Bombing Syria isn't "war" Kerry says, but I don't care what he calls it

[Triana]

(Mods - I'm the author and that's why I posted more than four paragraphs - it's my piece)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Bombing Syria as a “punishment” as if the US is some worldwide moral compass everyone else must synchronize their own moral direction with, or as if the US is some kind of worldwide policeman or babysitter is horrendously offensive in and of itself – no matter what it’s called.

Certainly the recent chemical attacks in Syria was bad. And the civil war there is hideous and has been ongoing for a long while.

But what the United States does to its own people is as bad or worse. That’s right. Instead of gassing them, we starve them to death and/or deny them any ability to survive. We take away their jobs, our corporations refuse to pay them livable wages when they do have jobs forcing them onto food stamps and and other public assistance – and then we cut that. Then, we take away their unemployment when they can’t find any more jobs and we withhold or deny people needed healthcare (Obamacare isn’t fully implemented yet and even when it is, it will not address the inherent problems of a for-profit healthcare system). We have income inequality that is worse than it’s ever been in our nations’s history and thus our social and economic condition is a tinderbox and is unsustainable as it stands and cannot continue.

What does this mean? It means the United States has its own long-term, civil war and human rights abuses to deal with right here at home.

Furthermore, we stood by while Saddam “gassed his own people” and we essentially helped him do it! And this government is seriously considering bombing another country as punishment for “gassing” people?

The hypocrisy of this is just stunning.

What. Moral. Standing. does the United States have right now in light of all this to bomb Syria? What good is that going to do?

How are we going to pay for it?

And why should we?

If we can’t afford Social Security and Medicare; if we let war criminals off scot-free and act like war criminals ourselves; if we cannot manage to punish gambling banksters who brought the world’s economy to its knees just 5 years ago from which we still have not recovered; if we give unfettered license to the likes of Wall St., the NRA, ALEC, and the Koch Brothers and their Tea Party to BUY and completely control our government and legal system, suppress our votes, refuse to pay taxes, control our media and destroy our economy and our natural environment all for their own personal profit and power at the expense of everyone else in this country (ie: the 99%) — then we Cannot. Afford. To. Bomb. Syria.

Just a few months ago, a deranged moron with an assault weapon went into an elementary school and murdered 20 little kids and what did our country DO about that?

Nothing.

Not. a. Thing.

Did we change or strengthen gun laws? NO.

Did we outlaw assault weapons or high-capacity magazines? NO.

WE. DID. NOTHING.

Because the NRA controls our Congress.

NINETY PERCENT or more of Americans wanted tougher gun laws.

What did we GET? Nothing.

Because we have a pantywaist ninny Congress which is owned and controlled by gangsters.

Excuse me, but to Hell with Syria and Israel’s M.O. to get us into war with Iran via Syria.

We have serious issues of our own at home we need to deal with first before we have ANY business “punishing” any other international “criminals“. When are we going to punish our own national criminals and start policing our own moral standing? If we can’t do that, we have no business sticking our noses into what others do anywhere else. We have no moral or for that matter, legal standing and certainly not an economic one.

This entire cheerleading exercise seems like utter bullshit to me. The United States is not any kind of International Church Lady that – considering its own behavior present and past – has any moral standing to do what’s being rammed down our throats re: Syria.

People got all offended when Reverend Wright said “God damn America!“. But really – God needn’t damn America because America has sent itself straight to the hottest place in Hell on a fast train long ago and continues loading more and more souls into the devil’s pit. And “God” hasn’t a thing to do with it, so America needn’t worry about that. The only “God” in the United States is the almighty dollar. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Who is really behind this Syrian gas attack? Frankly I’m not sure. But who thinks the United States Government has never lied to its people in order to gin up support for war or bombings at the behest of Israel or another (corporate profiteering) entity? Anyone? Seriously, Pollyanna?

Here’s something a little different for you to consider about this subject other than the party line being parroted by the media and the men to whom bombs and war-driven corporate profit evidently have the same effect as Viagra:

THE REST (and there's lots more):

http://www.sevenbowie.com/2013/09/bombing-syria-isnt-war-kerry-says-but-i-dont-care-what-he-calls-it/

[eissa]

1. If another country bombed us

I'm pretty sure we'd consider that an act of war.

[dkf]

2. Using bombs to foster regime change isn't war?

[MotherPetrie]

3. K&R for every word!

[Scootaloo]

4. So for those keeping a record at home...

Bombing a sovereign nation that has not attacked us nor our allies, with the senate-stated goal of overthrowing its government and instituting one of our own liking - NOT A WAR

A nation's military overtrhowing the elected government in a bloody seizure of power that results in over a thousand dead civilians in the nation's capital, followed by the military installing its persons in positions of control through the entire nation - NOT A COUP.

What obvious reality will our Secretary of State obviate next? STAY TUNED!

[Triana]

5. Unbelievably (or not) that seems to be the mantra.

Stunning.

[avaistheone1]

10. War is peace.

John Kerry told me so.

[dixiegrrrrl]

17. What obvious reality will our Secretary of State obviate next? THIS:

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023597615#post14

Did you catch that???...here it is again, in slow motion:
do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places


just ever so casually summing up our other illegal invasions.... whatta man!

[Scootaloo]

18. He was for the war after he was against it after he was for it?

I'm going to need to make a spreadsheet for this guy.

[Catherina]

6. Brilliant thread but there you go thinking again. Rec'd with pride n/t

[Iggo]

7. Triana!

[Catherina]

8. I know lol. A DU treasure

[Tx4obama]

9. The U.S/Obama intervened in Libya and the media did not go batshit crazy calling it 'war'

Our 'intervention' in Syria will be less than that of Libya.

