Just fuck. The President and his boosters for war in Syria are completely losing me

[bigtree]

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

___________________________

. . . may have already lost me for good.

I'm looking for a new group of Democratic leaders in Congress who have already learned the limitations and often counterproductive consequences of the use of our military force across sovereign borders; who recognize the absolute importance of leaving as little power as possible in the Executive's hands for unilateral use of force for anything less than a direct threat or attack on our nation.



Empire
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023594378

Justifying War; 'Just' Wars
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023568932

[kelliekat44]

1. It ain't over or started yet. It may not be an attack...may not be necessary if Putin blinks. nt

[another_liberal]

80. Russia is Syria's ally . . .

Assad is firmly in control of his government, and he knows he has to stay in control or die. Russia is Syria's ally, but Putin "blinking" won't change who it is calling the shots for the Syrian regime.

[newfie11]

2. They've already lost me

I am appalled at this war machine mind. Come hell or high water our government is determined to start a war and possibly a very big one WWW3.

[Pleidianfriend723]

18. Absolutely

This is insanity.

[uppityperson]

34. +1, I agree.

[kardonb]

132. insanity

insanity is replacing actual facts with guessing and conjecture . So far , there is only a CIVIL war in Syria , and no US troupes are involved , so hold your criticizing until there is something to quetch about .

[pocoloco]

143. Insanity is a fucking Nobel Peace Prize!!

[deutsey]

19. Senate resolution sets a 60-day deadline for military action Syria

WASHINGTON--Members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee hammered out a deal on Tuesday evening that would set a 60-day deadline for military action in Syria, with one 30-day extension possible, according to a draft of the resolution.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/03/senate-resolution-syria-strike/2760615/

And McCain is already barking for "regime change" now.

Wee! Let's all ride down the slippery slope!

[newfie11]

24. Enough time to escalate everything Nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. "McCain is already barking for "regime change" now." Next will be calls for boots on the ground.

[sabrina 1]

45. We have boots on the ground in Syria. Note the president's words 'American boots'. Hillary

explained to us after Libya 'the new way to fight wars'. Since US troops on the soil of any ME country now has become so unacceptable after Iraq, it was explained that we now, cleverly, 'use Proxy Armies'.

The 'civil war' in Syrian would have been over long ago, same in Libya, had we not had our proxy armies, from Qatar eg on the ground, supplying training, weapons, where does anyone think that the original unarmed, peaceful protesters got their cammies, their guns, their bombs, their sophisticated signs, flags etc?

What will happen if this 'limited' strike, up to 90 days of bombing with WMDs, gets out of control, we will be told that the world is begging for us to send in our troops because Assad, (none of our bombs will kill anyone) is slaughtering his people.

This isn't about victims of Assad or anyone else, and the whole world knows it. That is why they all look so flustered when they try to 'sell' it. It's hard to sell something when you know the World is on to you.

[polly7]

46. Exactly, Sabrina. nt.

[florida08]

68. very well put and correct

It's the old PNAC policy picking up where Bush left off. It's so disheartening.

[HooptieWagon]

83. Hillary's confusion is understandable.

When the US was arming its proxies in Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaida, to fight the Russians (with ensuing blowback), she was busy on WalMart's Board of Directors giving them legal advice on dismantling unions.

[WillyT]

93. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[ozone_man]

99. Wow! You said it all! n/t

[rhett o rick]

111. Thank you. nm

[truedelphi]

128. I noticed last week, early on, that

Obama looked down and to the right when he reached part of his speech. It was the key line in the speech, but he couldn't face the camera.

Any and every body language expert can easily read that cue.

[truth2power]

140. "This isn't about victims of Assad or anyone else, and the whole world knows it."...

You are so correct, Sabrina. This has nothing to do with chemical weapons, no matter who used them.

It's about taking over the resources and controlling the access to same (pipelines etc.) in every ME country, one by one.

The US Govt. doesn't give a rat's ass about how many kids die or who gets to go to school and blah blah blah ...

Before the U.S.-NATO invasion, Libya had the highest Human Development Index in all of Africa. Now, I don't even think they have what could be called a functioning government. And we don't care about the people there anymore. We're on to the next conquest.

Gaddafi wanted to introduce the gold dinar as the medium of exchange instead of the US dollar. That's why he had to die.

Now we're being sold the same lies we were told about Libya, only in Syria. Bleh! Some folks will never learn.

[delrem]

75. 60 days of intensive bombing is a LOT of bombing.

Once that starts, there's no stopping it, and Obama/Biden/Kerry/Pelosi/etc. know it.
They are all neocons.
You've gotta be pretty damn credulous to think this is some 3D-chess or whatever, that it isn't what it so plainly is: the PNAC/MIC neocon agenda on steroids.

[another_liberal]

82. What if the cruise missiles (1.4 million each) run out before then?

When we have to go to manned aircraft flying over Syrian territory, there is a very good chance of losing pilots, either killed or POWs. The Syrians are not Libya, nor Serbia and they are certainly not Iraq in 2003. The Russians have given them some very good AA, and we can never count on having taken all of it down.

[delrem]

84. Once the cruise missiles have taken out Syrian air power, will come the drones.

eta: the US has a shitload of cruise missiles. That incredible military budget pays for a heavy production line.

[another_liberal]

86. To think so . . .

"Isn't it pretty to think so?"

[another_liberal]

81. If I'm not mistaken . . .

We were also going to be out of Iraq in a couple of months, tops.

