General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo, Alan Grayson thinks that the gassing deaths of over 1,400 people 'is none of our business' ?
He was just on the ED Show.
Did I really hear him correctly?
It IS the world's business when innocents are killed by GAS - and WE are part of the world.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)I'll take your word for it.
eissa
(4,238 posts)You don't think people are going to die from our "surgical strikes"? Possibly more than 1,400? But that's ok, right, because we're better than them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the gassing was intentional...
Are you going to eat those words if that doesn't happen? I am going to be a big dreamer like you and guess that we take out the ability to administer more gas to people.
eissa
(4,238 posts)We've killed FAR more than that in Iraq, sometimes intentionally, other times not. Is there any guarantee that won't happen here? Are you prepared for the Syrian government to trot out the bodies of their dead and showcase them to the world, showing Americans, once again, dropping bombs on a sovereign country and decimating its population? What if Syria decides they don't have to just take our bombardment up the ass and fires back? Won't we be obligated to respond lest we look "weak"? Do we really want to do this AGAIN?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you cannot get behind it...am I right?
eissa
(4,238 posts)I'm sick and tired of perpetual war. And I'm especially sick of it when I have family in the affected regions who are scared to death of the rebels/terrorists who have them living in fear. As part of the country's minority population, they'll be the first on the chopping block once they take over. This isn't about chemical weapons, this is the usual geopolitics at work, and I'm tired of being played using the dead babies trick.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NEXT!
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Where do they come up with this stuff?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)folks with ODS...they just cannot help themselves...
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)That's the answer to your question, by the way--history.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)If not a perpectual WAR? this is just more of the same and I personally am sick to death of it.. Why didn't we do something when the Tutus were chopping the Hutus up with machetes? They killed a hell of a lot more than 1400 people and most were women and children. Oh that's right they were BLACK people...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Wow are we going to blame Obama for the killing of the Native Americans next?
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)The poster didn't say that Obama was President then.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)Hutus chopping the Tutsis and in some cases the extremely peaceful Twa. This also happened in the framework of the Clinton Adninistration. Look up a book by Samantha Power (current UN Ambassador) A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Unlike a work such as We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda - her book focuses on the US political response to genocide since the Armenian genocide.
I think you would read that and say - black people AND reduced to "tribal mischief".
Not breaking your balls here - but I keep seeing analogies to wars from long ago when for me - the reset happened in the early 1980's. We need - and by we - I mean the world - to say the word genocide followed by ethnic cleansing. But even then - you will have Balkan and Somalia musings as warnings. Then have to look ourselves (the world - not the US) in the mirror re Sudan and Rwanda.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that was just in response to that situation being brought up...
Funny you mention Somalia though as I have of late been smacking around a few Anarchists on DU...smacking by telling them what the core principle of Anarchy is...
JustAnotherGen
(31,810 posts)That was in response to bandit. 
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)'smacking around a few anarchists'
While you are enriching your vocabulary, maybe you need to look up 'megalomaniac'.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Where do they come up with this stuff?"
Books, I would imagine.
Though I'm quite certain you'll rationalize this rather incomplete list of "only" 23 overseas military operations as "not war" to better validate your opinions of what history should be rather than what it actually is. (Might I suggest Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers as a good primer into both reading and history...?)
Post WW2 US Military Involvement:
Philippines: 1948-54'
Puerto Rico: 1958
Korea: 50-53
Iran 53
Viet Nam 60-73
Laos: 62
Guatemala: 66-67
Cambodia: 67-75
Libya: 81
Lebanon: 82-84
Bolivia: 86
Panama: 89
Kuwait: 91
Somalia 90-94
Haiti: 94
Albania: 97
Yugoslavia: 99
Afghanistan: 2004-?
Iraq: 2002-?
Liberia: 2003
Yemen: 09
Libya: 2011
a la izquierda
(11,791 posts)Guatemala: '61-'96 (when the civil war ended)
Covert action in:
Nicaragua: '79-'90
El Salvador: '80-'92
Granada, as well
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Puerto Rico was 1950, the Ponce Rebellion. 1958 was Panama.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)since it has been a US territory since 1898.
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)Time to wake up.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)...I mean, really?
Half my life has been spent in some state of conflict.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and I notice we are not still at war with all those countries...perpetually. For example we seem to be real chummy with Great Britain these days...
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It simply means being perpetually in some state of conflict, whether it's Eurasia or Eastasia.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The legitimate idea that the USA is perpetually at war.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Scroll past to 1948 and notice all the inter actions we have had with other nations. Although many of these did not necessarily involve "boots on the ground," the fact that we saw to it that the elected president of Iran was overthrown in the 1950's, to our actions in Libya, the USA always has a hand in determining the political outcome of every nation on earth.
The only thing the USA's government does not have the will to do is to keep a middle class prosperous and thriving.
eissa
(4,238 posts)That's perpetual war. Each time some images meant to pull at our heart strings are shoved in our faces, and we are told that we have the moral authority to fix things, and almost every time we find out that we have been played. We sacrifice people and resources in the process, and then continue repeating it to justify the astronomical amount of GDP the military hoards at the expense of everything else. Enough.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am sure you would be shocked to know that...
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)I don't think a single decade has passed without some form of war. At least not for a long while.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)and I'm sick of it.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)to the technocrats and the MIC and the very sanitized language Obama and Kerry are using to sell their war. If you really think US bombs will bring peace to Syria, or even stability to that regions and safety to the civilian population... I have this bridge for sale....
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)NEXT!
Amerigo Vespucci
(30,885 posts)Your move.
Here's a clue...there's NO SUCH THING as "just one life."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yeah...so I guess those that died for the American Revolution etc...were just a waste...
Amerigo Vespucci
(30,885 posts)DUers in the know realize what that means.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)in case you are not "in the know"
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...you and your own should not die for others?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...member die that 1 hypothetical death in the process of saving the lives of 400 children. YOUR EXACT EXAMPLE.
The "stupid argument" BTW is a ridiculous hypothetical that pits immeasurable, unrelated quantities against each other with an unspoken suggestion that a person's morality can be determined by what they consider to be an acceptable ration between those numbers.
Sure we can always look back. In hindsight we can treat every past event of an ongoing narrative as existing in total isolation. We can almost always identify those exact points where given courses of action lead to particularly disastrous outcomes. We can re-edit our lives over and over again in our imaginations, until pretty much everything happens exactly the same, EXCEPT we ALWAYS win. Apart from the simple fact that the more recent past IS (and always will be) THE FUTURE to the more distant past and thus the more recent past will never get a chance to be fixed, so fucking what? Apart from restatement of the obvious, what did i just say? If you do things differently, different things happen.
HOWEVER, until those 400 kids are DEAD AND COOLING ON THE GROUND, they are not fucking dead, and their lives cannot be saved.
We are not Casandra. There are limits to our ability to predict the consequences of our actions or the actions of others.
Just to play ridiculouses to the extreme, let's take your hypothetical and expand upon it a little. Let's assume we ARE Cassandra and are cursed with perfect foresight. Let us say we can identify in advance all the possible victims of a given action and furthermore arrange for ALL NECESSARY DEATHS to come from amongst those who would be dead anyway.
NOW ANSWER ME THIS: Is it morally superior to with deliberation and forethought kill 399 of those children to ensure that just one lives, or to risk likely casualties to save some greater proportion? What's an acceptable ratio? Does it make any difference if the "sacrificial casualties" are volunteers or just random losers in the lottery of life?
That was the actual question you asked with your 1 for 400 hypothetical. And thus the highly metaphysical response of "Put up or shut up." from Amerigo, and my subsequent intrusion into the argument.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)how much chemical weapons would YOU allow? How much chemical weapons is Assad allowed to possess? What is your threshold for that?
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...suggesting that one type of hypothetical death is better/more moral than another.
If you're willing to see my blood spilled, it's perfectly reasonable to ask just how much of it must stain the ground, before we get to see any of yours.
As for Assad having anything, or using what he has, short of hitting the man himself, what exactly will bombing bits of Syria do?
I CANNOT INTERVENE. AND NOR SHOULD THE UNITED STATES.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...defense system? ie. only under ideal circumstances and then less than 100% of the time.
The US has no business in Syria. The US has/had no business in pretty much every place it has poked it's bloody nose since WWII.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)by the way 78% of the worlds chemical weapons have already been eliminated...ours will be gone by 2017.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...systems as a matter of fact, and there's one thing nearly all of them have in common, they don't live up to the hype.
And I will believe that last ONLY after independent international inspectors confirm it.
And the US still has no fucking business in Syria.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Wow...just wow..
Did you even reread what you just said?
So I am going to start calling people on that statement
"And I will believe that last ONLY after independent international inspectors confirm it."
I want you on record stating that you will support military action in Syria if the Inspectors finish and they confirm gas.
Do you say it....or take the whole damn thing back?
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)THE US STILL HAS NO FUCKING BUSINESS IN SYRIA.
The only sort of intervention I MIGHT BARELY CONSIDER SANCTIONING is assassination AND THE WHOLE CAN OF WORMS THAT OPENS. EVERY WORLD LEADER ON AN EQUAL FOOTING.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...under gunk at the bottom.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How is what I said homophobic? What you said wasn't but my response was? That's the jump you made? You got a screw loose somewhere..
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...torturers for millennia.
"Tee-hee, i wonder how you know what something up your bum is like." IS!
And as a matter of fact my exact choice of the word "penetrator" was rather carefully chosen to "encourage" a reply exactly like the one you made.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because homosexual sex was the furthest thing from my mind...you do realize that men are not the only ones that participate in anal sex right or are sodomized right? I have never been penetrated by whatever the hell jacksy or a penetrator rod ...in fact I don't even know what one is....
there in lies the difference...YOU were baiting for a homosexual response...I on the other hand was considering that everyone has a bum that most would not want to be "penetrated" by either of those items..whatever the hell they are...they don't sound fun at all.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...is innuendo, and you practiced it.
Yes I did bait you, but you didn't have to swallow.
Your own responses tell me you know EXACTLY what I meant by jacksey, and the other term is borrowed from a semi-fictional type of ordinance operating on the same principles as your precious gas killers. Basically a chunk of tungsten launched from orbit against a ground target at very high speed. I was being "clever" but again your response tells me that the meaning got through to you.
Denials at this point are not going to help you.
Small piece of advice: When you find yourself in a hole. Stop digging.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and NO I have no fucking idea what the helll a jacksey is...nor do I care...
and how the hell would I know anything about some borrowed semi-fictional type of ordinance? Is that supposed to be some kind of common knowledge? Never heard of either term before in my life.
But you keep trying to fling shit...oh by the way when you use bolding on your text...you are supposed to close the tag at some point...
Dash87
(3,220 posts)
spanone
(135,817 posts)eissa
(4,238 posts)"Oooppsss! My bad. Didn't mean to drop that bomb on the wrong village. But that's ok, it wasn't intentional."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't care for words placed in my mouth that are not my own....
But of course you don't seem to care about the chemical deaths that could also occur if Assad is allowed to keep them...so the hypocrite that you are never even considers that!
ODS strikes again!
eissa
(4,238 posts)considering my family is Syrian, so save your sanctimonious lecture. I know how they live in fear of the rebels/terrorists that threaten them DAILY. And I remain skeptical that the chemicals used were by the government, given that Qatar and Saudi (both major backers of the rebels) have such weapons and could very easily provide them with it. They're the ones that are desperately trying to fight their battles for them and want to draw us into yet another quagmire. Again, I reiterate that deaths by conventional weapons are no better than chemicals.
As to ODS -- for the record, I have proudly defended President Obama on every front. I stood by the compromises, I fought with DUers about NSA and defended the administration vigorously on that topic. I voted for the man twice, and no, I don't regret it. But another war is MY red line, and I just can't accept this any longer.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It was the Saudis!
Of course...why didn't I think of that!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"why didn't I think of that!"
Too busy coming up with petulant, vapid and ineffectual retorts is my guess...
Good luck, though! 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.
So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Bub bye.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)For you to suggest that anyone other than Maher al-Assad launched those CW at that population is just not a viable belief.
If you would listen to what the US government is saying, they do not want to be involved in any civil war, they just want to stop al-Assad from slaughtering people, including children, with abandon.
The US would like a Yemen solution for Syria, where al-Assad leaves and the VPs take over--they do not want "the rebels" or "the FSA" to take over.
Your "another war" red line has already been crossed, because if you are of Syrian heritage, your family is in the middle of a war already. If you seriously think the answer to your problem is allowing al-Assad to gas half the country to save them, you aren't being logical.
There have been a lot of allegations thrown around as to who actually used the chemicals, but haven't heard anything definitive.
Bottom line -- even if Assad used chemicals, it speaks to how truly awful the rebels are that he still has the support of at least half his country. If you think the rebels will be content with his VPs taking over, then I have to inform you of how completely wrong you are on that. They will not rest until they have control -- just like they are attempting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt.......
MADem
(135,425 posts)They took urine and blood samples. Those samples showed that SARIN was used. The only player with sarin in the Syrian game is al-Assad.
This is only "unclear" to people who aren't looking. Even Iran knows, because the guys they've funded to fight with and for al Assad, have TOLD them.
First salvo:
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-ex-president-row-over-syria-chemical-arms-143204829.html
This is typical Persian methodology--get someone from outside to say what you cannot say yourself. Is Raffie speaking for himself, alone (and I know this is his view) or did a well-placed call from one of the Guardians encourage his verbosity?
More of that layer, here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/09/iran-s-foreign-policy
The easiest way to throw someone under the bus is to acknowledge the truth about them.
Second salvo:
http://www.yalibnan.com/2013/08/24/irans-rouhani-admits-chemical-weapons-killed-people-in-syria/
Rouhani has waffled on this matter, but we know how much power the Persian Prez has on a good day. He is the mouthpiece of the Guardians, if he knows what is good for him, particularly on issues of major importance. The fact that he's not pounding the table on behalf of Syria is, in itself, an indictment.
The icing on the cake:
http://www.yalibnan.com/2013/09/04/hezbollah-admits-assad-behind-poison-gas-attack-in-syria/
The telephone conversation intercepted by the BND could be an important piece in the puzzle currently being assembled by Western intelligence experts, according to the report.
Here is the audio (in farsi) of Rafsanjani making his claim:
Damascus, Bashar Assad, has used Chemical weapons against his own people
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president, accused Mr Assad's government of using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in what analysts saw as a warning to the government to rethink its support for its main Arab ally.
"God bless the people of Syria...they were subjected to chemical weapons by their own government and now they have to expect a foreign invasion," Mr Rafsanjani, who heads the powerful Expediency Council, said last week at an event in the northern province of Mazandaran.
The remarks, quoted by the semi-official ILNA news agency, sparked an uproar in Iran, where officials have accused Mr Assad's opponents of being behind the attack. They were quickly scrubbed from the news website. Later, Marzieh Afkham, Iran's foreign ministry spokeswoman, denied the comments, saying they were "distorted".
But an audio recording that appeared on Tuesday confirmed Mr Rafsanjani's accusation that the Assad regime had launched chemical attacks against the Syrian people, a view shared by the US, Britain and France.
Mr Rafsanjani's speech also referred to thousands of Syrians who had been thrown into prison, painting a dire picture of human rights under the Assad regime and reflecting what some say is widespread Iranian sympathy for the Syrian uprising against Mr Assad.
"Mr Rafsanjani has said what millions of Iranians believe in their heart but they either do not dare to express it or they face censorship [by Iran's regime]," said Sadegh Zibakalam, a reform-minded political scientist.
"This is that there is no difference between this repressive regime [Assad] and that of [former president] Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, [the late dictator] Muammer Gaddafi in Libya and the Bahraini and Saudi Arabian regimes."
Despite Mr Rafsanjani's comments, many Iranians remain sceptical that Mr Assad was responsible for the alleged chemical attack in eastern Damascus on August 21 and support the official view that armed opponents of the Syrian regime, including the Saudi and western-backed rebels, were behind it.
But Mr Zibakalam said "not only millions of Iranians" but also officials such as newly elected President Hassan Rouhani and his foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif "welcomed Mr Hashemi's remarks inside their hearts".
Iranians suffered immensely under Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons attacks in the 1980s and continue to be traumatised by the inaction of the international community in their aftermath.
Implicit in Mr Rafsanjani's comments, analysts suggest, was the warning that Mr Rouhani's new government should no longer support the Assad regime unconditionally and should reconsider support that is said to include financial help and military advice as well as the military support of Iran's staunch ally in the Levant, Hizbollah.
Though there has been little sign of change in Iran's support for Syria and the Assad regime is still seen by Tehran as a critical link in its effort to increase its influence in the Arab world, Mr Rouhani's government is keen to break the deadlock in talks with the six big powers over the nuclear programme, and appears to have toned down its rhetoric on Syria and avoided direct involvement in the conflict.
Despite some bellicose rhetoric by military officials, most remarks on Syria appear cautious and carefully calibrated, warning, for example, that a US attack on Syria would further damage its interests in the region.
"Iran has no longer put all its eggs in Assad's basket," said a reform-minded university professor of international relations who asked not to be named. "It is in the country's best interest for the new government to find an alternative to him."
Here is the --consider the source, as always--MEMRI translation, which is fuller and does no one (least of all USA) any favors:
curlyred
(1,879 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Line them up and shoot them, behead them, hell, do whatever. A along as its not gas it's just fine with these folks.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Why do you think most death penalties are by injection these days?
Since you seem to think all death is equal and all. Which is silly on its face...my grandfather died in his sleep...he looked sleeping in his coffin. I have never seen anyone look so alive in a coffin before or after that. Do you understand why? Now would I have rather he made it to in the morning and died of a sudden massive heart attack instead of dying in his sleep? Of course not...
So no...all manner of death is not equal. For another example some people would jump out of a window to their death rather than burn to death....
And that is what is different about gas...
curlyred
(1,879 posts)Death is death. I don't see you getting passed off about the hundred of people dying in Iraq, out last mistake, every damn week.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Would you rather die in your sleep or of cancer?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I wonder, was the 1,400 over or under the estimated casualties for the gas attack? Let's say it was over. Let's say the estimated casualties were 700. Then wouldn't 700 or so be unintentional in that scenario?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)so they will still have the ability to use them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)11 years ago it was this
In 2002, the Navy announced that it was developing the weapon and pairing it with bombs designed to penetrate fortified buildings. The Navy described it working this way: after bursting into a storage bunker, the warhead would spray copper plates at high speeds to tear into tanks containing toxic chemicals. Material within the warhead would burn so hot it would vaporize the chemicals that escape. A byproduct that explosion would generate chlorine gas, a disinfectant...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/
what do you think we have come up with since then?
'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.
So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Which was precisely the point. The French say 281.
All together now. 281. 281. 281. 281....
Carolina
(6,960 posts)where we used chemicals, bombs and bullets but you're ok with that
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)You may argue that we should not respond militarily to Assad's used of nerve gas, but you cannot argue it's "none of our business."
It's none of our business. I don't see Finland, Spain, Brazil, Australia or anyone else thinking they have some obligation to send their troops everywhere, bankrupting their economy in the process, just to play the "my dick is bigger than everyone else's" game.
prairierose
(2,145 posts)there is not direct threat the US or US interests. The war in Syria is a civil war, just as the war in Afghanistan, and Bosnia and Viet Nam and and and..... If the UN or other international body chooses to make some type of military movement, then we might be obligated to participate but at this point, we are not involved. It is not our business to get involved and after the war crimes committed by our government in the last 10 years, we have no moral high ground to lecture others.
LibAsHell
(180 posts)Sure, it's our business in as far as we should be part of the international community applying pressure on Assad. I don't think he would disagree.
It doesn't mean we have the authority to drop bombs, especially because our plan is involves dropping them, then praying to fucking god that it cripples the Syrian army enough that the opposition can regain control of all the major areas AND overthrow the Assad government. This is an absurd notion.
Why do you emphasize gas? 100,000 people got blown to bits before that event and all we did was sit back and talk about how sad it is. NOW all of a sudden it's a tragedy?
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Chemical Weapons
-snip-
Before the Second World War
The Hague Conventions were two international treaties negotiated at international peace conferences at The Hague in the Netherlands: The First Hague Conference in 1899 and the Second Hague Conference in 1907. Along with the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions were among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the body of secular international law. A third conference was planned for 1914 and later rescheduled for 1915, but never took place owing to the start of World War I.
The Washington Naval Treaty, signed February 6, 1922, also known as the Five-Power Treaty, aimed at banning CW—but did not succeed because the French rejected it. The subsequent failure to include CW has contributed to the resultant increase in stockpiles.[2]
The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, is an International treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928. 133 nations are listed as state parties[3] to the treaty—Ukraine acceded August 7, 2003 and is the most recent member nation.[4] This treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world." While the treaty prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons, it does not address the production, storage, or transfer of these weapons. Later treaties would address these omissions and have been enacted.
Modern Agreements
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is the most recent arms control agreement with the force of International law. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. This agreement outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an independent organization based in The Hague.[5]
The OPCW administers the terms of the CWC to 188 signatories which represents 98% of the global population. Of the stockpiles, 44,131 of the 71,194 tonnes declared (61.99%) have been destroyed. The OPCW has conducted 4,167 inspections at 195 chemical weapon-related and 1,103 industrial sites. These inspections have affected the sovereign territory of 81 States Parties since April 1997. Worldwide, 4,913 industrial facilities are subject to inspection provisions.[6]
-snip-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons
As for me, even before the sarin-type gas attack and the more recent napalm-type attack at the play ground I've always thought that what was happening in Syria was a tragedy and should be stopped ASAP. I've voiced my opinion on DU for the past several years that Assad needs to go and he needs to stand trial for crimes against humanity, etc.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Donnie Rumsfeld went to shame Saddam's hand 4 months later. We supplied the chemicals and the targeting coordinates for the Iranian strikes. Rumsfeld was representing Reagan whom Obama has often praised but never, ever criticized for this involvement with chemical weapons use by Iraq. He has never mentioned it. When you pretend that WW1 was the last use of such weapons, you do so because the facts of use since then are tied to Obama's favorite President, Ron Reagan the Transformative One.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)else clucks about it and expects the US to do the dirty...which makes us feel better about our warring and
humanitarian and policeman and Empire "stuff"...until it doesn't any more.
Hell no, we won't go and drone/murder civilians...I like that altered phrase..one for the 20 teens.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)...it's only the *excuse*...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you have this on "good authority I bet...
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..... can't get fooled again.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)over some regular guys "on good authority" any day!
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Our "Intelligence" community???
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Can we see your resume?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)This call for action against Syria problematic.
Our resumes are filled to the brim of realizations that for sixty years we have been repeatedly lied into wars. We were lied into Vietnam: namely, the Gulf of Tonkin and all that made up baloney.
Around the same time as the Tonkin incident, we were told that the Communist Party in Italy was behind the many bombings that injured civilians. We came to find thirty years later that those bombings were our CIA assets helping us destroy the reputation of the Italian Communist Party.
More recently we have been lied into the war against the people of Iraq.
Of course, we might be able to put all this aside if we knew for certain that it was the Assad-controlled forces that did this. But my money is on our CIA. I see no motive for Assad doing this. It is a suicidal move.
Yes, although we know that Sarin gas was used, we still don't know who used it.
Second of all, exactly what happens if we do this military action to punish Assad? You are aware of the reality that the rebel forces are Al Queda. And they are rather violent scumbags in themselves. So if we hurt Assad, we help these scumbags. is that what we really want?
