So what's your favorite "reason" for bombing Syria?

[last1standing]

I've read each of the following "reasons" for bombing Syria in the last 30 minutes of scanning DU so I thought it'd be fun to see which one is most popular.

15 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	"Clinton caused 9/11 because he didn't bomb the Hell out of Al Qaeda when he had the chance."
	1 (7%)
	"We have to bomb the Syrians to save them."
	4 (27%)
	"My past military experience means you have to STFU!"
	0 (0%)
	"We can bomb the chemical weapons facilities without hurting civilians."
	0 (0%)
	"Obama/Kerry wouldn't lie to us."
	2 (13%)
	"We'll never put boots on the ground."
	2 (13%)
	"Look at this picture of dead people!!!1111!!!!"
	4 (27%)
	Other
	2 (13%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Their bread is bland and tasteless.

[Warpy]

2. Yeah, but their booze makes up for it.

[last1standing]

4. Booze usually does.

Why say "sorry" when you can say "bottoms up?"

[last1standing]

3. Heretic!

I love Syrian bread with tomato kibbeh. Insanely good!

[el_bryanto]

5. WHo do you expect to vote in this poll?

I take it that anybody who supports the President in this matter is a moron or a bloodthirsty ghoul?

For the record I am mostly opposed to bombing at this point; I don't think it will a accomplish much.

Bryant

[last1standing]

8. It's one thing to support a policy, another to use the same arguments RWers used in 2002.

I'm merely pointing out what some DUers are saying to show similarities.

[Arctic Dave]

6. Other:

Our country isn't quite to third world status due to crumbling infrastructure, poor schools, lack of healthcare and crushing debt.

I can't wait until we, as a country, think that eating cat food is "putting on airs".

[blkmusclmachine]

7. WAR WAR WAR

Can't let a good money-making opportunity get away from the MIC

Kerry, he was against it before he was for it

1 Party, 2 Faces

Hope. Change. Bullsh!t.

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. Hope. Change. Bullshit.

Fool me once, shame on you shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again....heh heh heh.

[bowens43]

9. Obama wants to play army so there

[backscatter712]

34. It's not that Obama's got a bad defense record.

Obama whacked Osama, brought the troops out of Iraq, so I can't argue with that record.

I don't think it's so much that Obama wants to be a War President like Chimpy, it's that the military-industrial complex is hungry, so they're bribing/extorting our politicians in accordance with Citizens United, and demanding more war. Someone's gotta make a profit when they replenish the depleted supply of Tomahawks...

[Stryder]

10. Ooops

I thought it said "We'll never put boobs on the ground."
I need to change my vote to "Duck Dynasty's goin into rerun so I need to see some real TeeVee."

[Stryder]

12. Hockey shit

I didn't catch your comment before I posted. Thought you pulled those options out your bum. Are you serious? DU? That's some Onion worthy poll right there.
(Perhaps I should go back and put that sarcasm thingy on previous post)

[last1standing]

16. These are all pure DU created posts.

I've paraphrased a few of them but I haven't changed the meanings in any way.

[dflprincess]

11. Hey guys! We're getting the band together again!

Just the fact that so many of these names have popped up again in the last week supporting bombing should make anyone think twice about this sideshow.

[Mnemosyne]

15. Word. This^^^^ nt

[woo me with science]

18. ^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^

Thank you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

23. But, but, but it is different this time.

[Iggo]

26. Special Guest Star: John Kerry as Colin Powell.

A Quinn/Martin Production.

[backscatter712]

33. It's amazing how Deadeye Dick and Yosemite Sam come out when they've got a war-woody! n/t

[RetroLounge]

55. +1000

Lot's of owners of raytheon, Northrup Grumman, etc.

RL

[leftstreet]

60. +1

[whatchamacallit]

13. The silver lining (if there is one)

is that it exposes this administration as the neocon dick extender I always knew it was.

[NightWatcher]

14. It's for the kids

Assad gassed a bunch of kids so we've got to bomb him as punishment (we won't kill any kids with our Adults Only Tomahawks, right).

[rug]

17. "We must send a message to North Korea."

[last1standing]

19. LOL! Is that an actual DU quote?

n/t

[rug]

22. Sadly, it's a close paraphrase of the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Now the eyes of the world are upon us. The decision we make, the resolution we present to the Senate and the votes we take will reverberate around the world. Our friends and allies await our decision, as does the despot in Pyongyang, the ayatollahs of terror in Tehran and terrorist groups wherever they may be.

