General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGive Obama a Fucking Break
He is speaking from his heart
He wants to stop atrocity
Don't we all ?
He just doesn't know the best way to do it. If there is one.
Who among us knows, or for that matter any and all of the people against us striking them, what to do ?
Constructive, non-military ideas welcome.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jessie04
(1,528 posts)Lol
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)I said the same thing earlier and got swarmed.
I agree with you 100%.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)doesn't know what to do, then he shouldn't do this.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that hasn't figured out that getting involved is a bad idea either has their head in their nether regions or doesn't deserve to lead our country.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)I've got about 50 constructive ideas a day that usually start with putting a few of our own war criminals on trial but we can all see where constructive ideas lead: nowhere.
Torture camps and drone bombings are atrocities, any ideas on how to stop them?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
Skittles
(171,704 posts)SERIOUSLY
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)and now we just look like Lex Luther.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Skittles
(171,704 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)now after this excuse for being rational (not you, the OP)
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Watch this !!!!
tecelote
(5,156 posts)We have become the America Eisenhower feared.
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)53¢ of Every Tax Dollar Goes to the Military
Now, discuss.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)For once. I get some relief when important events are occurring and our president plays golf the way he did before the bin Laden strike, cool as a cucumber.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)the bombing.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Nothing Says "We Care" Like A Tomahawk Missile Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023580259
jessie04
(1,528 posts)like letting the chinless tyrant use chemical weapons against his own people with total impunity .
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)acting alone. We are not the world's policeman. Those days are over.
kath
(10,565 posts)The Iranians?? And the CIA knew in advance that he was going to do it. Then, the famous photo of Rumsfeld shaking his hand was taken just a few months later.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)The UN isn't very good at enforcing the Geneva conventions overall.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Did Reagan let it get to them? Did the U.S. have veto power?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html
As Dobbs wrote:
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the “human wave” attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague .
To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.
The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.
Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to “almost daily use of CW” against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president’s recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)mouth about CBW, this story should be crammed down his or her throat!
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(16,211 posts)get that gas? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.............
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
warrant46
(2,205 posts)And Thermite well that too without saying is also splendid, because once the reaction starts nothing will put it out. The process makes its own oxygen so putting your burning arm under water does nothing until all of the substance is consumed.
Thermite was used in both German and Allied incendiary bombs during World War II. Incendiary bombs usually consisted of dozens of thin thermite-filled canisters (bomblets) ignited by a magnesium fuse. Incendiary bombs destroyed entire cities due to the raging fires that resulted from their use Cities that primarily consisted of wooden buildings were especially susceptible. These incendiary bombs were utilized primarily during nighttime air raids. Bombsights could not be used at night, creating the need to use munitions that could destroy targets without the need for precision placement.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)use on military personnel.
tecelote
(5,156 posts)How many do we need to kill to make it right?
And, why stop with Syria?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
MindMover
(5,016 posts)The world has done everything it can for the Syrian people .... except bomb the military assets .... except when Israel hits it with four airstrikes, the butcher of Damascus calms down for a while .... this time we have to hit him with a two by four to get the message across ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/why-israel-bombed-syria-reasons-for-israeli-airstrikes_n_3219885.html
Aerows
(39,961 posts)if they want to, and suffer the consequences. Why does the US have to be the big brother?
blm
(114,656 posts)uphold them.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)how about they grow up and figure something out.
The "cleanest" way out is for a general in Assad's army to depose him, take his place and start looking like elections will eventually happen. That way the chemical weapons remain secured. Revenge killings can be kept to a minimum for a while. And negotiations can restart.
christx30
(6,241 posts)is for those chemical weapons to end up in the hands of the rebels. A lot of those guys are Al Queda. I think you're right. Assad's army is the only way out of this.
I'm not holding my breath. He's gathered people around him of who's loyalty he can count on. Doubt any of them are for sale.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)have them and used them giving a brutal dictator a pass, but anyways its them not us so who cares.
christx30
(6,241 posts)for this war. If Assad has the CM, then only through a sheer force of luck can keep them out of the hands of Al Queda after Assad is bombed out of power.
If Al Queda already has them, then isn't Assad doing our job for us and fighting them? Isn't the civil war in Syria just bad guy against bad guy? Yes, the innocent are dying, but that wouldn't change once the US starts the missile and bomb attacks.
And what right does the US have to punish any government it wants? This is not a parent/child relationship. "Oh look at those foreign governments. They don't know better. So we have to give them a spanking when they get out of line."
