FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Simpich writes: "The House of Representatives is poised to vote No on any attack on Syria. This is the moment to bring antiwar forces together, both in the United States and around the world."

Can the antiwar movement stop the U.S. from attacking Syria? (photo: Olivia Harris/Reuters)
Can the antiwar movement stop the U.S. from attacking Syria? (photo: Olivia Harris/Reuters)


If the House Says No to War

By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

07 September 13

 

he House of Representatives is poised to vote No on any attack on Syria. This is the moment to bring antiwar forces together, both in the United States and around the world. This is the moment that we can build a movement that can make history. Who will show leadership to ensure victory this month and move on making this movement move?

As of 8 p.m. last night, Firedoglake reported that the count was 226 leaning or firm No, 62 leaning or firm Yes. That means the No votes have a majority in the House, with 147 votes remaining undecided. The Huffington Post figures are similar, with 217 leaning No, 44 leaning Yes. In the House, Democrats are four to one against it, and the Republicans are almost ten to one against it. Florida congressman Alan Grayson thinks that if this trend continues, that the House may refuse to even vote on it "unless they want to simply put it out there to be defeated."

Antiwar actions will take place this weekend and in the days to come. Everyone should hit the streets. Everyone should lobby their Congressional representatives. Mass nonviolent direct action should take place now. It makes no sense after the vote. The idea is to make sure the bombs never fall.

Obama is going to address the nation next week, after Congress re-convenes on Monday the 9th. He is going to try to turn public opinion around, with the votes due to happen within a matter of days or weeks. Look at what Obama has to address – his rhetoric can't defeat these five obstacles, and I think he knows it.

  1. What burden of proof is required to show that the Syrian government is to blame and that they weren't set up in some way? Congressman Alan Grayson asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel about media reports that Syrian commanders were surprised to hear the news about the chemical attack. Hagel said he wasn't aware of these reports, but emphasized that any supporting documents would probably have to stay classified in any case. The legal community uses three different tools for making a decision: Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and reasonable doubt. Which one is proper here? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the only reasonable standard for a question of this magnitude.
  2. This is important because chemical attacks are a terrible thing. What is the appropriate response? International law bars the United States from launching a preemptive attack, since an attack on Syria does not constitute self-defense. The United Nations can't take action, because Russia is on the Security Council and can block an attack. The place for action is at the World Court, and to seek criminal sanctions against the perpetrators. Anything else is illegal.
  3. The Syrian conflict is not simply a civil war – it is a proxy war. Several wars are going on simultaneously in Syria, with al-Qaeda among the opposition forces. Are the United States and al-Qaeda really about to fight on the same side? There are also self-defense pacts between Syria and Iran, which could result in Iran attacking Israel if Syria is attacked. Israel, Turkey, and Russia have major security interests that could be triggered if bombs start flying. Any attack could lead to a larger conflagration and American boots on the ground. Secretary of State John Kerry was forced to admit that yesterday.
  4. Any attack on Syria is estimated to cost one billion dollars every two weeks, according to Rep. Grayson. If this action were to take the full 90 days permitted in this bill, that would be seven billion dollars, while everything from food subsidies to the National Archives are experiencing severe cutbacks. Grayson points to the twenty million looking for work and almost fifty million on food stamps.
  5. There are two million refugees due to the Syrian conflict. The United States and others should be supporting these refugees through established, internationally recognized, neutral institutions and organizations, not by another round of endless war.

This is the moment for people to come together. We can act where we live with 435 flying pickets – one for each member of the House. The website of US Labor Against the War (USLAW) offers an excellent combination of educational materials and action suggestions to be used in the days to come. The Friends Committee on National Legislation and Just Foreign Policy are other great resources. Many other groups need our participation, fresh vision, and new approaches. We can start new groups, where we live and where we work. We can support those facing cutbacks and those fighting for a living wage by encouraging them to provide new leadership to the antiwar movement.

No president has ever been denied support for a military strike by either the Senate or the House. It's about to happen. Obama asked for a vote. The challenge is to make the House vote mean something. If we can stop the Pentagon from attacking Syria, we will make history.