[deutsey]

98. Yep...a cakewalk, it was supposed to be. n/t

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

104. Yep,

and the oil was going to pay for it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

162. " six days six weeks, I doubt six months."

[KamaAina]

90. McCain already barked for regime change.

He got the sniveling cowards on the Foreign Relations Committee to amend it in on a voice vote.

[Coyotl]

123. More than enough time for Syria to bomb Saudi Arabian oil fields and Iran to Bomb Tel Aviv.

But I'm sure that when the Senate's 60 days are up, everyone will just be friends again

[Phlem]

66. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^

and I'm not surprised of the situation in the least.

-p

[Spitfire of ATJ]

118. They never had me.

[grahamhgreen]

134. They lost me at mandatory crapsurance, extension of th bush tax cuts, etc.

[ProSense]

3. I think a lot of people blew this out or proportion.

They did the same thing with Libya. In fact, this was worse. A limited strike on assets being compared to Vietnam and WWII.

[ellenrr]

4. I don't think one can over-estimate lying to the people so that they (admin.) can go to war.

or am I missing what is being blown out of proportion?

[ProSense]

5. Well,

"I don't think one can over-estimate lying to the people so that they (admin.) can go to war.

or am I missing what is being blown out of proportion?"

...whether you believe them or not has nothing to do with the scale of the operation. What exactly are they lying about?

The UN is having samples from Syria tested. France and Germany presented evidence Assad did it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778

[tridim]

6. I wouldn't overestimate lying either, had it actually happened.

You're mistaking The Obama Administration for the Bush Administration, who did lie to the people to start bullshit wars.

[lumpy]

110. What lies are you referring to ? Bet you don't have an answer...

[Coyotl]

124. Didn't you watch the hearings? Making up shit out of thin air.

John Kerry said there is a 100% probability Syria will use chemical weapons again if the US does not attack Syria. Geeeeez!

What are they hiding from the rest of the world and the US people?

[truedelphi]

129. i don't think you re missing thing.

Anyone who remembers this happening before knows the drill. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and the quacking is explaining how it is all an easy peasey cakewalk that doesn't mean any expenditure of lives or fortune, it is a friggin' lying duck!

And if Russia (with its 1,500 prepped nukes) gets involved in all of this, we might all have to DUCK!

[bigtree]

7. I think it's a mistake to assume the objections are just about the size of the strike

This is about the use of military force and the president's attempt to have almost unlimited authority to do whatever he wanted militarily in Syria. I'm not the least comforted by the fact that they will agree to do less. It's as if they're taking this action just to prove how tough they are.

To me, their acquiescence to the machine which originated this notion that we had some right to lob bombs across sovereign borders for such a dubious notion of defending our national security is a capitulation to the Bush wars - a swift departure from the resolved, experienced view from Iraq and Afghanistan that there is an inherent counterproductive consequence to the U.S. projecting it's power in this bullying and arrogant fashion. That was supposed to be resolved (at least among Democrats) with the exit of Bush.

No matter to this administration, though, who has not only retained many of the exact same perpetrators of this Bushian imperialism, but has taken pains to retain, and now adopt, the exact same planks of that interventionist, expansionist, jingoistic application of our nation's devastating defenses.

Excuse me, if you please, for not waiting for the inevitable escalation - justified, of course, by this latest capitulation which is being sold by the administration and its supporters as 'limited.'

[ProSense]

9. First

"This is about the use of military force and the president's attampt to have almost unlimited authority to do whatever he wanted militarily in Syria. I'm not the least comforted by the fact that they will agree to do less. It's as if they're taking this action just to prove how tough they are. "

...the President described this as a limited strike from the outset. The resolution will be narrow and he agrees with Congress on this.

Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes

As it seeks votes of approval from Congress on Syria, the Obama administration is "open to working" with legislators to change the language that would authorize the president to use military force, replacing the broad and open-ended resolution with a narrower, limited one, a senior White House official told the Hill Monday.

The draft language of the resolution currently grants Obama permission to use "necessary and appropriate" force. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) indicated earlier that he planned to rewrite and narrow that language, specifically to match Obama's promise of "no boots on the ground" in Syria.

"The president made clear that he was not contemplating U.S. boots on the ground or an open-ended intervention, and that he intends to undertake tailored military operations, limited in scope and duration," the official said, according to the Hill. "We are open to working with Congress on language for the (authorization) within the parameters the president has explained."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-open-to-narrowing-language-that-would-authorize

"Excuse me, if you please, for not waiting for the inevitable escalation - justified, of course, by this latest capitulation which is being sold by the administration and its supporters as 'limited.'"

As I said, this is similar to the objections made before Libya, anticipating something bigger that didn't happen. You say it "inevitable."

[bigtree]

13. you have a myopic view of that presidential authority

Iraq, Afghanistan . . . and here we are again; waging war across sovereign borders for a contrived 'threat' to our national security.

Did we forget that our action in a very similar sphere of opposition to the U.S. and our interests has actually sparked a generation of individuals bent on harming the U.S. and our interests; increasing the threat to our nation; not reducing it as promised or claimed?

Are we going to ignore the admonitions from diplomatic and military sources that our strikes in Syria have the potential of destabilizing the conflict even further and actually aggravating the situation of the folks we claim to be defending or avenging? To continue to maintain that there will be no counterproductive consequence to U.S. military strikes within Syria you'll have to just shut your eyes and ears.

[ProSense]

15. You know

you have a myopic view of that presidential authority

Iraq, Afghanistan . . . and here we are again; waging war across sovereign borders for a contrived 'threat' to our national security.

