Tom Toles for September 04, 2013

Those who oppose action in Syria are in effect saying that there should be no response illegal use of weapons of mass destruction. Funny, a few years back we mounted huge war on the suspicion that there might be stockpile of WMDs in Iraq, whereas now we know that the weapons are there because they’ve been used. Anyone who supported the war in Iraq ought to support some kind of response in this situation. (Of course we can then ask “What kind of response?” but that’s another question for another time.) Now if the US makes no response to this use of WMDs, what message gets sent to Iran?

I guess if I am still alive in 10 years I will still be against he war in Syria the way I was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Well, I wouldn’t say that the president always tells the truth, but I wouldn’t say that he always lies, either. As for Putin, well, I wouldn’t give him a lot of credit for truth. I’d be very surprised to learn that there were no chemicals used, and I’d be almost as surprised to learn that it was the opposition who used them.+I’m not arguing for a military strike in Syria. I was making two points: 1. Something should be done. 2. A lot of the opposition to Obama’s plan is hypocritical.+But even so, I’m opposed to a military strike in Syria. I don’t think it will do any good, and I don’t see that the proper response to an atrocity is another atrocity. But I do think there should be some response. I’m a pacifist, or as near to that as I can manage. A lot of people say that pacifism doesn’t work. Well, militarism doesn’t work very well, either. But pacificism is not that same as doing nothing. We put a lot of money into figuring how to deal with conflicts violently, why can’t we put equal money into figuring how to deal with conflicts non-violently?

I’ve opposed the US use of terror and the US sponsorship of terror all my adult life. And not just verbal opposition. Just because the US has done a lot of horrible things, that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t protest when Assad does, as well.

Exactly. Now the key problem for pacifists is the application of nonviolent resistance when you’re getting clobbered by a massive force which doesn’t seem to respond to non-violence. Well, I don’t know the answer, but I do see that violent resistance often doesn’t work. We desperately need to have a discussion about how to avoid getting into these situations.

“Even if he were to end world hunger, cure all cancer and bring real and lasting peace to the world…”.He would have to be competent to do that..“…Either way the right-wing-haters won’t be happy until this country fails and takes down this President with it.”.Obozo needs no one’s help to make this country fail. He’s doing just fine on his own (with his Kool Aid slamming allies of course). Thankfully (for you at least) he won’t go down with it, since the Kool Aid slamming brigade will continue to blame the shrub…

I didn’t watch all of that video. Sometimes I wonder.H2, The History Channel 2 had a marathon about influential people. They followed John D. Rockefeller. J.P. Morgan, Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, (who am I leaving out)I began to question how accurate the shows were, but it is hard to get good solid information. Too much fluff.It was entertaining to hear their version of how Niagra Falls was AC and where General Electric came from.

I remember Oboma saying he’d talk rather than shoot…that seems pretty sensble to me(can’t spell today)

It took Obama 10 days of posturing. Let’s give Congress time to posture, too. The UN and NATO are not interested in participating in a police-action on this issue. This fact is worth ‘pondering’ before making a ‘wise’ decision to go it alone.

I’m in agreement with your concerns about the possible consequences of a military strike. I hope it’s clear from my earlier posts that I don’t favor a military strike. I do, however, believe that some response is called for. Since I’m a sort of pacifist, I’m not going to defend any weapons of war, but that doesn’t mean that I think WMDs should be legal. And if they are illegal, then their use should be condemned, no matter who is using them — the US or Syria or whoever.

Why isn’t anyone talking about sending humanitarian aid to the civilians?

Well, I’m certainly no expert in the law of war, but I assume there are stipulations. I guess in a non-technical sense, I would say that I would include weapons which by their very nature are likely to result in the mass killing of non-combatants. Nuclear weapons seem to fit (though there are some that are supposedly designed as “battlefield” weapons). Biological weapons, obviously. But one could reasonably argue that the use of “legal” weapons can be just as indiscriminate. The big bombing raids in WWII and in Vietnam were raids of mass destruction, though the weapons themselves were legal. Perhaps one could have a two-pronged approach — some weapons are inherently abhorrent and should be illegal, and the use of any weapon could in some circumstances be abhorrent. So a rifle wouldn’t in itself be illegal, but a massacre, using rifles, of non-combatants would also be illegal. I think that’s more or less the state of the law, though as I say, I’m no expert.

Humanitarian aid is what they need, not more people killing them. The American people don’t want war.Our allies are not standing with our leader.Iran WILL Attack if we send even 1 missile.It’s about oil! It’s always about oil.It’s not the suffering.

Rational? Not even close. Being as I’m sort of a pacifist, I think all war should be illegal. Since I’m not expecting that to happen anytime soon, I can still support measures short of that goal, and since laws against weapons of mass destruction are already on the books, I think it’s reasonable to enforce those (though, as I have said, using force to stop force is probably not the best policy). If we don’t acknowledge and try to enforce the few laws we have, what’s the use in having them? And how do we expect to move forward towards more and better controls?