General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThread to mourn the passing of the soul of John Kerry
A figure walks upright in a suit. He answers to the name "John Kerry".
But that figure is but a shell. Its soul, its heart, its conscience, has departed.
It was a beautiful soul. It once called millions to struggle for better, gentler things.
It came home from war and took the only lessons a decent person can take from such a thing...that war is unwinnable and pointless, that it is a barbaric thing that decent societies must abandon, and that humane outcomes can no longer come from the use of force.
It asked amazing, transforming, life-defending questions...questions that still resonate today.
Questions such as "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
That soul was badly wounded in 2004...when the person who housed it said, speaking of a war in Iraq that he already knew was futile and useless "We can do better", and gave the millions of Americans who opposed that war no one to vote for, no one who cared about anything they cared about(most gave him their votes anyway, on "lesser evil" grounds, but no one who had followed the man in the Seventies really believed that much of what he believed then still lived in the man). But it still barely lived.
But it died in a Senate hearing room today.
It died when the person who once housed that soul said that bombing a country is nothing at all like going to war against that country.
Mourn, America. There is nothing sadder than a soulless shroud in a suit.
And remember the beauty of that soul by speaking out against all that that soul would have raged against, when it lived among us. That soul lived for peace. Its memory is dishonored by all calls to kill.
Add your thoughts below.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and I wish I had a list of names....
KoKo
(84,711 posts)where one can go to their 2nd Home and Find PEACE...FAR Away from the "MADDENING CROWDS." (or in Kerry's view...the "Maddening Rabble"
Apologize... That was bad.....
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The curfew tolls the knell of parting day
The ploughman homeward plods his weary way
And leaves the world to darkness and to me'
Now that the UN has accused the 'rebels' of using Sarin gas on the population, this game is over.
Kerry and Obama need to announce that they have accepted the information provided by the UN and are calling off their threats of military strikes against Syria.
Then the International Community need to have an emergency meeting to decide how to disarm these murderers who have been killing innocent Syrians for over a year, as the Syrians have been saying. And it should now be a war crime to provide them with any more weapons.
According to reports, they are being supported by Saudi Arabia. And now that the world knows the truth, this whole charade needs to end.
The only way Kerry can save his own reputation is to state that they were mistaken before it is too late.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Maybe you were being snarky...but, I do believe in the:
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And I know that will piss a lot of people off for different reasons, but it's how I feel.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Kerry seems to have come out of the Gate Running...though.
More expressive than most. (but, then...he wanted to be President ..so maybe he thinks he got the job?) 
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But I can think of two dozen people with more power and influence.
And they aren't in government, not officially.
There's definitely "The Shadow Ones."
that they will have their exorcising moment sometime in the future. I hope it's before they take down all of us in their evil wind...of suction as they fall.
(never mind me....lol's and NO...I didn't hit the wine bottle..
) It's just so bizarre what we are seeing ...even though some of us suspected...I don't think we thought it was this "DARK."
:candle.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts) villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)How does someone, a good and decent person like John Kerry--get folded into this sick neocon fray?
John Kerry was a hero during the Vietnam war. He was courageous and he wasn't afraid to stand up for what was right and speak out against this evil. What changed? How do the neocons do it?
Do the heroes just give up out of frustration? Do they fear for their lives if they speak out?
Is everyone blackmailed?
How in the hell do they do it?
NO ONE is speaking out. No one with power. Even Elizabeth Warren is pounding the drumbeat.
She'll speak out against the evil, powerful banksters, but she'll pave the way for the neocons?
I want to know how they do it.
prairierose
(2,145 posts)there was someone to give us an answer that made sense.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)I am sick of the US being at war, but I am concerned that many people - including Kerry - who have studied the Middle East for decades are themselves clearly concerned with where things are going.
I think it does a disservice to serious people - like either Kerry or Warren - and assume that they have become "neocons".
wisteria
(19,581 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)He remembered all the things he'd promised he'd do for all the skull and bonesmen?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)conscious can not simple stand by and allow a ruthless dictator to break long standing laws of decency and morality and not act. SOS Kerry has reached out to Assad in the past, and he soon found out that Assad is a man who can not be reasoned with without coming from a point of strength. Kerry is fighting for humanity, decency and our security.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)missiles on Syria which in all likelihood will kill innocent men, women, and children a humane and decent thing to do to keep us secure?
Balderdash!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)You think that Iraq is better off TODAY than it was before SADDAM?
Have you kept up with the news. Do you want the whole Middle East to Implode and your and mind Tax Dollars and Wage Inequities and our Quality of Live to go Down Further because of some MISSION to SAVE THE MIDDLE EAST from THEMSELVES?
Do you not see the PNAC PLAN under Bush still continuing under what Kerry has said we, Americans, must do?
Do you not see it repeating same as under Bush...the SAME PLAN going forward?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that bombing a sovereign nation, esp. in the middle east, is a neo-con action. All you have to do is ask a neocon like Lieberman and he will support Kerry.
"any person of conscious can not simple stand by and allow a ruthless dictator to break long standing laws of decency and morality and not act. "
That sounds so nice when you say it, but Kerry stood by when Georgie Bush illegally invaded Iraq. Not only stood by, but gave Georgie his blessing. And we are standing by every day for some type of atrocities somewhere in the world. So how do we choose? Some are saying that using chemicals is the red line. First of all we have used chemical weapons. Should we be punished? We also use white phosphorus, land mines, and cluster bombs, all of which are banned by most countries. Should we be punished?
We are learning that the UN believes the rebels have used chemical weapons. Do we punish them? Maybe we could bomb both Assad and the rebels in the same strike.
So far Assad has a long way to go to equal the atrocities that we have put on peoples in either Iraq or Vietnam.
It is simplistic thinking to believe that Assad is the only bad guy and if we launch $150 million worth of missiles, he will be good and things will be better. What social program are you willing to sacrifice to kill Syrians?
Erose999
(5,624 posts)people.
Fuck Kerry and fuck war in the Middle East. Anyone who thinks US bombs will bring peace and stability to Syria is full of shit.
I think PNAC must be putting something in the water on Capitol Hill.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)After he was out of the Navy and still politically ambitious, and when the Viet Nam war had become unpopular to most voters, he testified on camera in front of Congress.
Was he a hero during the Viet Nam war?