Lastly, our proposed action has really pissed the Russians off. They happen to have sent their Naval destroyers into the same waters that our Navy aircraft carriers will be operating from. Their anti-shop missiles are rather nasty. One mistake on anyone's part, and one of our ships could be attacked. Then what? On our end of things, we Americans could be watching some 1,500 nuclear warheads streaking through our skies and falling on our cities.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so you can go laugh at the Navy Seals...see what that gets ya!
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you think you hurt my feelings by calling me a warmonger!
That's okay...I understand...you are deep in the throes of ODS!
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Unintended consequences... Tell the families of those murdered polio vaccination workers how FUCKIN' AWESOME our Navy Seals are!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polio vaccination workers? How does that have anything to do with the price of tea in China...
NEXT!
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Before you shriek "NEXT!", you might want to find out if you're actually right or just ignorant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse-in-pakistan-may-have-harmed-polio-fight.html?pagewanted=all
Now you can accuse all the kids that come down with polio thanks to our efforts of ODS.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they were the ones that said that!
OMG...
the ODS just keeps on spreading....I think we desperately need to find a vaccine for that!
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Of course it never once occurs to you that it might not be ODS, that you could just be wrong, or it could be people that have actual principles instead of worshiping a personality and insisting anything that person wants MUST be good because that person wants it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)screaming for war on a Democratic forum because you know it will make the "Both parties are the same" narrative easier to push, and it lets you scream about how awful liberals are.
Edited to add: Or we could just both be bots firing random combinations of words at one another for the amusement of some dude with too much time on his hands. :p
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I dont scream about Liberals...I do step up to trolling anti-govt Anarchists though!
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)"anti-govt anarchist" with "does not automatically trust every word the government says".
See, the difference is one automatically opposes everything because the government is doing it. The other demands the government justify its actions rationally or they oppose it. The only way the two look even remotely similar is to people that think authority is the ultimate argument.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Definition of ANARCHY
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)actions to the people that allegedly control it, at least in theory, are about as far from anarchy as it's possible to get. Casting a skeptical eye at claims aren't anarchy either. I'm not going to shut my skepticism down just because our guy is in office.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
Also in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism
For a more in-depth exploration: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part1
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Definition of Anarchy
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
3
: anarchism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
Definition of ANARCHIST
1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
— anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic adjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchist?show=0&t=1378391698
deutsey
(20,166 posts)It does not go into the history of anarchism, the various styles and beliefs of anarchism (many of which are at odds with each other), the various proponents and opponents, etc.
In other words, Merriam-Webster lacks the in-depth presentation of anarchism that the link I provided contains.
And you fling around the term "cherry-picking" like a chimpanzee flingling his poo around while screeching triumphantly?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Common Usage means established definition....you don't get to "cherry-pick" what you like and don't like about it...
I didn't pick the term "cherry-picking" another of your Anarchist friends did...and as long as Anarchists keep trying to take over I will continue to "fling" this in their faces:
Definition of ANARCHIST
1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
— anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic adjective
See anarchist defined for English-language learners »
See anarchist defined for kids »
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchistdem·o·crat noun \ˈde-mə-ˌkrat\
As opposed to "common usage of Democrat"
Definition of DEMOCRAT
1
a : an adherent of democracy
b : one who practices social equality
2
capitalized : a member of the Democratic party of the United States
See democrat defined for English-language learners »
See democrat defined for kids »
Examples of DEMOCRAT
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democrat
deutsey
(20,166 posts)I can see you enjoy seeing things in very narrow ways. So I'll leave you to it.
Enjoy!
PS: I don't have any Anarchist friends that I know of; however, I have known some in my time, have heard interviews with others, read some of the history of it (including contemporay versions of it).
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I know what the core principle of that movement is....why do I need to go any further than:
Definition of ANARCHIST
1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
— anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic adjective
See anarchist defined for English-language learners »
See anarchist defined for kids »
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Proceed!
Carolina
(6,960 posts)JoeyT for putting vanilla whatever in his/her place. Lots of talk but no depth of understanding of history, cooked intelligence and covert operations which have sometimes been used to start wars!
Paulie
(8,462 posts)Came online during election week last year. Hangs out in RKBA. Uses liberals as an epithet and just stirs the shit. Walks like a duck sounds like well you know.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)1400 of 1700 posts in the last 90 days.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Just started posting...
Wow who knew Anarchists hate being called to their faces what they really are!
I am still guessing Lyndon LaRouche!
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I will guess "bridge denizen with RW tendencies"
Seems consistent with the observations at least.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)of Democratic Underground is....they don't even know what their core principles are...either that or they just flat deny them...
Which is it?
Oh yeah....Anarchists don't believe in bridges that the govt built!
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Oooooh, so I'm apparently some kind of "Anarchist." Whatever, you goof!
Look, out of 36 posts of yours in this thread I find four of them actually made a point worth reading. The rest are content-free ranting, name-calling and trolling.
With those odds, a judgment from you roughly has same credibility as the statement that I "am damned to hell" coming from that crazy hairy unwashed guy out on the quad this morning.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Anarchists who do not know the core priniciple of that belief...
Your judgement of my posts on DU have about as much credibility as some unwashed hairy guy on some quad some morning...
Pholus
(4,062 posts)It's time to go off to Ignore with thee!
You goof!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hahahahashahahahahahsahahahahahah.
the RKBA definitely do not like me....hahahahaha....that's hilarious....
If it walks like the Webster Dictionary Definition of an Anarchist....
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Definition of ANARCHIST
1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
— anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic adjective
See anarchist defined for English-language learners »
See anarchist defined for kids »
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)I could swear I heard people saying this about Bush's WMD back in the day.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and we know Syria does..
THAT is a big difference isn't it?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Read up on our "foreign interests". I'll keep posting the website as long as anyone thinks we're just global nannies or kindly uncles. That dog don't hunt.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Please don't tell me we "saved lives" or I'll need a new computer.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)but was self-published because of course what American gives a D###? A bit like sitting at the side of an Iraq war vet's bedside with his family. It truly sucks.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Some realize it's important to plan for the aftermath...after the Hubba Hubba We're No. 1. We need "interventions" to try out the field efficacy of our newest technology toys...read differently, dead and maimed unfortunates. And yes, the atomic bomb experience is still instructive.
A poster from the site..."Unfortunately there is no one to get behind who can replace Assad. He kept the peace with Israel all these years. What comes next will be true savages."
Al Quada. Muslim Brotherhod. Asaad dead. what could go wrong with this Cluster F###.
another ...
"United against a common enemy? Syria's breakaway factions
As the regime tightens its grip, rebel groups are locked in their own feuds" Apparently there are now 5 factions."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/united-against-a-common-enemy-syrias-breakaway-factions-7544517.html
So which one should Obama choose to crown Our Guy in Damascus?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)or is the chemical weapons the target? I say its the chemicals....
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)install a new regime picked somehow (democratically? Not.) from the Rebels...Al Queada, The Muslim Brotherhood...take your pick... AKA the fractured rebel factions. What else would it be for?
We now hate Assad and the Rebels hate Assad...voila...match made in ME grudge-vengeance-jihadist heaven. Oh yes, and we sincerely do hope no children or civilians get maimed and killed in the doing.
Chemical weapons are the thin façade of legitimacy...again, not...they can be made in a junior high school laboratory.
We don't have a dog in the hunt, unless it's more American Empire or the ego of the President. I promised myself not to post the "120 US Military Interventions" again for awhile.
What could possibly go wrong?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)he has said that Removing Assad is not his objective...
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)and his buddies, Senators McCain and Graham sure are pushing for it. Strengthen the rebels, weaken the regime. Want to see bloodshed? Want to see crimes against humanity?? Just wait until Assad falls. Hoooo boy!
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)And I actually believed he still had at least a few when we invaded. Oh, I knew that Bushie was lying and exaggerating his claims because he just wanted a war and would stop at nothing to get it, but I still though Saddam was hiding some somewhere. And I still didn't support the invasion, and I don't support this either.
Syria has long been on the Military Industrial Complex's hit list. I even remember talk of moving onto Syria right after we toppled Saddam and Bush made his "Mission Accomplished" speech and the neocons were riding high before the insurgency really took off. The chemical weapons are just an excuse to go in and remake the world in our image, just like they were in Iraq. I didn't fall for it then and I'm not falling for it now.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)(This spot intentionally left blank.)
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)Ray McGovern, a former CIA intelligence analyst, and his colleagues (Veteran Intelligence Analysts for Peace) have some excellent material about the prostitution of intelligence... the selective parsing of information to suit the goals of the White House from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to Syria now.
Blind trust and loyalty to the D is not a healthy thing
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)And apparently it has worked to a great degree, especially here on DU.
If you really think this is about a relative few kids and not something bigger in the region, I'd like to sell you a barely used bridge.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)instead of just some punishment with no goal or objectives.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Not buying your "relatively few" bridges...
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)The best guesses for civilian casualties is 114,000 - 125,000 dead men women and children civilians. How many kids do you think are in that number?
How many more do you think we'd be responsible for once out strikes/ regime change gets under way? Yes, 400 is realtively few compared to what we'll do.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)about this atrocity defend that atrocity. That's what's the most telling.
I'm open to the humanitarian argument: I really would like to see the killing stop. I'm not even opposed to us stopping it, if I actually thought it would end there.
I just don't trust people who defend the deaths of a hundred times as many innocent people insist this is totally different. Especially while they protect the very criminals that carried that out.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)seriously dude?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to other war crimes.
Either war crimes are evil or war crimes are not evil. You can't have it both ways.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that was Bush an Cheney (who didn't want to sign the chemical weapons treaty that 98% of the world signed).
Carolina
(6,960 posts)die stateside from guns, hunger, poverty, environmental poisons... Where's your moral outrage?!
No matter whether you think bombing factories is the right answer, I doubt that doing nothing will be better. Even if you don't want to be the world's policeman, so to speak, we should care. It is our business as much as anyone's.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...how many civilian deaths is Obama permitted?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)against humanity that will begin as soon as Assad is gone? Because genocide and ethnic cleansing is the declared goal of a large faction of the rebels.
Are we going to put boots on the ground for that? Or just for the "gassing"?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Obama is fine with granting immunity to war criminals, because he knows hes next in line
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)The >100,000 who have been killed by CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS - count for nothing?
It's the GASSING OF THE INNOCENTS that we're concerned about?
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)if not that?
Sure seems that these 1400 (if it was that many) count for a hell of a lot more than the >100,000 killed the old fashioned way.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)
That's sad-funny
MADem
(135,425 posts)If you think -- like this simplistic cartoon is suggesting -- that "no one" has given a shit about Syria before now, you, like the cartoonist, have not been paying attention. USA has been involved in trying to bring this mess to to a diplomatic solution for couple of years now. So has the Arab League.
But hey, a cartoon that represents an "attitude"--not actual fact-- is so much more compelling than all of the diplomatic efforts that have been rejected by al-Assad's regime, and have been thwarted by DU's Hero of the Month, Vladmir "KGB" Putin.
Cha
(297,134 posts)so many with 0 knowledge of the history involved with Syria since the O Admin.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)We must punish Assad for this really seriously awful way of killing people, as it is against international law. But we also want our country off the hook for our use of white phosphorus, agent orange, depleted uranium, luster bombs etc, because we after all,a re the good guys and our bad actions shouldn't count against us. Even when our bad actions are institutionalized, an part of SOP, as was the case of Abu Gharib.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)40,000 Americans to die each year for lack of access to medical care due to having no insurance. Most of these deaths are children.
Where is the war on this?
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)The far left of DU forgets that when they say- "If we did not have a war we could have (Insert socialist nonsense here)"
They keep forgetting that this is a center-right country, and we are not going to have those things.
The public will always end up supporting war over domestic spending, once it is all said and done.
This is why its best to let Obama fight for freedom in his OWN way, not according to far-left purity tests.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)than provide health insurance to all like every other industrialized country in the world?
If that is socialism then we need that more of that - than we will ever need of these wars of choice abroad.
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)And yes, our troops will still protect your right to do so, even if they should not.
Are you saying that our troops will protect us so that 40,000 Americans can suffer and die because these Americans lack health insurance?
You are one sick troll. imo
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Ah yes, that most Pragmatic of Free Speech, Free as long as you agree with me!
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)Nt
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Sean Hannity doesn't belong at DU.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)The lack of health care in the USA is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DELIBERATE!
Health care in the USA is DELIBERATELY WITHHELD with ABSOLUTE FOREKNOWLEDGE that people WILL DIE. That CHILDREN will die.
And all too often it won't be over a liver, or radical experimental drug costing $10K per dose. Hundreds, (perhaps thousands) of American children die every year for lack of a $10 course of antibiotics.
And overseas? How many millions of children literally shit themselves to death every year, for Nike? For Reebok? Apple? For YOUR nation's cheap goods?
You know something? Deliberate gassing is less of a dick move than standing over a dying person and waving their salvation in their face, telling them they can't have it because they aren't the right sort of person.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)because a nation that turns a blind eye on its most vulnerable citizens -- many of them children -- and cuts food stamps, meals on wheels, head start, etc... IS NOT getting involved in Syria's civil war for HUMANITARIAN reasons!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)America is allowing the suffering deaths of 40,000 of its own people!
Then youve got to show lots of pictures and find someone to bomb. 
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)
quinnox
(20,600 posts)That never ends well, especially when both sides are evil and brutal people.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And there will be a hell of a lot more, now.
David__77
(23,369 posts)Stay the fuck out of there. No war for terrorism.
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)n/t
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)The midterms had the lowest turnout in decades
Next will probably see the same or worse
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)Oh well- I guess the adults (DEM centrists and Republicans who agree with centrists) will still be getting votes though.
Thank God- someone has to protect us from Syrian chemicals.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Did everyone just sleep thru the Libya intervention? Then wake up and go out and vote?
I think the media is to blame for using the word 'war' over and over in regarding to Syria - they are getting folks more worked up about this than they did over the intervention in Libya. Media wasn't on their 'war drums' prior to the Libya intervention.
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)Dont they realize that you cabn have "bombs" without "war", as well as wars without bombs?
The two need not be mutually exclusive.
More Anti-Obama lies from Republican owned media, no doubt.
durablend
(7,460 posts)Tell your boss we ain't buying it.
(I think its parody)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)deurbano
(2,894 posts)Is that a joke? Calling that trio "moderate"?
Change has come
(2,372 posts)I don't remember you being so pro re
Edit to add: Who the hell can tell parody from reality at DU anymore?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts) 
G_j
(40,366 posts)anyone?
longship
(40,416 posts)It's getting mighty crowded under there.
I know. It's a straw man. I apologize for that. I just couldn't resist.
JeffHead
(1,186 posts)If we have evidence the Assad gassed his own people present it to the Hague. They can handle it, that's what it's there for. Without the UN security council approving this action then WE are guilty of war crimes and thus just as bad a Assad. imho
eissa
(4,238 posts)Let's bomb the fuckers! USA! USA! USA!
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)And that is only half tongue in cheek.
A little atrocity on American Soil, might dampen some enthusiasms.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
elleng
(130,864 posts) boomer55
(592 posts)
vaberella
(24,634 posts)With the caveat....We don't know if the Syrian government bombed it's own people. As though that is what is the point.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Why the rush? Do you accept the the Colin Powell Report, Part II from Kerry?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The difference with the dead Syrians is:
a) we could have prevented it the death in Somalia
b) ... without killing anyone
The welfare of humanity is our business, but many of us are unconvinced that anything is gained by simply adding to the body count.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)Excellent point.
LukeFL
(594 posts)What his doing is not responsible. He should talk with caution
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Grayson was very soon to jump on the Russian Spy's Bandwagon and proclaim him (Snowy one) a hero. I'm betting he's walking that one back a bit now. Ouch, Blush.
That was foolish. Before much of the facts were in, he just dove in with a huge splash and rode the wave of hysteria. Not very wise.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Some on DU who claim to be progressive Democrats are.
Marr
(20,317 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)We need to remediate our own ethical mess and make amends before stomping through Syria and doing more harm.
Until then let's address the atrocity in Syria through the UN.
daa
(2,621 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023587381
There is too much hypocrisy.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)It does beg the question whether the issue is killing by the state or just the method of that killing. If it's the former, I feel compelled to mention that the world might have an interest in the 1,340 executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment. If it's the latter, it's impossible to avoid the stench of hypocrisy. It's not that there aren't legitimate arguments against chemical weapons and for their removal, it's just that those arguments aren't being made. The only argument is that we should shoot off some cruise missiles to show we're annoyed or something. If that's the answer to a perceived credibility problem, then the president and his advisers need to look up the word credibility.
David Zephyr
(22,785 posts)Profile in courage.
otohara
(24,135 posts)We go all out for Israel... because there's a whole lot of pressure from the Jewish community and big bucks.
If Ireland gassed some people you think Irish American's would stand for that?
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Those pesky laws against unprovoked foreign aggression.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And it says that the UN decides. So, effectively, it's not up to us.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... so full U.N. support ain't gonna happen.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)What? Do you think that we should follow a treaty we agreed to only when it allows us to do what we want to do? I think not.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)"
"
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)and kill innocent people? Assad and his generals are hiding somewhere until it's over, the weapons are stashed somewhere safe to be used later so we help him and kill more innocent Syrians?
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Change has come
(2,372 posts)After all, We are at code BLUE :cheerleader:
idwiyo
(5,113 posts) libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Please, show me the hundreds of "reasons" for these "interventions"...a sanitized word for killing humans/war/national defense/national interest. Just more Empire. When someone shows our "concern" for those not standing in the way of an Empire or a Pipeline, it will be worth a hearing.