Did we forget that our action in a very similar sphere of opposition to the U.S. and our interests has actually sparked a generation of individuals bent on harming the U.S. and our interests; increasing the threat to our nation; not reducing it as promised or claimed?

Are we going to ignore the admonitions from diplomatic and military sources that our strikes in Syria have the potential of destabilizing the conflict even further and actually aggravating the situation of the folks we claim to be defending or avenging? To continue to maintain that there will be no counterproductive consequence to U.S. military strikes within Syria you'll have to just shut your eyes and ears.

...there are plenty of people speaking out about drone strikes, that actually kill people. I can see them making hay about "waging war across sovereign borders" when it comes to a military action in Syria.

As I said before, a strike on military assets is not "waging war" in the sense of sending troops in to do battle. It's not even the same as drone strikes. Syria will likely be even more limited than Libya.

This "waging war" is related to this from yesterday's hearing.

"Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a fiery rebuke to...Sen. Rand Paul’s line of questioning"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590177

[zeemike]

20. Oh well that does it then.

If Rand Paul is against it I am for it...and if he were for it I would be against it....because I am just that petty and stupid, and caught up in the cult of personalities.
Following the cult leader is the only morality I need...he can tell us what is right and wrong and all we have to do is believe in him.

I don't know if this is necessary but...

[woo me with science]

26. Thank you.

Good god.

[truth2power]

138. Thank YOU, zeemike. I see that type of thinking all the time here...

It's primitive and silly.

[Dr Fate]

105. I hope voters listen to moderates like Cheney and Bohner instead of that nut, Rand Paul.

Thank God the GOP still has plenty of moderate voices who agree with Kerry and Obama.

Let's hope they listen to the man who choose Sarah Palin as his running mate instead.

[quakerboy]

116. Semantics are fun, but not really helpful

Sending troops in to do battle isn't "waging war" in the sense of blowing up cities with nuclear bombs. Its not even the same as regime change.

And yet it is still an act war. Just like bombing another country.

Bombing a country is an act of war. Seems pretty simple. Cant really gimmick your way outa that, no matter how hard you spin.

[bhikkhu]

22. I think it has less to do with national security

and more with accepting the tacit legalization of using chemical weapons against one's own populace. Its cheap and effective, and going forward could become the weapon of choice for dictators and so forth to retain power. The will of the populace is less of a concern if you can eliminate swaths of population with impunity. The middle east and Africa are both areas with endless sectarian strife, misrule and population pressures.

What if the UN does nothing, again? I think the president's position is one where we may be the last country with the will to make a difference, or at least the will to say that the 100 year old law still stands. If I were responsible for that it would be a difficult situation, perhaps one with no immediate benefits, no real national or personal benefits, but I would look at my "peace prize" and realize I had to do everything in my capacity regardless.

[bigtree]

50. and yet

. . . it's a painful contortion to explain how this military action is supposed to address or prevent all of that.

It's my view that our violence will be just another entreaty to others to employ their own violent means of 'sending a message,' as some proponents ultimately justify this military action.

We mustn't presume that military force is our only option to address these chemical attacks in Syria.

[bhikkhu]

107. If there was a move to seize all of the Syrian leadership's foreign assets

I would support that as an alternative. They are supposed to have something like $1.5 billion stashed here and there. That might be more effective than a military strike, but for whatever reason I haven't heard it suggested.

[tazkcmo]

55. I agree

with you. This sounds like a very reasonable analysis to me. What I like best is not one reference to military action but an serious acceptance of the need to take some kind of action to dissuade future episodes. That is my stance also. What has me so worked up is the fact that "Bomb 'em" was the FIRST and pretty much only option I've heard come out of D.C.

In addition, it went from limited and surgical w/o Congressional approval, to o.k. we'll ask Congress but still retain the authority to do it no matter what they say, to can't rule out boots on the ground and bombing folks isn't war. Btw, SoS Kerry did not say "ground war" he said "war" and I'll take him at HIS word, tyvm. I happen to disagree with him. I haven't seen such a slippery slope since I went up the Zugspitz in Germany.

Where's the creative thinking in our strategy planners? I know Obama and company are all smart people and highly qualified to do this and I trust them more than most government officials to do it as best as can be done but damned if they seem like they have a different agenda.

I'm hoping for a whole lot of international leaning on Assad, with Russia, the Arab League in partnership with us, et al because I think it's the best way to prevent a whole bunch of really bad stuff from happening. Then we can work from there not START with "Bomb 'em.".

[snagglepuss]

59. What is the US going to do if a nuclear power starts using chemical weapons on its own people?

[grasswire]

44. willfully myopic, please note nt

[onyourleft]

23. Personally, I don't really...

...care how small scale this operation is designated to be. I am against this war, I am against attacking other countries who haven't attacked us and I firmly believe we should get out of the Middle East. I was born during WWII and there has been almost constant war during my lifetime. Enough!!

[rhett o rick]

113. I have to laugh. The president said. Let me explain it to you. We know that this president

lies. Oh it is cleverly shrouded in rhetoric, but when the fog clears, it's just lies. I would go thru the list of lies but I know it doesnt matter to those that blindly follow their authoritarian leader. I am sure you believe that if he lies, he has a good reason.

How many Syrians deaths can you rationalize for peace?

[NuclearDem]

10. If you think Libya is anywhere remotely an apt comparison...

Then you're either not paying attention or don't know the first thing about the conflict.