2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (1 January 1965 - 28 March 1973)
Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964
Of the 2.6 million, between 1 and 1.6 million (40-60%) either fought in combat, provided close combat support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack.
http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm
He is what he always wanted to be - a powerful politician.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I also see others here describing Assad or Kerry as being 'good' or 'evil' as if these words describe actual psychological realities of absoluteness.
As a psychologist with over 25 years of practice, I can definitely tell you that most human beings are both. Yes, we are both. And often we are unconscious to that fact. We demand trust from those around us while we lie to ourselves or others. We do good in our work day after day and yet work out the unconscious trauma's of our own sad childhood's by being very bad and even abusive in our personal relationships.
If we mature and become more mindful of the world and ourselves, we can recognize and even catch the incongruencies before they occur. We can say to ourselves, yes, I was against the Vietnam War, but now I find myself as the SoS pushing hard for another war in another foreign country for dubious reasons. Then we could, if truly honorable and appropriate men and women, act from that self-knowledge. What that looks like is often pilloried by the 'crowd' as we humans love the simple answers or the absoluteness of saying something is all this or all that. We look at an 'evil' man and wonder how he loved his wife or dogs. We look at the 'good' man and wonder how he changed and 'sold his soul' for power, money, that hot young student, etc. And not to be sexist, we do the same with women as well. How can we be both? How can we decide after doing good to do bad or vice versus?
It is hard to stand alone and be that courageous. Few of us will ever be able to do that whether it is something as big as war with another country or as small as not lying to our daughter about the work we do.
Bu most of us will never gain that level of self-awareness or self-control. We will lie to ourselves again and again and again. We will rationalize our inconsistencies and incongruencies. But, we will say to ourselves and others, it is different this time. But, we will say, it is not the same thing. But, we will say, and on and on. We say, well in this area I must do that, but what of other arenas? We will claim to be 'thinking' when we should feel or claim to be 'feeling' when we should be thinking. We project, we deny, and we delude ourselves. We always have as humans and most of us always will.
Kerry is like anyone else. He is a typical human being with a typical human psyche. He is incongruent, others can see this, and dollars to donuts, he can not or will not himself. It does not make him 'evil'. It does not make him 'souless'. But he is also definitely not all 'good' either. The same holds true for Warren. We 'believe' she is all good. After all, look at her going after the bankers. But, it doesn't take blackmail to make a person make wrong choices or bad decisions. We are easily manipulated. We are easily swayed by dead children. We are easily convinced that it is somehow different this time for us or for them or for me.
Nothing really ever changes, and that is why history repeats itself. It doesn't look exactly the same every time. Of course not, that is silly. It is, however, thematically the same. The patterns repeat. Often is just seems like the backdrop changes. We have more 'technology' than 500 years ago, and yet we are still all acting individually and collectively the same.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)to my question.
I think you are right. We are all capable of good and bad. We are fallible human beings. John Kerry
is no different from anyone else. He just has a more elaborate stage upon which to act out his life, so
this good/bad potential is more obvious.
I think that there are very powerful people dictating what happens and what will happen. That's truly
what I believe. I think they render a president virtually powerless. If they want war, they get it. I think
Obama's vote on Syria was him taking a bit of control. "Ok you want this on my watch, then I'm not
taking the blame for all of it."
It's only a guess--but I wonder if the reality is just so awful that the good guys justify that it's
better if the American people don't know. They don't tell the truth out of fear and they rationalize that the
truth would be too devastating. That's my best guess, but I don't know.
I agree also, that patterns repeat. As you mentioned, people play out their unconscious motives--their need
to rectify past traumas or abuses. They don't realize what they are doing. It seems as if abuse and trauma
is happening more frequently. It's as if the nation has collective PTSD. When this happens, you're not operating
authentically. You're driven by the desire to process those pains. That can lead to more pain, sadness, anger
and confusion. So, the cycle perpetuates. I also think that dispensing antidepressants and antianxiety meds
like they're candy is a disservice to many. We're masking what we need to face--in order to heal and live
authentically--rise to a higher level, if you will.
I see many signs that we're emotionally "evolving forward" but I see a growing contingent of people who are dysfunctional (narcissists, sociopaths, trauma victims) and they can be dangerous if they operate on that unconscious level that
you discussed. This is how corruption happens. This is how politicians sell their souls. This is how children are
abused.
Thanks for the interesting discussion!
TM99
(8,352 posts)Individuals get PTSD and we know the kind of issues it can cause. Well, a nation can as well. The symptoms are still there, but this time on a collective level. There is denial, rage, hypervigilance, addictive behaviors, rationalization, inability to learn from past experiences, etc.
I see our country doing that after 9/11. I see our politicians who may as individuals say to themselves that they will never allow that trauma to affect them. And yet, they do. Kerry is now just a very apparent symbol of that collective trauma. Obama is as well. It doesn't make them all good or all bad. But it isn't what we want dictating our national and foreign policy.
Please we have no money for domestic concerns. But if there is a millionth of a chance in hell that a 'terrorist' out there could impact us here, we will find the money. If that isn't hypervigilance and being over reactive, I don't know what else is.
I wish I could believe that humanity as a whole is evolving psychologically. My experiences professional and otherwise just won't allow it. There is a group of truly disturbed...always...the sociopaths, narcissists, and even 'evil' people. Then there is a small group of those attempting to wake up from it all. And then there are the rest of us....living lives in quiet desperation. It seems it has always been this way. It certainly is now. And I expect it will always be the same tomorrow.
Enjoyed discussing this with you as well. 
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
malaise
(268,856 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)malaise
(268,856 posts)Sad to watch him - the anti-Vietnam hero.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Do you find that sad or hilarious?
malaise
(268,856 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...when he voted for Iraq war.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)So many good people go there to change to system only to be devoured by it.
RIP Senator Kerry.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)That vote was a profile in political cowardice!
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Only a few looked at the intel, said this is BS, and had the courage to vote no. We're seeing it again. We gotta stand behind the Dems that have the courage to say NO.
Rosco T.
(6,496 posts).. what DO YOU KNOW to prove what he said wrong.
Not think, feel, believe..
WHAT DO YOU KNOW AND HAVE PROOF TO BACK IT UP.
till then... bullshit.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But Farhan Haq, the associate spokesperson for Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who has been getting regular reports from the UN team on its work in Syria, told Truthout that he was unaware of any restrictions on the team's work.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)areas for 4 days while Syria shelled the area. That does seem at least a minor restriction. Kerry spoke to the Syrian FM the day after the attack asking that the UN inspectors who had just arrived immediately be given "unfettered access". Clearly keeping then out of the area for several more days is not unfettered access.