How can we bring peace to Syria, if we tie the hands of the Pentagon? We can urge people from all sides of the conflict to come to the table. We can use the power of the media, the power of theater, the power of prayer. We can support the formation of an international, Gandhi-style nonviolent army to march to Damascus and help increase the peace. One thing is for sure: the path to peace is not aided by going to war for the sake of anybody's "credibility."

The antiwar forces in the United States have an enormous responsibility. People all over the world are looking to us. If we want peace, we have to work for peace. We can no longer stand on the sidelines and complain about being marginalized. We have to take the field. We have to act.




Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+70 # Activista 2013-09-07 08:47
Hope that House votes NO on Syria - stops/delays wars in the Middle East.
 
 
+19 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-09-07 14:20
Bill Maher, HBO, made this comment a few months ago. "People bitch about how dumb(bought out by big money) our elected representatives are. But, the people are even dumber." Look at the list of Democrats who voted for war in Iraq. Including, Joe biden, Nancy Pelosi.
 
 
+12 # Rita Walpole Ague 2013-09-07 16:41
Let's hope, and work, to make certain that the House votes to...

NObama Syria !!!
 
 
+5 # 666 2013-09-08 06:13
everyone should read:
https://ex.fit.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=KiLBiRm9u0G2ONq14GmIMa_a3wArgNAIjM1PBZgYYTgYpEQ4DK2gKXWmc-Aru1k-YOUqrVIGlBA.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fconsortiumnews.com%2f2013%2f09%2f06%2fobama-warned-on-syrian-intel%2f

ex military folks warning this is no different than the run-up to iraq. They were building troops 2 weeks before the "gas attack" in anticipation of it.

that's why the govt say the data is too classified to release, it's because we (and our proxy buddies) are behind it.
 
 
0 # MidwesTom 2013-09-08 19:26
U was blocked trying to get to the article. Please repost at a site not requiring a security code.
 
 
0 # Activista 2013-09-09 22:52
Obama Warned on Syrian Intel
truth-out.org/opinion/item/18696-obama-warned-on-syrian-intel ‎- 15 hours ago
A dozen former U.S. military and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up information that undercuts the Official ...
Obama Warned on Syrian Intel | consortiumnews.com/
Exclusive: Despite the Obama administration' s supposedly “high confidence” regarding Syrian government guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical ...
etc.
 
 
+29 # mjc 2013-09-07 09:11
At the very least Obama should wait for the inspectors to complete their analysis of the gas attack.., where did it come from, how was it delivered, which group delivered it, how many did it kill. That is the very least, even if Obama decides to go into this on his own...or with a little help from an ally...Israel. There are some on the IT saying that what info there is/was about the attack came from Israel: WHY?
 
 
+8 # Activista 2013-09-07 14:33
"There are some on the IT saying that what info there is/was about the attack came from Israel: WHY?"
There is high probability that the rackets that delivered chemicals came from Israel ..
Why?
1 - War on Assad is a proxy of Israel war on Iran

2 - Israel wants engage USA in the war .. i.e. USA spends/fights the war for the Interest of Israel

3 - Israel bombed half dozen times Damascus this year, with only few media reporting - is capable to deliver ...

etc. etc. - so far, with lack of evidence against Assad (except Israel made up evidence that Assad's brother's unit did it -
Israel TV: Chemical weapons were fired by Assad's brother's unit ...
www.timesofisrael.com › Israel & the Region‎
Aug 24, 2013 - Israel TV: Chemical weapons were fired by Assad's brother's unit. Maher Assad's 4th Armored Division of Syrian Army launched nerve gas ...
 
 
+14 # tomo 2013-09-07 17:13
Even if we do find out Assad did it, look at Obama's logic: "He has used poison on his people; therefore we are going to punish him by killing his people for him."
 
 
+38 # DaveM 2013-09-07 09:24
Let's not stop there. Staying out of Syria will still leave the United States engaged in various "expeditions" in other parts of the Middle East. Let's bring everybody home. The Middle East is a mess. It has been for a very long time, and probably always will be. And sadly, there is nothing we can do to change that.
 
