General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMr President, the Democratic Party is not ready for another war.
Do not be coaxed by the siren call of the war mongers to rush into action in Syria. The Democratic Party will not accept it and you will do great harm to our Party.
The "red line" that you speak of can be applied to indiscriminate bombs dropping from the sky or missiles fired from drones just as much as it can be applied to the "poison gas" that was used by "someone" in the civil war in Syria.
The Democratic Party will not accept unilateral bombing by our country that puts us into yet another war in the Middle East. Beware those that whisper in your ear.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)war in the president's ear. Maybe Susan Rice is fulfilling that role. She has a history of being a war hawk. Hopefully the president is smart enough not to listen.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Looks like Hillary is your huckleberry.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)not? What is your opinion.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)This just reeks of sexism.
(at the very least -- sexism.)
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It is a common expression. "The evil advisor whispered sweet words in the King's ear, to persuade the King to go along with devious plans." It could be a man or woman as the advisor.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I didn't compare Susan Rice to Coni, either:
Sweet words isn't as common as you think. You can google it, I did.
But hey, I guess susan Rice is Condi-like to you, huh?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Is that why you launched that attack on me?
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Not an attack -- it's an observation. I'm pretty sure you don't care about my opinion of Susan Rice. You were the one who said this:
war in the president's ear. Maybe Susan Rice is fulfilling that role. She has a history of being a war hawk. Hopefully the president is smart enough not to listen.
This isn't an attack -- it is me taking issue with what you said about Susan Rice.
Have a nice night, quinnox.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But it would be very hard for us to say "no" to the UK.
-Laelth
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I had a bad feeling. Everytime Cheney makes an appearance...Obama seems to snap to a whip.
Now we've got Kerry giving a Speech this afternoon which caused Jay Carney to reschedule his Daily Morning Briefing to go after Kerry's speech. So, seems he's anticipating the press will have many questions about whatever Kerry says.
that they don't do it. But not much hope that we aren't going to follow the PNAC down the road to hell.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Because if so, I might agree. But this Democrat has a hard time standing by while children get gassed and no one wants to get involved. Don't know the source of the gas, but this has to stop. Bad things happen when good people do nothing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)In Syria. I dont know what weapons would be used, if any in Syria.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, we know where the drones originate.
Gman
(24,780 posts)From shock and awe type stuff. I don't know why we would need to do shock and awe. And I don't see that happening.
atreides1
(16,079 posts)Most of Syria's military facilities are close to cities and towns, like in Iraq...and the last time I checked cruise missiles still don't have the capability of telling the good guys from the bad guys!
More innocent people are going to die, only this time the US and it's European allies will be doing the killing!
Does that make it better, that Western powers will be killing Syrian women and children?
Gman
(24,780 posts)Bush is not prez anymore. There are many options that don't have to include shock and awe.
In any event it's immoral for us to stand idly by and watch kids get gassed. That we know is a fact. Cruise missiles and other things are only speculation.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)US officials have confirmed that President Obamas controversial red line on chemical weapons in Syria has been crossed. But that doesnt mean Americans think he should do anything about it.
If anything, public attitudes toward a US military response in the face of new evidence that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against its own people have hardened, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.
About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought Mr. Obama should act, Reuters reported.
That majority opposition holds even in the face of evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, the poll finds.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2013/0825/Obama-pressured-to-intervene-in-Syria.-Most-Americans-say-no-says-poll-video
Gman
(24,780 posts)But I have a lot of information too. I've been following this all along. I don't know the knowledge level of those surveyed.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Killing to stop killing is like fucking for chastity.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)That's the original I think--remember for the 60s
kentuck
(111,094 posts)..when more women and children are killed by poison gas than are blown to smithereens by bombs and cruise missiles. Otherwise, we should look at murder of innocents in the same way. One is not worse than the other.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Shock and awe this. It's not like we would be looking to occupy Syria. And I doubt we'd go it alone.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)information! Just listen to the rumors and scream about how bad President Obama is! Doesn't matter the subject or the facts just listen to the rumors and scream.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)fletchthedubs
(41 posts)How many children is it ok to kill as long as they're killed by us and not some evil foreigner?
brooklynite
(94,547 posts)It's always interesting when individuals speak for at large groups with such certainty.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)Which was so accurate in their predictions in the last election? There are polls on this subject if we wish to put our faith in them?
