General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharlie Pierce shares AMAZING John Kerry quote from 4/22/71:
I have tremendous respect for Secretary Of State John Kerry, whom I have watched since he first ran for Congress in Lowell a long time ago. I believe he is everything about an American politician that most people think John McCain is. That said, he can't outdistance his own past no matter how fast he tap-dances. Yesterday, he got in a terrible wrangle with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he was asked to come up with a scenario by which he could envision American ground troops in Syria, and he actually came up with one, causing a lot of the people on the committee to scream. Soon, though, he was back to the comforting, administration-approved fiction that making war in Syria with cruise missile strikes is somehow not the same as making war in Syria with the American infantry. That, somehow, doing the former is not making war in a place.
This is not a tenable position, and Kerry has to know it. On April 22, 1971, John Kerry appeared before this same committee of the United States Senate and demonstrated quite convincingly that this is not a tenable position.
Kerry quote:
"We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country has been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration. No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control. But believe me the helicopter crews fill the same body bags and they wreak the same kind of damage on the Vietnamese and Laotian countryside as anybody else and the President is talking about allowing this to go on for many years to come. One can only ask if we will really be satisfied only when the troops march into Hanoi."
He knows how deadly wrong the comforting fiction he's selling now really is. It is no more all right to kill Syrians by remote control than it was to kill Laotians by remote control. He is asking the Senate to allow the president to make war in Syria. He should stop pretending otherwise.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/
mike_c
(36,213 posts)John Kerry is a tool, now.
indepat
(20,899 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Secretary Kerry certainly isn't advocating carpet bombing Syria and killing tens of thousands of people.
"Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a fiery rebuke to...Sen. Rand Pauls line of questioning"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590177
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)is to me as a person who was around during the time he was against the war. My how power corrupts and money changes things. TOo bad he had a chance to make change and didn't. I would resign before I would push this propoganda.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)
forays into Cambodia and Nixon's disrespecting of the anti war protesters? I didn't agree with Wally every time, but I always had a lot of respect for his anti war stance.
Ed. Maybe I should have said let himself be fired. Either way, he took a principled stance.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Captain Cook Parking Lot the same time I was going out pushing the door open. I pushed it into his head. LOL! He was so nice about it. I hit a 150m$ man in the head and lived to tell it.
If even a pug will leave office over war, what excuse does a dem have?
blm
(112,919 posts)There is no carpet bombing of the region in the works.
Anyone familiar with Kerry's position of the last 40 years already know that he his long-held position is AGAINST carpet-bombing....and that has never changed.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Given that the proposal in congress sets no such limits on the President's actions, I suppose we will just have to take your word for it that only those things, unoccupied of course, will be hit by missiles and bombs.
I have yet to hear of anyone who has said that Obama plans on carpet bombing Syria. I don't think we even did that in Iraq. Missiles are so much more modern.
blm
(112,919 posts)and what you choose to believe and that the result isn't illuminating for you.
blm
(112,919 posts)If the US Strikes, What are the Targets Inside Syria?
David Greene talks to retired U.S. Army General Jack Keane about possible military targets in Syria should President Obama decide to launch a strike. General Keane says the primary targets should include several airfields. That would eliminate runways and aircraft, and the other infrastructure that supports Syria's air power.
>>>>
http://www.today.com/video/today/52891958#52891958
n2doc
(47,953 posts)blm
(112,919 posts)for the past decade annoys your recently-decided-to-catch-up sensibility, n2.
You never even knew Kerry had been interceding in Syria since 2005, and had developed a strong, working, diplomatically-driven relationship with Assad in order to PREVENT Assad from indulging the murderous side of his family DNA.
He sticks his neck out all the time for this country in quiet ways you don't hear about much and is rarely backed up....or thanked.
Sure gets kicked a lot, though, especially from the least informed.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Kerry ruled out nothing yesterday. Nothing.
http://www.progressive.org/john-kerry-warmonger
Comphrende?
Perhaps a bit of logic- Would a competent administration reveal what it planned to do ahead of time? Would a competent administration limit the scope of its actions ahead of time in such a chaotic part of the world? What do you think the US response would be if Syria managed to sink one of our warships after we blew up their airfields? Would you call THAT war?
Your trust in Obama and his administration borders on the religious.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)blm
(112,919 posts)Syria seriously by your ASSUMPTIONS.
