not saying that there is no problem.   Hell if I know what the solution would be.  I'm pretty sure it involves cooperating with Russia though, rather than petty fights at the U.N.

        •  Because with guns you can kill just so many (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          at any given moment, and they must be targeted individually.
          Ahh, but with gas, just imagine. You may have, "collateral damage," but you kill the ones you wanted to.
          "Fuck a bunch of collateral damage!"
          Any indiscriminate death, even in war, must be resisted. It's either that or the complete surrender of human morality to the abyss

          Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

          by franklyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:30:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure it's all about saving face, but.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CenPhx

          ..there seems to be a neo-con like emphasis on protecting the "rules of war" over saving lives.

          And I too commented and questioned the difference between dying from conventional weaponry (cluster bomb for instance) vs Chemical weapons

          But I'm still having a hard time making as clear a distinction between killing with poison and killing with bombs though - me
          Either way my choice would be focusing on setting up aid camps with Turkey or Jordan for shelter, medical aid, food lodging for the wounded refugees and miplaced prople.
           A safe zone.

           That seems like step number one to me. And for the hard liner politics of it, aid could go a long way to rebuilding some trust; also might help make peace happen too - a little bit ?

        •  The "redline" creation was not too wise (0+ / 0-)

          I wonder who came up with this. I am tempted to think it was done to make it easier to create a defined pretext to militarily attack Syria.

          Once the line is established, it should not be difficult to create an incident of it being crossed in a situation as chaotic as the one in Syria.

          Absence of convincing proof makes fools of those trying to use this event as a pretext to launch hundreds of Tomahawk missiles, (at $1.5 million each) at Syria in order to "teach them a lesson".

          If this is the kind of advice the president is receiving from his closest advisers then perhaps he should consider looking at replacing some of them.

          Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

          by truong son traveler on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:02:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The logical premise appears to be Prez's image (0+ / 0-)

    I think he and his staff have decided to be decisive (maybe) on Syria given his transparency, honesty, NSA et al., and Fourth Amendment failures, not to mention the Egyptian  f*ck-up of supporting indefinite dictatorships.

  •  Breaking News. 1 hour ago. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, duhban

    UN chemical weapons inspectors depart Syria, cross into neighboring Lebanon - @AP

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:16:03 PM PDT

  •  Hi all. Thx. On the domestic front, Florida: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, Yasuragi

    Will you join the fight?


    Sandra Khalifa, poet





    Support the Dream Defenders - A Daily Kos Group




    • The Dream Defenders are fighting for justice in Florida. Their mission is to enact Trayvon's Law in Florida, which would repeal the Stand Your Ground law, ban racial profiling, and end the school-to-prison pipeline.
    • Support the Dream Defenders is a Daily Kos community. We promote and support the Dream Defenders, online and offline.
    • How To Join Us: Send us a kosmail.
    • How to Follow Us: Go to our diaries page and click the ♥ or the word Follow. If you are a Kossack, when you Follow a person or group, their diaries will appear in your Stream. As an example, here is the Stream of one of our most respected members. Note: Joining and Following are completely separate functions in DK4.
    • How to Find Our Diaries: We publish on Friday evenings at 5:00 pm EDT and 2:00 pm PDT. Here's where you can find our next group diary and all diaries published and republished by our group.
    • How to Find Our Groupmail Inbox: DK4 groupmail inboxes are notoriously difficult to find, because we receive no "You have mail" signal. If you have Editor status, and you want to participate, please bookmark our group kosmail inbox, and check it as frequently as you want to participate. That page does not refresh itself, either.
    • Floridians: We welcome your reports, pictures, and promotion of your feet-on-the-ground protests and organizing in support of the Dream Defenders. Please use our comments and/or group kosmail to confidentially locate nearby Floridians who support the Dream Defenders and build networks. If you have never written a diary, we will help you. Ask us anything.
    • Support the Dream Defenders is a community of Kossacks. We are an action group dedicated to supporting the passage of Trayvon's Law in Florida. Each of us is opposed to the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. We do not need to debate the merits of SYG laws or 2nd Amendment issues in our action diaries. If you want to argue, go start your own DK group and/or go write your own diary.

  •  other (0+ / 0-)

    At this time...
    (6) Only if congress and the U.N. General Assembly authorize it and the conditions in number two are met. General Assembly, that would be interesting.
         There's this neglected small fountain in S.F.'s Golden Gate Park, near the Merry-Go-Round dedicated to the fallen of WW I. I pause...
        Do we neglect history, repeat history?
                     Imagine and I am not the only one.

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:30:41 AM PDT

    •  the fountain (0+ / 0-)

         I reflect some meditations, prayers, memories. I worry, will some 1% planner someday "Oh, that ghastly broken down old fountain," not noticing the small inscription and like right now tears fill my eyes.
                 Only 99 years have gone by...
                "a Rose revisiting the Titanic"
      I'm 62, 2/3rds of what my hop, skip & a jump lifetime has been.

      March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

      by 3rock on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:00:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When the UN comes in with it's report, (0+ / 0-)

    it's going to be exactly like Adlai Stephenson in "63" during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
    Read 'em and weep.
    Now, where do you stand?
    How it's going to be done, I don't know. But the world will know.