That seems just very arrogant. And people wonder why people in other countries hate Americans.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)and tell the world that we our sincerely sorry for our actions of the past. How about we pull all of our troops home from around the globe. How about we stop all CIA overseas ops. How about we tell the UN that we will deliver anyone accused of war crimes to the Hague to stand trial? Then, how about we actually help around the world with some non-military peace forces.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)my window
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
marew
(1,588 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)So if I think my neighbour's beat on his kids and I 'don't know what to do!' you'd be good with me lighting their house on fire - with kids inside?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)Yet that seems to be the plan.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)"People are dying, lets drop some bombs on them!" seems like a sensible plan to save lives.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I saw pictures here today of people in Syria protesting against it and can't imagine the terror they must be feeling. The whole region's seen so much death and destruction ... I don't understand the rush to more violence over an honest dialogue for better solutions. It's just sad.
polly7
(20,582 posts)to kill and maim innocents, whether directly or indirectly, when the fear and need to retaliate ramps up for either side.
Or are these magic bombs, like the magic drones that don't kill children?
When someone isn't sure what to do ........ the only thing to do is drop bombs? You've got to be kidding. Sometimes I feel like this place is the goddamn twilight zone.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)HumansAndResources
(229 posts).. and the "follow up strikes" to kill those trying to save the wounded show exactly the type of people who Run This Game.
When "Our" (sic - US citizen) War-Criminals are Arrested by Obama's Justice Dept - then we can begin this conversation about how and when to use military force.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I don't even get where these people are coming from.
It *is* a twilight zone argument that one is better than the other.
Logical
(22,457 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)As to whether or not the Ghouta attack was necessarily Assad.....we don't know. But we DO know that the Syrian Army HAS used chemical weapons before, and they will continue to do so unless forced to stop.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)
JVS
(61,935 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which is a sort of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" claim on my part. Just because I do not personally put forth a recommendation of non-violent resolution does not mean one does not exist. Just as it is not an indicator that a resolution must exist.
Some problems do not have answers. Or, at the very least, the answers are removed from our observation.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)come up with something?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)An answer does not necessarily exist. This entire issue is a matter of philosophical quarrel. Not all philosophical quarrels have meaningful answers or resolutions.
We live in a world where every evil MUST have an effective response. That's what we tell ourselves. In reality, evil persists against and even evades good. Not necessarily because we do nothing but because there is nothing we can do. Beyond that, we can even doubt this evil/good dichotomy. Deconstruct it. Break it down into its constituent faculties.
It may be the case that there are responses to everything but that they are a measure of good and evil. So we bomb Syria. That is certainly a response. Is it a good response? Does its good overwhelm its evil? I'm not so sure.
There is no easy answer to the situation in Syria.
I wish reason and compassion were the bases for war. Then none of this would have happened. But war is not often grounded in reason or love. The civil war in Syria certainly is no exception.
When you have an abundance of irrationality, the rejection of the rational, being rational is no longer an effective response. So war devolves into a series of irrationalities that are justified not because they are effective but because they necessarily follow the former and necessarily predict the next.
progressoid
(53,179 posts)Unfortunately, very few are unified with this idea of bombing Syria. Perhaps we should start by assembling a united front with our allies before we unzip and start with the bombing threats.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)some one spoke sense. Progressoid, you spoke sense!!! Holy cow, what on earth do you do with a person that speaks sensibly!!!!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and completely ignore those of the rebels.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Or at least one of the reasons he was so well regarded? Because when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, and everyone said, "War is the only answer" and no one could come up with a peaceful solution, he managed to both solve the crisis and avoid the war.
(If it's not clear, I agree with you)
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)What to do IS the problem. All we do is argue, and mostly take sides before any decisions or full details are confirmed.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Time to take off the rose-colored Obama-Shades.
How many women do they have to put into bags with eye-slits and mutilate their genitals before we lift a finger?
This has ZERO to do with "humanitarianism" - any more than the other War Lies Americans have bought over the last century or so.
The question to ask is - which P.R. firm is running this pro-war propaganda campaign?
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sorry, not buying it. LESS than 1% of the casualties thus far. Dead, not wounded.
Yeah, boy, 1% more, now it's a big deal, fuck all those people shot, and blown apart. They don't even count.
Don't pretend it's 'humanitarian'. This potential strike is being sold based on the so far distant removed threat of these weapons proliferating and being used against us that it's not even worth talking about.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)We'll know for sure after Tuesday. I think he has the opportunity to blaze a new trail. We so need to escape from the Bush Doctrine and the Unitary Executive.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The atrocity, whoever did it, is done. This is not about stopping an atrocity. It isn't about punishing Assad. We are going to topple the government of Syria. We are doing that as part of our plan to eliminate every independent regime in the region, and to isolate Iran. What comes after Assad will be a theocratic mess. We don't give a shit about the people of Syria. You have been sold a bill of goods.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)huge can of worms. (understatement).
