The disconnect by Americans re violence in Syria is sickening.

[Bonobo]

What the FUCK do Americans think the US has been doing for the last 13 years?

Yeah, scream about Assad.

It IS horrible. It is terrible and horrible and sickening and ghastly and barbarous, and inhuman and all of that!

And it is also what has been happening EVERY SINGLE WEEK and several times per week sometimes during the Obama administration.

So take that shock, that disgust and then remember you are paying for and VOTING for the SAME THING.

Countries do not HAVE to kill other people for security. There are plenty of countries (in fact almost ALL countries) that do NOT send planes, drones and soldiers into other countries where they kill people.

It's pretty much JUST the US.

Seriously, digest that for a minute.

:getting off high horse now:

[arely staircase]

1. you are actually comparing US drone strikes to gassing civilians and napalming children?

We have done some fucked up things but a US/Assad moral equivalency argument is fallacious. For the record I am on the fence as to what to do in Syria if anything. I am glad I don't have to make the decision. But I trust Obama to make the right one and I thank God that he and not a repub is in the White House.

[Bonobo]

4. Yup. I am.

Go figure.

[PatrynXX]

122. yep your pretty sick :(

[fascisthunter]

125. if somebody dropped a bomb on your loved ones

and somebody else gassed other loved ones of yours, who's sicker?

[arely staircase]

131. none more than the other

but if someone dropped a bomb on those gassing or bombing my loved ones and stopped said gassing/bombing I would approve.

[fascisthunter]

156. and I'd agree... but I don't have loved ones in this

and nobody really knows who is doing what, so your point doesn't really apply to DUers.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. Dead is dead.

Sarin, napalm, rocket attack, drone strike. Some would like you to forget that.

[Carolina]

8. Touche, dead is dead

and the US has used atomic bombs, napalm, Agent Orange, white phosphorus, depleted uranium and of course lead in bullets and bombs.

What moral authority
What hypocrisy

[RC]

25. We just sell the nerve gas used by certain other countries, "on their own people".

So that makes it OK, right?

[Rockyj]

110. & only bomb countrys that didn't attack for MIC & Corporate Oil

Tell me if this isn't why Military Industrial Complex wants us to strike!

"More than a year ago, a $10 billion Pipelineistan deal was clinched between Iran, Iraq and Syria for a natural gas pipeline to be built by 2016 from Iran's giant South Pars field, traversing Iraq and Syria, with a possible extension to Lebanon. Key export target market: Europe."

"...Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline would be essential to diversify Europe's energy supplies away from Russia."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201285133440424621.html”

[Spitfire of ATJ]

120. We ordered them not to do it and they got uppity.

[Enthusiast]

133. And small pox, syphilis, LSD

and who knows what else. All in the name of freedom.

[Niceguy1]

10. big difference

The us goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties and this character intentionally causes them

[Bonobo]

11. It doesn't make that big of a difference

if your child gets blown up.

For no real reason, I might add.

[Niceguy1]

18. war sucks

But the historical numbers don't lie...... deapite our beat efforts it is imposaibe to conduct a war with killing civilians but the US doea its best to reduce that

[Bonobo]

21. The problem, again, is that the US is in a state of

warfare without war.

So, how does it end?

Why would it end if security is predicated on it continuing.

So the deaths will climb and climb and climb, etc.

[Niceguy1]

24. when have humans been peacefull?

Heck, even the Europeans who many here thinks are superior to the us don't really get along and have jad some major dust ups not too long ago

[Bonobo]

28. Sorry, not buying. nt

[Niceguy1]

29. americans have been coddled too much

The real world is a viscous place.... we really do have it good here. No wars on our turf since for a really long time.

[Bonobo]

30. Dude, most countries don't act like the US.

Face it.

Ask a Swede if it's necessary to kill for security.

[Niceguy1]

37. I am sure if we didn't bail out europe they might think

Different. Personally, I don't think we should be responsable for their security but it might keep the peace in the long run....aince they have a history. If intervention prevents a bigger conflict in the long run it may be worth it.

[Scootaloo]

53. So just to make all this clear...

1) The US is extra-nice when it kills civilians because it's an accident, and so we can't be criticized for it.
2) War sucks, we just have to accept it and move on with the bombing campaign.
3) People fight all the time, so who cares?
4) Americans are too coddled (and the planet is gooey?)
5) America saved Europe from itself.

I hate to be "that guy," but... are you lost? Did you take a left when you meant to go right? 'Cause these are some rather obvious tells you've got going on there, Niceguy.

[HangOnKids]

108. Thanks for that Scoot

The obvious tells have been obvious for a long time.

[Arcanetrance]

97. Most swedes would probably say one should always be ready to kill for your countries security

Sweden also is a country with compulsory military service

[chervilant]

154. The world is a "viscous" place?

You might benefit from reading LaFeber's "The American Age." Your rosy perception of US "viscousness" might change considerably.

(Please avoid being vicious in your rebuttal...)

[ronnie624]

145. "even the Europeans who many here thinks are superior to the us"

You couldn't support that with evidence if your life depended on it. You're employing wingnut stereotypes of liberals and progressives.