What we do in the face of the chemical attack by the Assad regime against innocent civilians will send a signal to the world that such weapons, in violation of international law, cannot be used with impunity.

The question is: Will we send a message that the United States will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world, by anyone, for any reason? Will we, in the name of all that is human and decent, authorize the use of American military power against the inexcusable, indiscriminate and immoral use of chemical weapons? Or will we stand down?

What message do we send the world when such a crime goes unpunished? Will those who have these weapons use them again? Will they use them more widely and kill more children? Will they use them against our allies, against our troops or embassies? Or will they give them or sell them to terrorists who would use them against us here at home?

And the Secretary of State.

So I think that it's clear, with those two prior usages that I referred to, that we would be opening Pandora's box with respect to a whole set of dangerous consequences as a result of the United States not keeping its word. And it would make our life very, very difficult with respect to North Korea and Iran.

There's no question in my mind that those countries are watching. The mullahs and many others are watching what we are doing now with great interest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-senate-foreign-services-committee-hearing-on-syria/2013/09/03/35ae1048-14ca-11e3-b182-1b3bb2eb474c_story.html

[last1standing]

24. You have to wonder if they've ever heard of a "teddy gram."

[rug]

69. Kerry could end this with twitter.

[DesMoinesDem]

20. Obama needs another Nobel Peace Prize

[dionysus]

25. pile of crap flamebait poll because no one here has a favorite reason for bombing anybody.

[last1standing]

27. Awww! Did you're feefees get hurt?

Oh well.

[dionysus]

28. what are you 12?

do enjoy your shitty poll however!

[last1standing]

29. I wanted to react at your level. I think I did a good job. :)

Poor little thing. Don't you understand I couldn't care less what you think?

But it's fun to chat like this, isn't it?

[rhett o rick]

39. Those that think Pres Obama cant do any wrong are willing to kill, kill, kill

to support their holy President.

Obama embraced the Republicans Clapper, Alexander, etc for the domestic spying and now he is embracing the neo-cons like Lieberman to kill, kill, kill.

[dionysus]

57. LOL. you're out of your mind...

[rhett o rick]

71. And the best you have is your group's signature rude emoticon.

Obama is joining with Lieberman, Boner, Hagel, etc., to get authorization to spend hundreds of millions to punish a dictator. Without the UN approval it is a war crime. But I am guessing that wont slow down those here that think no farther than "we support Obama unconditionally." What good little soldiers.

Those that want to kill Syrians are out of their minds.

[dionysus]

74. i bet you didn't know...

that I don't think a limited strike is going to fix the issue (it would be nice if it were that simple), and I sure as hell don't support a full invasion. I don't know what going in alone is going to do to stop the insanity.

that said, I can respect the notion that people think we should intervene somehow, thinking that we'll be saving lives. To say shit about DUers like "kill kill kill kill" and act as if they're gleeful death junkies because they want to act is crass and foolish. They want to put an end to this and try to save lives (this applies more to DUers than people like McCain and graham).

I don't agree with intervention but i'm not gonna slam people who think we'd actually be helping, even if I disagree with them.

the thing is we don't know what will happen. a strike could make assad back down, or it could make things worse. that's why I think going in alone is dangerous. the UN is a joke, you know Russia and china would veto anything having to o with Syria, just as the US vetoes anything to do with Israel.

it's a complex issue and reducing it to isolationist vs death junkie warmongers is a cheap way to frame the issue.

[fadedrose]

30. How about a poll about reasons NOT to bomb Syria????

[99Forever]

31. You forgot...

"They hate our Freedumbs!"

[backscatter712]

32. "You're a horrible person that hates kids if you don't support the attack!"

That seems to be a favorite of the GoeringBots these days.

Along with the Goering classic: "National security is in DANGER!"

[last1standing]

37. I haven't read that one tonight.

But I'm not surprised. Some of these "supporters" will say/do anything to protect their idol.

[backscatter712]

58. It was strongly implied in a lot of their posts. n/t

[last1standing]

62. That's ok, I'm being accused of being a meanie for pointing out that some are exploiting the dead.

Apparently it's fine to use images of dead people to drum up support for killing more people but really, really mean to mention it.

[backscatter712]

64. You shouldn't call out manipulators for manipulating - it hurts their feelings!

[ProSense]

35. "Obama/Kerry wouldn't lie to us."

Leave Assad alone because Obama/Kerry are lying?

He couldn't possibly be reponsible. The rebels did it. Assad, no fucking way.