 
+41 # guomashi 2013-09-07 10:30
Quoting DaveM:
Let's not stop there. Staying out of Syria will still leave the United States engaged in various "expeditions" in other parts of the Middle East. Let's bring everybody home. The Middle East is a mess. It has been for a very long time, and probably always will be. And sadly, there is nothing we can do to change that.


au contraire, the middle east has not been a mess for a very long time. the middle east has been a mess since 1923 when France, England and America got together and drew a bunch of random lines to divide it up into weak and dependent colonial states.

The middle east will be able to cure itself, if left to its own devices. "Syria", "Iraq", etc. are words with no objective meaning, those words will have to be discarded in favor of some others including perhaps "Kurdistan" etc.

The residents will have to define their own boundaries and affiliations. We can not help solve the problem we created - we can only make it worse.
 
 
+1 # mjc 2013-09-09 06:22
guomashi, "Israel" DOES have meaning. That is probably the main reason for the United States to be involved in the "mess". We...you and I, taxpayers, have spent enormous sums of money helping Israel "defend itself", a cry that is never ending from them. We can help solve the problem that we and others have created unless we stop funding the military wishlist of Israel and the military of Egypt. It may be that some see it in our interest because of the Suez Canal or strategic interests in general but once the money tree stops giving there could be real interest on the part of many nations in the Middle East in solving their own problems. Iran has never threatened us except through the former "president" and never attacked us either. Syria now because it is threatened, or Assad feels threatened, has warned us through Charlie Rose to cease and desist. That is something we should understand and listen to.
 
 
+57 # Billy Bob 2013-09-07 10:43
There is something we can do to change that. We can stop actively causing the mess.
 
 
+5 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 08:59
that's the point that many people are missing. Thanks for stating it.
 
 
+25 # grandma lynn 2013-09-07 11:01
When Saddam ruled, at least they had a strong middle class in Iraq/Baghdad, universities running, kids in school, sects of religion controlling themselves or fearing Saddam so not vicious, archaeological sites protected, etc.
 
 
+15 # tomo 2013-09-07 17:16
Dear Dave: We have done a great deal already. We are the principal agent stirring the mess. Oil! Gas! Wake up and smell the fumes!
 
 
+2 # RODNOX 2013-09-08 15:19
yes there is....since most turmoil in the mideast can always be traced to USA or ISRAEL we can STAY OUT OF MIDEAST AND QUIT BEING AN INSTIGATOR..... we have a history of causing trouble all around the world for our own benifit
 
 
+7 # Sweet Pea 2013-09-07 10:05
This is reminding me of the playground in elementary school. Where are the playground supervisors?
 
 
+2 # JJMK3 2013-09-07 10:09
Consolidate the Effort. 1, ONE GROUP EFFORT! How??????? John J. Kostecki Sr.
 
 
+12 # Milarepa 2013-09-07 10:16
It doesn't matter which way Congress votes, somehow, sooner or later, the shiite is gonna hit the fan. I don't need to tell you who or what the shoot is - the US. That's about all the US can do these days. It can't stop the fan of history. Being in rapid decline, the US empire can do no good. It can't help itself. Maybe there's too many lawyers defining the Constitution, fragmenting it, sweeping it under the rug.
 
 
+2 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:06
Political parties are in the debt of big donors, the billionaires, and must do what is good for the money that funds their conventions and their campaign ads.
We, the people, need to do our own work now. We can't wait for any political party to offer us a candidate who is "for the people". We the people need to identify many many individuals that we already know and who have shown themselves already to be for the people, for the environment, for diversity, for a government that represents the people of the country and not the multinational corporations that fund the politicians' campaigns and provide them with legislation to push. We need individuals who are not politicians, and we need to bring them together, as independents who support each other. We won't find one person who is an exert on everything as all candidates for president claim to be. We need to find a large group of people who each is an expert in something and who together can bring expertise, competence, truth and trustworthiness to the executive branch. We also need to find people like that to be governors, congress people, and so on. We need a government of the people, not politicians of the political parties.
 
