I fucking can't believe John Kerry

[Taverner]

You would think he would know better


You would think he wasn't a saber rattler


You would think that, but you'd be wrong


Typical political wannabe Kennedy, except he doesn't even have 1/10th of the spine of Ted...



FUCK HIM

And to think I tore up the pavement for him in 06

[NoOneMan]

1. I'm not sure why any of this surprises anyone anymore

Are people purposely not paying attention? Maybe that's the price of membership

[KoKo]

148. Well...you aren't the only one...and he isn't the first or last one to disappoint...but..

but...yeah.. It was hard to watch that speech from him.

[sgtbenobo]

2. I think we....

.... should give him his medals back.


Carry on.

[Taverner]

21. LOL

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. You are aware that his words are the opinion of his boss, the POTUS, yes?

He is told what to say. He has no leeway. He can't say what he wants and then call the POTUS and say,
"Hey man, just so you know..."

So you really mean you can't believe the Administration. Kerry was just its mouthpiece.

[sgtbenobo]

6. Then he should do the right thing.

Resign.


Carry on.

[uppityperson]

8. Who should resign?

[sgtbenobo]

14. The same man who on 23 Apr 71....

....said this.

"In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart"


Carry on.

[riderinthestorm]

15. Wow. DU R & K to the max. Welcome to DU in these sad times... nt

[hrmjustin]

18. You think Kerry should resign?

[sgtbenobo]

24. Yes.

If he has any principles. If he has any integrity. If he would like to sleep at night.


Carry on.

[hrmjustin]

25. I have to disagree with you on this.

He has done nothing to resign about.

I have reservations about going to Syria but I don't think Kerry or the President is lying.

[sgtbenobo]

28. I can respect your opinion.

But the only folks who are going to get anything out of this fiasco are the leadership and stockholders of Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing, et cetera, et cetera, etc.....


Carry on.

[hrmjustin]

34. Sadly this is true. This is one reason I have deep reservations about this.

[rhett o rick]

117. More people will die if we enter this mess. Have we learned nothing from history? nm

[hrmjustin]

118. No, we are not good at learning.

[SammyWinstonJack]

132. Ah well, money trumps peace...or something like that.

[rhett o rick]

134. The Powers To Be are loving this. More profits for the corporations. nm

[mythology]

155. And how many will die because we won't enter?

It's easy to sit back and say that war is always bad, and pretend that by not intervening we therefore bear no responsibility for those dead due to our inaction. But it just doesn't work that way. We didn't interfere in Rwanda and how many innocents were slaughtered? Clinton has repeatedly said not getting involved in Rwanda is one of his biggest regrets. Internationally, the world half stepped in to the war over Bosnia and when the effort was half-assed, there was the Srebenica massacre among other massacres. Would those have occurred if the international community had fully committed to stopping the violence with enough troops to make a difference? I suspect the answer is yes, but we know what happened when we weren't willing to intervene with a useful number of troops. Thousands were killed in massacres and rape was so prevalent that for the first time the International Criminal Court brought charges of using rape as a systematic weapon of war forward.

One of the reasons that Germany attacked U.S. ships prior to our entry into World War I, was because the German leaders thought that we were weak militarily and so that if they could attack U.S. ships since we couldn't muster an army or ships fast enough to matter. It turns out they were wrong, but it's a case where having a powerful military may have kept the Germans from attacking us in the first place.

[HumansAndResources]

156. Rethink Yugoslavia and Saudi-Armed Jihadi "Rebels"

They had a peace treaty - all 3 parties had signed it.

As I said over here:

On March 18, 1992 the Lisbon conference reached an agreement between the leaders of the three ethnic factions {7}, but on March 28, after attending a meeting that day with US ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann, Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegović withdrew his signature

Remember Gillespie meeting with Saddam Hussein? The "We don't have a defense-treaty with Kuwait" meeting? SSDD. It was a set-up.

The Yugoslavia Wars were the same story as all the rest - Transnationals stealing resources from people so they can "sell back access" to the Earth they didn't create. Want water? Pay Pepsico. Want to go somewhere? Pay the Transnational "owner" of the toll-road.

Who is funding and arming the "jihadi-opposition" in Syria? Because Saudis and the CIA, "Care about Human Rights?" I think not.

NONE of these people would have died if we had not Set Up This War with our Head-Chopper "allies" in the region.

[Little Star]

177. +!

[rhett o rick]

176. Before we start or enter a war, the President should convince Congress that

we and others will be better off. And there should be some limits. What happened in Vietnam is a disgrace to this country. Remember that the MIC is lobbying for wars to take our money. We taxpayers should be assured before the money is spent that it will be well spent.

[rhett o rick]

181. There is no guarantee that our killing with bombs and missiles will prevent further deaths. Most

likely it wont, especially if Russia gets involved.

Killing for peace is not the answer for the "politically liberal". Maybe for the conservatives.

[elehhhhna]

113. He has none of the above - he caved when Bush jacked that election

He left us a long time ago

[totodeinhere]

49. There is precedent for a Secretary of State resigning in protest.

Cyrus Vance was Jimmy Carter's SOS. When Carter ordered a secret military rescue of the hostages in Iran, Operation Eagle Claw, Vance opposed the operation and resigned in protest. It's too bad that John Kerry doesn't show the same courage of his convictions and resign as Cyrus Vance did. And as we know, Cyrus Vance was vindicated. Operation Eagle Claw was a failure and an embarrassment to this country.

[hrmjustin]

50. Perhaps this is his POV.

Maybe he is doing what he feels is right.

I can not say for certain but I take him at his word that he is saying what he believes.

[totodeinhere]

66. I was responding to a posters suggestion that his words are the opinion of his boss, the POTUS.

I was talking about a hypothetical that Kerry in his heart disagrees but he's going along with it because the president is his boss. Whetherr that's true or not only Kerry knows.