brooklynite
(94,547 posts)...and I believe a lot of thoughtful people, including our House and Senate members, don't know either.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)That is all we have. That is all that anyone has. My opinion is that it would be unwise to go into Syria or to drop bombs on them unilaterally. Syria is in the midst of a civil war and I think little success ever comes from getting involved in civil wars. Of course, there is a point where the world cannot tolerate mass killings, whether by bombs or by poison gas.
brooklynite
(94,547 posts)...You opined on behalf of the entire Party.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)That is my opinion about the Party. Furthermore, I would opine that the entire world would be against us.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I agree with you. Let those proposing a rush to war volunteer for combat duty.
We can never know the contents of security briefings being given to President Obama. After Iraq, I will never trust a President, Secretaries of State and Defense to tell the truth.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)But if you don't know what the answer is then why is the default position to trust in bombs as a method to solve this problem.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They should be illegal.
RC
(25,592 posts)I for one would like to know the reason for the 180° turn around between his campaign rhetoric and his Presidential actions.
The real solution is to stop supplying the world with war toys, guns and ammunition. Consecrate on the problem in this country and let Russia and China bankrupt themselves killing people, if they wish. For that is what we are doing now, killing people too poor to buy our MIC merchandise.
CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)The opening scene is incredible. The whole movie is very sobering.
War Horse
(931 posts)But I agree, he could be coaxed into it. As much as I respect him, he seems a bit... I dunno, pliable?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)His problem is his conflicting ideologies. He doesn't like war because of the costs involved. However, he tends to see violence and acts of war as "solutions" to problems, and apparently often the first solution. He has as yet never really given any other approach a chance. His apparent second choice really should be his first. More of these problems should be handled earlier with international law enforcement.
doc03
(35,332 posts)the script is already written and it doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)They know that polls are temporary and they can always change them once the bombs start falling.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Absolutely nothing..."
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...is that this President dances with the ones what brung him to the dance. Bought him his flowers. And paid for his dinner.
- Now he is expected to ''put out.'' It's an old American pastime......
[center][/center]
MelungeonWoman
(502 posts)I suspect Cheney behind those attacks. He would profit as much as anyone from war.
Follow the money.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)being drawn into another war in the Middle East which can only cost us billions of dollars and turn out badly in the end.
LynnTTT
(362 posts)We didn't interfere in Rwanda.
We didn't interefere in the Balkans.
We stepped in very late in the breakup of Yugoslavia
We didn't and won't interfere in Somalia.
And it's possible that many innocent people died because of our delays. Or not.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)We cannot be the policeman of the world. As usual, we will choose where our "interests" lie. The lives of women and children have little bearing on the matter.
railsback
(1,881 posts)When we speak of humanitarian rights, we only speak of OUR humanitarian rights. The rest can go @#%$ themselves.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)wait until Hillary gets into office to declare her wars, which are nothing more than the bidding of AIPAC. You have already tried so hard to woo the very people that will be stabbing you in the back and trashing you after you leave, the Clinton voters included!
locks
(2,012 posts)The points made in this thread are well taken and I hope we make them to our legislators. Some news says only 7% of Americans want Obama to go into Syria; the problem is that our leaders listen to the voices of power, big oil, big international corporations, world bankers, and dictators and warhawks when we need them on our side.
Kerry is talking about our morality, the dead Syrian children, how we can't sit back while Syria uses chemical weapons on its own people. What do we do in Congo where thousands are being raped and murdered by their own people? What have we done about the thousands of Haitian children killed by cholera brought in by UN soldiers? Is it ok if the drones killing Afghans come from the US but not ok from Pakistan and Yemen? Or if the bombs used by Israelis and Palestinians to kill children were sold to them by the US?
We pick and choose our wars just like we pick and choose our version of ethics and morality. War does nothing but destroy lives, souls and conscience.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)There will be some bombings of suspected chemical warfare plants and perhaps a few other military targets. That's about it. I think no one in the WH has any interest in going to war with anyone at this point.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)Please don't get angry if we bomb you...
DCBob
(24,689 posts)This country has done punitive attacks in the past that have not lead to war... but of course you knew that.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)But, of course, you probably knew that?
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)chemicals and making matters worse.