Maybe I am naive, but I just can not buy into Obama being part of some grand scheme conspiracy.
You really do ?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He could simply be WRONG.
OR, perhaps he is being misled by his own intelligence agencies. Wouldn't be the first time a President acted without the whole story, or without the correct story.
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)In an August 2013 article titled “Larry Summers and the Secret ‘End-game’ Memo,” Greg Palast posted evidence of a secret late-1990s plan devised by Wall Street and U.S. Treasury officials to open banking to the lucrative derivatives business. To pull this off required the relaxation of banking regulations not just in the US but globally. The vehicle to be used was the Financial Services Agreement of the World Trade Organization.
The “end-game” would require not just coercing support among WTO members but taking down those countries refusing to join. Some key countries remained holdouts from the WTO, including Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria. In these Islamic countries, banks are largely state-owned; and “usury” – charging rent for the “use” of money – is viewed as a sin, if not a crime. That puts them at odds with the Western model of rent extraction by private middlemen. Publicly-owned banks are also a threat to the mushrooming derivatives business, since governments with their own banks don’t need interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, or investment-grade ratings by private rating agencies in order to finance their operations.
Bank deregulation proceeded according to plan, and the government-sanctioned and -nurtured derivatives business mushroomed into a $700-plus trillion pyramid scheme. Highly leveraged, completely unregulated, and dangerously unsustainable, it collapsed in 2008 when investment bank Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, taking a large segment of the global economy with it. The countries that managed to escape were those sustained by public banking models outside the international banking net.
These countries were not all Islamic. Forty percent of banks globally are publicly-owned. They are largely in the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—which house forty percent of the global population. They also escaped the 2008 credit crisis, but they at least made a show of conforming to Western banking rules. This was not true of the “rogue” Islamic nations, where usury was forbidden by Islamic teaching. To make the world safe for usury, these rogue states had to be silenced by other means. Having failed to succumb to economic coercion, they wound up in the crosshairs of the powerful US military.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...etc. You must show with sneering certainty that you've "seen through their lies", that you won't "fall for the puppet show", because allowing for honest differences in opinion is how they trick you!
... 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)1.- Wait for the UN Weapons inspectors, for starters, to finish their analysis.
2.- Pour as much as we were going to spend on this strike into the UNHCR, so refugees can be taken care off in a humane manner, that includes opening borders all over the west for resettlement.
3.- Recognize that the many sides to this civil war have committed war crimes
4.- Work through the UNSC and the International Court, oh wait, we would have to recognize and join the Court first, and they might want to have a say over Bush, Chenney and the gang.
Help all nations with borders to seal those borders for weapons coming in and out. This means playing nice with the Russians.
Declare that regime change is NOT the goal and divest completely from the PNAC plan.
I expect none of this to happen.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)anywhere near the cabinet.
We have an oligarchy, they (regardless of party) do not work for the proles. They let us vote to keep the illusion.
You asked, I gave you an answer. And all that is NON military. I also do not expect anybody in levers of power to do that. It would get in the way of profits for the usual suspects.
Another president warned us about this on his way out. You should read it.
Here
January 17, 1961
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.
My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.
senseandsensibility
(24,973 posts)are snarky when you get them? 
dkf
(37,305 posts)That is the sad thing about the misplaced loyalty that we see in the Democratic Party that this hasn't been pushed by the progressives.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)HumansAndResources
(229 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Yes, ~2 of 3 people you pass on the street will execute you on command of an authority, absent even a threat to their persons or livelihood. This is a proven fact, from an oft-repeated experiment.
THAT is how war-criminals stay in power.
THAT is how governments get away with funding a "rebel / fundamentalist army" and then saying, "well jeez, gotta support those guys now."
Note the Milgram Experiments' consistent results worldwide were all carried out on victims of Prussian-style schools - no coincidence, I think.
dkf
(37,305 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)HumansAndResources
(229 posts)But "school" is designed to create the "Obedience To Authority" outcome ... and it works on most. But it can also be "un-done" - our only hope as a species to gain individual rights/freedom.
grillo7
(284 posts)The primary discussion is bomb or not-bomb, with essentially no discussion of actually meaningful possible alternatives. It's a classic propaganda technique of limiting the conversation to narrow choices...
and it's apparently not working here! thank the heavens.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that is exactly what needs to happen.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
Cha
(319,067 posts)his heart and soul and I thank you for acknowledging it.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)even considering giving him a break for anything.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)You should be able to see some nuance. You should be able to see that people saying they'd support impeachment on DU is pretty fucking hard to take. People saying they trust Putin over Obama is sickening. People mad because our Congressional leaders won't let Russian lawmakers come school them about Syria is just... I don't even know where I am anymore.