In Libya a no-fly zone was imposed and that is not the plan for Syria.

The US is not going to 'war' with Syria - we are imposing a 'use of force' - big difference!

[Triana]

11. Like I said, I don't care what he/we call it.

We've no moral standing, just IMO.

[SunSeeker]

12. Got a video link/transcript of Kerry saying "bombing Syria isn't war"?

I actually watched his testimony, and that is not what he said. As best I can recall, it was more like "it is not war in the traditional sense in terms of boots on the ground" in response to questioning about whether we should send our troops off to another war. That is very different from saying bombing is not war. I think the point he was trying to make was that we would not have troops on the ground, unlike Iraq.

But I may have missed it; I was not glued to the TV all day. A lot of people have made a lot of hay about Kerry saying bombing isn't war, but I have yet to see a link of him saying that.

[Triana]

13. Here you go: "we don't want to go to war"

When people are asked, do you want to go to war in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100% of Americans would say no. We say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. That’s not what we’re here to ask. The president is not asking you to go to war, he’s not asking you to declare war, he’s not asking you to send one American troop to war.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-kerry-scolds-rand-paul-on-syria-we-dont-want-to-go-to-war/

So. He's saying bombing Syria isn't war.

Listen carefully: "we don't want to go to war" - it's there.

[Triana]

14. And...as I wrote: I don't care what Kerry calls it or how he defines it.

We have no moral standing to do it, IMO.

[SunSeeker]

25. That's fine; you're entitled to your own opinion.

There is no need to make shit up about Kerry.

[SunSeeker]

23. That's what I thought. Everyone is making it up.

The full quote from your link, which you trunkated to exclude the explanation that I remember him saying, is that he was talking about this not being a traditional "going to war" as people understand it, but a limited military strike without a single troop on the ground:

 “When people are asked, do you want to go to war in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100% of Americans would say no. We say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. That’s not what we’re here to ask. The president is not asking you to go to war, he’s not asking you to declare war, he’s not asking you to send one American troop to war. He is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who’s 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. That’s not–you 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 harm’s way. That’s not what the president is asking for here.”

[Triana]

28. As I understand it, troops on the ground would be an option

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 12:43 AM - Edit history (1)

later, if deemed "necessary".

Kerry distinguished this proposed action from "war". He tried to say that's not what they want to do.

I don't care what they want to call it or how or why he thinks bombing someone isn't an act of war. IMO, the US has no moral standing to do it based on the currently precarious condition of its own country on virtually every front, and on its past and present behavior particularly in regards to chemical weapons.

That AIPAC wants it, and the MIC are drooling for it just adds to the justification against it.

You support it. Fine. I don't. I've stated my reasons. Arguing semantics and splitting hairs over Kerry's comments and what he clearly meant by them (not to mention what he flatly said) doesn't change my position. Or, yours.

Well well well. . .

What have we here? http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014586038

[SunSeeker]

29. Kerry made it clear there would be no boots on the ground.

As soon as someone (I think it was Rand Paul, which is who Kerry was having that exchange with) suggested that Kerry was indicating it was an option, he said it was not. Kerry said there was no problem in having language in legislation that, in his words, "has zero capacity for American troops on the ground." http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/09/03/us/100000002419637/no-ground-troops-in-syria-kerry-insists.html#100000002419637

That is what happened. The Senate draft resolution "forbids Obama from using ground troops in Syria and allows the military response to last no longer than three months." http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20306844-senate-committee-authorizes-limited-military-response-in-syria?lite

The question of what do about Assad's gassing of civilians in Syria has no easy answer. Vilifying good people is not going to get us a smarter decision.

[KoKo]

15. I don't care what "THEY" Call it Either! It's another Interference in a Sovereign

Country. I don't care how much we paid them all these years ...we need to keep out of this because I don't wan't ANYMORE BLOOD ON MY HANDS...as an AMERICAN TAXPAYER!

[DirkGently]

16. As though we wouldn't consider a missile strike on US an act of war.

And the rest is spot-on as well. We don't have our own national shit together nearly well enough to be appointing ourselves World Police again.

For Pete's sake, our last two failures are right next door.

What exactly will it take for us all to realize that those selling us the glory of fixing someone else's country with a few missiles, (or a few sacrificed troops) have other goals in mind?

[Triana]

19. "have other goals in mind"

Exactly. At the end of the article, I reference a piece on firedoglake that spells out all the "other goals" and interests that are driving this "bomb Syria" drumbeat:

http://my.firedoglake.com/fairleft/2013/09/03/israel-oil-military-industrial-complex-drive-syria-regime-change/

It's a great piece!

[DirkGently]

20. Heck, Kerry says "Arab nations" are willing to PAY us to whack Assad.

Somehow I don't think it's because they're concerned with the Geneva Convention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3595994

[Triana]

21. Oh great.

[DirkGently]

22. Oh, yeah. Check it out:

We're already discussing invasion pay-for-play here. Oopsie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Credit to cthulhu's original post.

[WillyT]

24. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[0rganism]

26. says a veteran of the Vietnam "Police Action"

Watching John Kerry morph into Colin Powell is disturbing indeed.

[Triana]

27. Watching this whole thing morph into regime change via McCain

is also disturbing.

I voted for Obama x 2 and respect John Kerry but I can't get on their bandwagon on this - for a lot of reasons.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Obama needs a new sales rep for his (sorta, but not really, kinda) war. Kerry's a flop.