I suspect that Haq was answering a narrower question than Kerry was speaking of.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)than is Kerry.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Haq could be saying that Syria - ONCE THEY LET THEM IN THE AREA - did not restrain them. However, it is fact that they were in Syria for 4 or 5 days before they were allowed in the area.
Haq was NOT responding to Kerry's comment.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But Kerry's quote was:
The "finally given access" phrase would seem to indicate that Kerry was accounting for the 4-5 day delay, and his "restricted and controlled" comment was meant to apply to the inspectors' actions afterward. That would put Kerry's statement at odds with Haq's.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)I took it to mean they get to go in until Syria wanted them to -
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)to keep the inspectors out of an area that you're dropping artillery shells on?
karynnj
(59,501 posts)attack. Why not send in your troops to help the people and simultaneously allow the UN in?
It seems extremely callous to shell an area already devastated by the chemical attack.
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You can mourn my soul when it dies.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)R.I.P.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Kerry is speaking against a humane future for Syria. Any U.S. intervention can only make the conflict accelerate, and will end up bringing Iran and Russia into it as well.
Any U.S. intervention in Syria becomes "a wider war". And it brings every would-be jihadi to that country to fight it out against "our side" whoever our side ends up being).
That's reality.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its not reality until it happens...until then its still conjecture....
And you standing there saying that we should look the other way while Chemical weapons are being used against civilian targets purposely is NOT humane. Not just for Syria...but for others that live under Tyrants who WILL use chemical weapons against their people. This is not JUST about Syria...it is about the chemical weapons...
DaveT
(687 posts)how dropping bombs on Syria prevents any chemical weapon from being used.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we have been working just that for over a decade...And if he loses his chemical weapons...others might not be so quick to use the ones they have on their people...because they will lose them just like Assad.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)1) Not in the plan.
and
2) Would do more harm than good as up to 40% of the lethal agents would not be destroyed in such an explosion and could potentially kill thousands more than Syria ever hoped to as the wind dispersed the newly released chemical weaponry.
Could I trouble you to post information you appear to have on both 1 and 2 as I will be most relieved to discover this is more than an attempt to "send a message" that can only be read by Shaman well versed in reading the language hidden in chicken entrails and or miscellaneous explosives debris.
I really am laboring under the impression that this proposed act of war is intended by it's authors as a punitive strike and not a scientific approach to eliminate dangerous and cruel weaponry via the use of well exploded tomahawk missiles.
I am actually quite happy to hear it, I may have misjudged a mission to actually destroy these cruel weapons once and for all! I will of course publicly apologize once you post the links supporting
My false impression #1
and
My false impression #2
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)think about how much technology has occurred in the last 10 yrs. Now extrapolate that to how much they have likely learned and know about the destruction of these weapons. The technology is not something you want out there in the wild either so likely its completely top secret. I am open to the possibility that they have some sort of contingency plan for this..
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I'm sorry, I thought you were in this discussion with me, not in a daydream of something in the works that will hopefully be used someday.
So the actual and real proposed attacks I was discussing really are punitive strikes that will kill people and really have nothing to do with eradicating the weapons then?
Never mind.
I actually like your daydream tho.
If it becomes real after all and we start plans to destroy chemical weapons (our own as well I would imagine) please let me know as I will be right next to you calling for the destruction of such evil weapons both abroad and in the evil forgotten places in the basements of our own weapons stockpiles.
That will be a happy day that I will gladly share with you as an ally in supporting!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)EVERYONE is just speculating....at this point..
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)My understanding was that the Administration is calling for limited punitive strikes to "send a message" to Assad, and that furthermore there were no plans for regime change in Syria or "boots on the ground".
I didn't know they changed their minds, I hope they didn't change their minds regarding the limited part or the no boots on the ground part as I will then be even more concerned than I am now.
Thanks for the heads up! I will start searching the news for the details of the changes in plan being speculated on now, it's getting late and I'm tired so the presses will have to wait until tomorrow.
Good night VR
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Hopefully you can understand what that means. When you write a computer application...you have a goal you want to achieve. After that you devise the "plan" to determine the methods you could use to reach that result. Does that help you understand the difference between the two actions?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)that will not include bombing chemical stockpiles, changing regimes, or involving boots on the ground. Or at least the hope is the plans will achieve these Administrations stated goals?
I understood all along, you were the one that said this was all speculation not me.
Why did you derail the conversation with musings of destroying chemical weapons when that was specifically stated as not being among the "goals" that the "plans" would hope to accomplish?
All you have managed to do is waste both our time.
So in conclusion the Administrations goals did not change after all and there is no speculation of new or different goals beyond a punitive strike to "send a message"?
That is where I started silly, pay attention next time.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)
...then John Kerry's soul is quite well and intact.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And there's no way we can bomb Syria without causing the war to escalate. It does nothing to honor the memory of those who died in that attack to cause other innocent people to die as well.
U.S. military history after World War II proves that we can no longer trust "military intelligence", especially when that intelligence claims that a war can be won without much loss of life. Too many people in the military, in the upper ranks especially, have a vested interest in getting us into as many wars as possible in order to get more ribbons on their chests for sending young people off to kill each other.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...this is about Kerry opposing killing, I would vote 'yes', he does oppose killing. He also has a history of supporting diplomacy and political solutions to conflict. I don't think he has changed on that. I know the answer to that here is "But he voted for Iraq." Do you have any answer besides that one?
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Trust me.
Marr
(20,317 posts)More of the sophisticated analysis DUers have come to expect from the fan club.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that you seem to be agreeing with...
I was merely pointing out the absurdly hypocritical nature of the statement...
and just more ODS
karynnj
(59,501 posts)You might also consider the following -- "Judge not less you be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Once you are on the path of calling for bomb strikes, your humanity is gone. And you've forgotten all that you once learned.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)but I think you are very wrong.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We're past the days when war can be limited or contained anymore...especially in THIS region.
And it won't be possible to bomb Syria now and do anythign humane for them later.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)When asked about boots on the ground he at first he refused to rule it out, only to backtrack later. That's not a very encouraging assurance that it will be limited to a few military sites.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/john-kerry-boots-on-the-ground_n_3861860.html
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)They lie as easily and naturally as fish swim. In fact, lying seems to be their default setting.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Dropping bombs is that neat and clean.... or surgical.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)Listen to his entire testimony. He does think there are things worth fighting for - and they were not there in Vietnam.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)HUH?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)he never said he became a pacifist after the war did he?
