At some point, pacifism becomes part of the machinery of death.

[Sand Wind]

.......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sebastian-junger-a-syria-strike-in-the-name-of-peace/2013/09/12/cad370d2-1af1-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story_1.html

......

Finally, there is the problem — the pacifist problem — of having no effective response to the use of nerve gas by a government against its citizens. To one degree or another, every person has an obligation to uphold human dignity in whatever small way he or she can. It is this concept of dignity that has given rise to international laws protecting human rights, to campaigns for prison reform, to boycotts against apartheid. In this context, doing nothing in the face of evil becomes the equivalent of actively supporting evil; morally speaking, there is no middle ground.

The civil war in Syria has killed more than 100,000 people essentially one person at a time, which is clearly an abomination, but it is not defined as a crime against humanity. The mass use of nerve agents against civilians is a crime against humanity, however. As such, it is a crime against every single person on this planet.

President Obama is not arguing for an action that decimates the Assad regime and allows rebel forces to take over. He is not saying that we are going to put our troops at risk on the ground in Syria, or that it will be a long and costly endeavor, or even that it will be particularly effective. He is saying that he does not want us to live in a world where nerve gas can be used against civilians without consequences of any kind. If killing 1,400 people with nerve gas is okay, then killing 14,000 becomes imaginable. When we have gotten used to that, killing 14 million may be next.

At some point, pacifism becomes part of the machinery of death, and isolationism becomes a form of genocide. It’s not a matter of how we’re going to explain this to the Syrians. It’s a matter of how we’re going to explain this to our kids.

[HooptieWagon]

1. When has it ever been tried?

War is the result when diplomacy fails. Perhaps we should re-think how we conduct diplomacy, so it doesn't fail as often.

[Tien1985]

6. +1000

As a species we pretty much suck at pacifism. Maybe we should attempt it before saying "f*ck it, let's just attack that guy".

[jeff47]

29. Rwanda (nt)

[HooptieWagon]

71. Non involvement, not pacifism.

Has the US ever been involved, passively?

[Daniel537]

100. So then what would have been the pacifist response to Rwanda? n/t

[HooptieWagon]

102. IIRC, it arose so quickly that any response would have been too little, too late.

Which might have been why nothing was done. It is simply not possible to eliminate every occurance of evil on the planet, even if we had full cooperation from other nations. Perhaps if African countries had a multinational observation and peace-keeping force established and on location, then measures could have been taken in advance to address human rights and keep the genocide from happening. Big if though. Were anybody charged in ICC?

[LWolf]

32. Indian independence.

Non-violent struggle. Not exactly pacifism, but related.

[HooptieWagon]

70. That wasn't a US effort, though. nt

[LWolf]

90. No, but "when has it ever been tried"

doesn't just refer to the U.S., does it?

If it can be done by others, we can do it as well.

[HooptieWagon]

95. Yes, I was referring to the US.

When you control the world's most powerful military, it seems that every diplomatic problem has a military solution. More often than not, it exasberates the problem. Quagmires, blowback...all results from eager use of military when more patient diplomatic efforts could have avoided them.

[AgingAmerican]

96. MLK

nt

[HooptieWagon]

101. Not US govt...

but indeed an example that it can work.

[AgingAmerican]

103. Doesn't have to be US government to work

nt

[treestar]

107. We can't control others - it can't be tried until they cooperate

Was Assad willing to be a pacifist?

[mike_c]

2. that's Orwellian speak....

No, pacifism is never "part of the machinery of death" unless peace kills. The responsibility for murder belongs to the murderers, not the peaceful.

[scarletwoman]

10. Exactly!

The responsibility for murder belongs to the murderers, not the peaceful.

I can't imagine how anyone could think that the way to stop killing is to do more killing. The means ARE the end.

sw

[Vashta Nerada]

44. If I could recommend a post, I'd recommend your's.

[zeemike]

53. Strait to the point.

"pacifism is never "part of the machinery of death" unless peace kills."

It is only a mater of time before the curtain is pulled back and they openly say....War Is Peace...and Ignorance is Strength.

[mythology]

56. If I am a pacifist and I watch somebody else get killed because I refused to intervene,

then did I not undertake an action (i.e. not intervening) that resulted in death? I would say yes, inaction is in itself a choice. If you don't think that's the case, ask yourself what you would do if you saw the proverbial baby carriage rolling out into a busy street. What would you feel if you did nothing? Would you think you were responsible in some way? I think I would.

The Dutch Supreme Court has held that the Netherlands is liable for specifically 3 of the deaths at Srebrencia. By refusing to protect the 3 men in question, the court ruled the state was in fact responsible for their deaths. The Dutch didn't kill any of the more than 7,000 men and boys killed, but they did expel the Muslims from the compound, an action that led to their deaths.

There are a series of interesting philosophical thought experiments around the idea of trolley problem which explore the idea of what happens if you can take an action that results in the death of one person to save more people.