[ProSense]

11. Of course

"If you think Libya is anywhere remotely an apt comparison...Then you're either not paying attention or don't know the first thing about the conflict."

...you know more than everyone, including the administration.

I was speaking specifically of U.S. action.

[NuclearDem]

12. Well, I obviously know more than you do at least.

And again, you've demonstrated you don't know the first thing about the conflict if you think US involvement in Syria will be anywhere near the same as Libya.

[sabrina 1]

47. Have you been keeping up what our 'limited' strikes in Libya have wrought for the victims we claimed

to care so much about?

Funny, ever since the real mission in Libya was accomplished, and i remember all the 'concern' for the victims during this phase of it, all we heard about were the 'victims'. But since regime change, yes i know, that wasn't the goal, was accomplished, what happened to all that 'concern'?

FYI, the victims are not doing very well, and they appear to have been completely forgotten by their 'mentors' from the Western Imperial states.

They have been completely forgotten, not that anyone ever really cared about them of course. Just like Syria.

The World is on to us and our former, Colonial, Imperial allies, same old same old from centuries of abuse of the people of these regions of the world. Just different 'leaders' this time.

[Enthusiast]

136. "The World is on to us"

And the American people are 'fed the fuck up'®.

[robinlynne]

52. and the Iraq War was going to be days or weeks.

[Pisces]

125. People are dead set on tearing their hair out in hysteria, before they know what has been decided.

They are sure that Obama is Bush. You have a lot of patience and continue to post well researched information. There are only
a handful of posters that I care to read anymore. I am sick of the Obama hatred on this site and now they are starting to
attack Hillary.

[grahamhgreen]

135. limited dead people

[Eddie Haskell]

8. Me too

I won't be voting for Hillary, Kerry, or anyone else who votes for war.

[Snake Plissken]

14. I'm going to wait until this thing plays out, I'm still not convinced ...

This is anything more than yet another political circle jerk.

But that being said, I am really getting tired of this made for TV style of government.

I want the people we elected to be more than reality TV entertainers. I expect them to do what we elected them to do and knock off this endless stream of manufactured drama.

[eilen]

16. I did read somewhere that Democrats always get us into war.

I think it was in an interview in one of Studs Terkel's books. Then the Republicans started doing it too.

Deadly Duopoly.

[ProSense]

17. Here's an interesting guide.

Crash Course: A Guide To 30 Years Of U.S. Military Strikes Against Other Nations

<...>

BILL CLINTON

—Iraq (1993): Launched cruise missiles into Baghdad, hitting Iraqi intelligence headquarters, in retaliation for assassination plot against President George H.W. Bush.

<...>

—Iraq (1996): Launched cruise missiles at targets in southern Iraq in retaliation against attacks on U.S. jets enforcing no-fly zones to protect Iraqi minorities as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.

<...>

—Iraq (1998): Launched cruise missiles and airstrikes on a number of Baghdad targets to punish Saddam Hussein for not complying with U.N. chemical weapons inspections as required under U.N. Security Council resolutions.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php

[wyldwolf]

40. Democrats were the originators of Liberal Internationalism - officially starting with Pres. Wilson

Republicans were the isolationists.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: At what point is a war or an attack justified? How many lives have to be lost before someone else takes action?

[IDemo]

58. Wilsonianism became the bleuprint for American military adventurists

But has particularly seen a boost in the last couple of decades. Democrats who uphold Wilson should avail themselves of some US history.

[free0352]

21. Lets get the facts straight

Firstly, I don't support any action in Syria what-so-ever.

That said, we have to get the facts straight. Firstly, the President didn't lie. It looks to all reasonable assessment that Assad used nerve gas in the civil war in Libya. That's as close to fact as you can really get. I'm not sure what lies anyone think he told.

The President wants to do "something" about that. He is not -unlike his action in Libya- improperly using his authority as commander in chief. Asking for a Congressional vote is precisely what he's supposed to do and what he should have done prior to actions in Libya. Going to Congress and trying to convince the American people is exactly what he's supposed to do. Last I checked, the President is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces, so "if" Congress grants him the authority to take this country to war, he is the commander. Congress has no right to put limitations on his authority to prosecute the war. The extent of Congressional authority is simply to grant him the power or not. Beyond that, they have no right to tell President Obama how to fight - simply "if" he can. Not HOW he can. Congress is abusing its authority if it attempts to box the President in on how he can prosecute a war with Syria if they grant him the authority to fight.

All that said, the obvious question is: Is this a good idea? The answer is obviously no. What possible national interest do we have in becoming Al'Qaeda's air force? What good will it do the Syrian people to blow Syrian civilians to bits when our bombs destroy the Syrian Army assets that are most likely being coated with Syrian human shields as we speak? Do you really think Assad cares a lick about a few cruise missile strikes? And if he doesn't indeed care, how far do you really want to escalate this till he does?

This is a bad idea, and I hope Congress votes no.

[deutsey]

27. As Hillary Leverett points out in this clip

it's still very debateable as to whether Assad's regime did it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017142926

I will be interested in hearing what the UN determines.

[Shivering Jemmy]

32. Just because someone is debating it

Doesn't mean it's debatable.

[deutsey]

33. LOL

Thanks for the laugh

[SammyWinstonJack]

164. We're talking war and the supposed reasons for going to war so yes it is debatable

Before we blow up a whole lot of mostly innocent people, we should debate the hell out of the reasons for doing so.