Saturday
(3,744 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)How good can you be when you're talking about bombing people(and mostly innocent people at that, since we can assume that none of the bombs will hit anyone remotely connected with the Assad leadership).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I do not know what they will bomb but they won't target civilians.
Logical
(22,457 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I wouldn't place most of them in charge of the international relations of even some joke country like Swaziland or Lichtenstein, though.
If someone tells you bombing a country is not making war on that country, that person is not qualified to be a secretary of state. End. Of. Story.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
David__77
(23,367 posts)It is very saddening to me. This is a man that I voted for. I don't regret that, because the alternative was simply unfathomable... nonetheless...
eissa
(4,238 posts)Kerry, along with Obama, were two progressives I was proud to vote for. To seem them both acting in the same manner as their war-mongering predecessors is just plain depressing.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
Agony
(2,605 posts).
.
.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm not sorry I didn't stand with him.
Why should I think THIS bombing will be any less insane?
Nothing Kerry is doing is about peace, anyway. You can't bomb your way to peace. And peace can't come of American world domination.
Agony
(2,605 posts)please don't make me...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
karynnj
(59,501 posts)or if he is able to do anything to lessen tensions in Pakistan/Afghanistan/India?
Hard to believe he's the new Colin Powell...hell, hard to believe Colin Powell did it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Blood and despair and war for profit fucking pod people.
Something about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and the power, and it fucking needs to be fixed.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)corrupts and absolute immense power corrupts absolutely. Humans get power along the line of POTUS, SCOTUS and SOS they lose their souls. Always been that way, always will be, just ask ASSwad. How can anyone, never mind the alleged gas, kill their own people? And by the thousands. No qualms. Innocent men, invalids, children, women and anyone else in the way of that power. Hell look at Wisconsin state house shenanigans of the so called capitol gestapo(police). Power ain't to the people, anymore. I'm agreeing with your every word.
Sadly.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I am not in favor of intervention anywhere at this time. But good men and women can evaluate a situation this complex and messed-up and come to completely different conclusions. It doesn't mean they have lost their souls, it just means they disagree.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)All you have to do is ask yourself what we would be saying if the situation were reversed, if it were Syrian bombs deliberately falling on US soil.
I would be called war and we all know it.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)They merely sell it. And Kerry is selling the policy of unilateral US direct intervention in Syria. It is what he was told to do. If he seemed to be selling it on truth then I could agree with you but he isn't.
Kerry is saying crazy shit like 'bombing isn't war' and THAT is bullshit.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Once we've done this, it will never be possible for Kerry as SoS to do anything progressive or humane anywhere. U.S. force can never lead to progressive change in the world. That stopped being possible after VE Day.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But Kerry was a hero of peace once. Now, that side of him is dead. Now, he no longer holds any humane values. You can't bomb and still want a better life for anybody.
shotten99
(622 posts)
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)[font size="12"]Hey! John... STOP THIS MADDNESS NOW!!![/font]
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)as "humanitarian intervention".
cali
(114,904 posts)your op embarrassing. this kind of flower prose makes me shrink away from whatever point you're trying to make.
Aside from that, I don't care one bit about his "soul".
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)When you stop being yourself, when you lose your humanity once and for all(as you do when you advocate bombing and push for what you know will be a wider war), your soul is dead.
You can never be for anything progressive or humane after calling for bombs to be dropped on a country. You can never be for a peaceful, beautiful life for the people in that country, or anywhere else.
John Kerry no longer holds within himself any of the things that made him a hero in 1971. Now, he's just Dean Rusk with hair. Doesn't that fill YOU with grief?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I don't often agree with you, but you hit the nail on the hit on this one. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because someone does not agree with you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about the fact that this person is calling for something he knows can't do anything but make the situation worse.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He's seeing something differently than you do; why does that have to be treated with such hyperbole?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)This isn't about my ego, nor is any other dissenting speech about the ego of the dissenter.
It's a typical establishment-conservative tactic to try to make it about the people who are speaking out against death.
I, as a person, really don't matter here.
It's about the fact that Kerry is ok with causing a lot more killing...because that is all that can come of U.S. intervention.
If we do this, Iran and Russia go in on Assad's side, and then any hope for a humane resolution is gone.
Nothing is ever worse than causing a wider war. Nothing is ever less humane than escalating a conflict.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)"It's about the fact that Kerry is ok with causing a lot more killing...because that is all that can come of U.S. intervention. "
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Everything Reagan did in the 1980's in Central America proved it. Vietnam proved it. Korea proved it.
U.S. intervention is U.S. intervention is U.S. intervention. It's never any more noble or positive just because it's a Democratic president doing the intervening.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)posed by the poster who asked it.
It's a valid question. Why do you feel the need to skirt it?
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)He is seeing way more info than we are......
I trust him to make the right choice
JI7
(89,244 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Not sure why you'd be happy about that, given that nothing but misery can result, and that it won't be possible to leave it at just a few strikes.
Why would you ever enjoy a victory for death? Why would you ever be happy about the fact that we're probably going to end up invading Syria and that we could easily end up fighting Iran and Russia when we're there?
Yes, Kerry may have talked Congress into backing him on this...but please don't be happy about it, because it can't lead to anything any decent person could want.
And it can't lead to anything the John Kerry of 1971 could ever have wanted.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)There are plenty of interviews from the 1970s where he fought being stereotyped as some kind of hippy anti war guru. That was not who he was then. Read Tour of Duty or what Going Upriver. Even then, he was a complex person, who was willing to stand up for his own beliefs.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)(not to mention the John Kerry I spend hundreds of hours working to elect in 2004.)
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Autumn
(45,026 posts)
warrant46
(2,205 posts)shotten99
(622 posts)One which bears little resemblance to any military action we might take in Syria.
Autumn
(45,026 posts)As to his soul, that's between him and his God.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I strongly disagree with the OP for not only being wrong, but also his sheer vileness.
Autumn
(45,026 posts)Older people of my generation may have stronger feelings about Kerry on this than the younger generation has.
As a young girl 16 or 17 years old who saw and snuck off to participate in the anti war movement, Kerry's speech captured and riveted me. I sat there watching it on television crying. He spoke for my Brother who died there. His words meant something. I can't reconcile the words of John Kerry then, to the words of John Kerry now. I don't think OP is vile to voice the disappointment and yes, I will say it the betrayal that some may feel.