[Niceguy1]

147. no, I am just countering

The typical "the us is bad" meme.....many here have questioned whether the US has the "moral authority" to act on syrias behaviour.

[Capt. Obvious]

106. We've always been at war with Eastasia

[frylock]

130. that's comforting..

for some.

[go west young man]

134. I beg to differ on doing our best to reduce casualties.

Civilian casualties have increased ten fold since we started using drones, whereas a pilot in an aircraft reduces the risk of casualties percentage wise, yet we have increased the use of drones. Hence we are not doing our best to reduce civilian casualties. We are settling for more civilian deaths. Link here: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/07/03/study-drones-killed-more-civilians-than-jet-fighters.html

[WatermelonRat]

117. It's an immense difference.

It's the difference between no-fault accidents, civil liability, criminal negligence, manslaughter, and murder. When you're talking about law - including international law - this is an important distinction.

[KG]

13. 'The us goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties' -what an absurd notion.

[Niceguy1]

15. every war fir the last century

The civial death to enemy death rate has gotten better fir the us...

I know from peraonal experience..... whether your personal biases let you believe that or not.

[Bonobo]

19. Too bad the US is not at war with anyone, eh? nt

[Niceguy1]

23. no sane person wants it

It really suck, I know that personally bit it will happen.

Humans are aleays at war... world peace has never happened and probably never will.

I think stepping in to stop the blood shed in Syria might be a good thing of they continue to attack like they have been.

[niyad]

45. "humans are always at war"--well, since the patriarch took over, anyway.

[Enthusiast]

135. I know, war is great!

We should have another war, bigger! People do it all the time. We need more of it, that much is obvious. We don't need no stinkin' personal biases. But we do need more war. War has improved! Yay war!

Did they actually think you could convince us? I think you are exhibit A of how badly that NSA money is wasted. $52 billion per year at least.

[treestar]

89. that's the very purpose of drones.

You would prefer gas attacks? The same people condemning drones say dead is dead and use of gas is no different. And were probably against the bombing of Hiroshima. Yet dead and dead.

Now I'm seeing opposition just for opposition's sake, with no consistency.

[rhett o rick]

114. So you support bombing Syria? nm

[treestar]

116. OMG. You really think that response is a valid one?

Classic deflection of an issue. Black and white thinking.

I don't know what I support yet, not being willing to jump to conclusions. Bad arguments don't help. In fact they help indicate you may not have good ones.

[rhett o rick]

118. I think it's a straight forward question. Either you do or you dont.

I notice that some here are critical of those that are against bombing but are careful not to actually commit themselves.

Here's where I stand.

Why should we be the almighty decider in this conflict?

Why are we ignoring the UN isn’t that conservative behavior?

We have no business judging the Syrian government's human rights after what we did in Iraq and Vietnam.

I firmly believe our interference will not help and, based on historical evidence, will make things worse.

We cant afford to be the world's police force. What part of WE CANT AFFORD, doesn’t the Admin understand?

What safety net will we have to give up to wage this war, SS or Medicare?

Where do you stand?

[treestar]

119. We can judge them for what they are doing now

It's silly to give it a pass because the US once did something bad, and none of it was like this - the only real comparable is dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

But the OP raised an issue and everyone on one side is deflecting it.

You have to be prepared to admit that we should not do anything about this use of chemical weapons and those are the breaks for the people killed or to be killed on that. Even if the US admits we once dropped an atomic bomb, so we have no moral right to judge - it would sound like an excuse to do nothing and probably be condemned as such.

[heaven05]

49. ????

"the us goes out of it's way to avoid civilian casualties". Really? Tell that to the 100,000 plus civilian casualties of the Iraq war. If assad is doing this, it is still an internal matter. It is a civil dispute, civil war as it were. We have no business in this unless there is a clear and present danger to us and it's citizens. That's my take.

[tblue]

56. How do you know?

What's your source on that? I'm not saying we target civilians, just that I don't believe we have been all that precise. And we sure haven't let the "inadvertent" death of innocents deter us from doing it over and over again. Or even owning the devastation and fear we have caused.

[pokerfan]

63. When we bomb the first responders and then the funerals,

how is that going out of our way to avoid civilian casualties?

between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/afghanistan-pakistan/secret-war/new-study-asserts-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-target-rescuers-funerals/

But attacking rescuers (and arguably worse, bombing funerals of America's drone victims) is now a tactic routinely used by the US in Pakistan. In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that "the CIA's drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

[rhett o rick]

112. That's not true. In Vietnam B-52's carpet bombed, killing indiscriminately. They

also sprayed chemicals on villages. We gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons that he used on Iranians and his own people.
We continue to use land mines and cluster bombs that are not particular who they kill.

I guess for some, rationalization is the key to happiness.

[Snake Plissken]

132. The US goes out of it's way to avoid civilian casualties?

Have you taken a look at at how many Americans civilian casualties are caused by firearms in this country or due to lack of health insurance coverage in this country?

This guy kills are few hundred people and we have to send out our military. The filth on Wall St kills a thousand times as many Americans for profit and they get to profit off our military being sent out to Syria as a reward.