[hrmjustin]

67. Oh ok thanks.

I guess we will find out when the tell all comes out.

[loudsue]

65. The operation was sabotaged by George Bush & his CIA buddies. Carter's "secret" was no secret to the

real powers that run this country.... i.e., the SECRET branches, the special ops branches, the ones that nobody has any control over, as we have found out since Snowden's leaks.... but what many of us have known since the Iran Contra mess.

The secret (and very privatized) spy branches are where so many of our tax dollars are going, and gawd only knows what involvement they have already had in the chemical weapons supposedly used by Assad in order to start this little mess.

This little venture into Syria is the worst idea...worse by far than Iraq....that has ever been put forth by our blood-lust military/industrial complex. This is just fuckin' crazy and WRONG.

[totodeinhere]

69. I only raised that as an example of a secretary of state resigning in protest. n/t

[HumansAndResources]

157. Eagle-Claw - Oliver North and Richard Secord Ran It

And,
Cy Vance was on the inside - he knew what would happen. He got out to save his bacon.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/07.09/cfr.html
"When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he said: "The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get ... changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders." And top Carter aide Hamilton Jordan promised: "If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I'd quit." Yet Carter selected Vance as Secretary of State and Brzezinski as National Security Adviser; the "same group of insiders" had been shifted around; and Jordan did not quit."

I go into the background here:
http://www.humansandresources.org/node/68

As regards North and Secord, from this DU post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=629531&mesg_id=629531

........The mission proved disastrous. At least two American helicopters crashed into each other in the desert long before they made it anywhere near Teheran. Eight Marines were killed. Carter looked ineffectual and frustration with the hostage crisis escalated.
Unfortunately, the operatives in charge of Desert Claw may not have been loyal to Carter -- or to the U.S. Carter held deeply alienated a broad range of CIA operatives by trying to clean up the Agency when he first came to power. Admiral Stansfield Turner, the tough but honest Navy man Carter put in charge at the CIA fired some 600 "spooks" soon after taking command. Many were deeply loyal to former Director George Bush and to the "Old Boy" network that serves as the Agency's true infrastructure.
That loyalty may have carried over to sabotage of Operation Eagle Claw. For the man who served as chief mission planner was none other than Richard Secord, who later surfaced as a major kingpin in the shady arms dealings between the Reagan White House and the contras of Nicaragua. A top staffer at a key base in Eagle Claw's catastrophic helicopter support operation was none other than the legendary Colonel Oliver North. Working closely with him as a logistical planner was Albert Hakkim, who later sat by Secord's side at the Congressional Iran-contra hearings and wept of his love for Oliver North.
As historian Donald Fried has put it "Precisely the people in the intelligence community commissioned to develop some kind of rescue for the hostages were those elements of covert action close to William Casey and hostile to Carter."
Casey, of course, later became Reagan's CIA chief. But higher up in the chain at the time of the failed rescue mission was Donald Gregg, a member of Carter's National Security Council who later surfaced as s high-level Bush operative. Gregg's close personal ties to Bush became a serious issue in light of his extensive dealings with key contra figures tied both to the Iran-contra scandal and illegal drug shipments coming from Central America.

... which was, in turn, taken from: http://old.valleyadvocate.com/25th/archives/bushs_watergate.html

[loudsue]

171. Thank you so much for this post, H & R! It still pisses me off how horribly corrupt the bush family

mafia is, from waaaayyy back in our history. Even before poppy became mister CIA, there was the rotten apple, Preston. Nazi sympathizers & wannabes all. Drug kingpins, dirty dealers, all.

[G_j]

130. should never taken the position to begin with

if he desired to maintain any sort if moral compass. You can't keep one in that job.

[sabrina 1]

39. How sad, there must be something in the water in DC. So many of them seem to lose their souls

when they get there.

[annm4peace]

43. we should send him postcards with this quote on it

we could send postcards that show our state and hand write this quote and send to him.

shame on him. I couldn't even watch him speak of bombing Syria

[wisteria]

70. This isn't war, it is a humanitary strike. American lives are not in the line of fire.

[NealK]

108. "a humanitary strike"

Great oxymoron.

[Carolina]

131. Touche

an oxymoron and grammatically wrong, too!

It's about as humanitarian as those drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.

I don't know what has happened to DU?! If a repuke proposed this, the response would be universally against such humanitarian action.

[Cal Carpenter]

129. Tell that to the people on the wrong end of the bombs

"Humanitary"?

I guess if they aren't American lives they don't matter, eh?

[Raksha]

162. Thank you for posting this for the record. n/t

[Recursion]

22. So an even more hawkish SecState can be appointed?

How does that make anything better?

[bowens43]

10. Just following orders...where have I heard that before?

[pokerfan]

120. Why bother voting?

It's obvious that the people who run this country don't show up on ballots.

[sabrina 1]

36. If he finds it morally wrong, he should do what many people of principle have done, even

some Republicans because of Iraq, and resign in protest.

Otoh, if he is on board with all of this, then I have lost all respect for him.

We elected what we thought would be the antithesis of Bush/Cheney, hoping to see an end to their horrific policies, both domestic and mostly Foreign. Instead we have Republicans being appointed to powerful positions in this administration, we have the Patriot Act, a worse version of the NDAA, spying on American by the NSA and on and on. And now we have the old familiar 'WMD' let's go to war nonsense that EVERYONE here opposed back then.

Anyone who opposed the Bush Wars and now supports this has revealed that it was never about morals back then, it was all about politics. How shameful.

[NYC_SKP]

4. I never liked the man. We should have had Howard Dean against Bush, not Kerry.

[LearningCurve]

13. I still believe Howard Dean would have won

Bush didn't win that election, so much as Kerry lost it.

[wisteria]

71. What ifs. Dean crashed and burned over his own ego.

Didn't even make it out of the primaries. And I bet when Dean does chime in and he supports the effort to protect innocents you will change your tune.

[fadedrose]

100. DLC and DNC didn't like Dean

because he was/is a progressive. He was not even invited to the ceremony where he turned over the Chair of the DNC to Deborah Masserman-Shultz, I remember...tho I can't remember how to spell her name...

[Taverner]

142. Howard Dean is not ordering strikes on Syria.

That is the issue at hand.

[Taverner]

20. Agreed. And Dean would've won.

I stomped the pavement for the good Doctor too...

[wisteria]

72. Ah, now I know where you are coming from.

Trying to pick at old wounds. Oh and the election was in 2004.

[Taverner]

74. Nope - I was down with Kerry in 04

06, 04, I get tired of this shit

And I am sick of war

War serves NO purpose

Please read "War is a Racket" and then get back to me

[wisteria]

80. This isn't war.

[Taverner]

81. Tell that to the families of those who we bomb next week n/t

[wisteria]

79. LOL, like SOS Kerry is the only one making decisions.

And, this decision if made well will protect innocents from being slaughtered by their own government. Humanitarian reasons for this decision are compelling. That is, unless you just want to use the slaughter of innocents as a reason to attack the man who beat your boy in the 2004 election primary.

[Quantess]

112. The pundists took the "Dean Scream" and ran with it.

So silly, so incredibly trivial. Plus, I kind of liked the "Dean Scream" anyway.

[truebluegreen]

121. Are you aware that the media blocked the background noise

so that it sounded like Dean was screaming in a vacuum?

This after he was on the teevee saying in an interview that of course he would address the issue of media consolidation....

[Quantess]

123. No, as is hardly anybody else!

In any case, even if the Dean Scream happened in a vacuum, with that rolled up sleeve and that triumphant look, there is no way I personally would have called off his whole primary run.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Do you seriouslly not exepct Kerry, or any Secretary of State, to state the Administrations policy?

We won't know what he said in private until some whistle blower releases the transcripts, or a tell all book by disgruntled insiders comes out in 2017. A Secretary of State doesn't say, "The President's wrong so we aren't going to do that."

I remember Colin Powel's anger at being used by the Bush's to push their ridiculous Chemical Weapons trailers line of bull. It was his job to do it. If you can't stand being a used toilet paper salesman for the big man, you quit.

[sabrina 1]

42. Yes I expect those we have entrusted with the power to make decisions for all of us

to have the moral fiber to resign if their 'boss' is about to do something they know to be morally wrong. Other people throughout history have done so.

If he doesn't agree with this, if he feels the same he did about Vietnam, he should have the courage to walk away as some Republicans did when they disapproved of Bush's wars.

[Agnosticsherbet]

46. Because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean that the decision isn't reasoned

and well thought out or that the person is an execrable asshole for making it. It means he doesn't agree with you. Kerry appears not to see a limited intervention in Syria the same as sending 58,000 men to die in Vietnam.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Of course Vietnam started as a limited intervention, no one said 'let's send 58,000 men to die'

they said 'let's send some advisors' and it escalated until Mr Kerry was flinging his medals at the White House.

[sabrina 1]

54. Why is this the business of the US? International Law makes this the purview of the UN

Security Council. Is Kerry not aware of International Law? As Hans Blix, who Bush refused to listen to, unfortunately, on Iraq, said today 'the US is not the world's policeman, this is the job of the UN Security Council'.

There was a time here on DU when everyone supported that view from Hans Blix. Bush of course hated him.

Where is the National Security interest here? Did Syria threaten the US?

And our record of 'Humanitarian Interventions' is so atrocious it takes incredible gall to claim that is why we are doing this.

I can supply plenty of evidence of the above statement re our 'Humanitarian Interventions' if you are not aware of them.

So why are we involved in this?

Why not other countries where the atrocities committed on a daily basis dwarf even this tragic incident? Why Syria?

And why are the US and their old Colonial Imperial allies not willing to wait for ACTUAL PROOF after the UN completes its inspection?

I am amazed to see any support for this on DU. Was Bush right then after all? His arguments for Iraq were not that different, and NO ONE here accepted them.

[go west young man]

58. This is why.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-130813.html

Excerpt:

It's instructive to remember that in 2009, Damascus did not sign an agreement with Qatar for a pipeline via Syria; but they did sign the memorandum of understanding last year for the US$10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. So the point is for Damascus, the deal with Iran was much better; and if the pipeline is ever built Gazprom may even be part of it, in infrastructure and distribution. What Moscow has concluded is that Gazprom won't lose its energy grip over Europe to the benefit of Qatari natural gas. A case can be made that Gazprom holds more power over the distressed, decaying, virtually insolvent eurozone than the European Central Bank (ECB).

What Vlad does fear is a potential post-Assad utter chaos, to be fully exploited by Salafi-jihadis. It's never enough to remember that from Aleppo to Grozny it's roughly 900 kilometers. The next stop for the Global Jihad in Syria would be the Caucasus. And that's where Bandar Bush and Vlad the Hammer might converge; their mutual strategic interest is to reign in jihadis - although Bandar, in fact, is also weaponizing them.

[Agnosticsherbet]

59. As stated by Carney, it is critical to national security to act when

a massive violation of this nature happens. (Chemical Weapons were first outlawed in 1925) The UN Charter specifically allows members states to act in their interest and even in what they see as the UN's interest without asking the UN's permission. Also, the UN has no military or police powers to enforce the laws of war. On the rare case they decide action is necessary they rely on member states to provide military force.

[bobduca]

62. Ah yes "Credibility"

We must strike to retain our "Credibility" because we said no chemical weapons and they ignored us. How will future presidents and prime ministers of western countries lie us into war if we lose the much vaunted currency on the world stage known as "credibility"?

[Agnosticsherbet]

64. No, it's about upholding international law not credibility. n/t

[sabrina 1]

97. You've got to be kidding.

(Chemical Weapons were first outlawed in 1925)

So why is the US the biggest hoarder AND USER of Chemical Weapons in the history of the world?

You are confirming that the US is in violation of the ban on Chemical Weapons? Did you know that the world views the US as the biggest threat to World Peace now? Do you know why? Because we USED chemical weapons in Iraq!! Babies are being born with unbelievable deformities in Iraq right now, it is tragic to see, as a result of our use of White Phospherous in Fallujah.

Should some 'punish' the US for that? If not, why not?

I wouldn't go around talking Chemical Weapons being illegal if I were you, anywhere but here in the US.

Have you seen the reports from Fallujah? The babies, it is horrible. WE used Chemical Weapons in Iraq. The Pentagon confirmed it.

Were you paying attention during the Bush years?? Because the rest of the world was and so were some of us here.

[Carolina]

136. Touche Sabrina 1

We have used chemical weapons and turned a blind eye when others did so and it suited US purposes. To whit:

From Foreign Policy magazine, information obtained in interviews with former intelligence officials "are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched..."

Twenty-five years ago, the U.S. was not calling for "accountability for the use of chemical weapons." In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the US learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage... U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons... “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” said retired Air Force colonel Rick Francona, a military attache in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks."

From posters on www.commondreams.org:

Check out the documentary "Beyond Treason" by Joyce Riley. Early troops into Iraq found chemical weapons made in the US. The old joke then was, we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because we have the receipts

Nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Agent Orange and Napalm in Viet Nam, depleted uranium and white phosphorous in Fallujah and Gaza...and this is a surprise? Ha!

White phosphorus and napalm - why aren't these classified as chemical weapons? ... Is death by weaponized sarin gas worse than death by cluster bomb attack? Worse than having white phosphorus burrowing through your intestines and liver? Worse than peeling off your skin trying to get napalm off it? The hypocrisy of our so-called leaders and their enablers has become impossible to stomach.

[sabrina 1]

146. Excellent post, Carolina. And it goes back even further. Remember what we did to Native

Americans? Genocide is too kind a word.

The hypocrisy is possible only because of the ignorance of the American people of their own history. They don't earn these things in school. But they should.

An educated population would never permit these wars. That is why our Education system is so controlled and our Media taken over by Corporations. The two channels through which people should get the truth.

Someone planned this very well from way, way back.

[Taverner]

147. Yep. Pretty much.

[Little Star]

170. BINGO!!!!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. You do realize Syria has a cache of chemical weapons right?

that the rest of the world would like to see stable...there are some bad players located in that general vicinity as well....

[sabrina 1]

92. You do realize that the US has the biggest cache of Chemical weapons in the history of the

WORLD.

You do realize that we have USED them on innocent civilians, in Fallujah, DU in Iraq, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan.

It boggles the mind that ANY INFORMED human being would even consider allowing the ONE COUNTRY In the WORLD that has killed and maimed and tortured more human beings over their history, even suggest that this is about Chemical Weapons.

And no, I do NOT know that Syria has used chemical weapons. The US has ZERO credibiltiy when it comes to claims of WMDS anywhere.

We are NOT the Policemen of the world. We lied and cheated to start the last Criminal War in Iraq.

Do NOT tell me about anyone else's issues. WE HAVE ISSUES. We have War Criminals here who have never even been questioned about their crimes.

This is not the country to deal with this. No way.

How many innocent people will we kill in order to 'save them'? Was a million in Iraq enough to convince ANYONE, that the US needs to take WMDs and bury them because they are a threat to the world so long as they have them.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

95. Wow, Sabrina!

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. Okay you are prepared to say to the world that if anyone wants to gas babies in their beds.....

by all means go ahead! Cause that is the signal THAT sends....Gotcha...right! Hope you are prepared to see more of this:

Within seconds of exposure to sarin gas (or liquid, which evaporates easily), we start to notice the immediate effects of acetylcholine buildup

First, our smooth muscles and secretions go crazy. The nerves to those areas keep firing, keep telling them to go. The nose runs, the eyes cry, the mouth drools and vomits, and bowels and bladder evacuate themselves. It is not a dignified state.

Since sarin has no smell or taste, the person may very well have no idea what's going on. Their chest tightens, vision blurs. If the exposure was great enough, that can progress to convulsions, paralysis, and death within 1 to 10 minutes.

[sabrina 1]

99. Excuse me??? I am saying that the US used White Phosphorous in Iraq. Have you read the

recent reports of the babies being born in Fallujah with the most horrible deformities? Families who have been unable to keep their babies alive as a result of White Phosphorous in Fallujah?

Have you read the reports of the results of the DU we used in the First Gulf War?

Are you saying that it's okay to use Chemical Weapons to kill men, women and children if WE DO IT?

Please pay attention to what I am saying.

First we have ZERO proof, have you seen it? as to who used those horrible weapons in Syria.

I want to see the results of the UN Inspections. Why doesn't the US?

AND I want the International Community, preferably countries that have never used Chemical Weapons themselves, to deal with this issue.

I hope I've made myself clear. Do NOT speak for me. I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. So why hasn't the world indicted us?

If all of this is sooo clear? Why hasnt the international community opposed us?

We happen to know WHO had that much sarin gas available at the time in the area don't we? AND we haven't done ANYTHING yet have we? You are making alot of noise demanding the UN inspects...well we haven't stopped that have we?

Never spoke FOR you....I speak for myself as well! I asked if you were ready for that result!

[sabrina 1]

103. Lol, that is funny. We BOMB people who don't go along with us.

We have the biggest cache of Chemical Weapons in the history of the world and we have as allies, Europe's former Empires. So which country has enough weapons to defend themselves against these Western Powers once they ask for these investigations, AFTER which they will be become a target of the US and its NATO allies?

The UN IS INSPECTING. That is their role when something like this happens.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. Oh right our allies are our allies cauxe we bombed them previously yes right...obviously!

[sabrina 1]

106. You don't know much about US history, do you? Tell me, why do we have so many

allies who are Dictators, considering we claim to always be saving people from 'dictators'.

Why is the Dictatorship of Uzbekistan an ally of this country?

How about Saudi Arabia?

Why was the dictator Mubarak an ally of the US?

How about Ben Ami, dictator of Tunisia before he was finally toppled by his own people?

How about Saddam Hussein, an ally of the US for more than thirty years?

Noriega?

Pinochet?

What do you think happened to democratically elected leaders in some of those countries when they refuse to give up their resources to Global Corporations?

And why are we sending mending of these Dictators money to buy weapons?

I would suggest that you learn a little about this country over the past six decades. See what we did in Central and South America.

And yes, many of them are our allies because we helped them get rid of their democratically elected leaders and used them as puppets.

It's hard to have to admit, most of us grew up not knowing much about this country's foreign policies.

[Carolina]

137. Lay it on, Sabrina 1

Your history is absolutely on target; and the promoters and/or justifiers of bombing Syria are willfully blind and ignorant of history as well as of unintended consequences of war.

[woo me with science]

166. Superb posts, sabrina.

This is the context that Americans need to hear.

I think people are slowly waking up, but you are right. Americans are not taught this history.

People are starting to understand what is being done to them. Knowing the history and the patterns helps to counter the incessant propaganda telling them they are crazy for what they are perceiving. It puts motive to the entire outrage.

Thank you for these posts. This is a message that desperately needs a wider audience.

[deutsey]

182. +1

I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge among some here on DU about US history over the past few decades.

[VanillaRhapsody]

183. Wait don't tell me...fans of Snowden, Assange and Greenwald right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

184. The difference is ....we aren't TARGETTING civilians...but Assad did!

On November 15, 2005, U.S. Department of Defense spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah. Venable stated "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives."[9][10]

[CJCRANE]

122. In the cases of Germany and Japan...yes. nt

[chimpymustgo]

102. sabrina 1, these are 2 excellent posts that I urge you to put in an OP. Please remind people of our

murderous history. And now Obama and Kerry fall right in with the lies of bullsh*t.

It is becoming impossible to sleep at night.

[sabrina 1]

139. I know what you mean re not sleeping at night. The horror of war seems to escape those who

so blithely support it. Thank you for your comment, I appreciate it.

[Little Star]

178. I second chimpymustgo's comment. Thanks for all you are explaining regarding this.

[rhett o rick]

180. Your rationalization for war needs help. Are you going to limit killing those that

use chemical weapons? How about those that simply chop off the heads of their enemies with machetes?

The question is, why do we have to be the world's policeman? What safety net (SS or Medicare) are you willing to give up to fund the killing you are espousing?

It sounds so noble to smite those that use chemical weapons. But we have used chemical weapons in Vietnam. And we gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons which he used on Iranians and his own people. We use land mines and cluster bombs, which most of the world has outlawed. We covered Iraq with spent uranium, which is poison.

No more war.

[Aerows]

124. +1 for

"used toilet paper salesman".

[Renew Deal]

7. You can't get to where he is without holding certain views and taking certain actions.

And if he was president, he would do the same thing.

That said, I'm not sure that he ever said that we should ignore chemical weapons use or genocide.

[bowens43]

9. He and Colin Powell are birds of a feather

[riderinthestorm]

16. +1 nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. Disappointed

[Taverner]

27. Yes - at least dissappointed

At worst betrayed

[Rosa Luxemburg]

126. If the Republicans weren't in control of the House

I wonder would we be any different. I am hoping for greater things when we win in 2014.

[Renew Deal]

12. John Kerry "On the Issues"

•Voted for Iraq war in 2002, but voted against 2004 funding. (Nov 2006)
•No regrets on war vote-but regrets on Bush breaking promises. (Feb 2004)
•Vote for war was needed to push Saddam on inspectors. (Sep 2003)
•$87B for Iraq only when internationalization is addressed. (Sep 2003)
•Voted YES on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
•Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
•Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
•Voted YES on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
•Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
•Voted NO on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
•Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
•Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
•Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
•Voted NO on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
•Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
•Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
•Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment. (Sep 2012)
•Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)


•1998: respond militarily to Saddam's threat of WMDs. (Aug 2011)
•2003: Believed Saddam had deadly arsenal of WMD. (Nov 2010)
•Would have given Clinton the power to use force if necessary. (Oct 2004)
•Iraq is diverting our attention from the real war on terror. (Sep 2004)
•Iraq wasn’t the center of the war on terror before invasion. (Sep 2004)
•The US has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. (Sep 2004)
•Preferred diplomacy, but supported invading Iraq. (May 2003)

•Supported Kosovo action & Powell Doctrine. (Oct 2003)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_Kerry.htm#War_+_Peace

[Harmony Blue]

17. Yeeh why are people surprised?

[Taverner]

19. Yes, yes yes, I was wrong, you were right....

[Renew Deal]

23. I wasn't right

I really didn't like Kerry in the 2004 primary, but that's because I thought he was a sure loser (amongst other reasons). I still supported him in the 2004 GE.

[Taverner]

26. I'm not mad at you

...

[Renew Deal]

33. I know

I was wrong for a different reason

[Lifelong Dem]

30. Kerry doesn't need Obama to tell him what to say

[panader0]

38. All those votes---I wonder if there will be a vote with Syria?

[Maedhros]

63. Some members of Congress are asking for a vote

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-congress-vote-syria-strike-20130827,0,5980847.story

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who represents a district with a strong military and veterans presence, is circulating a letter to colleagues saying the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 require a vote in Congress before proceeding with a strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government.