 
-6 # egbegb 2013-09-07 10:20
Where does the speaker stand?
 
 
+21 # guomashi 2013-09-07 10:32
Quoting egbegb:
Where does the speaker stand?


He stands in perfect equipoise on the razor's edge of unreality.
 
 
+30 # guomashi 2013-09-07 10:38
According to the Declaration of Independence, we hold the truth to be self-evident that the legitimacy of any government comes from the consent of the governed.

The people of America have spoken clearly on the issue of Syria.

If the government at any level acts in opposition to that explicitly stated position. That government is then by its own definition illegitmate.

What actions are left the citizens to correct that situation?

Worst of all, any attempt to "sell" the congress with so-called classified information amounts to nothing less than a coup, and cannot be tolerated. It is a de facto attempt to remove the ability of Americans to participate in any kind of informed consent.
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:11
Right you are, and withholding information is the first part of denying Americans the possibility of making informed decisions. WE need to get people and not politicians into the government and we need then to break up the strangle hold that money has on the media, and the elected officials of our government. We the people, and not politicians of purchased political parties, need to find and promote large numbers of people whom we really want to represent us in our government.
 
 
+35 # reiverpacific 2013-09-07 10:23
It's about time something sensible came out of the Beltway.
So dear me, what ARE they goin' to do with all these ships and Marines poised to send barrages and landing-craft ("No boots on the ground" notwithstanding ) into Syria.
Somebody has to be bombed: after all, non-invasion is just not sexy, nor profitable for the war-game showing and ratings-hungry owner-media!
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:17
So sad that this is the true story. The profits of the bomb makers and the media that cover the wars like football games, with excited voices motivate the decisions of our government instead of the welfare of American people or people anywhere else in the world. This has got to change, and it won't be easy. We won't get candidates for government positions who represent the people from the major political parties. The political parties rely on funds from the owners of the military industry and the media, as well as other corporations that are ruining the world for people.---We will need to do the time demanding work of identifying people we know who are experts in a single field and who are honest and trustworthy, truth telling people, not politicians. We will need to do the time consuming work of getting them together and making groups (including advisors and staff) who together are competent to hold the various positions that make up our government. That is the way we can have a government of the people, for the people instead of a government of the corporate interests for the corporate interests.
 
 
+38 # janie1893 2013-09-07 10:56
If the west assaults Syria, we could very well have a global war. Some body or bodies have been attempting to bring that about for the past 2 decades. WMD attacks will escalate.

Mankind is on the verge of self-annihilati on. How stupid are we?
 
 
-4 # Quickmatch 2013-09-07 12:43
WMD attacks have been over-advertised to the point that the term makes some shiver. WMD's, in the forms of chemical, biological or radiological weapons will not self-annihalite the world. The only true WMD is nuclear and the three states that have enough combined power to do serious, long term, population depleting damage are the US, Russia and China. We are not THAT stupid.
 
 
+9 # Malcolm 2013-09-07 14:25
Oh how I wish that were true. I'm not even going to MENTION the most deadly WMD, since nobody has used it for such a long time.

One other WMD, though, meets your definition. Ask the people who were in Dresden February 13, 14, and 15th, 1945.
Or ask the residents of Tokyo, HALF of which was destroyed in the same fashion.

Just two examples.
 
 
+4 # DrD 2013-09-08 05:30
I agree completely. Chemical weapons are horrific, but so are drone strikes and mass fire bombing of cities. The documentary The Fog of War is revealing of Robert McNamara's opinion of his/US actions in WW II and Vietnam as war crimes.

Obama and Kerry know this but yet they push for war...
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:21
I suspect that the people who would like to have a war are not interested in preserving the nations or the people of the US, Russia or China. They have global interests, and global goals that might even be advanced by the destruction of large powerful nations.--They certainly are not loyal to any country. They are loyal to their own profits and their own power.
 