The only thing the US goes out of it's way for is to line the pockets of billionaires.

[marew]

146. Amen! nt

[treestar]

88. To the individuals, but to society

a weapon that kills many at one time, with little effort on the weapon user, is more dangerous. If someone went there with a gun, more people could escape or fight back. Alive is alive, too. Using gas there are more not alive. God this is getting ridiculous. You're just completely overlooking the potential with chemical weapons. It's frustrating.

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. dead is NOT dead

you ever watched a roach get hit with Raid? How about dying slowly with no control over your bodily fluids....burnt on the outside and slowly drowning in your own fluids while not being able to see or breathe...losing your stomach and bowel content foaming at the mouth...because it causes the nervous system to start overproducing the fluids non stop....

[Enthusiast]

136. You're describing the kind of sentence that should be

passed on authoritarians that fake up reasons to go to war.

[Surya Gayatri]

14. Nailed it...

Fallacious equivalency, indeed.

[DirkGently]

38. Wait. Drone strikes don't kill civilians and children?

2) The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about US drone strikes:[3]
(As of July 2013)
Total strikes: 370
Total reported killed: 2,548 - 3,549
Civilians reported killed: 411 - 890
Children reported killed: 168 - 197
Total reported injured: 1,177 - 1,480
Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
Strikes under the Obama Administration: 318

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

We can argue superior motives all we want, but at a certain point, dead people you have no right to be killing are all the same.

How many times are we going to buy the argument that when the U.S. / wealthy / allied countries wage war in the Middle East, it is only out of a sense of moral urgency, when

- We actually kill more people than the proposed evil dictators
- We don't act the same way at all regarding Africa, or anywhere else that is not as strategically important
- We ignore atrocities, by the same people, some of whom we helped install, for as long as it is convenient.

These are not secrets. We know how this works. We are rationalizing violent intervention for strategic and commercial reasons.

Some people think that's okay. That we need to be hip-deep in the ME at all times to keep the oil flowing, or to keep Russia or China from gaining more influence, or because Halliburton and Blackwater profits will trickle down or whatever.

Why can't we talk about that, instead of pretending, again and again and again, that we are white-knighting around "for the good of the people?"

Nobody thinks that.

[tblue]

58. Oh DirkGently.

Copy and save your entire post. I have a feeling you're gonna be needing it a lot around here.

That was excellent. I'm saving it too!

[hfojvt]

78. dead people are all the same

except that 900 dead people (in five? years of drone attacks) are not the same as 70,000 dead people (in TWO years of the Syrian civil war as of 28 April).

Consider that in 2011, there were 497 people murdered in the United States who were under the age of 4. There were 946 under the age of 16. That's more dead American children in ONE year than in five plus years of drone attacks.

Now suppose Adam A$$hat had survived Newtown and was holed up somewhere with a band of merry men planning another attack on a school. Would it be worthwhile to take him and some of his cohorts out with a drone strike before they could complete their next attack? Or their next attack? Or their next attack? Maybe he shoots up another five schools before the police finally kill him. That would be hundreds of dead kids.

Compared to a few regrettably killed in a drone attack, how is that not a net positive?

[BeyondGeography]

83. Inconvenient truths

The numbers have been reported as high as 100K killed to date, more than half civilians, but your point is spot on.

[DirkGently]

107. So now we're going to win the Syrian civil war?

What's being discussed are "punitive" strikes to avenge possible chemical weapons use. If you're proposing the U.S. go to war with Assad, that's another idea entirely, and it's a bad one, too.

What you're talking about is Vietnam.

How well did that work?

How well did Iraq work?

[chervilant]

155. Dude! Awesome post!

And, we need more like it to wake the sheeple!

[tblue]

54. "I trust Obama"

Oh boy. Sigh. On what do you base this trust? (Not just of BO, but of any pol.)

Killing with drones is just as awful and immoral as killing by any other means. It's not okay just because it's us or because it's Obama doing it. IMHO. Ask the families of the deceased.

[bowens43]

55. Dead is dead. One weapon is not morally superior to another. They are exactly the same thing.

the US has been murdering people for decades. Where's the outrage?

[MNBrewer]

57. Do you think our drone strikes haven't killed innocent civilians, including children?

[HardTimes99]

62. No, only terrorists disguised as children :sarcasm: <--Poe's Law - nt

[treestar]

86. +1

We are Democrats and liberals. Thus we do not want to do absolutely nothing about a gassing attack. If it happens again, we are to just stand by? Which guess who would be condemning that? The same people.

[daa]

103. Bullshit dead is dead

White phosphorous by Israel in Gaza? Radiation tipped bombs in Iraq. Agent Orange in Viet Nam.

[sulphurdunn]

124. Moral equivalence and party preference are red herrings.

The President has no authority under domestic or international law to launch a unilateral, unprovoked and unsanctioned attack against Syria, regardless of what that government has done to defend itself in this civil war.

[dflprincess]

127. Countries that use napalm on children should be bombed

Unless, of course, it is the U.S. killing children. Then it's being done for the greater good.

[Swagman]

153. I don't trust any US president to make the right choice on past experience

everyone of them has had murderous intent.