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:08:36 AM PDT

  •  No option for Lesser-Of-Two-Evils? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:47:13 AM PDT

  •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

    Obama is actually doing it right, shocking the International community into action-

    Logical premise:

    The Syrian civil war is escalating in its internal intensity and risks of expanding to a regional conflict, and therefore must be stopped.

    Further, International mechanisms have so far failed to achieve a de-escalation, largely due to widely divergent views, interests and goals of other members of the International mechanisms.

    Well designed response:
    With the threat of an imminent military strike, that would almost certainly make the whole situation worse, create a crisis that will motivate all the parties to resume the Geneva process and relinquish some of their unachievable goals.

    It is happening already.  UN member states are mobilizing.  

  •  Seriously, SIEU, I need a fast food coupon! (0+ / 0-)

    I want to make a donation to the effort to unionize and gain respect for fast food workers. Tips won't help (although I do pop them in the jar.) I want coupons that say "I support you and donated to your cause" that I can leave with the workers! This serves two purposes, of course--supporting unionization and letting the workers know that unionization is their best strategy.

    So SIEU, send me an ad.

  •  Have just a little faith in a smart President (0+ / 0-)

    He hasn't bombed anyone yet. Experts who totally disagree with him admit that he is NOT trigger happy, despite what you see in these comments.

    Syria is a lose-lose situation. Realize that any action taken against Assad is essentially favoring Al Quaeda. But lack of action emboldens Iran and Russia to some extent. And Syria is no friend of Israel.

    If there were just a way to blow up the chemical weapons dumps and not the population...Or better yet, to evaporate Assad's bank accounts (Hire the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and then just smile and deny any responsibility.

  •  Would like to see a diary with a short Syria poll (0+ / 0-)

    with only two non-biased questions.

    1. Do you support U.S military intervention in Syria if it's conclusively and independently proven that the Assad government was directly responsible.

    2. Do you support U.S military intervention in Syria if it's not conclusively and independently proven that the Assad government was directly responsible.

    War is costly. Peace is priceless!

    by frostbite on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:00:59 AM PDT

  •  this article is highly flawed from the outset... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the article says that the president's plan lacks a "logical premise and well-designed goal." How can that be when the president himself has said he has not yet made a final decision on what he plans to do.

    How can a plan be flawed when it is not yet a plan?

    This might make sense if the assumptions about what the administration plans to do were accurate. We don't know that yet, however.

    There seems to be a lot of hysteria over Syria. Concern is warranted. But faulting the president for a plan that he has not yet even decided upon seems a little...well...lets just call it premature to be polite.

    •  what's flawed is to call for war (0+ / 0-)

      without a plan first.  it puts the cart before the horse.  i don't know about you, but when i tackle a serious problem i first analyze the situation, then consider and bat around options, and last decide what to do.  deciding what to do without considering all options seems outright foolish to me -- but  that's what happened in iraq.  "must go to war because: WMD".  there wasn't even an exit strategy.  and look what it got us.

      so now we get "must go to war because: chemical weapons" complete with massaging the body count and parading dead children, but without plan.  heck, we don't even have a goal -- exactly what does obama want to accomplish?  stop assad from further using chemical weapons?  scare the shit out of him?  pave the way for rebel factions to overthrow the syrian government?  do it ourselves? the lack of firm goal posts sounds eerily similar to iraq.  and just as foolish.  i have no doubt that this was discussed within the obama circle, but i get the feeling (from what has been said) that the discussion wasn't about the actual waging of a war, but about its political expediency.

      i hate being manipulated for obama's political expediency just as much as i hated it when bush did.  (ok, maybe i hate it even more, because it's more disappointing when "my" guy does it).

  •  Al-Assad shouldn't be gassing people. (0+ / 0-)

    That's very bad. It's shameful that the UN Security Council is unable to issue a call for action. If they did so, it would be fully appropriate for America to respond in a manner similar to what happened in Libya.

    On the other hand, there are so many ways that unilateral action on our part would automatically cause problems (for one thing, the precedent alone is an “enormous consequence”), not to mention all the ways it could go wrong and the extreme uncertainty regarding whether it could actually do anything useful.

    So, to me the most important thing is an international call for action and an international effort. Having Congressional approval and/or Libya-like tactical limitations would remove virtually all of my objections for action.

  •  We've been meddling and fomenting strife, (0+ / 0-)

    coups, and revolutions in Syria since 1947, it is time to get our ass out of there.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:18:26 AM PDT

  •  Cruise missiles & bombs sink ships and (0+ / 0-)

    knock down buildings. Of course, we worry that Assad will use poison gas again as his government flails around, and that Syria will end up a failed state, but knocking down buildings, destroying airport runways and sinking ships will, if anything, hasten the arrival of a failed state.  The Arab spring has brought down governments but has yet to show any successes in constructing new and viable governments.

    A small first step would be to cease all military aid to all governments, military aid does not build viable governments, it can help bring them down. Not only do we noble citizens mistreat our own citizens, jailing a huge % of black males, failing to educate most poor children, we also contribute to the breakdown of world order.  

    Don't blame it all on Bush, Obama or Boehner.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site