“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate – and the active engagement of Congress – prior to committing U.S. military assets,” the letter says. “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that the kinds of airstrikes reportedly under consideration would be “little more than a slap on the wrist” to the Syrian government. He also warned that they could provoke a response from Assad and his allies, potentially drawing the U.S. into “a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria.”

“I urge the administration to continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without congressional authorization,” he said.

I expect much vitriol to be directed at this request.

[tridim]

29. LOL @ this whole thread.

Neo-DU has officially jumped the shark. It is completely insane.

[Taverner]

37. Explain and I shall retort

No name calling, no godwining and cite sources

[HardTimes99]

31. Kerry served in Vietnam at exactly the same time our air force was dropping

tons of napalm on Vietnamese civilians. So he has a lot of gall to speak about anyone using chemical weapons on anyone. Come to think of it, the U.S. has a lot of gall lecturing anyone about anything as long as we allow Bush and Cheney to escape accountability for their many crimes against humanity.

Of course, Kerry is the genius who informed us he would still have voted to invade Iraq even if he knew ahead of time that Iraq had no WMDs.

I swear, you cannot make this shit up.

[Taverner]

32. I swear, why do I always fall for their BS?

Why do I buy it?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. Because you're desperate?

Just a thought.

That's coming from a proud Kucinich supporter.

Even though he was a Hobbit.

[Taverner]

86. Because Pravda is the only news we get n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

87. See? You really need to use the Interne,....oh...

[Carolina]

138. Touche HT99!

Kerry's hypocrisy is despicable.

[KoKo]

169. His Hypocrisy in that speech when he knew about Agent Orange

having served in Vietnam was OTT. It made me wonder how he could think that there's no one who would know about that use and the after effects on the soldiers and the population of Vietnam.

Why would he do that ....does he think all of us who lived through Vietnam are dead or have suddenly turned into American Imperialists?

[HardTimes99]

172. I haven't followed Kerry's life arc closely enough to know when he

converted from anti-war spokesperson (Winter Soldier hearings) to imperial spokesperson. The shift may have occurred very gradually. One remembers Lord Acton's dictum that "power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Corruption need not necessarily mean the taking of bribes or selling out of friends. It can mean the corruption of one's moral standards, too.

[Safetykitten]

35. At the WH, first meeeting...

"So John, before we go into the Oval Office, can you step into this tube? It's a Democratic Confabullator, standard DLC issue, and helps you make decisions. So just step in there and it will just be a second".

[HumansAndResources]

158. LOL - They have a "Confabulator" on Air Force One too, I think.

The one they used to get Kucinich to buy into Obamacare. But its effects seem to have worn off - he is back to talking-truth, again.

[blue neen]

40. Why did you tear up the pavement for him in 2006?

?

I tore up the pavement for him in 2004 and was proud to do so.

[Taverner]

141. I'm a procrastinator. nt.

[Jesus Malverde]

41. skull and bones member...nt

[KittyWampus]

44. I can't believe it took this long for DU to descend to this level of stupidity again. I say again

because it hasn't been this bad since primaries.

[Mnemosyne]

57. He is a member of Skull and Bones, and *'s 2nd cousin. Why attack someone stating a fact? nt

[JI7]

60. he has also been married twice, has 2 daughters, ........

[JI7]

77. coudl they have been the ones who planted the chemical weapons ?

[NYC_SKP]

107. You don't seem to like us.

why?

[Mnemosyne]

164. Not sure I get your point.

[karynnj]

128. He is not Bush's second cousin

[Mnemosyne]

163. I did have the relationship wrong, but he is a distant relative. nt

[karynnj]

165. As is almost anybody with roots in the elite of colonial New England

Kerry is a direct descendant of the first governor of Massachusetts - John Winthrop - and a Forbes descendant. In each generation, these people (where Bush's or Kerry's ancestors) almost always married within their social class.

There is a huge difference between second cousins, who most people know at least to some degree, and nth degree cousins, m times removed - which end up adding up to thousands of people by the time n is as high as it is in this case.

As people, they are incredibly different -- and there appears to have never been a friendship between them. Kerry had better relations with GHWB - and those were likely strained by Kerry's work investigating the Contras and BCCI.

[wisteria]

82. +++++1

[Taverner]

143. Yes, I keep forgetting that. They know his sexual proclivities.

That's what they make you do when in "the tomb"

So they can forever blackmail you.

Kinda like Scientology, but not as expensive.

[jazzimov]

45. The problem is NOT John Kerry

he has been consistent.

If there is a problem between you and John Kerry and it is obviously NOT John Kerry.....


I'm just saying........

[wisteria]

83. +++++11111

[TreasonousBastard]

47. Is it even slightly possible that Kerry knows...

something we don't?

Is there a reason to assume anonymous posters with stated agendas on a political board are to be listened to rather than the Secretary of State?

Now, we have seen SoS's be wrong with their little bottles, but that doesn't mean they are all wrong every time we don't like what they say.

Politics is not chess, it is not Monopoly-- it is Go, and it often takes on a mind of its own, so we sit back and watch it play out.

[Taverner]

48. Exactly what would justify indiscriminate bombing?

?

[TreasonousBastard]

56. No plan has been agreed to yet, so where does...

indiscriminate bombing fit in?

[Taverner]

76. That's what it ALWAYS is

targeted bombing?

Yeah, look at our drone strike rate

[Harmony Blue]

53. Yes my stated agenda is the truth

and peace. How awful...

[TreasonousBastard]

55. So that makes Kerry wrong?

[Harmony Blue]

68. Human beings are capable of being

wrong, so highly likely.