[99Forever]

2. K&R

[Little Star]

3. k&r True!

[cali]

6. only 9% of Americans support military strikes on Syria

according to the most recent figures.

You make it sound like it's the reverse of those numbers.

[Bonobo]

7. I am not talking about supporting strikes.

Condemnation of Assad's behavior is universal.

How UNIVERSAL here is condemnation of Obama's?

[Carolina]

9. K&R

[joshcryer]

12. Americans are a blood thirsty bunch. Assad is 70x as bloodthirsty.

Civilian deaths in the drone war: http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

Civilian deaths attributed to Syria's civil war: http://syrianshuhada.com/default.asp?lang=en&a=st&st=7

Drones still poll high: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161474/support-drone-attacks-terrorists-abroad.aspx

Unless they're used to catch speeders: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-12/poll-drone-use-speeders/55554424/1

Yeah, American priorities are fucked.

[kelliekat44]

17. When was the last time Assad bombed another country clear across the sea? nt

[joshcryer]

22. I thought we were concerned about innocent murders.

Not state sovereignty.

If you want to move the goalposts I think drones have implicit support from the leaders of countries where they happen because often they're based (launched) nearby, sometimes within the countries own borders, and every time a wedding gets blown up there are no charges filed in the International Criminal Court.

[DirkGently]

50. Wait. Blowing up a wedding is okay if no "charges" are filed?

Where are YOUR goalposts, exactly?

We've been fine with Assad's bloodthirstiness for decades. As we were with Saddam's.

No one is contemplating military action in Syria because they just realized Assad is a bad guy.

It's being contemplated because "WMD," a meaningless term where chemical weapons count, but high explosives delivered from the sky do not, is a convenient rationale with which powerful countries can paint less powerful ones as morally inferior.

That's setting aside the fact it's not clear what weapons were used, by whom, on who's orders, and that our very recent history includes all levels of government lying about / kidding themselves about this very topic for the express purpose of rationalizing a hugely destructive war which served no valid purpose.

[joshcryer]

51. I did not say that.

I believe drone strikes are a war crime. But no charges are being filed in every instance. The charges should be filed but they are not. That implies that the countries that are at the receiving end of the strikes are implicitly allowing them.

[Rex]

91. Charges? Where would they file these charges?

nt.

[joshcryer]

128. International Criminal Court

[green917]

138. the United States is not a member state of the icc

we have, repeatedly, declined to join the international criminal court ( probably because we've been violating other nations' sovereignty for years now by extraordinarily rendering their citizens from off of their streets or bombing their territory with our drone strikes) so any " charges" filed there would have zero effect on our actions!

[joshcryer]

141. ICC jurisdiction covers "crimes within territory of a state party."

The United States, acting outside of its own territory, against another state, would fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC, unquestionably. Read Article 12.

Turns out Bush Jr. has already been convicted of war crimes in Malaysia.

[DirkGently]

109. Pakistan is complicit to one degree or another. Doesn't

make it not war crime as to the people being killed though, does it?

We have a complex relationship with the largely corrupt and historically uneven systems of control in Pakistan. They have complained about strikes. They have retaliated here and there (closing supply routes). They clearly allow it to one extent or another.

But as long as it's our bombs dropping, to whatever degree we're killing people we have no right to, that's on us.

[joshcryer]

129. No it doesn't.

It isn't totally clear why charges aren't filed. It's probably mostly due to reparations and political backroom dealing, but it could also be that there is intelligence sharing and that ultimately targets are legitimate (no state will protect belligerents and the Geneva Conventions specifically say that they don't get protection).

In the event of complicity then it is not the acting state that is at fault but the state which allows its own people to be wholesale murdered. Drones aren't exactly invisible, they can be easily shot down. There are in fact anti-drone war politicians in Pakistan who are for shooting down American drones.

Complaining is meaningless, politicians talk a lot of talk, it's when actual actions are done that tell you the story and so far no ICC filings have been made, much to my dismay.

[truedelphi]

151. + My household. n/t

[summer-hazz]

139. No international charges

"If you want to move the goalposts I think drones have implicit support from the leaders of countries where they happen because often they're based (launched) nearby, sometimes within the countries own borders, and every time a wedding gets blown up there are no charges filed in the International Criminal Court".

are filed because everyone in and around the weding is dead..

[joshcryer]

140. It would be up to the states AG or equivalent.

The state Attorney General would go to the International Criminal Court with the evidence of the murders and make the case. It would be fairly easy to do.

(Might require the Secretary of State or equivalent as well.)

Bush Jr. can't go to Malaysia because he's already been convicted of War Crimes there, and if he found himself standing around, the police would likely put him in chains to be taken to the ICC.

[summer-hazz]

142. Thank you for sharing that

information. I had no ideal... Now if we could just get him to Malaysia...


We could tell him there is a golf course that wants to give him the course...lol

[joshcryer]

143. Switzerland wants Bush for torture, too.

BTW, sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-torture_n_819175.html

http://firedoglake.com/2012/05/13/war-crimes-conviction-–-malaysian-tribunal-finds-bush-et-al-guilty/

[summer-hazz]

144. Excellent!!! I will copy/past and read it this long weekend...

So sweet of you to share.. TU again.. "

[davidpdx]

35. The speeders

Why does that not surprise me. They have cameras all over the place here. The problem is people know where they are.