In another example, look at the massive wildfire in California. Due to budget cuts, the Forest Service wasn't able to afford small fire operations that would have preemptively burned the sort of dead wood and brush that is fueling the wildfire. It's an instance where a smaller destructive act can work to prevent a larger more dangerous act.

[grahamhgreen]

60. :^)

[quakerboy]

61. Ayup.

[Egalitarian Thug]

85. Without the clever. What a piece of excrement. n/t

[Zorra]

91. +1 nt

[Daniel537]

99. I don't see what's so "peaceful" about sitting back and allowing

tyrants like Assad to commit mass murder, despite the fact we could do something about it. What your advocating is essentially nihilism, "its not our problem", as Alan Grayson would say.

[morningfog]

3. This is absurd and bullshit.

Genocide?

[KG]

4. bilge.

[polichick]

5. I'm more worried about explaining how we did nothing about climate change...

Nobody is saying do NOTHING about Syria.

[bigtree]

7. it's not 'pacifism' to resist the counterproductive and destabilizing force of our military

. . . against nations which haven't actually threatened us at all.

Our nation's defenses aren't there for every instance someone thinks they can avenge or protect something or the other. If that was the case, the U.S. would be in perpetual war in more than just the handful of nations and regions it is right now.

You'll be thinking much differently about pacifists when the nation slips into war with Syria. Or, maybe you'll play a part in the shifting justifications for continuing military operations in response to every retaliation and defense against our swaggering imperialism. Who the hell do these folks think America is? What gives us the right to threaten nations who haven't actually threatened us?

You can try and make the issue of militarily intervening in Syria out to be a moral question about Syria's behavior, but, it's a question of the correctness of the use of OUR own devastating and destabilizing forces, first.

[backscatter712]

8. Kill in the name of peace! This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

[quinnox]

12. + a million. lol

That always cracks me up, it never gets old!

[L0oniX]

27. Well it is from the washintonCOMpost where shit piles up and stinks a lot. n/t

[backscatter712]

40. That it is! n/t

[Vashta Nerada]

46. I love that clip!

[Warpy]

9. When you post utter codswallop on DU, people will tell you about it

It looks like people are already doing their best.

Will you listen?

[libdem4life]

14. Never heard of codswallop, but got the context. Sounds kind of British, but better than some

of the synonyms that could fit in context.

[L0oniX]

28. codswallop ...iszat when 2 cows French kiss?

[Enrique]

11. we're in the middle of about a billion wars

and this guy is talking about a "pacifism problem".

[reformist2]

13. How can we talk about pacifism, when our leaders didn't even want to run their idea by the UN???

There wasn't even lip service paid to diplomatic solutions!

I would say any influence the pacifists thought they had with Obama, is actually somewhere between slim and none.

[jeff47]

30. So...we should waste time running smack into Russia's veto? (nt)

[reformist2]

33. Yes. It would be an excellent way to shame Russia and China for their complicity.

Instead, Russia is being praised as the peacemaker now. LOL

[jeff47]

39. And how, specifically, does shaming Russia stop Syria from using chemical weapons? (nt)

[sulphurdunn]

58. If and or until

Syria signs the Chemical Weapons Convention, or the UN Security Council says otherwise, the US has no lawful authority to stop the Syrian government from using chemical weapons against insurgents on its own territory. Regarding the massacre of civilians: When we do it, I believe it is euphemistically referred to as collateral damage.

[UTUSN]

15. R#5 & K provisionally for open-mind/ (other things I can't think of right now) n/t

[rug]

16. War gets to that point way sooner.

[Autumn]

17. the pacifist problem

[Hissyspit]

18. Oh for fuck's sake...

[L0oniX]

26. +1 OFFS

[Th1onein]

19. War is peace. Death is life. Black is white. Slavery is freedom.

Bullshit.

[backscatter712]

20. Makes as much sense as fucking for virginity! n/t

[dairydog91]

21. The Softer Side of Neoconservatism?

While it's often portrayed around these parts as being simple corporationism, it's always been chock full of this mix of vague moralizing and belligerence.

The civil war in Syria has killed more than 100,000 people essentially one person at a time, which is clearly an abomination, but it is not defined as a crime against humanity. The mass use of nerve agents against civilians is a crime against humanity, however.

First of all, the case under international law isn't very strong, which is why you so often hear the administration use weasel terms like "international norms". If it's not even a clear-cut case that it's illegal for Syria to use gas as a weapon, what's the reason to bomb Syria?

Second, why all the endless harping about nerve gas? What is so immoral about it, relative to America's love of weapons that cook people alive? Hell, the U.S. managed to kill 100,000 Japanese, mostly civilians, in one single night using napalm, and that was hardly a one-off use of it. The U.S. napalmed the hell out of Japan, North Korea, and Vietnam, and that includes civilian areas. Death by napalm is grotesque. It's gooey gel that burns viciously, can't be removed, and the result is that the people hit with it are roasted alive. Given a choice between dying from napalm and dying from nerve gas, I'll go with the nerve gas.