And maybe come up with an alternative to blowing up a whole lot of mostly innocent people. :

[totodeinhere]

69. President Carter and many others have indicated that any attack against Syria without authorization

by the UN Security Council would be illegal under international law. It doesn't matter whether Congress authorizes military action or not, it remains illegal.

President Jimmy Carter spoke out against military action in Syria without support from the United Nations, saying any strikes without the U.N.'s blessing would be illegal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/jimmy-carter-syria_n_3844094.html

[Maedhros]

74. Here is another analysis of the evidence

that raises a lot of questions:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/18559-how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria

It's not as cut-and-dried as people want you to think. We're relying on a lot of evidence provided by biased sources.

[lumpy]

115. Thanks for a thoughtful post.

[brooklynite]

28. Seriously - did they ever "have" you?

[bigtree]

36. most people here recognize me as a strong and dedicated booster of this President

. . . and a strong and dedicated defender of the Democratic party.

You have a star. You have the ability to google 'Obama/bigtree' on a DU search.

Get that snide little slander of an insinuation of yours right first, and then come back and try and pose as someone who knows what I believe.

[LondonReign2]

61. Oopsie

Kinda stepped in that one, huh?

Let's turn that around, shall we? Seriously, is there *anything* thing they could do that they would no longer have you?

[Vanje]

70. You

do not know much.

If you were familiar at all with BigTree's posting, you'd be aware that you just embarrassed yourself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Yup, they did

But like many others they crossed a line.

[SammyWinstonJack]

160. HA! One of the most loyal of supporters of the President on DU. You must know that.

[Sand Wind]

29. Looser are looser. Nt

[bluestate10]

30. Nothing person, but I have never seen you support the President on anything.

Is Syria an opportunistic chance to take another swipe at the President?

[bigtree]

37. you have a star

. . . and I'm not going to spend my time going over the support I've given this president since his nomination.

. . . google it. (corrected)

I will say this, it's absolutely true that I've been a constant critic of their military policy, with the exception of the praise I've given the president for getting out of Iraq. In fact, there was a truce, of sorts, on those issues to a focus on other things I've found agreement with this administration on.

I daresay, I've probably startled a few of my fellow Obama supporters with such an openly strident criticism of his actions and stance on Syria and the recent intelligence revelations. Other than that, I've been a pretty dedicated proponent of this presidency.

[woo me with science]

41. "I have never seen you support the President on anything."

Are you new here?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Then you must read DU with your eyes shut. I'm pleasantly shocked by his criticism of Obama.

[Zorra]

48. Interesting post. nt

[KG]

51. LOL

'Nothing person' but ... j'accuse!!!!

[QC]

60. Bigtree never really loved him!!!

[Capt. Obvious]

63. LOL!!!

Never noticed Obama picture threads?

[Vanje]

72. Are you kidding?

Are you delusional?
Or are you entirely unfamiliar with Bigtree's long posting history here?

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. You must be new

Like Brooklinite

[pa28]

106. You mean aside from multiple OP's every day supporting the President?

[pecwae]

137. How is that not personal?

And what does supporting the president have to do with being against a war?

[L0oniX]

31. The people of the United States of America do not care that they were lied into a war...

and it looks like many here on DU also don't give a shit about it. I don't even feel like I am a Dem anymore when I am in a group that includes war mongers and excuse makers for bad mojo.

[Maedhros]

76. I'm equally shocked that one of that group sports a Frank avatar.

I wonder what Frank would make of this pending venture into Syria?

[L0oniX]

109. Frank would call the USA a terrorist organization. n/t

[Enthusiast]

139. No question.

He also might say we are in danger of dismantling the prop scenery.

Millions of Americans now recognize that there is something fundamentally wrong in this nation. I include myself in those millions. We feel those in charge are no longer concerned about our best interests. We are 'fed the fuck up'®.

[mainer]

35. I trust this President to know what needs to be done...

but I don't see why WE have to be the ones to do it.

The Arab League says Syria needs to be punished. So do a host of other nations. But they're just standing back, waiting for us to pick up the shovel and do the dirty work.

Let the Arab League do it. They should stop being the frigging cowards they are.

[free0352]

54. If anyone will do anything about Assad it will be us.

The United States IS the UN, we ARE NATO. Those other nations have build their armies to be satellite forces to ours. Their militarily and logistically cannot function without the US. How else do you think they can only spend like 4% of their GDP on their militaries? Like it or not, we're the world police. We set ourselves up in that role, and now other countries expect us to act our role. And make no mistake they'll complain about it later. Just like we do when we bitch about the cops, but would never seriously entertain the idea of disbanding the police or becoming vigilantes.

So the question is: Should Officer America step in here? If we don't perhaps then the brunt of this responsibility will not be on the US Military and the US taxpayer in the future? Maybe so, but that won't happen overnight. So if something is to be done about Syria, it will be done by America or nonone. Nobody else has the will or means besides England, and maybe France. And they're out.

[Zen Democrat]

38. So you feel the same way about Bill Clinton for bombings against Serbs?

[bigtree]

39. are you serious with that?

. . . have you ever heard of 'principle?'

'Principle' would, of course, have me opposed to Clinton's militarism, as well.

[phleshdef]

53. Most principles shouldn't be absolute.

Bill Clinton was right to do what he did with the Kosovo situation. And he was wrong not to act in Darfur. I don't understand this "anti-intervention" 100% of the time principle.

[bigtree]

56. with me

. . . it has to do with my view that these troops and weaponry are America's 'defenses', and not simply 'military forces.'