[Caretha]

41. The US

has no moral high ground to claim. The below info is for Iraq alone and does not include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen....on and on.

I don't know that I can support your statement that Assad is 70x as blood thirsty as the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

Iraq Body Count project (IBC) is a web-based effort to record civilian deaths resulting from the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Included are deaths attributable to coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and criminal violence, which refers to excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion. As of December 2012, the IBC has recorded 110,937-121,227 civilian deaths. The IBC has a media-centered approach to counting and documenting the deaths. Other sources have provided differing estimates of deaths, some much higher. See Casualties of the Iraq War.

[joshcryer]

43. Comparing Obama's drone war to Assad's civil war.

Bush's war was illegal and didn't have the support of Americans at the end. Now 90%+ of Americans are against a strike in Syria. Cruise missiles = bad. Drones = OK.

I'm pointing out up to date data here, as I think Americans have tired of ground wars in exchange for drone wars.

[bornskeptic]

105. According to this poll 42% support military action, or 50% if the action is cruise missile strikes.

Q8 It has been reported that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its citizens. Do you think
the United States should take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of
chemical weapons or not?
Yes, should take military action .................. 42
No, should not take military action .............. 50
Not sure .................................................... 8
Q8X Now, more specifically, if U.S. military action in Syria were limited to air strikes using cruise missiles
launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
Support ................................................................. 50
Oppose ................................................................. 44
Not sure .............................................................. 6
* Data reflects responses among 291 adults interviewed on 8/29

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf

The poll people are quoting that put support at 9% just asked respondents if they supported US intervention in Syria. Most people are going to be reluctant to answer yes to a question like that unless they support any type of intervention, including a ground invasion. Most people who support airstrikes are going to answer that they are undecided, or perhaps opposed.

[niyad]

44. agent orange, anyone? napalm? depleted uranium? any of those ring a bell?

[joshcryer]

48. Yup, Americans just like drones as a kindler, gentler killer.

[HardTimes99]

69. We (the US Marine Corps) also allegedly used white phosphor as an anti-personnel munition

in the razing of Fallujah in April and November of 2004.

Don't have links to support this handy, as relying on memories only.

[niyad]

81. I remember hearing that at the time, even without the links.

just googled it--122,000 hits

this is just the first page:

About 122,000 results (0.33 seconds)
Search Results

White phosphorus use in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq‎
Jump to Use in Fallujah - In April 2004, during the First Battle of Fallujah, after the fall ... a Marine mortar team using a mixture of white phosphorus ...
‎White phosphorus - ‎Use in Fallujah - ‎Use in Halabja - ‎External links
Fallujah Video - Italian Documentary on use of Phosphorus ...
chris-floyd.com/fallujah/‎
Defense Tech US Army Admits USE of white phosphorus as weapon. ... U.S. drives into heart of Fallujah Army, Marines face rockets and bombs in battle to take ...
BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes and Media Lies | Global Research
www.globalresearch.ca/bbc-and-fallujah-war-crimes-and-media.../1228
Media coverup on the use of White Phosphorous bombs .... (from VIOLENCE SUBSIDES FOR MARINES IN FALLUJAH by DARRIN MORTENSON, North County ...
U.S. drives into heart of Fallujah / Army, Marines face rockets and ...
www.sfgate.com/.../U-S-drives-into-heart-of-Fallujah-Army-2637064.ph...‎
Nov 10, 2004 - Marines fighting to the west of the Army units advanced to the main east- west highway that ... Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that .... To use commenting, you need to sign up.
The fog of war: white phosphorus, Fallujah and some burning ...
www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas‎
by Andrew Buncombe - in 27 Google+ circles
Nov 15, 2005 - Specifically, controversy has focussed on white phosphorus shells (WP) - an ... Jeff Englehart, a former marine who spent two days in Fallujah during ... attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah.
U.S. Broadcast Exclusive–"Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" on the ...
►►
www.democracynow.org/.../u_s_broadcast_exclusiv...‎
Nov 28, 2007
In the film, eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say white phosphorus bombs were used in Fallujah. Rai says ...
DU, White Phosphorus and the Story of Fallujah
readersupportednews.org/.../8617-du-white-phosphorus-and-the-story-of...‎
Nov 27, 2011 - "By taking down Fallujah, the Marines denied a sanctuary for the ... The United States has admitted to using white phosphorus in Fallujah, ...
White phosphorus and war crimes in Fallujah » peoplesworld
www.peoplesworld.org/white-phosphorus-and-war-crimes-in-fallujah/‎
Dec 2, 2005 - White phosphorus and war crimes in Fallujah ... of Fallujah in Iraq in October and November 2004, the U.S. Marines ... But diligent researchers quickly found a very direct admission of an antipersonnel use of white phosphorus ...
Daily Kos: US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon
www.dailykos.com/.../-US-Army-Admits-Use-of-White-Phosphorus-as-...‎
Nov 9, 2005 - there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly ... regarding the April 2004 attacks on Fallujah by the Marines:.
US Marine comes forward, says military used white phosphorus in ...
insomnia.livejournal.com/630212.html?thread=4346821‎
U.S. Marine comes forward, says military used white phosphorus in Fallujah. ... categorically denying all use of white phosporus during the battle of Fallujah ...