 
+4 # Activista 2013-09-07 19:12
[quote name="Quickmatc h"] .... The only true WMD is nuclear and the three states that have enough combined power to do serious, long term, population depleting damage are the US, Russia and China. ....
And in the Middle East Israel ... at least 200 warheads ..
"Israel is believed to manufacture its nuclear weapons at the Negev Nuclear Research Center.
Delivery mechanisms include Jericho intercontinenta l ballistic missiles, with a range of 11,500 km, and which are believed to provide a second-strike option. Israel's nuclear-capable ballistic missiles are believed to be buried so far underground that they would survive a nuclear attack.[7][8] Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear second-strike capability, using submarine-launc hed nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.[9] The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and their Aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's."
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2013-09-07 14:07
Quoting janie1893:
If the west assaults Syria, we could very well have a global war. Some body or bodies have been attempting to bring that about for the past 2 decades. WMD attacks will escalate.

Mankind is on the verge of self-annihilation. How stupid are we?

As stupid as we want to be!
Maybe the Lakota Ghost Dancers' will get their prediction that the "Wasicu" will destroy themselves with their greed and the mother earth will be left to it's proper stewards, "The People".
Trouble is we'll probably wipe them out too.
Still, watch for that White Buffalo calf.
 
 
+29 # Bev 2013-09-07 11:00
If enough "sheeple" wake up to their slavery under THE CORPORATION OF THE USA this would be the chance to shake off the shackles and stand up and say "ENOUGH!" no, No AND NO!
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:28
Saying no to people in our current government is not a powerful action. The people in our current government are not representing or responding to the people, whether they say yes or they say no. The powerful action that we need to take is to replace the people in our government with people who are not politicians and who would represent the interests of humans who vote for them instead of representing the interests of the multinational corporations that fund their political party. We need people from among the people to come together in large number to gather together the expertise and the courage to take on powerful positions in government and actually represent people from those positions. A government of the people and not a government of candidates offered up by political parties funded by the billionaires of the world. I'm talking about a lot of work, time consuming work for citizens, but the action necessary to have a government of the people.
 
 
+34 # gracie 2013-09-07 11:11
It's way past time for Obomba to turn in his Peace Prize.
 
 
+11 # Vardoz 2013-09-07 11:15
Finally we have a representative govt to some extent and in this case I believe they are right for so many reasons. And we have ourselves to thank for our widespread protests.
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:30
I hope you are right. I hope the congress will represent the people's no vote for war. But it's not over yet. And even if congress says no, we'll see if Obama lets that stand in his way. He may not.
 
 
+6 # perkinsej 2013-09-07 11:44
Our failure to act will not generate
"peace" in the Middle East, but it will become an important turning point in the downsizing of the Roman Empire -- you know I mean .... the global American empire. Bring it home.
 
 
+10 # tomo 2013-09-07 11:44
Kennedy asked his staff to read Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August lest his administration drift into war the way all Europe, etc., did to start WWI. Tuchman documents that the principal players did not foresee the magnitude of the war they were starting. Each seemed to regard the war as a neat and controllable way to engineer a few comforting advantages for the home country. Unfortunately, the Kennedy people did not read soon enough to head off the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy had the wisdom to press down hard on the brakes. I can't help believing that this and his negotiating with Khrushchev a way out of the Missile Crisis in 1962 are what cost Kennedy his life. No danger of Obama exercising a similar fortitude. Obama is the master of the cave-in: "I'd really like to do such-and-so, but instead I'm going to do the exact opposite."
 
 
+8 # AMLLLLL 2013-09-07 14:50
Let's just have him 'cave in' to us! We need to flood the White House and the Congress with petitions, emails, Tweets, Facebook, and take to the streets as well. Shout until Horton hears a Who.
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:38
Voicing our wishes to the people currently in government positions is essential and it seems we need to send them advice several times a day. However, our wishes are not the top priority of the people who currently hold powerful positions in our government. They got those positions with the support of powerful political parties who got their funding from powerful multinational corporations. Once elected, these officials continue to need the support of their political party which continues to need the financial support of the billionaires. It turns out that the people only contribute a small amount of money to the political campaigns and conventions. The billionaires, though few, are more important, and it is their will that gets represented. They write the legislation that gets introduced. They write the news stories that get air time. In order to get a government that represents the people, we need to identify our own candidates, and eschew candidates offered by expensive political parties. We need to do a lot of work as a public to bring together candidates we know and who tell us the truth. Then we need to elect them, and not politicians.
 