[totodeinhere]

71. There was plenty of opposition to the attack at the time.

It was done without the consent of the UN and many believed that Clinton was trying to atone for inaction on the Rwandan genocide.

[NightWatcher]

43. That's why they wanted to do it fast, because

if you take a step back and look objectively at the argument for war, you'll see the reasoning and reasons are full of holes.

[Janecita]

49. If Obama was a Republican

99% of the people here would be against a strike!! Obama's reasoning to attack Syria is total bullshit, just like Bush's reasons to attack Iraq. We should demand better of our leaders, and we shouldn't follow them blindly when the make the same horrible decisions as their Republicans predecessors.

[Carolina]

121. Welcome to DU, Janecita

and you are absolutely correct. I am tired of trying to point that out (with links) to boosters who are willfully blinded by the letter D behind a politician's name.

Former CIA intelligence analyst Ray MacGovern has written an excellent article about the prostitution of intelligence... info cropped, parsed and conveniently packaged to suit the goals of the White House from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to Syria now. There is ample information out there to challenge, and indeed refute, Obomber and Kerry, but blind loyalty to the D has some people abandoning all common sense and knowledge of history.

[liberal N proud]

57. I will support the President on other things - just not war!

And that difference will not keep me from supporting him or Democrats because as bad as this is, it would be much worse with a republican!

MUCH - MUCH WORSE!

[mainer]

62. Arab League Aircraft tally

Just three of their air forces (Wikipedia.)

All those attack planes. Sitting right there near Syria, doing nothing, while they yell at the US to DO SOMETHING!


SAUDI AIR FORCE:

Attack Panavia Tornado IDS: 87
Panavia Tornado GR4:
Eurofighter Typhoon: 24
Bomber Boeing F-15S: 70
Northrup F-5 E Freedom fighter: 83
Northrop F-5 F : 37
Boeing F-15C Strike Eagle, Version C: 65
Boeing F-15C Strike Eagle, Version D: 18


UAE AIR FORCE
Attack AH-64D, UH-60M, Alenia Aermacchi M-346
Fighter F-16E/F, Mirage 2000/2000-9
Patrol AS 550, AS 565


JORDANIAN AIR FORCE
Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon: 12
LocKHEED F-16 Multiple Fighter F-16 AM: 46
Northrup F-5E/F Tiger II: 26
Dassault Mirage F1CJ: 12
Dassault Mirage F1EJ: 16

Plus multiple Attack helicopters

[nashville_brook]

64. k and r

[woo me with science]

65. K&R

[Daniel537]

67. No worries, Rand 2016 will be there for you. Enjoy. n/t

[Vanje]

73. That reply

makes you seem like a jerk.

[99th_Monkey]

77. We need more Allan Graysons, Ron Wydens and Peter DeFazios in Congress, for sure. nt

[Number23]

78. GD finally got to you, huh?

From the unusually inarticulate "just fuck" to the bizarre message in the OP, this sounds like about a dozen of GD's most half-witted posters and unfortunately, on this point you sound just like them. But I have no doubt you'll get five times the number of recs that you usually get so there's that.

[Skittles]

85. WTF are you yammering aboout?

[Rex]

91. Same thing as every year

nothing...all just hot air and bluster from that one.

[Skittles]

92. I think they are crossing over into a new dimension now

it's pathetic

[Number23]

147. You so desperately need a hobby. I mean besides changing your poorly formed

"positions" on issues depending on how everyone else in a thread feels about it.

[Skittles]

151. LOLOL

OH PLEASE

[Number23]

153. Err... I know threads can be difficult for some people to follow but you do realize my post was NOT

to you, don't you??

Not that that would make your smiley man response any more relevant or make any more sense. But it is a bit more coherent than your usual spiel so carry on.

[Skittles]

154. aw, you POOR THANG

why don't you just put my halfwit fringy ass on Ignore? I AM NOT A SWOONER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Number23]

159. You responded to ME, darling precious. If you have a problem with me (which you obviously do)

save me the boredom of your tedious, misspelled responses and put ME on ignore.

And you are hilarious if you think that you're not a swooner. Oh you swoon for every half-assed piece of mindless stupidity that gets pilfered on this web site. And it is a gloriously hilarious thing to behold.

[Number23]

146. lol! SHOCKING that you couldn't understand a simple post. I mean, that is so not like you!

[Skittles]

152. WTF is wrong with you?

you have gone off the deep end

[Number23]

155. Do you actually have anything to say? Or do you just roam this web site like a rabid hound

looking to start shit with people for no good reason whatsoever?

Why respond to me with insults and then act all shocked when I respond in kind? WTF is wrong with YOU? You know I don't like you even the tiniest bit so why come at me this way unless you are trying to start something? My response was to bigtree in the first place and if you notice, he responded with intelligence and class to my comment. You and your friends so desperately need to take a lesson (or 50).

[Skittles]

157. YOU HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END

AND I AM DONE WITH YOU

[Number23]

163. There is a God. But considering that you have made this threat before let me see if there is

something I can say to make this particular "I AM DONE WITH YOU!!1one" stick.

See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

Don't let the door knob hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

See ya around, world's nastiest candy! The only way that I can miss you is if you go away so let's get some "missing" started!

[carolinayellowdog]

119. wow, you edited that to ADD the "half-witted" insult to a dozen unnamed DU enemies?

So using "guilt by association" you'll shame your ally into getting back in line, or encourage your fellow Boggers to disdain him as you do? If so,maybe Bigtree will reevaluate the kind of arrogant, elitist, authoritarian bullies with whom he has heretofore (apparently) been allied. "Those who criticize the government must be retarded, and therefore deserving of scorn" is an attitude that will be turned on anyone the INSTANT they step out of line.

[Skittles]

156. THANK YOU

[bigtree]

127. do me a favor

. . . go take a look at beginnings here.

THIS is the issue that brought me to the internet. Not just part of that protest and advocacy, but precisely the issue which brought me to DU in the first place. I'm sorry that you think this is half-witted. It's an emotional, heartfelt post that's going to define my participation on this forum for as long as it takes to unravel this push to war; and beyond.

I'm grateful for the support that I've received on this thread. Best regards to you, Number23.

[Number23]

148. No, I don't think you are half-witted at all and never would. But this forum is full of half wits

and you've tossed your hat in with them with this OP. You are one of the few thinking people that still posts here. And I understand the reticence on the Syria issue. But the "just fuck" and the babbling inanity that followed was uncharacteristic of the posts that I've come to appreciate from you and looked all too similar to the half-witted foolishness that spews forth from GD on a regular basis like fumes from an overheated oven and generates tons of recs in the process. And I have long since believed that the all-important recs is the only reason alot of these folks put out much of the foolishness in the first place.

The fringier you are on DU, the more "beloved" you become. And I guess that's consolation for some here who apparently have little knowledge of politics and/or history but I don't and never have put you in that category. The folks eating this thread up with a spoon would sure as shit make me question my position on ANY issue.

149 recs. Not bad, bigtree.

[bigtree]

165. I don't see a thing 'fringy' about my expectations outlined in the op

. . . or 'babbling' or 'inane'.

. . . and, I back up that succinct expression of my expectations from politicians about Syria and other matters of military intervention with plenty of substance in the myriad of posts I've already made on this issue. Forgive me if it seems just a little self-serving of your own pov to post such rude and subjective invectives in response to this true expression of my absolute angst about the President's words, and those of his deputies, on Syria.

If you truly want something substantive from me on this issue to respond to, you should try these two signature posts that I'm providing as script for whatever shorthand I engage in, as I've done here . . .

Empire
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023594378

Justifying War; 'Just' Wars
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023568932

The way it works best on DU is to take posters as seriously and assume as much sincerity from them as you would expect for your own contributions to the debates taking place. It would be a mistake to assume that the objections to warring aren't heartfelt and in earnest for the majority of posters, however inelegant or profane they may well be.

[Number23]

166. I'm only going by what you've written in this one OP.

My comments pretty much make that clear.

And I have no doubt that your objections to war are heart felt. But I just found it odd that your writing style, which is usually much more refined, sunk to the GD Brand level of discourse which is hardly ever a good thing. And I wasn't the only person to note that. Hadn't seen that from you before and my comments were every bit as sincere as your OP.

[bigtree]

167. here's the bulk of the post

"I'm looking for a new group of Democratic leaders in Congress who have already learned the limitations and often counterproductive consequences of the use of our military force across sovereign borders; who recognize the absolute importance of leaving as little power as possible in the Executive's hands for unilateral use of force for anything less than a direct threat or attack on our nation."

You can certainly disagree with my statement, but my statement doesn't fall under ANY of the invectives you've used and it's a shame you can't admit that.

In fact, you've completely jumped the shark here. I can't imagine EVER treating a post of yours so rudely or with such disdain.

Go on and read my other posts . . . maybe try and make me believe you actually respect my views and aren't just trivializing them.

[Dragonfli]

130. Damn, what a piranha, one swish of the tail out of sync from the school and you rush to devour

one of your own!

it's sickening, I can see in this behaviour the blood thirsty nature of someone who thinks turning people to red mist with bombs is a moral and humanitarian act.

You really should apologize, the OP really doesn't deserve this from you and has always been a good DUer whether we've agreed or not.

[Number23]

149. There is so much crazy in this post I honestly can't tell if you are being serious

If you are, then just... damn.

[Dragonfli]

158. I'm serous, if you're still hungry, someone at the BOG may not have bowed deeply enough

and you may get to devour another of your friends as a light snack.

Damn is right about the way you treat even your friends.
You must be one miserable $%^#.

[Number23]

161. The first one was pretty thick with crazy but you outdid yourself with this one

I hope bigtree is reading your posts and his other recent "admirers" in this thread. As I said, knowing that I was on the same side of an issue with someone like you would make me change my mind in a half a heartbeat.

What's soooo cute about all of this is that bigtree responded to my post with about 100 times more intelligence and class than you and your ilk could ever possibly muster. And funny that he didn't take my comment about 1/10th as "seriously" as the lunatics who have decided to rush in as his "defenders." Funny that, huh?

[DeSwiss]

79. Look within for your leader.

- You'll always be disappointed with any other.

K&R

[DirkGently]

87. At the very least, it's time to admit we SUCK AT THIS.

Even if we wanted to assume we have the right to try to control the Middle East, because oil or because Russia or because Muslams hate our freedums, what further evidence do we need beyond two trillions-spent, millions-dead, world-enmity-earning, massive failures, one of which is still a scorched, blood-soaked ruin, and the other of which grinds on for reasons no one can even articulate anymore.

WE ARE NOT THE GUARDIANS OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Not for selfish purposes, and not for selfless ones. We can not drone and Tomahawk our way to a better world, for us, or for anyone else.

[another_liberal]

102. Except maybe . . .

Not to a "better World," no. Except maybe for those who own the corporations which make those drones and Tomahawks, their "World" may get a lot better (at least a lot richer).