[HardTimes99]

84. Thanks for the supporting documentation. I've never picked up the habit

of uisng Google to look for support for my claims and your post reminds me that this is as good a time as any.

[niyad]

87. you are most welcome. that is one handy tool, amoung many.

[kelliekat44]

16. The US had its chance to carry out humane actions in Rwanda where there was no chance for

the kind of repercussions that come from attacking a Sovereign nation armed to the teeth that is NOT a direct threat to us. We didn't do what we could to help poor helpless Africans being raped, killed and maimed, by a rag-tag military armed with rifles and shoulder launchers. You have to ask yourself are we really about being humane and protecting innocent lives or is there something else at work with Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia etc,? The answer my friend is blowing in the neocon wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.

[Civilization2]

20. War begets war, peace begets peace. Oppose war, support peace.

"According to the United Nations, a total of 1,057 Iraqis, including 928 civilians, were killed and another 2,326 were wounded in terrorist attacks throughout the country in July -- the deadliest month in Iraq since 2008."

This is just last month! I don't think there was a civil war in Iraq before the US "liberated" it from the evil ruler,. who just happened to threaten to move the counties oil sales off the Petrol-Dollar.

The military is a tool of the corporate-banksters, and their war for global domination by any means,. it is NOT used to help people,. their is no humanitarian bombing,. this is an oxymoronic idea.

[HumansAndResources]

31. Yes - Thank You

When will people stop believing the supposed reasons for war?

A good start is turning off the Tee Vee Box, with "programming" provided by the MIC-affiliates.

Next is Following The Money - All of it: To Politicians, Think Tanks, Universities, Foundations, and Madison Avenue P.R. Firms. Internationally: NGOs, NED (=CIA), and those "activist" organizations we hear about. Billionaires have Agendas - Surprise !!

[another_liberal]

26. "Countries do not HAVE to kill other people for security."

Thank you for stating that quite clearly.

And, yes, we Americans have killed and maimed more innocent civilians in the last dozen years than Assad ever will.

[xchrom]

27. du rec.

[Blanks]

32. Wasn't it a really long time between when Saddam gassed his people...

and we attacked. Indicating that we let that go for a while - and Saddam is every bit as dead, there's no need to hurry.

Maybe they're just gassing their people because they read somewhere that our cops are gassing people who are peacefully protesting. Perhaps they're just trying to impress us. Maybe they didn't have pepper spray - so they decided to use the gas that the CIA 'loaned' them. Maybe they didn't know pepper spray could be used to antagonize people.

What gives us the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries. At best we should issue a statement that it is OK for them to use pepper spray like we do, but make it clear that we frown on deadly gas.

And then we should frown really hard at them, give them some pepper spray and get back to rebuilding our infrastructure.

Anyone with WMDs has to have gotten them from us - because we go to war if we find out that other countries 'might' be making such things.

I knew something like this was gonna happen when everyone was so obsessed with the secret government. This is their fund raiser. Of course it's a bit of an uphill battle because of the old "can't be fooled again" - saying, but they are kind of a one trick pony.

[olegramps]

39. We overlooked that because they were our buddies in a war against Iran.

It was a proxy war between the U.S. and the USSR with us supplying Iraq and the Soviets supplying Iran. Remember Rumsfield meeting with Sadam and shaking his hand for the Photo-op. As far as us getting involved in the Syrian situation I would vote for not becoming involved and rather taking the case to the UN for resolution seeking to condemn holding those responsible for using poison gas on civilians. It should be treated as a war crime.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Saddam gassed the Kurds, 4 months later Rumsfeld was shaking his hand, sent by Reagan to

make nice with the gasser. It was 14 years later that we attacked, nothing to do with the gassing of which we had clearly indicated if not approval, acceptance.

[Blanks]

113. It seemed that there was a lot of chatter...

About the gassing (as an example of his evilness) prior to our attack. Primarily to demonstrate his willingness to use WMDs.

I say we wait 14 years before we attack Syria. Until then we can let the UN do what the UN was created to do.

[HardTimes99]

76. Ahem, Saddam "allegedly" gassed his own people. That allegation has never been

proven. At the same time as Saddam was supposedly 'gassing his people' (which we supposedly knew about at the time), Reagan was sending RummyDummy to Baghdad as his secret envoy to restore diplomatic relations with the Great Satan. Except in 1983, Saddam was viewed as the great defender against Islamic Shii'is reaching the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia). At the same time, we were selling ("trading&quot Iran arms for hostages, thereby entitling people in the middle east to rightly say we were arming both sides in the war.

Photo of the infamous Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake (1983):

[a la izquierda]

149. I was just talking about this photo...

earlier today.

[Whisp]

33. There you go falling off that high horse of yours

and hurting your head.