 
+11 # AMLLLLL 2013-09-07 16:02
This truly is a complicated set of circumstances. The one clear and simple answer here is to support the refugees. They ran away with nothing but the clothes on their backs, leaving sick and dead loved ones behind. It's the cheapest method of helping because it deals directly with those who are at the brunt of the unrest. They are begging America to step in, but many don't know themselves whose machinations launched them out of their lives. Food, water, medical help; the basics. Cheap for us. Everything to survive for them. 3/4 of the Syrian population is Sunni and Assad is Alawite Shia. The highest military are Alawite as well, so make a solid resistance to Sunnis who fund the rebel forces. Messy at best. This is why it's a hornet's nest. A non-military humanitarian aid is the most neutral move we could make. Painful as it is, this just has to play out.
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:41
humanitarian aid to refugees would be a good thing and would help ease the feelings of hate and distrust toward the US engendered by drone strikes and military actions in the area.---I don't think Obama will offer humanitarian aid.
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:43
Obama didn't even help the people of New York who suffered from the hurricane that stuck the city days before the last presidential election. Helping people of Syria is, unfortunately, probably not on his to do list.
 
 
+8 # cy31b 2013-09-07 11:46
quomashi, 90 years in politics is a very long time. The United States cannot take on the world whenever some horrible incident happens and if we do jump in we shouldn't be surprised when Israel and US get retaliation attacks at home. In this case Mr. Obama is asking for trouble for the people he represents. Bush did the same thing and look how that turned out.
 
 
0 # barbaratodish 2013-09-07 12:24
Let's turn the letters, W A R , in "WAR" around, non violently, to R A W, and let's all go on a FOOD STRIKE and eat WAR RAW! We will all be healthier if we EAT RAW, especially if we eat RAW vegetables, instead of, or in addition to, eating meat, etc. Maybe by being healthier we will then be more peacful and so grateful for our health that we will use our energy for peace and save our excess energy for when we really need self defense, like when we are ABSOLUTELY threatened by LIFE AND DEATH ISSUES, instead of wasting our energy on RELATIVE QUALITY OF LIFE isssues!
 
 
+4 # dd214 2013-09-07 12:25
Peace is the prize. What we have to do is take out our 'tie-dyes'-5 million strong and occupy every major stadium. Football is not that important.
 
 
+3 # MidwesTom 2013-09-07 13:58
This is scary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bJQlTXinns
 
 
+2 # ishmael 2013-09-07 19:49
The acting skills or the attempt at spreading paranoia?
 
 
0 # artic fox 2013-09-07 16:32
While it is necessary to do something about war criminals such as Asad, just remember what happened in 1939 when the British government under Neville Chamberlin
believed hitler and what happened to that - 50+ million dead? I don't know who has the power to indict Asad and have him tried in the International Court - it is essential that that be done without delay.
 
 
+3 # ishmael 2013-09-07 18:16
There are many creative and effective ways to pressure people into humane behavior patterns. Bludgeoning massive numbers of people with bombs and drones aren't among them.

No one with relatively strong influence in Syria seems particularly aware of the importance of behaving smartly (humanely). It needs to enter the modern world and stop its ridiculously simian habit of honoring ancient prejudices based on religion.

US bombs and drones are a horrible idea.
 
 
+3 # Rick Levy 2013-09-07 18:41
As matters now stand, attacking Syria is just plain wrong on the face of it and on so many levels. So there is no reason for Israel bashers to repeatedly drag that country in to the argument, unless they just need an excuse to vent their hatred.
 
 
+5 # LML 2013-09-07 19:01
Chemical weapons are bad....

Query: Aren't napalm and depleted uranium chemical weapons?
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2013-09-07 21:25
Quoting LML:
Chemical weapons are bad....