So excuse me if I'm a little down. But go ahead. Get your little digs in. Why the fuck not.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...for your words. I feel the same. 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)why would impeachment be beyond discussion? Impeachment would be a very natural discussion. There came a day when even the GOP could no longer stomach Nixon. I hope we would be the first to reject an imperial president.
And we aren't deciding between Obama or Putin. We aren't considering personalities at all, just the opposite. We don't care who says what, we care that this war is pointless and threatens to bring the very calamities it proposes to alleviate.
And for the record, the Russian lawmakers were coming to argue AGAINST our going to war. So that would put them in opposition to Obama whom you claim we should give more deference. I'm not sure of the nature of you complaint that congress declined to see them. I myself am thinking Boehner -- who supports the President -- was too humiliated to let them through the door.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)The naivete of some who think that we should strike another country because 300-400 children were gassed, blows me away.
This has nothing to do with a relative few kids and civilians being killed by chemical weapon. This has to do with Israel, the Saudis, Russia, and Iran. Please don't allow yourself to me swayed by pictures of some kids. Way more than 300-400 kids would die if we struck a blow against Syria and the blowback that would follow.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)nt
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)Why is it that we cut funding for WIC (women, infant, and children) here?
How many kids die from hunger around the world?
What ways have we helped the 2 million+ refugees from Syria who are living in desperate camps outside Syria?
The "kids" are being used to manipulate the feelings and emotions of those who have no idea what is going on in the region. Remember when before the Iraq invasion they told us that Saddam's guard were throwing babies out of incubators? It didnt happen.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But I agree with you, this is about manipulation of the public. On the bright side, it's not working.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and you will be harped at for saying it, but you are right. Killing more children because some children were killed is lunacy.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)can't you see the difference?
spanone
(141,602 posts)
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)We should be helping the refugees and providing medical aid. Let's show the world we are #1 at something besides blowing things up.
jessie04
(1,528 posts).
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)And how many people would have to be killed to carry it out?
jessie04
(1,528 posts)I have stated I support the President.
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)You got all these numbers figured out? Assad could be dead days or weeks from now. And you have no idea how many would be killed by our bombs. Hundreds of thousands dead in wars that accomplished nothing except making more people hate us. Not in my name. I say enough.
We'll probably never agree, so we will have to agree to disagree.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)and say - "the people (thru their senators and reps) have spoken" and we will immediately begin the "what you said"
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...bring Assad to trial.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)In order to get the U.N. to do something they have to have a unanimous vote.
And Russia/Putin is good buddies with Assad/Syria.
And since Russia is a voting member of the U.N. there will NOT ever be a unanimous U.N. vote regarding Assad/Syria.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)my letter to my reps is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023581450
MFM008
(20,042 posts)a weapon of mass destruction is a WMD.
There seems to be an international law against its use.
Remember thats what the last war was was SUPPOSED to be about (as we all know it was NOT).......
This should be an international universal condemnation. It isnt.
I will wait to hear the President tuesday before I harden my opinions.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Let's help those in need here first before we go off and start another war.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)these things would REALLY say
"We Care" .. from the USA.
Unlike 200 Tomahawk Missiles.
eridani
(51,907 posts)1. Use back door diplomacy with Iran to yank Assad's leash. A significant bloc of the Iranian leadership strongly opposes chemical warfare due to Iran's victimization during the 80s. Why not make use of that?
2. Greatly expand humanitarian aid to the refugee camps. This could include providing security.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Iran has been signaling through its new Prez a willingness to talk. That should be used.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Note that Saddam Hussein pulling his forces Out of Kuwait was called the "Nightmare Scenario". They had worked hard to trick him into starting that war, promising "we didn't have a defense treaty with Kuwait" and all the rest.
The same people run the State Dept now as then. Take it from President Obama's First National Security Advisor:
"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.
Now search: Kissinger, Operation Condor, Indonesia, East Timor, Cambodia, Killing Fields
We have to Give Up OUR (sic) WAR CRIMINALS FIRST - then we can have a bit of credibility with pointing fingers at others. Unfortunately, our (sic) war-criminals still call the shots.
All it would take is one presidential-speech to the American People Outing that Gang of Criminals, to end their rule. Ask yourself why President Obama hasn't given that speech. Now you know why the corporate-press label all truth-tellers "unelectable" and is already crowning Hillary Clinton as the next DLC nominee?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Here is what the Obama types know how to do: blow it up and walk away. The very 'red line' rhetoric was itself indulgent, semi belligerent and in some ways a dare to use these weapons, reckless language like that, spoken for political drama and personal gain should be seen as unacceptable. Obama indulges in this sort of language, just as he surrounded himself with a raft of Iraq War supporting Yes voting stooges like Republican Chuck and Muppet John Kerry men who know nothing but war, who have voted for every war they were every asked to support men who profit from war and who are in fact defined in this life by war.