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
How do you ask a man, woman or child to tolerate punishment and death rained down from the skies to punish a dictator for his crimes against those same people? Because there will be civilian casualties. There always are.
There are other steps that can be taken. Missile strikes are not the answer. If a government claims classified information and can't tell their people and why they are doing this in an open and honest way, then it shouldn't be done. Trust us we know things you don't. It just doesn't work for me because I have no trust.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)but you can believe Kerry to be misguided or wrong, and not "soulless", if you disagree with him.
babylonsister
(171,049 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It is simply impossible for any of the ideals that lived in John Kerry in 1971 to still exist in the person who said bombing isn't war.
Once you defend bombing, your humanity is gone. Forever. You can't be for anything positive or life-affirming after that. You can't want a world where children live in safety, where working people are respected and not exploited, where women are equal to men, where LGBTQ people are free from repression.
Support for bombing erases all progressive and democratic values from a human being. And it disgraces the society that goes along with it.
We will have no humanity left as a nation if this bombing happens...and the bombing can't be limited, because it won't change anything and Obama won't let this go without anything being changed.
War is for conservatives and haters of life. This has been a universal truth since VE Day.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)because Kerry - who BTW has more experience than you, has access to intelligence you'll never see, and is in a position you'll never be in - disagrees with YOUR assessment of things, he is a soul-less sell-out.
According to you, we should all ignore the fact that the world is a different place than it was in 1971. We should all just hold people like Kerry to what they said over four decades ago about a specific circumstance, and insist that if they say something different in a totally different circumstance, their soul is dead - they are liars, they've been bought by the MIC, their humanity is forever gone.
Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. Evil also flourishes when good men who speak against doing nothing are relegated to the status of soul-less sell-outs because they had the courage to speak their minds, regardless of whether YOU agree with their assessment of things or not.
Your sense of self-importance, on this issue and many others, is the one thing that always comes through, loud and clear. You never miss a chance to declare that any opinion contrary to yours is the direct result of kool-aide drinking by those who disagree with your perception of things.
Sadly, DU is now full of those who can't wait to drink your own brand of kool-aide, which you are more than happy to dispense - like so much ambrosia to quench the thirst of those who can't think for themselves.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The world doesn't work that way anymore.
And it isn't about me...it's about the world.
The world deserves to be free from killing, and especially from self-important pseudo-moralistic U.S. killing.
It is impossible for anything to be made better in Syria by the U.S. bombing the place. That isn't me saying it, it's reality. I, as a person, really don't matter in this.
We knew the truth about war in 1971. Nothing has made it more acceptable since then.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)at the same time you're saying that Kerry is a soul-less sell-out because he has recognized that the world doesn't work the same way it did in 1971.
Yes, the world deserves to be free from killing - but wishing doesn't make it so. And neither does looking the other way while you go about your wishing, and people go about their killing.
It is sometimes necessary to stand up for what you think is right - which Kerry has done. You may agree with him, or disagree to your heart's content.
But to declare him a soul-dead sell-out because he is willing to stand up for what HE thinks is right, solely because what YOU think is right is something different, is demonstrative of your own arrogance, and a very mistaken belief that you are somehow superior to anyone who disagrees with your view of things.
Cha
(297,048 posts)ignorant insults against honorable people are only weakening their case for doing nothing.
"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. Evil also flourishes when good men who speak against doing nothing are relegated to the status of soul-less sell-outs because they had the courage to speak their minds, regardless of whether YOU agree with their assessment of things or not."
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)
marble falls
(57,063 posts) 
AnotherDreamWeaver
(2,849 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)“We don’t want to go to war. We don’t believe we are going to go war in the classic sense of taking american troops and America to war,” Kerry said to Paul. “The president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. It’s a limited action. It’s limited.”
Kerry continued, abated, by Sen. Paul saying, “if your goal is not to win you shouldn’t be involved.”
“Senator, when people are asked do you want to go to war in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100% of Americans will say no, we say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. It is not what we are here to ask. The President it is not asking you to go to war. He is not asking you to declare war. He is not asking you to send one American troop to war,” Kerry said.
Kerry, making the case that action would be limited, said action was needed to degrade Assad’s capacity to use chemical weapons. Arguing again it wasn’t war in the “classic” sense.
“He is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we won’t do that,” Kerry added. “Ya know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young americans in harms way. That is not what the president is asking for here.”
- more -
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/john-kerry-we-are-not-going-to-war-in-the-classic-sense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590177
Ocelot
(227 posts)You know, like when your redneck neighbors decide to burn some tires in their backyard in order to toast marshmallows.
Kerry has presented ZERO evidence that Assad carried out the attacks. That in itself should be a 100% non-starter to anyone with a grain of common sense, or an intact memory...especially since this whole scenario reeks of being cribbed from the Cheney-Rumsfeld Iraq playbook.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Kerry has presented ZERO evidence that Assad carried out the attacks. That in itself should be a 100% non-starter to anyone with a grain of common sense, or an intact memory...especially since this whole scenario reeks of being cribbed from the Cheney-Rumsfeld Iraq playbook
...smack down of Rand Paul. Just because you don't belive it, doesn't mean it's "zero." It's also not just the U.S. confirming this.
By Matthias Gebauer
German intelligence agrees with other Western agencies that the Assad regime was behind the Aug. 21 poison gas attack in Syria. One important clue was provided by a telephone conversation intercepted by German agents.
Germany has said in no uncertain terms that it will not participate in a strike on Syria without the backing of the United Nations Security Council. But the country's foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), agrees with the US position which holds Syrian President Bashar Assad responsible for the poison gas attacks near Damascus on Aug. 21. In a secret briefing to select lawmakers on Monday, BND head Gerhard Schindler said that while there is still no incontestable proof, analysis of the evidence at hand has led his intelligence service to believe that Assad's regime is to blame.
In the briefing, Schindler said that only the Assad regime is in possession of binary chemical weapons such as sarin. The BND believes that regime experts would be the only ones capable of manufacturing such weapons and deploying them with small missiles. The BND believes that such weapons had been used several times prior to the attack on Aug. 21, which is believed to have killed more than 1,400 people. Schindler said in the earlier attacks, however, the poison gas mixture was diluted, explaining the much lower death tolls in those assaults.