[TreasonousBastard]

94. How likely is it then...

that you may be wrong?

[bahrbearian]

109. So If I'm against Bombing and I am wrong , who did I wrongly kill ?

[Taverner]

85. WAR IS A RACKET

It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.


Thank you

[libodem]

89. That was beautiful

Poetic even.

[wisteria]

84. +1111

[lcordero2]

61. look

The reality is that he is an extremely nasty human being.

With his comments about Syria, he is implying that he wants
to overthrow Syria's government.

Another thought, during the debates, he wanted to turn over
student loans over to the so-called "free market". That did happen
and it became a variable rate scheme.

on edit: He is pulling up the ladder.

[JohnnyRingo]

75. Since you and John Kerry are equally informed....

I understand your indignation.

Perhaps you should write him a letter and offer a strategy based on your own assessment of the Syrian situation. Him, his staff, and the Pentagon probably haven't thought it out as far as you have.

[Taverner]

78. Tell me at this point, who deserves bombings?

Even Assad should not be bombed considering he is in an urban area.

No single life is worth the bloodlust of the US

[JohnnyRingo]

111. I was just helping with your thread count.

Posting a terse inflammatory comment meant to raise an endless stream of deep seated controversy is usually a shout out for attention. I guess it's possible that you just had to get your disdain for the administration off your chest in a short missive, but it looks like you got more of the former.

If you don't want dissent, I'll not reply when you slightly reword it and post again in two days.

[lumpy]

88. Hear hear

n

[rhett o rick]

114. Here's a strategy: Stay out of the fucking mess. We cant win. We wont help anyone.

Even if I thought we had the best of intentions, and I strongly dont, I think past performance should prove beyond a doubt that our messing will only increase the number of dead children.

By the way, you didnt mention what your opinion is.

[JohnnyRingo]

135. At first I wondered why we're telegraphing our move.

I've never seen a "war" that came with so much pre-invasion advertising. None of this can be by accident, and I don't believe it can all be attributed to so called "saber rattling".

Though as I pointed out in my original reply, none of us have the inside track on intel, I see one likely possibility: Perhaps we see a need to punish the Assad admin- and the military in particular- to send the message that chem warfare is off limits while their nation settles it's differences. I'm in the camp that particularly abhors such weapons as Willy Pete, nerve agents, and nukes, and believe the US has a certain degree of global moral obligation to assure paper tiger leaders leave such ordinance in cold storage during their most desperate times.

Forewarning is necessary to prevent bloodshed if the targets are government infrastructure. Surgical strikes on empty buildings that house govt operations would cause very few, if any of the casualties you forecast in a country without a functioning government. I think you fear a scenario where Obama hits orphanages and residential areas in a mass carpet bombing strike, but I remind you these aren't the neocon stooges that held the key to the toy box under Bush.

I'm absolutely certain that if the administration had openly announced we were going to attack the compound where Osama bin Laden was holed up, some here would post a similar hate filled screed as this one, where the "needless loss of life" would be accompanied by the usual hand wringing and nail biting from isolationists, anarchists, and sore election losers alike.

I was especially offended by this post, not because I necessarily favor military action, but because it has all the earmarks of an attention seeker who just posts a vapid three line "I hate ____" format then sits back to watch the angered thread count pile up. DU seems rife with such personalities lately and it's unfortunate so many take the bait. It just encourages a similarly reworded post from the same member a few days from now. Wash, rinse, repeat, and get a life outside the forum.

[rhett o rick]

149. Your rationalization to kill, kill is sick at best. There is nothing good that can come from our

bombing Syria. Do you think that the leaders will back off and let the country have democracy? Or dont you care? The only ones to gain here are the MIC and their puppets in our government.

Children are going to bed hungry in the USofA and you support millions and millions spent to kill people in Syria. That isnt a Democratic principle.

It's idiotic to think that escalation will bring peace. It never has.

[JohnnyRingo]

150. So you're calling me sick?

Go fuck your morally superior self and welcome to the adult world.

Besides, I pointed out how govt buildings and infrastructure are likely vacant. If a few residual govt workers remain on the job in a completely non-functioning government, we were courtious enough to give them the date and time to take a vacation day.

How you presume I want us to hit schools and nursing homes is beyond me.

[rhett o rick]

151. Your rationalization is naive at best. I dont claim to be morally superior but I am against the

killing of more children. If we launch an attack, can you assure me that children wont die? I think anyone that wants war is sick. If the shoe fits.....just sayin. I dont like neo-con Republicans and I hate neo-con Democrats.

Adult world? Anyone with at least half a brain would realize that we can not fix the situation with bombing.

But you go ahead and rationalize how we can bomb Syria into peace. Children will die. Welcome to being an adult.

[JohnnyRingo]

167. I don't think we need to continue this discussion.

When it comes down to name calling and reading my mind, I can step away from the table.

[rhett o rick]

175. You are absolutely right. I apologize for any name calling. I am frustrated that we are

here looking at another war and some here are beating the war drums. The same people that were critical when the Republicans were waging wars ane now ok if Democrats are going to wage war.

Forgive me also for trying to read your mind. Maybe you will tell me where you stand and I wont have to guess.

Here is where I stand. Why should we be the almighty decider in this conflict. Ignoring the UN is a conservative kinda thing. We have no business judging the Syrian government's human rights after what we did in Iraq. I firmly believe our interference will not help and probably, based on historical evidence, will make things worse. And we cant afford to be the world's police force.

Now I would love to hear where you stand.

[HumansAndResources]

159. "Pre War Advertising" is done by P.R. Firms

I've never seen a "war" that came with so much pre-invasion advertising. None of this can be by accident, and I don't believe it can all be attributed to so called "saber rattling".