History is so inconvenient. Those who are not instructed by it, will serve to repeat it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Along with the UK, and Russia and China.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)or agent orange?
or atomic bombs?
What changed after the hand shake on the WMD deal here? 
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)The world has a court for this very behavior. It's called the Hague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#
More people die every day in this country for lack of basic necessities.
Traditional weapons kill more than that, on a daily basis.
Ate you willing to sacrifice yourself or your own for this cause?
Alan Grayson is right.
Warpy
(111,242 posts)Were their lives meaningless because of the method of their death?
We don't belong there. This is the Arab League's mess to clean up, if they are so motivated. Or even Putin's mess.
We don't understand a damned thing about that region. We need to stay the hell out and hope people who do understand will do whatever is possible. We don't even know who used those chemicals.
Someone has got to tell the war hawks NO for a change.
upi402
(16,854 posts)And see what shakes down before we find ourselves committed to another VN, Panama, or Iraq.
Warpy
(111,242 posts)None of the information coming out of that country is terribly reliable.
Assad had no reason to use gas. He's still got plenty of conventional death stockpiled.
The whole drumbeat of propaganda to the contrary stinks worse than the gas did.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)that is one of the reasons why there is that agreement at the UN against chemical and bio weapons and not conventional weapons.
modern science and technology has given us sweet gadgets like our super smart phones and cars that park for you and it has also given us new and more 'efficient' ways to killing masses of people
This is not the same as drones, or clusters or any of that.
Cha
(297,134 posts)people to grasp. The line is "when you're dead you're dead".. or something simplistic like that.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)But there would be no one better in charge than the President to decide what steps to take next and I trust he will do what best can be done under the circumstances.
If he isn't being lied to by some of the old Pug implants or factions that support others and not him, he is the best person for the job hands down.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Their minds are already closed. The President is the best one to make the call that is why he is called Commander In Chief. If it was Shrub I would be worried but I am not with this President.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
Sentath
(2,243 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)
donheld
(21,311 posts)when many many more were suffering and dying in Darfur. Grayson is right.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)grattsl
(63 posts)HE WAS RIGHT!!!!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It's none of our business.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Maybe you don't because in this country we don't count the dead. We don't take pictures of the dead we just let the moment pass.
We have killed or been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths during this time. When will Americans wake up to the fact that more killing is not the answer to killing!
polichick
(37,152 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)But then it's you, so no surprise.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)genocide or innocents suffering from acts of atrocities again. This whole Syrian affair has highlighted one very real thing for me--that the left at best wears a fig leaf when it comes to "deaths of innocents" and is happy to play the game of moral relativism at the drop of a hat.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Despite a few verbose DUers.
This comes down to isolationism v. engagement; turning one's back on the mass murder of civilians including children v. addressing the issue and correcting the behavior, and it's also down to understanding what USA's desires are with regard to the future of the region.
Leaving the region to the rag-tag groups of opposition nutsos is NOT the goal of USA, nor is it the goal of Arab League.
You would never know this if you rely on some (not all, just some) DU opinionators for your news.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)which amounts to "bombing to protect civilians", which is fucking idiotic beyond reckoning.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)France had it at about 300 dead, from an article I saw.
Maven
(10,533 posts)to one man
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)I understand where you are coming from. That said, there are lots of rotten dictators in the world, and we've let most all of them operate as they saw fit unless we suddenly decided we had a corporate interest. I can only speak for myself:
1) This is a war pitting a Russian backed dictator against a rebel force led partly by Al Quaida. In a perfect world, we'd want both sides to lose. Since that can't happen, I say stay out of it.
2) Other NATO allies don't see a burning need to solve this problem. If Turkey felt obligated to stop whatever is going on in Syria, I'd at least be willing to provide tactical and logistical support in the name of being a NATO ally. I don't see them running to get involved. Our closest NATO ally, Great Britain, declined to help altogether.
3) Iraq and Vietnam should serve as cautionary tales about getting involved in civil war.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Incitatus
(5,317 posts)How many countries have killed as many civilians from whatever means in the past several years and we have done nothing?
Whether it be gas, bullets, or whatever, they are still dead. We cannot be the world's police. I don't like seeing innocent people being killed, but the United States is not the Judge, Jury, and Executioner of the planet and if it tried to be it would see the same fate as every other entity that tried to be.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Isn't that correct? Anything less is simply chest beating and useless.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)many different analysts on different, alternative media like Democracy Now! and France 24 TV. Every Arab analyst they get on the shows say that bombing or other acts of military aggression will probably incite Assad to do other chemical attacks because that's how his mind works. It would be his mission to retaliate because he thinks like a dictator who is not answerable to anyone and can show his defiance to the western forces. I believe them. Remember how Saddam and Ghadaffi reacted when we invaded. They thought they were invincible until the last moment.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Obama and John Kerry don't seem to have a problem that we have 40,000 Americans most of them children who die each year because the can't get medical care due to lack of health insurance.
I don't see either of them getting too excited about that. Both of them rejected any discussion of a single-payer health insurance program.
Now they are noble because they want us to go to war and support Al Qaeda forces in another country? I don't think so.
I am glad Alan Grayson had the courage to stand up and speak the truth.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I am starting to seriously question his judgement.
When a person points to an unnamed sourced article on Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller website as evidence of something - then that person's judgement SHOULD be questioned.
Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023608445
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I think he is smart and courageous. He has a spine and he is a fighter.
His stances on issues are in-line with my values.
Heck I like Grayson A LOT.
Have a good evening.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Tucker Carlson as a source?
wtf.
people have gone completely out of their minds!
Kablooie
(18,625 posts)We have no right to go alone.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)there were more than a million massacred
yurbud
(39,405 posts)who killed far more than Assad.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)out of someone else's?"
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Check out the DOZEN hyper-links in the DU OP below that go directly to a DONATION page for his re-election campaign
HERE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251322031
He has duped us.
Until this week I always supported him 100% - but not any more
Time to OPEN UP OUR EYES.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)WHo ever hear of such a thing???
RL