[last1standing]

36. Is that the best you've got? Ok, then yes, "leave Assad alone because Obama/Kerry are lying."

If they can't provide an honest reason for bombing Syria I have to conclude they don't have one.

I know honesty sounds odd to the ear when one lives in a world of propaganda but there it is.

[ProSense]

38. I know, claims that

"I know honesty sounds odd to the ear when one lives in a world of propaganda but there it is."

...the rebels did it couldn't possibly be "propaganda."

Assad wouldn't fucking do it. Anyone claiming he did is lying or spreading "propaganda," right?

[last1standing]

40. Look everyone! Prosense insinuating something I never said! Again!

That little ploy never gets old for you, does it?

[ProSense]

48. Projecting?

I can undertand by my point would make you uncomfortable.

[last1standing]

49. You're not even trying anymore, are you?

Do you know what projecting means?

If I had any respect for your opinions I'd feel a bit embarrassed for you right now.

[ProSense]

53. Revisit your OP.

"If I had any respect for your opinions I'd feel a bit embarrassed for you right now."

Yes, projecting.

[last1standing]

54. Nope. You really should look up what that word means.

But this is fun. Please continue.

[rhett o rick]

41. Stay out of the civil war. How hard is that to figure out? I guess the Neo-con Democrats among

us are willing to spend billions we dont have to kill, kill, and kill.

Kill for Obama.

[ProSense]

42. No one is proposing

"Stay out of the civil war. How hard is that to figure out? I guess the Neo-con Democrats among us are willing to spend billions we dont have to kill, kill, and kill."

...getting involved in the civil war, and the bogus name calling is just as absurd as it ever was.

Like I said, 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) were not "Neo-con Democrats" who were "willing to spend billions we dont have to kill, kill, and kill."

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

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

<...>

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.

[progressoid]

70. How is bombing one side of a civil war NOT getting involved in said war?

[NoOneMan]

43. Because it will look great on Candidate Clinton's 2016 resume

unless it turns to shit like the rest of the wars

[joshcryer]

44. Option 7 is extremely insensitive.

[last1standing]

45. Yes. Maybe you should find the posters doing it and tell them.

n/t

[joshcryer]

50. Maybe you should show some compassion.

Some people are legitimately distraught over the images. Even if I disagree with them "something needs" to be done that doesn't mean they have some ulterior motive or that their position is mockworthy.

Your character is really defined by this poll, I think.

[last1standing]

52. I hope to always be defined in ways that are unacceptable to you.

Because if you think it is worse to point out that people are using images of dead people to get their way than to actually do it, I believe your value system is gravely flawed.

[joshcryer]

56. I do not think it is worse.

I simply believe in mutual respect for people.

I am glad that you conditioned your accusation on "if" because it clearly means you don't know anything about my position. You are making assumptions and judging me based on those assumptions.

I don't have to make assumptions about you, your character is plain for all to see.

[last1standing]

59. Poor thing. I've upset you.

If I cared about your opinions I would take you seriously, but you've already shown what type of human being you are so I don't.

[backscatter712]

61. There were a few pic-posts out there that I saw as propaganda and guilt-tripping.

Sorry, but while some people may post them out of genuine concern, others are posting them to try to manipulate people.

[devils chaplain]

46. "Rand Paul is against it, so if you are too, you must be Rand Paul!!" n/t

[last1standing]

47. Didn't they wear that out with the NSA scandal?

doh! What am I saying? Of course not.

[NuclearDem]

51. Oh, clearly not.

The usual suspects are already taking the opportunity to play the "Rand Paul is an idiot" card while salivating over John Kerry at the same time.

[backscatter712]

65. They still throw that one at us.

I've had it thrown at me plenty of times in the NSA/Snowden wars. You'd think that as logically fallacious that attack is, they'd have worn it out by now.

[CakeGrrl]

63. Making light of the issue. Classy. -nt

[last1standing]

67. Much more classy to drum up support for war because the president looks good in a swimsuit.

Don't you just love the way the sun glistens off the drops of water as he emerges from the waves like a sea god....?

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. The second one, burning the village to save it

has not lost it's appeal since 1968



Yes, I know, bad ghoulish humor.

[last1standing]

68. Sometimes humor is the only form of communication that makes sense.

This is one of those times.

[Dash87]

72. Other - "Assad proclaimed victory, so we must bomb to prove him wrong!"

To be fair, though, that might have been Fox News.

[woo me with science]

73. It's humanitarian punishment BOMBING.

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 09:46 AM - Edit history (2)

Caring disciplinary slaughter, or something.