Look into Edward Bernays and the CIA's Guatemalan adventure for the start of the current model. The locals didn't get their land back per the Arbenz buyout of United Fruit (at the land-value UF stated on their tax payments), but they DID get a 30 year civil war and CIA-Aided death lists and atrocities galore.

More recently, see Bush I's use of Hill and Knowlton pre Gulf War I, complete with the wholly-fabricated "babies thrown from incubators" story (the lying daughter of the Kuwaiti Royals should get an Oscar for that performance http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Vu8CCJTJCQk ). Also Clinton's one-sided atrocity-list in Yugoslavia (never mind the Croats crimes), etc.

[Taverner]

144. Yep. Pretty much.

[7wo7rees]

91. Yes, it is sad. The man who in his youth said in front of Congress

Who shall be the last to die for a lie?

Just a damned heartbreak.

[7wo7rees]

98. here it is in a toon from Danzinger

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023546068

it is painful to watch the man, Kerry, in action these days. Who is he?

[lexington filly]

93. Isn't Kerry doing his job and from the point of view of morality?

I'm a split personality about firing a few missiles from afar to force Syria to stop using chemical weapons. On the one hand, this isn't about oil or money but for a just cause as well as the strong protecting the weak. That's a change for America. The U.S. doesn't gain anything but perhaps a smidgen of self-respect after doing some once unimaginable things since 9/11 particularly. On the other hand I think, WHO are we to preach-bomb another country after all we've done? Then again, if this isn't put to a stop now, will we try the next time or the time after that? I'm against a war with Syria (Iran and Hezbollah) but a spanking if it would halt the chemical warfare? I'm conflicted.

[HumansAndResources]

160. It IS About Oil and Money

MIC Money, for starters.

Then the pipeline routes, which involve Russia,

Then setting the stage for striking Russia with "our" supported-terrorists in the Caucuses (first major blowback from that was the Boston Marathon).

Then there is the Golan Heights oil, land stolen from Syria, which another poster on another thread tied to Genie Energy. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/israel-awards-first-license-to-drill-on-golan-heights-to-genie.html which is connected with Dick Cheney and similar ilk. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022414813

[Summer Hathaway]

105. I understand he's not exactly sold

on your credibility either.

I believe that makes the two of you pretty well "even-steven" at this juncture.

[rhett o rick]

115. Not quite. One wants to kill people. If we enter this mess, more children will die for sure. nm

[Summer Hathaway]

125. Yes, of course.

Kerry "wants to kill people".

It's all he thinks about, 24/7 - killing people.

There is no reasoning behind those thoughts, no weighing of the consequences, no consultation with advisors, no listening to advice, no qualms, no hesitation - he just "wants to kill people".

Thanks for your incredible insight into the man's mind.

[rhett o rick]

133. It isnt hard. If we send cruise missiles, they will kill people. To think he hasnt

thought of that is naive. I assume he believes that by killing a few with the missiles we will save lives in the long run. History should be shouting at us. No one is claiming Obama is Bush, but to unilaterally, without the UN support, start a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation is insanity. People will die. Most likely lots of people. We are not the savior of the world. In fact it's actually hypocritical for us to punish them for human rights violations after what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speak up and tell us if you support war in Syria.

[rhett o rick]

116. I cant believe the hypocrisy. We are going to bomb Syria because of human rights

violations? We that invaded and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and left approx 5 million homeless. We who had secret prisons around the world (including Syria) where we tortured people including children.

We dare portray ourselves as the pinnacle of virtue looking out for the interests of the innocent in Syria? More will die for sure if we get involved.

Sen Kerry apologized for supporting Georgie's Iwar. Will he someday have to apologize for this decision?

[Taverner]

145. It depends on the opinion polls.

If this turns out to be a clusterfuck that people know about, then he will.

If it fades like Libya, then no.

[polichick]

119. They're all in the mic now.

[Taverner]

140. "Last one who wasn't was JFK"

[Carolina]

127. I know how you feel

but he showed his spinelessness and political-finger-in-the-wind nature when he voted for IWR in October 2002... then had to spend part of the POTUS campaign justifying his quisling vote. I remember reading 9/11 widow, Kristen Breitweiser's book Wake Up Call in which she recounts the widows meeting with Kerry about the 9/11 Commission and before the invasion of Iraq. He was then, and remains now, a self-absorbed, political tool who lost any moral compass ages ago... perhaps after he moved up the political food chain and married the uber-rich Teresa.

The widows were on a mission to get to the bottom of what happened on 9/11 and they found Kerry uninformed and disappointing to say the least.

And now his speechifying essentially promoting attacking Syria... it really sucks.

[raging moderate]

152. Hey, you guys! Call/email the White House!

I see so many great posts here! Maybe if we all bug them at once, with all these arguments, they will find a better response to the Syria situation!

[jsr]

153. Money and power trump all

No surprise there.

[OccupyOregon]

154. President Obama and Mr. Kerry know exactly what they're doing....

Let them do their jobs and all will be well.

[Raksha]

161. Why is Kerry auditioning to be the next Colin Powell?

I thought he was one of the good guys...and I guess he was at one time.

[KurtNYC]

173. Not auditioning. He got the part. This is the performance.

Perhaps the audition was when he ran a rope-a-dope campaign in 2004 and then conceded to Bush before Ohio and other key states were even counted.

Kerry is there to be the fall guy (again).

[ProSense]

168. Why Kerry’s Speech Doesn’t Necessarily Mean We’re Going To War In Syria

Why Kerry’s Speech Doesn’t Necessarily Mean We’re Going To War In Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023540376

What a nasty OP.

[truth2power]

174. Kerry makes me sick to my stomach! That's about all I can say, here. n/t

[John1956PA]

179. I think you mean "04" not "06" in your original post.

Yes, a lot of us knocked on doors to help get out the vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.