You need to pretend it's 'religious' when actually it's based on 8 years of watching and listening to what was going on in Syria, long before there was an Obama administration. You also aren' t very careful regarding me, or you'd know that I never feel shy about saying Obama has done something stupid. I railed against his stupid choice of a hawk like Clinton, specifically BECAUSE I knew she was a hawk on SYRIA - sound familiar, n2? It should - because I've been talking about her lack of credibility on Syria since before she or Obama took office.
In fact, I was against her in the primary BECAUSE of her support for expanding war into Syria.
Listen - I don't give a cr@p that people move past my posts because they address stuff that isn't on the MSM radar, but, pretending that I am doing this because of a 'devotion' to an Obama presidency that I have many times noted as too weak, is absurd....absurd of YOU.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that will result from U.S. intervention:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/middleeast/us-syria-intervention-would-be-risky-pentagon-officials-say.html?pagewanted=all
There would be some severe collateral damage going after those areas, Mr. Panetta said last week.
So this fantasy you are creating in your own mind that involves magical missile strikes that hit only military targets is just that: a fantasy.
If we go into Syria, we are going to hurt people. A lot of people, large numbers of whom have done nothing to deserve what's coming.
blm
(112,919 posts)but, it is NOT carpet-bombing.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But it's still bombs with U.S. flags on the side falling out of the sky and incinerating, dismembering and decapitating terrified people JUST LIKE ME who have nothing to do with the conflict. And they are the lucky ones, compared to the ones that will die of sepsis from untreated wounds while American "shock and awe" disrupts what meager medical services are available. Still others will survive and carry horrible scars, physical and psychological, for the rest of their lives.
All so we can prove to the world that its bad to attack civilians.
merrily
(45,251 posts)ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
Syrians ain't asking for USA's help, in fact they seem to be intelligent enough to know that despite their internal conflicts,
missiles from the USA will only make it worse for them.
Remember, even if the missiles do not actually kill one civilian, the families of the military, rebels, whatever will be left fatherless.
Also, infrastructure will be damaged, electricity, running water and food supplies will diminish,
even with the most precise "surgical" strike.
________________________________________________________________________
Syrians deploying selves as 'human shields' in anticipation of U.S. airstrike
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/09/syrians_deploying_selves_as_hu.html
Pakistani lawyers burn a representation of the U.S. flag during an anti-American rally in Lahore, Pakistan Tuesday. It has been reported that Syrians are preparing to use themselves as human shields as the U.S. considers launching a punitive strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Assad is being blamed by the U.S. and the Syrian opposition for an Aug. 21 alleged chemical weapons attack in a rebel-held suburb of the Syrian capital of Damascus. (AP photo/K.M. Chaudary)
/snip/
According to a video Reuters released overnight, civilians continue to volunteer as human shields as part of a campaign called "Over Our Bodies."Organizers claim to be receiving calls from
"We should at least defend our country, regardless of any opinion, notions or point of view, because at this time there is no difference in points of view anymore," one woman said in the video. "This is the least we can do to defend our country with our bodies."
_____________________________________________________________________________
Hands off: Syrians form human shields outside possible US strike targets
http://rt.com/news/syria-activists-us-bombing-380/
/snip/
Damascene activists protesting possible US strikes on Syria set up a camp at the foot of Qasioun Mountain just outside the capital on Tuesday.
Qasioun Mountain, a symbol of Damascus and Syria, is home to many security and military buildings and institutions and thus is expected to be one of the targets for the airstrikes. Protesters rallying beside the place called themselves a human shield and hold banners featuring slogans such as No more American bombing democracy and Hands off Syria.
We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats. We dont want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country, one of the rally participants told RT.
______________________________________________________________________________________
anyone listening???
CC
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)AND his call for the prosecution of the Bush War Criminals for THEIR use of Cluster Bombs on a market place in Iraq.
If what you say is true, I am surprised he has not been speaking out about Bush War Crimes as he was doing back in 1971.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)can target. Babies are going to die. Period.
blm
(112,919 posts)No.
Can you claim that NOT responding WILL be perfect?
How many MORE babies will die in the NEXT chemical attack? And the NEXT? And the NEXT? Because a large group of Americans believe that use of chemical weapons on innocent people should now be tolerated, one can expect a huge uptick in the use of chemical weapons.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)down is smart? Babies are going to die. Let us have our own body count of babies so we can beat Syria in the death race. easy to say bomb them when the bombs don't fall on you.
The Link
(757 posts)blm
(112,919 posts)those working towards diplomatic solutions in Syria the last 8 years.
Yeah.
LOL
lol
lo
l
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)me and many others to support her when she ran or if she runs again.