During his 30-minute presentation, Schindler offered up scenarios to explain why the Assad regime resorted to chemical weapons use, including, he said, the possibility that Assad sees himself involved in a crucial battle for Damascus. The city is besieged by rebel groups, with particular pressure coming from the east. Schindler believes it is possible that the regime ordered the use of poison gas as a way of intimidating the rebels. It could also be the case that errors were made in mixing the gas and it was much more potent than anticipated, he said.
<...>
Schindler also presented an additional clue, one that has not thus far been made public. He said that the BND listened in on a conversation between a high-ranking member of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which supports Assad and provides his regime with military assistance, and the Iranian Embassy. The Hezbollah functionary, Schindler reported, seems to have admitted that poison gas was used. He said that Assad lost his nerves and made a big mistake by ordering the chemical weapons attack.
- more -
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-gas-attack-a-920123.html
France releases new, 'undeniable' evidence against Syria
It accused the Syrian government of using "extremely lethal" chemical weapons -- including those containing the deadly nerve agent sarin -- on several occasions to sow "terror" among civilian populations.
"These proven attacks have shown that the forces of Bashar Assad's regime adapt their tactics and the munitions in their stocks with the aim of causing terror within the civilian population," the French report said.
"The past events and the simultaneous and massive use of chemical weapons on the night of 21 August 2013 in the eastern suburb of Damascus thus confirm that the Syrian regime has deliberately crossed a line. Our services have information, from a national source, leading us to believe that other actions of this nature could still be carried out."
The attack on was a "massive and coordinated use of chemical agents against the civilian population," it alleged, adding that evidence appeared to confirm an estimated 1,500 deaths.
- more -
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-evidence-syria-20130902,0,1163653.story
3 September 2013 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced today that all biomedical and environmental samples gathered by United Nations inspectors at sites of possible chemical weapons use in Syria are now arriving at designated laboratories in Europe.
Speaking to the press at UN Headquarters in New York, Mr. Ban said that the Mission, led by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström, has worked “around the clock” since returning from Syria over the weekend to prepare the materials it gathered for analysis. All the samples will arrive at the laboratories by tomorrow. "We are doing our utmost to expedite the process," he added.
“Since the horrendous attacks in the Ghouta area of Damascus two weeks ago, the (Mission) has been working urgently to establish the facts regarding the nature and extent of any use of chemical weapons, Mr. Ban said, underscoring that, as the first probe of allegations of the use of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century, “the Mission’s success is in everyone’s interest.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45760&Cr=syria&Cr1=
Ocelot
(227 posts)That Kerry and Obama are greatly increasing his chances of getting into the White House by doing this shit (and I wish they'd stop it).
ProSense
(116,464 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)DERP
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)randy got his ass handed to him and he walked away wondering what hit him.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)None of the wars we've gone into in the Middle East are any different than that conflict, and none of have produced anything better.
Why do you cheerlead for war, when you know it can only be good for the wealthy? When you know it can't do the people of Syria any good? When it can only make their lives worse?
Why is human life nothing, in the worldview you defend?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about US thinking we have some special mission as a nation to sort out every other country. That OUR intentions are always purer than any other countries. That we are, essentially, a nation of heavily-armed saints.
And it always leads to soaking the streets of the world with blood. It always leads to My Lai.
That's what the John Kerry of 1971 got. That is what the compassionless shroud that calls itself John Kerry has somehow forgotten.
From now on, the only morally acceptable use of U.S. force is defense of our own territory from external attack...something that bombing SYria can't help with at all.
We have got to stop picking fights with the world like a drunken thug in the street. That isn't greatness. It isn't anything.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)intervention doesn't mean one has no "soul." Nor does intervention equal Vietnam.
People seem to want to take a simplistic view of the debate. The Senators expressing concern understand that decisions have to be made based on facts. For example, did Senator Sanders and others who supported holding Libya accountable to include a possible no-fly zone (a Senate resolution in support of a no-fly zone before the action was taken) have no "soul":
SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)(PDF)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-03-01/pdf/CREC-2011-03-01-pt1-PgS1068-4.pdf#page=1
<...>
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;
(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;
(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;
(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;
(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;
(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;
(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the ``disproportionate use of force in Libya'' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;
(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;
(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and
(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Everybody here hates Rand Paul...but that doesn't mean every position he takes is bad just because he's the guy that's taking it.
On foreign policy, bombing Syria is an insanely stupid idea...and it doesn't matter WHO is against it.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)They lock up your soul in a White House safe before you become Sec. of State.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)in this instance they'll have to be content standing with rand...
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I bet it bites.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Roosevelt didm't approve of the Axis powers and the NWO they wanted. Those who promote this are projecting. This was engraved on the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial:
They (who) seek to establish systems of
government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers... call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.
But people have been swallowing this dreckt for quite a few years now.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you just gave Iran a happy, but then again that was JPost
+1,000,000
mythology
(9,527 posts)Gandhi actively recruited Indians to fight in World War I. Did that mean he believed in violence in every circumstance? Would you have prayed for his soul because he didn't meet your absolutist standard?
Or is it that there each situation is different and must be judged on their own merits?
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Hmm, what other political group do we know who breaks things down this way...?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)of course there is plenty of gray and ambiguity in the world, but not when it comes to war.
There is no way that bombing Syria can be limited to "a few military sites" and there is no way it won't escalate.
Why even take the chance?
Don't you remember those who once said "We Seek No Wider War"?
If it was bullshit in 1964, why shouldn't we see it as bullshit now?
And why do our leaders ALWAYS seem to end up seeing bombing as the default option, no matter what?
FSogol
(45,468 posts)in the 2014 midterms.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Once you switch from peace TO war, from nonviolence TO violence, you can't ever speak out against violence again...you can't go back to being for peace later.
You end up reducing yourself to the meaningless position of backing peace when there's peace and war when there's war.
It's about preserving your humanity...something we all have to struggle to do.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)By saying the comparison between launching a dozen missiles and sending hundreds of thousands of Americans into combat is quite lopsided means he has no soul.
I see. That makes perfect sense...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Once we're in, we're ALL THE WAY in.
Assad will just kill more people if we bomb...he'll feel obligated to just to prove that he isn't caving in. And Iran and Russia will intervene on Syria's behalf.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)has sunk DU to new lows. John has dedicated his life to public service and deserves respect even if you don't agree with the President's plan that he is tasked to explain.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)How much real difference is there between getting into Syria and staying in Vietnam?
How much humanity can you still possess after you call for bombings?