MFM008
(20,042 posts)the use of a weapon of mass destruction? Sarin gas? Have you seen the pictures or UTUBE?
Has nothing to do with Obama "types" or yes men. Because you feel there should be some type of repurcussion for the use of those horrible weapons doesnt make you a type.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)And please spare me the "not targeted" nonsense. They regularly target weddings, and then the rescuers who come to help those maimed in the first strike - just like the 2nd car bomb the 'terrorists' use to do the same.
And never mind the ongoing brutality against the citizens of "our allies" (sic) in head-chopper monarchies. Where are the speeches about that??
pecwae
(8,021 posts)the YouTubes of the rebels we are arming and their activities? No matter what we see the US becoming entangled in another war isn't going to solve Syrian problems.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)murder. But, agree 100% that using violence to punish violence is insane. Have a very hard time believing Kerry is motivated by war profit though,
IsItJustMe
(7,012 posts)Jeebus H Christ. I thought I was on a right wing blog when I got on here. WTF.
Romney would have already had us in a war with Iran by now.
My, how quickly they turn.
I would recommend your post but it has been a while since I have been on DU and I don't know how.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)"... would have been worse if," isn't an excuse for the Ongoing Support of Al Qaeda-affiliated Terrorists in Syria. No one here is saying they wish Romney was president - and that is the implication there, no? Put another way:
"You are With Us For WAR or You Are With The ____"
A. Romneyites
B. Randites
C. Assad
D. CW-lovers
E. Russia / Putin
Rex
(65,616 posts)I will give Obama a fucking break. Just for you.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And I don't care about Obama getting a break or anyone getting a break.
I just had to respond, my friend. Dropping bombs on a country, and killing people because some people got killed seems like insanity to me.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)BTW: Where is it written that white males in business suits sitting at a desk get the final word?
SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)Russia and China, as members of the UN Security Council, already vetoed a mere increase in sanctions against Assad after he slaughtered over 100,000 of his own people.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Assad backers reportedly make up 43 percent of dead in Syria
BEIRUT — A new count of the dead in Syria by the group that’s considered the most authoritative tracker of violence there has concluded that more than 40 percent were government soldiers and pro-government militia members.
The new numbers from the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights provide a previously unseen view of the toll the civil war has taken on communities that have supported the government. They also cast doubt on the widely repeated assertion that the government of President Bashar Assad is responsible for an overwhelming majority of the deaths there.
According to the new statistics, which the Syrian Observatory passed to McClatchy by phone, at least 96,431 people have lost their lives in the more than two years of violence that’s wracked Syria.
Of those, Syrian soldiers and members of the government’s security forces account for 24,617, while members of pro-government militias make up 17,031. Taken together, those deaths account for 43.2 percent of the total recorded.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/03/192881/assad-backers-reportedly-make.html#.UipTbsbUmSr#storylink=cpy
And if it needs to be added ..... of course, one civilian death is too many.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That's something we can help them with through both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.
We can also send CARE packages. (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere)
SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)In June 2013, the death toll surpassed 100,000 according to the United Nations. According to various opposition activist groups, between 83,260 and 110,370 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians, but also including 67,700 armed combatants consisting of both the Syrian Army and rebel forces, up to 1,000 opposition protesters and 1,000 government officials. By October 2012, up to 28,000 people had been reported missing, including civilians forcibly abducted by government troops or government security forces. According to the UN, about 4 million Syrians have been displaced within the country and 2 million have fled to other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
And even when it was at 100,000 we were still hoping to end the bloodshed through diplomacy and assistance to the rebels, as noticed back in July. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/25/100000-dead-in-syrias-civil-war/2587521/
It didn't work. Things only got worse. It became clear to Assad, especially after Russia and China vetoed UN sanctions, that he was untouchable. And then the 400 kids and 1,000 adults were gassed.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)He didn't need it except in the case of a foreign-troop invasion (the real reason small nations want WMDs - to repel invasions by "the powers"
.
It was the Last thing Assad would have done in the circumstances - just as UN Inspectors arrived.
Does anyone really think that Saudi Arabia (primary rebel-backer) and their Fundamentalist-Terrorist forces would not use the gas to blame Assad - especially given they were loosing the war? Qui Bono??
polly7
(20,582 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It's real bad PR to support dead babies.
SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)International disapproval have done little to sway Russia and China. Putin's not bending on his sick LGBT persecution. China has a lot of political prisoners and wants the same options as Assad should the time come.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)The options are pretty limited and all are problematic, including the "do nothing" option.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)You can't CHANGE your position in DC,...AT ALL.
You HAVE to craft language so anything you say is consistent with a prior comment. So his main focus is to play that stupid game.
Even if it means people have to die.
SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)But if you really believe that Obama's "main focus is to play that stupid game," then there is no point in having a serious conversation with you.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)...think of the most childish crap that could come out of a 9 year old and THAT is what Obama has to deal with amongst the DC Villagers.
They play "gotcha" with the slightest slip and giggle like idiots over a sex scandal.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Russia outlaws public advocacy - the Russian Duma vote was unanamous = Putin is Hitler reincarnated.
Our "allies" MURDER LGBT people for what they do / love in private = SSSHHHH (crickets).
Don't let a cause for equal rights be USED as a Pawn in a War Game.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)See, i'm not sure you get the point of having an international community. The point is one nation does not get to call all the shots. I understand this is a troublesome idea for some DU'ers, who are very comfortable with the idea of a sprawling militaristic empire making demands and conducting raids whenever it feels it should... but it does go against the ideas of the founders of the modern position of the Democratic Party.
SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)...by blocking whatever everyone else wants to do. Russia and China are using their veto power to protect Assad. Obviously you're good with that. I'm not so sure I am. The horrific torturous death of 400 children cannot go unanswered or we will have more of it. If the UN is paralyzed by Russia and China, other options should be considered. I thought that was what the OP was asking for, but I don’t see a whole lot of good options being discussed. What are you suggesting?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Frankly, children or adults, they are dead. I see no reason to add to their number while yanking my cock and yammering about how sad Assad will be that we killed them for him, as you are doing.
SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)I've heard that before...didn't expect to hear it from you.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Do you? Honestly, do you think throwing more bodies on the pile will help a fucking thing? Do you think, maybe, Assad will be so very saddened by what we do to his people for him, that he will deliver himself to the hague for trial immediately? Is that what you think?
SunSeeker
(58,280 posts)This is not about making sure Assad haz a sad. This is about preventing further chemical attacks.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The US does not have a happy history of this sort of thing not harming civilians.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)That is what it is for - not to ensure the success of all potential humanitarian missions. We'd have to invade "our" (sic) primary trading-partner China pronto, right after "our" (sic) ally Saudi Arabia, to get started on that agenda. Game on? Granted, they have the power to crush-dissent with just regular 'ol bullets, batons, and torture-chambers.
If there IS a single nation / source of power we could trust to do things for humanitarian reasons - consistently - I haven't seen / heard of it. The USA certainly does not qualify.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Bring all our military home...all of them.
And take the money we save from that and hire the military men we brought home to build the infrastructure of this country...from bridges and roads to mass transit systems that will rival any country in the world.
Invest in making everything we need right here so we don't have to ship it in from China...and make the manufacturing of things automated.
And that just for a start, but the objective is to make this a country that the whole world will envy so much they will try to be like us and not trying to fight us..
But what the fuck, I am a dreamer and real Americans hate dreamers and love the status quo and the conflict.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)insane that we have so many in the military. Perhaps it would fuck up the unemployment rate too much if
all the soldiers came home?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)To hire them to do the work here...there would be more than enough to pay them a good wage.
But who would get hurt would be the defense contractors who would not be making the billions they now make....mostly for selling us things that destroy and must be replaced.
Our defense could be the Klatu principle...if you attack us you and your country will be reduced to a burnt out cinder...but join us in peace and you will live in peace and prosperity with us.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Attacking Syria is an act of aggression according to international law.
Chained-CPI is an atrocity, and he proposed it. It will cause real suffering.
When he shows you who he is - believe him.
Here's a constructive idea: stop funding the proxy war and arming the Al Queda rebels and let the chips fall where they may.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)Thank goodness not everyone's hair is on fire here this week.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)and making things worse for its people, not better. I don't feel inclined to give a break to someone who contemplates using violence in reaction to violence. That never works. I will give him a break when he announces that he is calling off the attacks.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)She told him we should put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran to stop this bs. She is a Syrian living in U.S. she has relatives living in Syria and appeared to know what she was talking about.
As far as the weeping regarding the inhumanity of it all, 200 million people have been killed in Sudan, millions have been raped and killed throughout Africa. Why don't these pictures show up on the main stream media? And why doesn't Obama send some Tomahawks over there?
I will tell you why... NO OIL! think about it.
GOTV
(3,759 posts)How is it that so many here can't see that Obama is wearing big boy pants and doesn't need you to stick up for him.
Anyone that thinks attacking Syria is a bad move has every right to say so, every day, to everybody.
I think Obama can handle it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And I would say not only a right, but a responsibility.