Query: Aren't napalm and depleted uranium chemical weapons?


Excellent point ! Getting into a "lather" over any one particular means of producing death, whether drones or chemical agents is simply a "dodge" designed to get us to "look the other way".

What needs to stop is WAR itself, not just specific and individual means of producing war.

Nuclear weapons use quickly becomes everyone's business, because winds and weather patterns ensure that everyone gets a "dose".

But how ridiculous is our position implying that killing 100K of Assad's own people is perfectly hunky-dory so long as he does it with conventional weapons - you know, like the way we secretly carpet-bombed North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and recently Iraq from 29,000 feet with B-29s ?

And who the hell is the U.S. to pontificate against *ANYONE* else over the use of particular weaponry ? I don't hear any calls for dismantling *our* NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) capabilities.

Again, campaigning against particular weapons one by one is a distraction and a waste of time. It takes attention off of the the *real* prize, which is eliminating war itself on this Little Blue Marble called Planet Earth in which we are all in the same boat, hurtling around the Sun at 67,000 mph.

Eliminating war, is, of course, a "tall order". However, we are at a point where we will either re-invent ourselves and our institutions, or we will be gone.
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:53
I am so strongly in favor of reinventing our way of choosing candidates for offices of all kinds in the United States. We have, generally speaking, been non participants in the choice of who will run for office, whether for president, for governor, for congress or even for more local positions. WE have waited for the political parties to tell us who our choices are. This is not working for the people of the country. The political parties have big expenses: those showy expensive self congratulatory conventions cost millions of dollars; misleading ads on prime time tv cost millions of dollars; flying candidates and their entourage all over the country to make false promises to hundreds of different regional interests costs millions of dollars. Those millions come from billionaires who then write the legislation that their candidate introduces or supports from their elected position. It's not a government of the people. If we want a government of the people, we the people need to identify people from among ourselves who we would like to represent us in government. People from among ourselves are not politicians. They are people who have expertise in a single area and are honest, trustworthy and humane. Hundreds of such people together have the competence to run our government "for the people". Politicians do not.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2013-09-07 21:42
In fact, Chemical Weapons use has nothing to do with the real reason the NeoCons would like us to attack Syria.

Chemical Weapons use is the simple causus belli being sold to the general public for this move, as was false WMDs to get us into Iraq for a "30 Day Cakewalk Slam-Dunk" that would "have the Iraqi people greeting us as liberators", according to our Neo-Con brethren - Chaney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, "Curveball", et al.

Same sh*t - different day, different Middle Eastern Country. They haven't even changed the cover story by much.
 
 
+2 # Sully747 2013-09-07 21:33
Just a general observation: “The People” reading this article and posting here seem to be a well informed citizenry,… well they be heard..?
 
 
+2 # Kathymoi 2013-09-08 09:58
I have no doubt that the elected people in government are well aware of what the people of the United States want, and even what is good for the people. Bernie Sanders, who is not funded by any political party, is consistently able to relate what people want, for instance. It isn't knowledge that is lacking. It's will. The people who are backed by a major political party need that financial support to get reelected. Or they look forward to a lucrative career in a multinational corporation after their term in office. Either way, they need to do as the funders of the major political parties desire. They represent the interests of the billionaires and not the interest of the people. It's not a matter of ignorance of our wishes or of what is good or right.
 
 
+3 # ishmael 2013-09-08 00:40
Mr Kerry says that the number of countries who want to attack Syria is in "double digits".
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24004836

Good. Let them handle it and the US doesn't have to get involve.

And about those worldwide "peace rallies" .... They weren't effective in stopping W Bush's delusional Iraq attack. Why should they be more effective now?
 
 
+3 # Inspired Citizen 2013-09-08 11:15
There is a push to impeach Obama if he proceeds to attack after a "no" vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS-nlv2YyrQ
 
 
0 # mjc 2013-09-09 06:30
Yeah, sure, coming from the true warrior, John McCain. McCain and the mucho-macho other Senators and Congresspersons have an answer for everything, especially if it is something that Obama does. Now...Bush, Cheney, not so much.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN