Strike On Syria?

[Era Might]

Over the actions of the political class. Even the lobbyists don't. But they have money. You've got letters and phone calls.

 

www.geke.us

 

There are lots of controls built into the system, the biggest one being term limits and elections. All control can't be personal control.

[Winchester]

There are lots of controls built into the system, the biggest one being term limits and elections. All control can't be personal control.

That must be why the Federal government has not consistently obtained more and more power during its existence.

 

Those "controls" are nonsense. 

[Era Might]

;aklj;oihrpoithoiahdf;lkasd;lfkha;odsihgpoaihepoihgoiweh;lohag

 

That's nonsense.

[Apotheoun]

that's just rude.

I agree. Someone needs to draw a red line on comments like that.

[Hna.Caridad]

I don’t sign in to Phatmass very often & I leave comments even less frequently, so I’m going to apologize right from the start for throwing a grenade (or a cruise missile?) into this conversation & running.  Nonetheless, I remain surprised that in 11 pages of comments, not one person brought up the very real financial benefits to the U.S. that an invasion of Syria would bring. 

 

I’m quoting a Policy Planning Study that George Kennan of the U.S. State Department wrote in 1948.  Yeah, 1948.

 

“Furthermore, we [the Unites States] have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.”

 

http://www.freemedialibrary.com/index.php/Memo_PPS23_by_George_Kennan

 

Since then, the U.S. has helped to overthrow governments in Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1965), the Dominican Republic (1961), Chile (1973), Panama (1989), and most recently, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.  During the 1970s & 1980s, the U.S. supported a terrorist group in Nicaragua, genocide (separate from the 1954 coup) in Guatemala, and the outright persecution of the Catholic Church in El Salvador.  Then, there are the Korean & the Vietnam Wars, providing weapons to both sides in the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, not to mention the first Persian Gulf War (what was that—Operation Desert Storm?).  I’m sure I’m leaving some out…

 

Of course Bashar al-Assad is a terrible leader, and…there are brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Equatorial Guinea—all of which have U.S. support.  Yes, there is an awful civil war going on in Syria, and…there are terrible civil wars going on in the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia—where is the public outcry in these situations?

 

So, who’s going to benefit from a U.S. military intervention in Syria?  Probably not Syrians and certainly not Syrian Christians.  Rather, it will be weapons manufacturers & those who invest in weapons manufacturing companies (a single cruise missile costs over $1 million).  It will be reconstruction companies & those who invest in reconstruction companies (do you really think it was a coincidence that Halliburton got so many contracts to rebuild Iraq?)  It will be private military & security firms and those who invest in private military & security firms.  There’s a lot of money to be made in promoting violence & destruction, after all.

 

In the meantime, let us all heed Pope Francis’ call for prayer, penance, and fasting for a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Syria.

[4588686]

That must be why the Federal government has not consistently obtained more and more power during its existence.

Those "controls" are nonsense.

The Federal government has most increased in size and scope in response to popular will. Most people don't subscribe to political cults.

[KnightofChrist]

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

 

The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men. The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.

 

“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

 

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

 

Continue Reading

 

 

[Winchester]

The Federal government has most increased in size and scope in response to popular will. Most people don't subscribe to political cults.

"Will" isn't in the contract, even if that speculation is true. If it really is true, then we can remove penalties for disobedience. I think we'll find "popular" will translates to "political class will".

[Lilllabettt]

What Kind of Peace Are You Calling For?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/opinion/kristof-the-right-questions-on-syria.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

 

 

I received a mass e-mail from a women’s group I admire, V-Day, calling on people to oppose military intervention because “such an action would simply bring about more violence and suffering. ... Experience shows us that military interventions harm innocent women, men and children.”

Really? Sure, sometimes they do, as in Iraq. But in both Bosnia and Kosovo, military intervention saved lives. The same was true in Mali and Sierra Leone. The truth is that there’s no glib or simple lesson from the past. We need to struggle, case by case, for an approach that fits each situation.

 

 

 

To me, the central question isn’t, “What are the risks of cruise missile strikes on Syria?” I grant that those risks are considerable, from errant missiles to Hezbollah retaliation.

It’s this: “Are the risks greater if we launch missiles, or if we continue to sit on our hands?”

 

 

[Winchester]

I suppose it's similar to the war you chickenhawks are calling for.

[Lilllabettt]

I don't think chickenhawk applies in my case. both my brothers are active duty. I think my family has plenty on the line where military action is concerned.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[CrossCuT]

I wish there were cutesy terms for everything we complained about but didnt directly choose a career path in.

 

Like people who complain about how shoes dont fit...SHUT UP GO MAKE YOUR OWN SHOES!

[4588686]

"Will" isn't in the contract, even if that speculation is true. If it really is true, then we can remove penalties for disobedience. I think we'll find "popular" will translates to "political class will".

 

 

Popular will isn't in the constitution (and it's a constitution, not a contract)?  So what are those things where people vote to fill offices with people who are in charge with crafting laws?

 

Most people like the most of the government programs that have been enacted since the new deal.  That's why FDR was elected four times.  

[Winchester]

I don't think chickenhawk applies in my case. both my brothers are active duty. I think my family has plenty on the line where military action is concerned.

Your brothers taking the risk isn't you taking the risk. Of course, I don't look at this with some national identity lens, so it's no surprise we see it differently.

[KnightofChrist]

Oh bother let's not go off on yet another debate about anarchy. But since it's been brought up popular will seems to be against an American strike on Syria. Will the Administration listen? Will Congress? I still don't see clear evidence that Assad used the WMD's on his own people. It still seems quite odd he would when he was winning the war. Maybe he is but he doesn't look brain dead stupid, so why do something he knows would greatly increase his removal from office by foreign powers? I also still see no real good coming out of just dropping some bombs to punish Assad. It will kill people, but not Assad likely, so how does that save lives? The rebels seem to be the only other force powerful enough to take Assad's place, and they seem no better if not worse than him. So why help them?