[Oakenshield]

34. Absolutely agree.

Recc'd.

[Katashi_itto]

36. The only reson we are going to war is that MIC needs a boost to their quarterly profits.

And a group of execs want bigger bonuses. When that happens the White House dances to their tune.

After all those missiles are getting somewhat old.

[Historic NY]

42. No disconnect here, they will kill each other with or w/o our intervention..

so let some other coutry like France handle it.

[geek tragedy]

46. So, you think Obama is worse than Assad, but how dare anyone accuse you of being an Obama-hater, nt

[leftstreet]

60. Where does the OP mention Obama?

I missed it

[geek tragedy]

65. .

And it is also what has been happening EVERY SINGLE WEEK and several times per week sometimes during the Obama administration. ... remember you are paying for and VOTING for the SAME THING.

I will have to ignore the OP's advice and will not wet my undies out of shame for having voted for Obama on multiple occasions.

[leftstreet]

67. 'administration'

I don't see anything comparing Assad to Obama

[geek tragedy]

70. "remember you are paying for and VOTING for the SAME THING"

The post was explicitly comparing Obama's drone strikes with the use of poison gas on civilians.

So, yeah, the OP is trying to have it both ways, and failing.

[leftstreet]

72. Do Syrians vote?

[geek tragedy]

74. No, there's a dictator who butchers them if they try.

But we're hypocrites if we treat that differently than what Obama does.

[leftstreet]

80. LOL

You're just being silly now

I thought the OP was about hypocrisy and I didn't read it as a comparison between Obama and Assad, but if you did I can see where you'd be highly offended

[Rex]

92. Some spend their entire time on DU looking for shadows.

nt.

[leftstreet]

95. Eyes the size of white poker chips

divining sticks out, lurching around the forums for the slightest whiff of Obama Criticism™

[Rex]

98. I've seen that picture before.

[leftstreet]

99. LOL

!!

[MNBrewer]

61. Nothing of the sort was said in the OP.

[geek tragedy]

66. asdf

And it is also what has been happening EVERY SINGLE WEEK and several times per week sometimes during the Obama administration.

So take that shock, that disgust and then remember you are paying for and VOTING for the SAME THING.

[MNBrewer]

68. You explicitly said WORSE than Assad.

That makes an equivalency, if anything. your characterization of WORSE is unsupported even by your own evidence.

[geek tragedy]

71. You see, Assad only used poison gas once, but Obama does something just as bad every week.,

That's that the OP is arguing.

Given the OP's record of hating on Obama, not surprising.

[MNBrewer]

75. i think you're being overly sensitive and unreasonable

I think you're confusing principled opposition to Obama's policies with "hating on Obama".

[SunSeeker]

150. Oh please. Bonobo just lost it over in the BOG tonight.

Obama haters love trolling the Barack Obama Group. Actual Bonobo quote to a BOGer: "I drink your sweet tears of frustration."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110214504#post79

[rhett o rick]

115. Putting words in other posters mouths is getting pretty low. You getting desperate? nm

[niyad]

47. k and r

[BeyondGeography]

52. And where else did 3K civilians get killed by terrorists one fine morning?

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Talk about disconnects...

[leftstreet]

59. The US kills its own people 'for security'

The US is a death penalty country and uses eye-for-an-eye diplomacy within its own borders

This country needs to grow up

DURec

[HardTimes99]

64. My friend, it may help to keep this simple aphorism in mind:

When the strong commit terrorism against the weak, the strong justify it by calling it 'war.' When the weak wage war against the strong, the strong whine about it and call it 'terrorism.'

This has something of the quality of a Zen koa about it, I grant you. But does help to make the hypocrisy understandable, even if still unacceptable and unpalatable.

[geek tragedy]

73. So, you're considering Assad the weak as he 'wages war; against the strong

forces of children in playgrounds?

[HardTimes99]

77. Oh, puh-leeze, spare me the NeoCon bullshit - nt

[geek tragedy]

79. How would you characterize what the Assad regime is doing--comitting terrorism against

the weak, or waging war against the strong?

[HardTimes99]

93. Seems to me you're trying to hijack the thread from the OP's point, which is that the U.S.

has no moral standing to wax sanctimonious about other forces' use of killing technologies. When the U.S. uses drones to kill anonymously and from great heights, we justify their use with the Law of War. When irregulars such as Al Qaida use suicide bombers to kill, we castigate them by calling the tactic 'terrorism.'

But, since you asked, I would respond that civil wars are far more complicated and difficult to assess combatants' relative strengths and weaknesses than are conventional conflicts between nation states or between a nation state and a body of irregulars like Al Qaida. One argument I've seen against Assad's use of CBW on his own people is that he was on the verge of winning the civil war, thus in a position of relative strength. I've seen arguments alleging that Assad felt himself on the ropes and on the verge of being defeated, thus in a position of relative weakness.

[geek tragedy]

96. So, you see no difference whatsoever between using a drone

strike to kill a specific target and flying an airplane into a building with the goal of killing tens of thousands,

I will not join you in being neutral vis a vis the US and Al Qaeda.

[leftstreet]

100. In Syria, the US will be fighting alongside al Qaeda

It's all very confusing

[geek tragedy]

101. Confusing indeed, per this letter to the NY Times

Why on earth would the US get entangled with such a violent and volatile region?

Toil, boil, recoil?

[HardTimes99]

104. As more than one person posting here has noted, dead is dead and the

technology or delivery system used to deliver death makes small difference.

[Romulox]

82. "As for what [rightwing nationalist] Abe said, I agree and support what he said." - Bonobo

This is what you were giving full-throated agreement to just one week ago. You are no moral authority on ANYTHING.

In October 2006, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's apology was followed on the same day by a group of 80 Japanese lawmakers' visit to the Yasukuni Shrine which enshrines more than 1000 convicted war criminals. Two years after the apology, Shinzo Abe also denied that the Imperial Japanese military had forced comfort women into sexual slavery during World War II . In addition, Prime Minister Abe claimed that the Class A war criminals "are not war criminals under the laws of Japan". He also casted doubt on Murayama apology by saying, "The Abe Cabinet is not necessarily keeping to it" and by questioning the definition used in the apology by saying, "There is no definitive answer either in academia or in the international community on what constitutes aggression. Things that happen between countries appear different depending on which side you're looking from."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023516234#post11

[treestar]

85. I thought polls showed Americans were against it?

So why are you acting as if they support it in huge numbers?

And leave off that gas attacks are a different thing.

[Bonobo]

90. I am not.

I am pointing out that they treat the killing of Syrian children as only important if it is done by Assad.

Indeed if it was done by an accidental missile strike, we would apologize and talk about how we do whatever we can to avoid civilian casualties.

To give you the even simpler version, you cannot despise killing civilians while it is in fact your normal everyweek activity.

[treestar]

94. If Assad uses gas weapons, it does make a difference

Some accept the idea there will be wars but that there are some things that are beyond the pale.

If he lined them up and shot them, they would be just as dead, true, but it would take a longer time and give more chances for fighting back. It would take a lot more effort on the military's part. No one says that is OK, but that using gas just makes it happen faster and makes it easier for the attacker and therefore gas should not be used.

I can't get behind the shrugging over that as if it makes no difference whatsoever.

And even with that, most Americans are against it. Some polls have been quoted in the last couple days showing that. Thus "Americans" do not deserve to be called out as if they are wanting to strike Syria for it.

[Bonobo]

102. I didn't do that.

I called out people like you who shrug over what the US does.

[treestar]

111. I do not shrug over what the US does

I really do not care for this bullying black and white thinking. You are trying to make me afraid of questioning your positions.

[The2ndWheel]

121. Pretty much just the US because the US military was the last one standing after the 20th century

It's pretty much just the US because the US military is the developed world's de facto military. The US won't be economically sanctioned if it bombs anyone anywhere. The US won't be retaliated against militarily if it starts a war or whatever. So the US does what it wants, when it wants, if it wants, if it's physically able to.

[jtuck004]

123. How will he learn to properly kill babies and others if we don't show him? We gotta blow up

a few, leave them burning in the streets, else where would he get training? That he resorted to gas simply indicates an ignorance on his part.

And who better to teach him than a country that has turned thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of innocent children into screaming, dying torches? Hell, we are still doing it today. A country that I remember seeing drop napalm on unsuspecting villagers because terrorists had forced their way into the village so we saw them as complicit. A country who just recently murdered thousands of Iraqi soldiers, against all "international norms" and "international law", btw, as they surrendered, fleeing down a highway, with their backs presented to us, which we saw as targets. And...oh hell, the list is just too long.

So we will give him for free, a class in how to bring death to innocent babies and others. We will call them collateral damage because we are civilized, but they will still scream and burn as they die.

USA #1!! USA #1!! USA #1!!

[DeSwiss]

137. K&R

We like war. We've always liked war. War is what we do most consistently as a nation. It was in all the history books, remember? How we had dinner with the Indians that day, before we massacred them later? And then Mexico? And of course you can't forget about the slaves and that whole ''civil'' war business. After those, the wars became more like ''corporate consolidation'' of geopolitical areas.

The problem is.... LIES have been told in schools and churches for decades. Longer. Lies about who Americans are and what they did to each other and other people. And now they've filled all our children's heads with HFCS, microwaves and GMOs. And they need anti-depressants and a plethora of drugs just to mimic human behavior. Emotions in a bottle.

They use our kid's video game skills they've honed from Nintendo days, to kill America's enemies abroad with Drones O' Death. While also using them to protect the homeland from the enemies within. Can human-tech enhancements be far off?

The problem is..... most of us didn't figure out how crazy this shit was and that we should've stopped it long ago until, well for some, until now. So now that many have finally begun the wipe the sleep from their unused eyes, its an open question that's still searching for an answer.

- The answer to the question: ''Can we find our voice in time?''

[Lonr]

148. For more information on where you can join, or organize, anti-war protests

Please refer to the following site:

GLOBAL RESISTANCE /Anti-War Taskforce / No War with Syria Global Rallies

https://www.facebook.com/events/554832307905905/

[truedelphi]

152. Thank you anda belated

Welcome to DU.