She explained right after the real goal in Libya was accomplished how 'America cleverly fights wars the NEW WAY'. She confirmed what many of us who opposed that Regime Change operation also, that the US doesn't have to pub AMERICAN boots on the ground anymore, because we are USING PROXY Armies. We knew that, our allies in return for certain favors, like Qatar, put THEIR 'boots on the ground' pretending to be 'rebels' and we pretend we are supporting 'rebels' until we accomplish our goal. After which we forget all about the 'victims' we claim to be 'protecting'. It's quite amazing, the consistency of it all.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)which sums up our whole mideast interventionist policy
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)How do you ask hundreds or thousands of Syrian civilians to die so that the American President can save face?
merrily
(45,251 posts)This about money, power, oil and/or territory.
Saying that we have to save America's credibility is for the folks in the balcony.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)We were planning to kill them without a "by your leave."
In fact, we were saying we were going to kill them with our bombs in order to spare them the cruelty of someone's chemicals. And without proof of whose chemicals they were, either.
The rebels, having no motive I can discern to do so, since they've want the US in there for two years, said they set off the chemicals accidentally. Chemicals furnished them by Saudi Arabia.
Do I know if that's true? No. But I know Assad had no reason to invite the US into Syria by crossing Obama's red line.
AllyCat
(16,031 posts)Admittedly, I don't understand a lot of the stuff about how this is supposed to bolster our credibility and such...seems to me that takes a back seat to not killing more people by bombing the ever-living $hit out of them. But I digress...how do you feel this helps him save or not save face? I'm just asking because I'm not sure what you mean.
By the way, I like your sig line...Game of Thrones?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is that Obama stated that chemical weapons use would be crossing a "red line" and now that Assad has allegedly done so, if we don't intervene militarily then the President's (and the country's) credibility takes a hit.
I say, that ship already sailed with Bush and Iraq - the United States' credibility in matters of war is a tattered rag blowing in the wind.
(The quote is from The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien. Maedhros the Tall was the eldest son of Feanor, the greatest of the Noldor. He went to battle against Morgoth and was captured. To punish Maedhros for his insolence, Morgoth hung Maedhros from the walls of the fortress Thangorodrim by shackles on his right wrist. After ten years of suffering, Maedhros' cousin Fingon, with the help of Thorondor, King of the Eagles, fought his way to Thangorodrim and rescued Maedhros by severing his right hand.)
AllyCat
(16,031 posts)I agree that our credibility is suffering.
You know, I read the Silmarillion and don't remember that (not surprising...twas a long time ago). But I swear I just read a similar "fable" in Game of Thrones or A Clash of Kings. I'm going to have to look for it.
Blue Owl
(49,902 posts)Can you tell me where he's gone?
polichick
(37,152 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)blm
(112,919 posts)Kerry's a warmongerer on Syria, even though he was working for 8 years to prevent war in Syria that the Sec of State Clinton had wanted since 2005.
Gotcha.
blm
(112,919 posts)what were YOU doing the last 8 years? Were you supporting his goal of diplomatic solutions there?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Suddenly, there is a huge distinction between boots on the ground--"for which the American people and most members of Congress seem to have no stomach" and mere l'il ole airstrikes.
That implies, among other things, that Americans do have a stomach for the silly ole airstrikes, which I don't believe for a minute.
Also, how hideous is it that we supposedly will not tolerate putting a single American in harm's way in a war of choice that we start, but no one has a problem bombing Syrian people?
Of course, that's okay, because our killing Syrians is way different from anyone else killing them.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)sure Colin Powell hadn't come back into the administration!
TeamPooka
(24,155 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)The American Declaration of Independence
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)during the Bush years, most of them Republicans because they knew what they were being asked to do was morally wrong. THOSE are men and women of principle.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)the nature of the strikes, they are not aimed at people, at aircraft, vehicles and other means that transport and execute chemical weapons.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Trying to save lives was the justification for the fire bombing of Toyko and Dresden and the atomic bombs.
First of all the Powers To Be lie. We know that from history. Second, even if they aimed the weapons at hardware, people will die. Third, the missile strikes may escalate the war and involve other nations, like Iran and/or Russia.
Fourth, the missile strikes most likely will not teach Assad a lesson, and will not stop his atrocities.
Fifth, we can not afford to be the "punisher" for the world.
AllyCat
(16,031 posts)Many comments in other threads supporting the war. Most recently I have seen this person's comment against Alan Grayson as "grandstanding" for the press. Grayson was, indeed, quite measured in his response and completely logical.