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)A one-word "drive by" isn't a rebuttal.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that the John Kerry of 2013 no longer holds any of the beliefs of the John Kerry of 1971.
He was a soldier for peace then. Now, his humanity is gone.
He knows what he's calling for can't help the people of Syria...he knows bombing can only make the situation massively worse...he is only calling for it because of our fetish with "force projection" and "displaying toughness".
There is no way to combine military intevention and progressive, life-affirming values. You can't make a better world through killing.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)of this country has lost its soul. I have been in mourning for years already.
longship
(40,416 posts)It's getting mighty crowded beneath that undercarriage these days.
No wonder the theocratic, authoritarian, minority party wins so many elections.
Hillary would likely be there if she was still SOS.
Don't like the way the Syria issue is going? Want to change the party?
I am sure all those complaining are already at least precinct delegates and are doing their best to change the party's direction from within. Otherwise, wouldn't it be like carping from the sidelines?
If this issue is important to you -- it is to me -- posting on a partisan Democratic forum (and getting into flame wars) isn't going to make much difference.
Disagree, but do so respectively.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I respect the man John Kerry was. Nothing of that man survives today.
And yes, HRC would probably be getting the same stick if she was still SoS, but so what?
The answer isn't to support Democrats just because they are Democrats.
The answer is to fight for the core values of the party...one of which has to be peace, since war no longer works for much of anything these days...and to speak out for the best values of the country.
Of course people should be active in the party...but at the same time, the party must NEVER try to suppress their activism or to restrict their message. We don't win by blanding the party out.
longship
(40,416 posts)But that's not what's happening here. And you probably know it.
My question. How many of the Democratic Party leadership does one have to throw under that bus before there is a new more agreeable leadership waiting in the wings?
If we throw out what we have without having people to move in with our values, the only thing we accomplish is to give the next election cycle to the opponents, who definitely do not have our values.
It took the Christian Coalition and the Religious Right a couple of decades to take over the GOP. I was very active throughout that period, from the late 70's on and watched it happen before my very eyes.
Carping about the national party doesn't do much good when one hasn't done anything to change it. And that change will take a very organized effort that starts at the precinct level. We are in this pickle now because we've missed the boat. It sailed long ago. We'll not catch it until we learn to do what the CC and RR did.
I don't mind the carping. I do mind the willingness to demonize everybody in the party who doesn't agree on a particular issue.
The first step is to stop throwing the party leadership under the bus. The second step is to work within the party structure to change what you do not like.
That's how the fucking system works. Wishing and hoping, or posting nasty flames on DU, doesn't do the trick.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)who is now in the unenviable position of leading the effort for a military strike. I assume he would be far happier had his efforts in 2009 led Assad to break ties with Hezbollah and reach out to moderate Sunnis - and together they could easily have controlled the radicals. I assume he would be far happier appearing before the committee to speak of what J Street refers to as his "herculean" efforts toward a two state solution.
As to this, it is consistent with the 1971 Kerry, who risked having the political career he wanted to speak out against US actions in Vietnam. Even then, he was not a Dove.
When he finally got to the Senate in 1985, he took on the career killing investigation of the illegal funding of the Contras - even to speaking of the CIA turning a blind eye to the crack cocaine coming in. Why, because he has a conscience.
He spoke out on Darfur - holding hearings with Feingold. He spoke against the massacres in Kosovo. He spoke against the impending massacre in Libya. Speaking against the use of chemical weapons in Syria is very in line with this.
You could argue that the actions proposed are not good for the country - but it takes a huge amount of chutzpah to attack the character of a man who has shown himself to be a moral person for decades.
This is not a call "to kill", it is a call to set a price for a leader using gas to kill his own people.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)When those "few strikes" don't make Assad change anything, the call will inevitably call for more strikes...and less restrictive "rules of engagement"...and then, boots on the ground.
Limits set on intervention in a committee hearing are never observed in practice.
John Kerry was a hero, once...but he joined the Right when he became an interventionist. There is no way to bomb Syria without making things much worse there AND without pushing politics here sharply to the Right. That's what always happens.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)entire team. Not to mention, you miss my point entirely - and ignore that it is MORALITY that is the force behind Kerry's passionate anger here.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bombings can never be moral. The last time they were was in the fight against Hitler, and there's never going to be another Hitler-especially in the Middle East, because you have to be a Northern European to be that much of a psychopath.
"you have to be a Northern European to be that much of a psychopath."
That may be the most outrageous claim I ever saw on DU. You could say that as a psychopath who became the leader of a country as powerful as Germany could do more damage than a psychopath of a less powerful country. What of Pol Pot?
I wonder if people in the 1930s said that Hitler was evil, but not as evil as Genghis Khan.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There are no possible circumstances that such intervention could end the Assad regime or, that if it did, it could replace it with anything better.
The only thing that would come of Assad going down, at this point, would be a switch from Alawite supremacy to Shiite or Sunni supremacy...neither would be an improvement.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)It's been specifically stated that it is not.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's also clear that Assad won't stop doing horrible things while remaining in power. So, no possible positive results could occur from the bombings. Assad would just laugh and go on being the same.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)as well as demonstrate a price will be paid for slaughtering civilians. You don't see any value in that?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)IOWDS: Rest in Hypocrisy......John Kerry. 
wisteria
(19,581 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts).. not during the 2004 election, not ever. But when it comes time to do the bidding of the Military Industrial Petrodollar Complex, he can really bring it.
I'm not in a position to judge his "soul" but as to his character I'd say it is pretty evident that he has SOLD OUT.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)called a moral obscenity. Look up his 2006 speech against the bill that he said "condoned torture" - or any speeches around that time. Not to mention it was the passion of his 1971 speeches. He also had a very passionate speech on the right and privilege to dissent on the 35th anniversary.
I think that in 2004, he was actually restrained by wanting to win and because he was actually less healthy than he was before 2003 or after the election. He was successfully treated for cancer in February 2003.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... selectively chosen from hundreds that happen every year. Like our own adventure into Iraq.
He's working for his masters, trying to claim some huge moral outrage here is ludicrous. The UN, Britain, hell almost everyone DISAGREES that lobbing missiles is a good idea.
The fact that so many Americans will fall for the same bullshit over and over again is the reason we are a nation in decline. Congratulations.
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)That's fer sure.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)Kerry will always be one, in my book.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)In 2004, I was surprised as i read more about the nominee, that I became more and more impressed. The norm for me was to find that the shiny PR image was not actually true and it omitted any flaw - no matter how small. In Kerry's case, the man behind the image was far more complex, thoughtful and decent than the PR.
