Well then maybe we the people should send a message as early as Tuesday that we don't want our government to start another fight. I can't think of anything positive that's been generated out of the past ten years of blowing shit up, so perhaps we should try something new.
And here we are, using outdated modes of communication like forums.
I can't shake the feeling that a lot of this (and Miley Cyrus twerking) is meant to distract us from the NSA discussions that had been going on.
This. Is. Genocide. And it's been going on for nearing 3 years. It needs to stop. Now. It would be immoral and inhuman for the United States and our NATO allies to do nothing.
Oh great, more war. What could possibly go wrong by intervening in an extremely complex dispute where the interests of Iran, Russia, and jihadists all come together? I guess we'll know in a few days how effective the Russian air defenses that Syria bought.
Who here wants to wager that our actions only amplify this firestorm? And who wants to wager that we will eventually be pulled into a ground war or a war with Iran?
I. Want. Proof. It. Was. Assad.
Any number of groups have a vested interest in getting the US/NATO to move against Assad.
And frankly, genocide or not, let someone else step up to the plate. My country has enough of its own shit to fix. I'm tired of all the shit (often, rightfully) we get from many (internally and externally) for being so interventionist. Time to sit things out while we ruminate seriously on our own broken political system, police state, unrepentant corporatocracy, and domestic spying.
I'd most likely have a very strong position on this if not for the fact that I have dis-owned the human race.
But the reaction can't be to do 'something', regardless of whether it will resolve or inflame the situation. The reason for waiting for the UN rather than reacting unilaterally should be to ensure that that 'something' is a meaningful response, which will actually help the people it's supposed to help, rather than the typical US reaction of "blow stuff up until the bad man stops". Because that strategy has worked so well in the past...
Except maybe someone tried to provoke this action.
Earlier in May 2013: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html
Yesterday (Syrian "rebels" used chemical weapons): http://www.aina.org/news/20130826131925.htm
But I guess that would be crazy, it never happened before. As was the case in Iraq and Libya, things will only get worse. But go ahead, spill more blood for the sake of Big Oil. Just don't call it humanitarian intervention.
No it is not. That word has a meaning and it doesn't apply to all war crimes. When you decide to intervene for humanitarian reasons by bombing shit and killing people, you also have to recognize that your actions may further amplify the slaughter, destroy civic institutions, and kill innocent people. You don't intervene unless the cost of not intervening is worse that the destruction that bombing the shit out of a place will cause. Plus, you need to have a decent understanding of the conflict and be prepared not to be pulled in.
The lessons of Vietnam are what we need to pay attention to here in addition to the lessons from Iraq. If you take one step to help your favored political side, it may be that you will completely own a war in a couple of years. The rebellion wants us to be dragged in. Iran doesn't. Let's not pretend that this can't devolve into a proxy war where continual escalation and greater human rights abuses require us to get deeper and deeper involved..
And how well do missile strikes prevent such atrocities? There seems to be a total disinterest in evaluating ways to ensure we actually help these situations. Serbia would work as an example of trying to cure genocide with air strikes, but it was messy before, during, and after; there were some announcements it went awesome and claims it only exacerbated things, and then it seems to have been forgotten. But people have paid more attention to Iraq and Libya, and they are not encouraging.
Over the last 20 years there have been numerous cases where various governments have probably or definitely used chemical weapons against citizens and we've stood by and done nothing. Nothing. Didn't even lodge an objection.
Added to that, there is a chance that the Assad government didn't do this at all. There have been stories floating around for years now that one way to get us involved in Syria was for someone to do something just like this. We've been fooled before. I want absolute proof from another government, not ours. They've lost all credibility. And not one of those governments that asks "how high?" every time we say jump.
But now this.
I'm reminded of General Wesley Clark's remarks about what happened after 9/11, when he was told first that Bush had decided to invade Iraq even it though it had nothing to do with terrorism. Why? The general that was telling him about the plan said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.” Then a few weeks later he was told that the plan had been expanded to "take out" seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finally, Iran.
And he's gone on to tell that story over and over again to everyone that would listen.
Obama doesn't know what to do about the domestic/international spying debacle he's got himself into, he doesn't know what to do about the economy (I mean, Jeebus, Larry Summers for the Fed? Is he insane?), and all of the other distractions he's tried haven't worked. His legacy is probably shot, and the best he can hope for is to pull a draw. He doesn't know what else to do, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments.
This government suffers from some kind of insanity. Call your senator.
Washington is like some kind of bubble that separates itself from the rest of the world. Yes, this is obvious. What we want seems unimportant to them. Pathological indifference. How do we connect these sociopaths back into society for the time being and then how do we get rid of them?
Limited missile strikes can be used to disable the military infrastructure that could be used in launching rockets equipped with chemical weapons.
If, in fact, it was the military. Which is a point you conveniently do not address.
Thats good. Indiscriminate violence.
Isn't that what you purport to be against?
Well he pretty thoroughly blew up the proof didn't he? And intimidated the hell out of the UN inspectors as well. I guess that's only highly suspicious circumstantial evidence, it might have been the Canadians.
Damn people love them some Assad.
1). Did he? Can you prove that was Assad (or his people)? Link to your sources, please?
2). False equivalency is false.
Not wanting to shoot missiles at Syria != I love Assad.
3). Care to try again?
next page →