This is about to be a war crime.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
eissa
(4,238 posts)he not only boxed himself in with this ridiculous red-line crap, he dragged the rest of us into it. He went from 0 (no involvement in Syria) to 60 (bombing campaign) in a matter of days, despite overwhelming opposition. It's asking a lot of a base that put him in office to begin with because of his anti-war stance.
As to a solution: how about first negotiating a cease-fire, getting the Saudis and their Wahabi supporters to stop the flood of weapons to the rebels/terrorists, AND waiting for the outcome of the UN investigation. Take those billions we'll use to blow shit up (including children we claim to care so much about) and assist the millions in the refugee camps. We have options, they just don't involve war profiteers.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)medicine, food and water on these people.
There, that is my constructive, non-military idea that will actually help.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)And then we must fight it.
I can't give our President a break. He is reinforcing bad behavior.
martigras
(151 posts)The best one is to get the international banking community to freeze the assets of Assad and his henchmen. Then targeted sanctions. But most importantly, help for the refugees in Turkey and Syria and a negotiated diplomatic solution.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)going for non-military ones, like disarmament and freezing Assad's assets among many other options. I think the international community would be more on board with these types of sanctions rather than dropping bombs. Oh, and the refugee camps are sorely in need of humanitarian aid. The cost of those bombs would go far in covering that aid. Of course the MIC will miss out on their blood profits, but piss on them.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)But I think that would require the UN to act as well, and Russia is blocking that.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)exchange. It's up to the UN to meet with him and find out what that is. I believe it's a port in Syria that the Russians have and that Putin wants to keep, but best to find out for sure. Here is where the UN needs better leadership, IMHO.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)I'd say spine, but he doesn't appear to have one.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1. ASK Russia for help. Ask them what we can do to broker a peaceful changeover of Al-Assad's regime for a political middle ground that both sides in this civil war will accept.
2. Failing that, as Russia to lead UN peacekeepers into the contested zones to safely escort out refugees, and all the rich nations that want to help so badly can send aid for the duration till these people can safely go home.
The US has quite a bit of diplomatic leverage here, if it will ask for the right things. Russia isn't our adversary anymore. Time to stop treating them like one.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean really, how hard is it? I don't give a shit if it's Obama or Romney or that Rent Is Too Damn High Guy in office, I do not support war with Syria.
If the foundation of YOUR support is "because Obama" then I think even the president would tell you to grow up and find yourself some ethics.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)as anyone else - would be for force "just because of Obama." ? Pretty insulting
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maybe not you personally - you don't ring a bell, sorry! - but plenty of other posters were going the freeper route of "support the war or you hate the president!"
ironically the folks who two days ago were demanding an immediate bombing so that the president's awthoritah could be defended, are now pretending htey were for a peaceful resolution all along.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You really believe that?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)divided civil war - I think President Carter offered one of the most sensible approaches:
“It is imperative to determine the facts of the attack and present them to the public. Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons must bear personal responsibility,” Carter said in the statement. “The chemical attack should be a catalyst for redoubling efforts to convene a peace conference, to end hostilities, and urgently to find a political solution.”
The Carter Center urged against a military response to possible chemical weapons use without a U.N. mandate, saying the action would be “illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war.”
“Instead, all should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under U.N. oversight the country’s stockpile of such weapons,” the center said in the statement.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jimmy-carter-syria-peace-summit-96087.html#ixzz2dkHgTO3B
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)He asked for this, Hell, he begged for this. He spent decades of his life, made dozens, hundreds of deals with all manner of devils to sit in the Big Chair.
And now he's there. He didn't give me a break. He made all kinds of promises, gave cynical speeches implying, but never clearly stating that he wanted to be The Boss to give me a break, with no intention of following up.
He's exactly where he wants to be, doing what he wants to do, so again I ask, why should I give him a break?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)change your mind - like good intentions at the core.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Did you have any answers to the question?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)black and white. To me, it's much more realistic to know that there are many many
factors and moving pieces that a president much consider and that to get anything
done you have to compromise. I used to be like you .. thinking that when Obama
got in we would get everything we wanted. But, it's not real world. Real world is
complicated.
I would have much preferred that Obama worked with others who are more politically
savvy than he is - to come up with better non-military solutions before he pushed
the envelope. But, his heart is still in the right place, in my opinion. And, it's
really a blessing that the world is against the military route.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I doubt any of them will actually work, but it's worth a shot.
Every President has had to make this sort of decision and since no one person is omniscient has had to rely on staff, cabinet, and advisors. I doubt anyone here has more knowledge of the situation, or more experience in crisis management, than the people he has around him now. They may not be perfect, and the one person with the answer may not have walked through the door yet, but talk is cheap. It's even cheaper when you don't know what you're talking about or don't have the responsibility of acting on your words.
