dagblog - Comments for "All together now"

If there's to be a "buyout,"

erica20 — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:22:08 +0000

In reply to I don't see buying Assad out

If there's to be a "buyout," which is a nice term also implying "sellout" :^) it will take awhile, and not happen until it's fairly clear that Assad will come out the loser here.

Perhaps Putin can make up for his Snowden slight by offering asylum to Assad and his family, thus making him not America's problem anymore.

Although the inexorable march

Aaron Carine — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 23:56:41 +0000

In reply to All together now

Although the inexorable march to war is depressing, it is heartening that there is so much opposition from the public, and from a substantial minority in Congress.

A curse upon John Kerry.

I don't see buying Assad out

ocean-kat — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 21:34:43 +0000

In reply to I suspect that the only

I don't see buying Assad out as even remotely likely to bring peace. That just removes one player. Who takes over the military? There's no one all factions would back so the war just continues with a different guy in charge. Put no one in charge and the military disintegrates or more likely fragments, the country falls into chaos, and the rebel factions battle it out among themselves. Most likely with each faction getting a share of the chemical weapons.

I hope there's someone in the

Flavius — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:45:09 +0000

In reply to I suspect that the only

I hope there's someone in the mix of Obama's advisors who is telling him that.Besides Michelle. Come back Bobby Kennedy!

At the time of the Attica "rebellion ,jail take over "whatever. Nelson Rockefeller was in the decision loop and probably was the key decider.Unfortunately. And there were many avoidable deaths . Ted Kheel , who was a negotiator ,was quoted afterwards as saying executives think of themselves as negotiators but they're not.

I hope Obama has the self knowledge to keep himself a little distant from the decision making but I'm by no means confident of that.

Clearly there'll be a tiger-team of whatever they call it as there was for the Osama Bin Laden assassination. I hope Obama is less prominent this time.

It passed 10-7, and voting

artappraiser — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:39:12 +0000

In reply to Here's The Hill with an

It passed 10-7, and voting was NOT along party lines (link has the votes); now headed to the full Senate. I have no idea when text becomes available where to the public.

This was posted on

Donal — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:50:42 +0000

In reply to All together now

This was posted on AlterNet:
The Syria Intervention Plan Is Being Pushed by Oil Interests, Not Concern About Chemical Weapons

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

I suspect that the only

Michael Maiello — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:35:43 +0000

In reply to I agree with your opinion

I suspect that the only peaceful answer is to buy them out. A global war crimes pardon plus a few billion dollars and protection from reprisals. Basically guaranty of no comeuppance because the comeuppance that awaits him is so terrible that he really can't afford to pull punches trying to stop it.

I don't understand what Assad

CVille Dem — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:26:09 +0000

In reply to All together now

I don't understand what Assad had to gain by using chemical weapons. A significant number (more than half) of Syrians prefer him to the alternative (which includes carpetbaggers from all over the Middle East -- AlQaida? -- pretty definitely).

Those same carpetbaggers had EVERYTHING to gain by gassing remote villages and letting a) Assad take the heat, and b) the US once again take the role of Mid-East aggressor while pretending to be heroic. It is also a curious coincidence that this gassing was done almost immediately after Obama talked about chemical weapons being a "red line," even if he doesn't now acknowledge it.

As I understand it there is no chain of evidence leading to Assad.

This whole thing reminds me of Colin Powell's disingenuous UN speech, and I don't think we know enough to take this to the next level, and I feel suspicious when pols orate like they are doing.

What do WE have to gain by intervening here, when we ignore cruelty and other shit all over the world? Are we saying that we just can't stand by and ignore innocent killings? We might be a little hypocritical on that front. Will this help restore our sullied reputation in the Arab world? No, I don't think so. Will it make arms dealers richer? Who else might get rich over this? Follow The Money ... It worked with Watergate.

The ridiculous notion that if we let this go Iran will get nuclear weapons makes me hold my nose.

Can anyone explain why we would do this when the UN says no? OK, Russia will veto intervention. We put up with crap like that from the baggers who abuse the filibuster in our own Congress, so why not in the UN? Veto power is the way it is set up and we have used our veto power unilaterally as well. If we act against the UN's mandate when we disagree why have a membership in that organization in the first place?

I just don't trust any of these actors, and I hate the very idea that more resources are going into weaponry and war as our infrastructure crumbles, our schools get defunded, and weekly meetings of the GOP are dedicated to undermining the first opportunity for all to have health care options; using the excuse that "We just can't afford ObamaCare."

Short summary: Our priorities suck.

I don't think it falls on a

Donal — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:56:19 +0000

In reply to Wow, Bolton and Hedges on the

I don't think it falls on a vocal opponent of plutocracy and global hegemony to offer a short-term solution right now. His strategy would probably require a very differently-governed nation than what we have. I'd guess that Hedges would argue that in his sort of world, this decision would be a lot clearer because the US wouldn't have such dirty hands. Whether that sort of world actually works is of course an open question.

Thanks for the links.

Flavius — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:40:44 +0000

In reply to All together now

Thanks for the links.