General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo what's your favorite "reason" for bombing Syria?
I've read each of the following "reasons" for bombing Syria in the last 30 minutes of scanning DU so I thought it'd be fun to see which one is most popular.
15 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
"Clinton caused 9/11 because he didn't bomb the Hell out of Al Qaeda when he had the chance." | |
1 (7%) |
|
"We have to bomb the Syrians to save them." | |
4 (27%) |
|
"My past military experience means you have to STFU!" | |
0 (0%) |
|
"We can bomb the chemical weapons facilities without hurting civilians." | |
0 (0%) |
|
"Obama/Kerry wouldn't lie to us." | |
2 (13%) |
|
"We'll never put boots on the ground." | |
2 (13%) |
|
"Look at this picture of dead people!!!1111!!!!" | |
4 (27%) |
|
Other | |
2 (13%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Warpy
(111,267 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Why say "sorry" when you can say "bottoms up?"
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I love Syrian bread with tomato kibbeh. Insanely good!
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I take it that anybody who supports the President in this matter is a moron or a bloodthirsty ghoul?
For the record I am mostly opposed to bombing at this point; I don't think it will a accomplish much.
Bryant
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I'm merely pointing out what some DUers are saying to show similarities.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Our country isn't quite to third world status due to crumbling infrastructure, poor schools, lack of healthcare and crushing debt.
I can't wait until we, as a country, think that eating cat food is "putting on airs".
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Kerry, he was against it before he was for it
1 Party, 2 Faces
Hope. Change. Bullsh!t.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Obama whacked Osama, brought the troops out of Iraq, so I can't argue with that record.
I don't think it's so much that Obama wants to be a War President like Chimpy, it's that the military-industrial complex is hungry, so they're bribing/extorting our politicians in accordance with Citizens United, and demanding more war. Someone's gotta make a profit when they replenish the depleted supply of Tomahawks...
Stryder
(450 posts)I thought it said "We'll never put boobs on the ground."
I need to change my vote to "Duck Dynasty's goin into rerun so I need to see some real TeeVee."
I didn't catch your comment before I posted. Thought you pulled those options out your bum. Are you serious? DU? That's some Onion worthy poll right there.
(Perhaps I should go back and put that sarcasm thingy on previous post)
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I've paraphrased a few of them but I haven't changed the meanings in any way.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)Just the fact that so many of these names have popped up again in the last week supporting bombing should make anyone think twice about this sideshow.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Iggo
(47,558 posts)A Quinn/Martin Production.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Lot's of owners of raytheon, Northrup Grumman, etc.
RL
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)is that it exposes this administration as the neocon dick extender I always knew it was.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Assad gassed a bunch of kids so we've got to bomb him as punishment (we won't kill any kids with our Adults Only Tomahawks, right).
rug
(82,333 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
rug
(82,333 posts)What we do in the face of the chemical attack by the Assad regime against innocent civilians will send a signal to the world that such weapons, in violation of international law, cannot be used with impunity.
The question is: Will we send a message that the United States will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world, by anyone, for any reason? Will we, in the name of all that is human and decent, authorize the use of American military power against the inexcusable, indiscriminate and immoral use of chemical weapons? Or will we stand down?
What message do we send the world when such a crime goes unpunished? Will those who have these weapons use them again? Will they use them more widely and kill more children? Will they use them against our allies, against our troops or embassies? Or will they give them or sell them to terrorists who would use them against us here at home?
And the Secretary of State.
There's no question in my mind that those countries are watching. The mullahs and many others are watching what we are doing now with great interest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-senate-foreign-services-committee-hearing-on-syria/2013/09/03/35ae1048-14ca-11e3-b182-1b3bb2eb474c_story.html
last1standing
(11,709 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Oh well.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)do enjoy your shitty poll however!
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Poor little thing. Don't you understand I couldn't care less what you think?
But it's fun to chat like this, isn't it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to support their holy President.
Obama embraced the Republicans Clapper, Alexander, etc for the domestic spying and now he is embracing the neo-cons like Lieberman to kill, kill, kill.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Obama is joining with Lieberman, Boner, Hagel, etc., to get authorization to spend hundreds of millions to punish a dictator. Without the UN approval it is a war crime. But I am guessing that wont slow down those here that think no farther than "we support Obama unconditionally." What good little soldiers.
Those that want to kill Syrians are out of their minds.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)that I don't think a limited strike is going to fix the issue (it would be nice if it were that simple), and I sure as hell don't support a full invasion. I don't know what going in alone is going to do to stop the insanity.
that said, I can respect the notion that people think we should intervene somehow, thinking that we'll be saving lives. To say shit about DUers like "kill kill kill kill" and act as if they're gleeful death junkies because they want to act is crass and foolish. They want to put an end to this and try to save lives (this applies more to DUers than people like McCain and graham).
I don't agree with intervention but i'm not gonna slam people who think we'd actually be helping, even if I disagree with them.
the thing is we don't know what will happen. a strike could make assad back down, or it could make things worse. that's why I think going in alone is dangerous. the UN is a joke, you know Russia and china would veto anything having to o with Syria, just as the US vetoes anything to do with Israel.
it's a complex issue and reducing it to isolationist vs death junkie warmongers is a cheap way to frame the issue.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)"They hate our Freedumbs!"
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)That seems to be a favorite of the GoeringBots these days.
Along with the Goering classic: "National security is in DANGER!"
last1standing
(11,709 posts)But I'm not surprised. Some of these "supporters" will say/do anything to protect their idol.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Apparently it's fine to use images of dead people to drum up support for killing more people but really, really mean to mention it.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Leave Assad alone because Obama/Kerry are lying?
He couldn't possibly be reponsible. The rebels did it. Assad, no fucking way.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)If they can't provide an honest reason for bombing Syria I have to conclude they don't have one.
I know honesty sounds odd to the ear when one lives in a world of propaganda but there it is.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I know honesty sounds odd to the ear when one lives in a world of propaganda but there it is."
...the rebels did it couldn't possibly be "propaganda."
Assad wouldn't fucking do it. Anyone claiming he did is lying or spreading "propaganda," right?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)That little ploy never gets old for you, does it?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I can undertand by my point would make you uncomfortable.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Do you know what projecting means?
If I had any respect for your opinions I'd feel a bit embarrassed for you right now.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If I had any respect for your opinions I'd feel a bit embarrassed for you right now."
Yes, projecting.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)But this is fun. Please continue.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)us are willing to spend billions we dont have to kill, kill, and kill.
Kill for Obama.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Stay out of the civil war. How hard is that to figure out? I guess the Neo-con Democrats among us are willing to spend billions we dont have to kill, kill, and kill."
...getting involved in the civil war, and the bogus name calling is just as absurd as it ever was.
Like I said, people seem to want to take a simplistic view of the debate. The Senators expressing concern understand that decisions have to be made based on facts. For example, did Senator Sanders and others who supported holding Libya accountable to include a possible no-fly zone (a Senate resolution in support of a no-fly zone before the action was taken) were not "Neo-con Democrats" who were "willing to spend billions we dont have to kill, kill, and kill."
SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)(PDF)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-03-01/pdf/CREC-2011-03-01-pt1-PgS1068-4.pdf#page=1
<...>
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;
(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;
(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;
(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;
(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;
(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;
(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the ``disproportionate use of force in Libya'' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;
(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;
(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and
(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)unless it turns to shit like the rest of the wars
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Some people are legitimately distraught over the images. Even if I disagree with them "something needs" to be done that doesn't mean they have some ulterior motive or that their position is mockworthy.
Your character is really defined by this poll, I think.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Because if you think it is worse to point out that people are using images of dead people to get their way than to actually do it, I believe your value system is gravely flawed.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I simply believe in mutual respect for people.
I am glad that you conditioned your accusation on "if" because it clearly means you don't know anything about my position. You are making assumptions and judging me based on those assumptions.
I don't have to make assumptions about you, your character is plain for all to see.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)If I cared about your opinions I would take you seriously, but you've already shown what type of human being you are so I don't.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Sorry, but while some people may post them out of genuine concern, others are posting them to try to manipulate people.
devils chaplain
(602 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)doh! What am I saying? Of course not.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The usual suspects are already taking the opportunity to play the "Rand Paul is an idiot" card while salivating over John Kerry at the same time.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I've had it thrown at me plenty of times in the NSA/Snowden wars. You'd think that as logically fallacious that attack is, they'd have worn it out by now.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Don't you just love the way the sun glistens off the drops of water as he emerges from the waves like a sea god....?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)has not lost it's appeal since 1968
Yes, I know, bad ghoulish humor.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)This is one of those times.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)To be fair, though, that might have been Fox News.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 09:46 AM - Edit history (2)
Caring disciplinary slaughter, or something.