[DirkGently]

103. True. War profiteers are starving as we speak.

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

[Enthusiast]

142. This would make a nice sig line.

"We can not drone and Tomahawk our way to a better world, for us, or for anyone else."

[Not Sure]

88. I like this post and couldn't agree more

It seems like there's a requirement for presidents to use a military strike at some point in their term. Obama doing anything but extracting the US from war and military conflict is another failure to add to the growing list.

[bigwillq]

89. They lost me a long time ago (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. Welcome to the club

We all had our moment.

Be ready for the snide and personal attacks. (Which I see have started)

[carolinayellowdog]

97. feels more like we lost him and them, in terms of accountability to the base

Almost no one who voted to elect and reelect Obama thought they were voting for this. Representatives and some Senators will have to face the voters next year, and how the Democratic boosters can do this to themselves and their party I can't understand. Apart from all the other disturbing aspects of this adventure, "we don't care about the popular will or the law, duty calls us to an another Middle Eastern sectarian bloodbath" is a politicallly suicidal message from Dem lawmakers.

[dawg]

100. If it will make you feel better, those boosters would be just as fervently anti-war if ...

that were the position the President happened to be taking at the time.

I agree with the President on lots of issues. But he isn't right about everything.

[blkmusclmachine]

101. WAR WAR WAR

Say goodbye to your retirement, folks.

Meow.

[workinclasszero]

150. Thats right. The MIC demands your SS money suckers

So they can buy many more lovely missiles, bombs and aircraft.

Sorry citizens, its expensive to run al quida's air force!

[idwiyo]

108. K&R

[ChiciB1]

112. I REALLY & TRULY Wish I Could Support Obama AND

the many decisions he's made about so many issues, I have to admit that he lost me quite some time ago. And also many, many Democrats in Congress. I don't even think I recognize this country anymore. In the past this country has gone through many trials and upheavals, but there was a feeling that "we the people" could work together to solve our problems. It just ain't so anymore, and I don't know where I belong.

I could go on and on about so many issues, but many here probably know what I mean and how I feel. AND, the worst thing about how I feel is that I know the Democratic Party, such as it is, seems just as fractured as the GOP!

The GOP may have a great divide between themselves as a Party, and much of what they stand for seems almost Un-American, they still vote for anyone with an (R) by their name. Somehow the stick together whether it affects them negatively or not. It's hard to understand such blind allegiance when they vote for people like Rick Scott, Scott Walker and a long, long list of people who don't give a crap about them. We here know the names, and some of them don't seem to have a clue about much of anything. But they vote no matter what.

I guess the real test will be in 2014, but if we as a Party can't support or trust our so called leaders, then are we any more cohesive than they are?

I suppose I could simply close my eyes and be as blind as many of them, but I can't be a hypocrite and look at myself in the mirror. I realize that the alternative is worse on the other side for the most part, but I also feel the boat I'm on has no rudder and has been heading in the wrong direction for quite some time. I'm extremely conflicted and it's not a way I want to feel.

All I know is that what I'm seeing doesn't make me feel I have any control over anything and I don't know how it can be fixed. As a Boomer, I've spent years in the trenches doing my part and working hard to make a difference. Now, I think all my steps forward have left me about ten feet behind!! And sitting here typing and ranting doesn't help anything either. It's astounding to me that no matter how hard I try, I have found that too many people simply don't want to get involved. So WE are part of the problem too! So many people don't even know who their Congress person is, let alone their Senators!

Enough, didn't mean to put even this much into words, but it's only part of how bad I feel!

[chervilant]

141. Indeed!

" I'm extremely conflicted and it's not a way I want to feel." -- excellent point.

Our geo-political world is changing exponentially, and the neoliberal corporate megalomaniacs do not factor into their Machiavellian plans our growing awareness of their hubris and their disdainful dismissal of our concerns.

[Andy Canuck]

114. Appeasement

No one believed the shooting of Ferdinand would lead to WW I. And Hitler didn't really believe that invading Poland would start WWII. What will start WWIII will be when other nations no longer tolerate the US or any nation continually attacking sovereign nations. At some point, a nation or a group of nations big enough will no longer tolerate the warmongering/invasions and attack back. You can only get pushed around so long before you rationally, or irrationally push back, if only to save face or vent your rage.

How long will the world continue to appease the US?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

117. Maybe because war is archaic.

[Carolina]

120. me, too

I'm done with Obomber, Kerry and other "Dems" like them. I can't even stand to hear BHO speak anymore. Such hope and change... bullshit!

Time for new blood and a new party

[jazzimov]

122. NOT a "war"!

We are NOT invading Syria, like we did with Iraq. Syria's government crossed a line, we need to shoe them that there are consequences for crossing that line.

NOT a war. NOT invading. NOT Iraq all over again.

[bowens43]

126. war mongering bullshit.if the US attacks another country it sure as fuck is war

[School Teacher]

131. It is a War

Hey Jazz, Haven't you seen all those TV generals talking about what comes next, more involvement. They and the war material corps. are chomping at the bit to get a war started. This is just the beginning, don't be fooled. They are lying to us, just like Vietnam,
Iraq and Afghanistan.......duh.

[kardonb]

133. just ....

if you cannot express yourself without using " fuck " all the time I dont value your opinions .

[Vanje]

168. ''''''''

Fuck war.

[OccupyManny]

144. C'mon people

Support your president. He's been a god send for the country. Just look how much as improved since the criminal Bush slunk back to Texas.

Chemical weapons are wrong!