Personally, I think that since the drones in Pakistan have killed more kids than this gas attack anyone who is going to scream "NO WAR" about dropping a bomb on Assad, should yak on at least as much about Waziristan.
And, killing bin Laden rather than bringing him back for trial was a good thing, according to a lot of the newly minted anti-war and violence crowd, was it not? (What happened to murder is murder?)
sendero
(28,552 posts).. than have been killed by Assad with chemical weapons.
Where is the heartfelt action for them? I hear a lot of talk, but Obama has DONE next to nothing and whether you like it or not the American economy is not recovering in any real sense of the word after 5 full years.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Like republicans when the issue be about guns, abortion, etc etc.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Another fucking war!
More death and destruction
More depletion of the already drained treasury
More hatred toward the US
More enrichment of the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.
This is ONE all-encompassing issue!
Spare me your lame comparison 
mick063
(2,424 posts)It isn't just about Syria. It is about the huge military infrastructure and expenditure that dwarfs the rest of the world.
The results?
1) The rest of the world discards their global civic responsibility and looks to the US for their 911 call.
2) We are spending ourselves into the ground on military infrastructure, similar to how the Soviet Union did, while our domestic public works are being dismantled, and the wealthiest earners enjoy the lightest tax burden since the 1920's.
It isn't just about Syria.
We are collectively weary of funding prepaid wars and supporting global military adventurism based upon a terrorist threat that is relatively trivial when compared to the extinction level threat of the cold war. Our military/intelligence spending is disproportional to the threat. We would save more lives with gun legislation and traffic engineering by a large, large margin.
This is all about funneling money to the biggest welfare takers in history. The military industrial complex and the oil tycoons..
devils chaplain
(602 posts)I get the sense that a lot of Obama defenders are rallying around a person rather than well-formed opinions and principles. I hope that is not the case.
riversedge
(80,808 posts)dilemma with is issue. I have always been anti-war and demonstrated many times. I initially did not want us to attach Syria but am slowly beginning to think it is the right thing to do at this moment. I hope Pres. Obama can give a good speech this week to the American people. I am still sitting on the fence at this time.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)give him a fucking break!
Obama brought this situation on himself! He never showed such fire in the belly for more progressive causes like a public option and, through his minions, even maligned the base that 'brung him' .. as the late, great Molly Ivins would have said.
From his choice of advisors and cabinet members to his cat food commission, to his proposal of a chained CPI for SS, to his drones, to his lies about NSA, to his treatment of whistleblowers, to his line in the sand... he no longer deserves a break. He is showing his true passion in this fight for war and deserves the unrelenting whirlwind of opposition from all sides (international leaders, the American people, members of Congress) that he now faces.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... "breaks" for making VERY bad decisions that lead to the unnecessary deaths of others, shouldn't run for POTUS.
Entrenching oneself by refusing to back done from foolish statements is no excuse.
No more killing in my name. Arrest and prosecute the previous war criminals. Pare the MIC down to reasonable size. None of these is open to negotiation for me.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)It's not about the atrocity of war.
It's not about the determination of the powerful to keep us at war.
It's not about a tired, bankrupt nation who is willing to put most of our dwindling resources towards perpetual war while maintaining strict "austerity" at home on the domestic front.
It's not about the MIC and their influence.
It's not about the immorality of war, the futility of war, the arrogance and inevitable collapse of empire.
It's never about the issue at hand.
It's always about Obama, and how the situation should be spun to make him the hero. The conquering hero, the smarter hero, the nth dimensional chess hero, the misunderstood hero, the abused hero...it's always about Obama.
Not for me. Give me a fucking break.
devils chaplain
(602 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)these people's response would be, "I sure hope PBO doesn't get cold!!!"
Response to LWolf (Reply #195)
malletgirl02 This message was self-deleted by its author.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)RW nutcase libertarians who live in a fantasy world are welcome & encouraged to participate. Rational progressive Democrats who realize we need to live in the real world are attacked & ostracized.
malletgirl02
(1,523 posts)Up until now I have been the one of the biggest Obama supporters out there. I voted for him twice, and I supported his campaign with donations and by purchasing merchandise to the tune of hundreds of dollars. However I believe no president or any other type of leader deserves a break when it comes to war. I question the wisdom of Obama's purpose strikes, because I first question the whole idea of a humanitarian bombing, and secondly the Obama administration not shown a clear outcome on how these purposed strikes is going to help with the overall humanitarian crisis. Plus the dishonesty in Kerry calling military strikes "not an act of war", disturbs me.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Thank you!
Yes, I do sympathise with his position.