I don't always agree with him. but I have always found that his reason for positions he took were based on his values - and his values were ones that I almost always agreed with.
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)I remember Brinkley being interviewed on NPR in early December '03 and the whole vibe was, "do you think you wrote a book about the wrong candidate?" Brinkley said, on paper and in fact, no one running against him comes close. He was right.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Like the Sherman - Taft act, like Jimmy Carter interrupting the Sunday night movie to warn us about Greed & Excess, giving up the system of Checks & Balances bring down the best of men and John Kerry is no exception .
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)
agent46
(1,262 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)
There's something about Washington DC that seems to waste the souls of any politician or military members who work there for any length of time. It's creepy.
I for one, now believe they are keeping the great elder outer god Yog-Sothoth chained in the basement of the Pentagon and each new president and his staff are required to bathe in his soul-destroying emanations.
After exhausting all natural explanations, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Constantly Ingratiating oneself to power, Sycophancy to tyrants because they have $$$$$$ and using statistics to lie, not a healthy environment .
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Who said anything about fantasy?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)In fact, they had to suppress the vote in Ohio.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)SOS Kerry knows more about what is going on in Syria and the Middle East than any of us here. He knows what fighting and conflict and war are like-he has lived through them. I am convinced that he is correct on the need to strike. I trust his judgement.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... and just like Gen Powell, he failed. Rest in peace, soul of John Kerry.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)I'll be happy to note the passing of you' re soul.
I'll believe your pius bullshit when you have the same creds as JK.
He put his life on the line when it mattered. A fucking anonymous poster who has never put his life on the line nor who understands the reality of the total reality of thr situation does not impress me in the least. JK has earned my respect and if he believes in the rigjteousness of his convictions, I'm all in with him. You are not in possesion of all the facts, you are just another anonymous poster on the internets, BFD.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)politicasista
(14,128 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)...the good old appello ad auctoritatem falsitas.
Same stinking shit the Neocons have always used.
Agony
(2,605 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Sorry, that's the eay I roll. He didn't do the easy in the 70's...and je's not doing the easy now.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Erose999
(5,624 posts)is also naively claiming there will be "no boots on the ground". As if we can affect any change in the situation solely with drones and planes. And they talk about an aerial campaign as if there won't be people on the ground shooting back. What should happen in the fairly certain event that some of our airmen are taken hostage by either side?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Call me what you want...but don't call me anonymous.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)Praytell, spotless one! How virtuous are you?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The lesson we thought Kerry had learned from war was that war was to be avoided unless there was truly no other option at all, and unless the survival of this country was at risk.
Instead, he's like all the rest...still seeing war as the default option.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)You've certainly got your bases covered!
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I wouldn't go that far. He had his wife with him today for good reason. He must have needed moral support.
Politics, war, and knowing what to do all the time are not instinct, like birds migrating. Kerry is doing his best as SS, he still loves his country, and thinks he's doing the right thing.
I bet he himself hopes he's right.
They are a wealthy couple, and she does a lot of charity work. They are probably sick at heart with both bombing Syria and seeing what the chemicals did. This is not for personal gain in their case - he's not running for office.
polynomial
(750 posts)Our souls don’t die, they ascend. John Kerry’s soul took a turn. Where it is going many wonder. My self as a Vietnam veteran in that time respecting Kerry for his review of what was wrong in the Vietnam war, now I weep. My eyes well up in thoughts about the sacrifice many Americans made in that war plus the disrespect the veterans endured immediately after the war. Now Iraq the disrespect is there even worse to ignore benefits to many veterans, now want to press for more war. Insane we are.
My memory reflects back to the very first time hearing about the decision to bomb Iraq. My thinking flashed back to school the early grade a very young time learning about the cradle of civilization. Iraq, the Tigress and Euphrates river as the bread basket in the beginning of governments. Now all oil profiteers the reason. Even back in the sixties Richard Feynman the famous physicist said “ school books are not written with the principal goal of conveying accurate information as genuine understanding. They are written with intention of training students to bubble in the correct answer on multiple choice standardize tests.”, that supports my reason to dump the Gaussian for amortization loans.
The really awful feeling came over me as America was told to bomb, that something was wrong with that decision to bomb the ancient place. When are Americans going to understand the history we learned is just as corrupt as the bankers, the politicians, to the home owners the one percent gassed with phony contracts, those men deep in government always disrespecting an agreement. Everyone having the eureka moment realizing our government done away with Americas indigenous Indian should give pause to no surprise. Why do they think that way? It’s not Kool-Aid, its metadata lust in power for profiteering that corrupts and blinds the one percent.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)and this..what you say along with the rest of your post:
"When are Americans going to understand the history we learned is just as corrupt as the bankers, the politicians, to the home owners the one percent gassed with phony contracts, those men deep in government always disrespecting an agreement. Everyone having the eureka moment realizing our government done away with Americas indigenous Indian should give pause to no surprise. Why do they think that way? It’s not Kool-Aid, its metadata lust in power for profiteering that corrupts and blinds the one percent. "
pkdu
(3,977 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)that if I could have waved a wand, I would have replaced the Clinton administration with Kerry. Now, even kerry is shut down.
"The best lack all conviction, but the worst are full of passionate intensity"- WB yeats, "the second coming."
Initech
(100,057 posts)"You have owners. They own you. They own the important land and make all the important decisions. It's a big club and we're not in it. You and I are not in the big club."
John Kerry: another soul lost to the big club. 
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Your post-with-an-obvious-agenda only included FOUR cliches: "lying", "warmongering", "automaton", and "the 1% club".
Tonight's goal was FIVE well-worn words/phrases - although the judges were impressed with the "just another" reference, and feel you showed some out-of-the-box initiative there.
But, as always, thanks for playing.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)if the right corporate interest paid him to.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Find Eric Cantor's long lost soul. Better bring bank cuz it was sold to Satan and buying it back may be a king's ransom.
John Kerry still has his soul. His eyes reflect light. Not so with Eric. It's like a black hole in there.
But it isn't as if Cantor's lost soul isn't out recruiting for the legion of the undead GOP, in Hell. I think they are often refered to as demons. 
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- It was a pleasure to have known you. Back then.....
TeamPooka
(24,217 posts)
Omnith
(171 posts)I don't have a problem with people changing their minds.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)