It’s not a matter of how we’re going to explain this to the Syrians. It’s a matter of how we’re going to explain this to our kids.

"Johnny, I want you to listen to me. Americans don't kill people by using organophosphates to poison them. We burn them alive. Why, there's nothing more American than using some jellied gasoline or white phosphorus to cook someone until their urine boils and their eyes cook like fried eggs. Maybe we blast 'em with depleted uranium and watch their kids grow up with lumps the size of grapefruits where their eyes should be. We also like to drop cluster bombs, which spray little bomblets over large areas. Since some of those bomblets don't go off, any civilians living in the area can then play Survivor: The Real Game! But Johnny, remember, we DON'T USE ORGANOPHOSPHATES. And that's why we're Good People."

[baldguy]

22. What we're faced with in Syra isn't another Iraq. It's another Rwanda.

Remember Rwanda? We didn't do anything then and hundreds of thousands died.

But, of course that wasn't any of our business. either.

[mick063]

23. If you want to beat the war drums

Let Europe take the lead. It is their fucking world to. I'm tired of this broke nation sending oodles of money to China as we watch helplessly while they repeatedly block us from getting UN consensus. I'm tired of negotiating grandma's paycheck to fund the world's police force because we are apparently the only nation in the world that is appalled at the use of chemical weapons.

I'm tired of the US being the world's "Jiminy Cricket like" conscious. Sick and fucking tired of it.

Let Europe do it. Go make the "Pacifist" argument to them. It fits them much, much better than us.

[jeff47]

31. Few problems here.

First, China stopped buying significant amounts of US debt in 2008. They were using those purchases to keep the Yuan low against the Dollar. But it became unsustainable.

Second, "Europe" isn't blocking us from getting US consensus. Russia is. "Europe" in the form of the security council states from Europe are calling for strikes.

Finally, Europe can't do it. They've spent 30 years relying on our military spending. They've reached the point where they can not project power without our help. For example, the UK and France were supposed to handle bombing Libya. They couldn't. They had to rely on US forces for refueling and other support. And it's going to take a while to fix that situation.

[mick063]

34. Not once

did I claim that Europe was blocking anything.


Europe can do it. We aren't fighting 10,000 Soviet tanks here. We are taking on a fractured tyrant with the aid of Al Qaeda mercenaries. If it is truly a simple strike to send a message, with "no boots on the ground", Europe can absolutely do it.

Further, they can get in the habit of spending a few more tax dollars to help police the world. The burden is much too great for our tax payers to do it alone. You make a great argument to let Europe do it. It is their world as well. Or are we the only people that are aghast at the videos of suffering? If the point is to send a message to the tyrants of the world, there could be no more impactful message than for Europe to take this on alone.

[jeff47]

37. Libya wasn't 10 years ago.

It was a year ago. And that was a fractured tyrant with a much crappier air defense system. And Europe could not pull it off. They needed our help. They can not pull off an attack on Syria without our help.

Further, they can get in the habit of spending a few more tax dollars to help police the world.

They're working on it. For example, the UK is building aircraft carriers again. But it's going to take a while for them to rebuild their forces.

Or are we the only people that are aghast at the videos of suffering?

No, we're the only people who are aghast who have sufficient military power to pull off a strike.

[mick063]

49. "No, we're the only people who are aghast who have sufficient military power to pull off a strike."

I disagree with this.

[L0oniX]

24. One of the larger piles of bullshit I've seen on DU. Looks like it has magic mushrooms on it too.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. I like Sebastian Junger, but it sounds like he's been embedded too long. n/t

[GReedDiamond]

35. "Kill For Peace" by the great FUGS!

...on edit - 1999 live version, with updated lyrics:

[99Forever]

36. That's the stupidest fucking pile of shit I've read all day. n/t

[LWolf]

38. Neither war nor peace, but non-violent struggle:

From an essay by Gene Sharp discussing Gandhi's response to conflict.

Modern thought widely assumes that the peaceful alternatives to violence and war consist of negotiations, dialogue, diplomacy, negotiations, compromise, conciliation, and other tools of conflict resolution. Those are all good and useful tools in many situations and they need to be explored and developed further. However, that list does not include the full range of alternatives to violence. It does not give recognition to Gandhi’s views and experience in the development of satyagraha and the important wider historical practice of nonviolent struggle in social, economic, political, and international conflicts.

The article you posted does not even give recognition to those mentioned "peaceful alternatives." It assumes that "pacifist" = passive non-response.

Gandhi’s important contributions about how to deal with conflicts do not fit smoothly into established modern thought and practice. The
assumption usually is that in serious conflicts one ultimately must choose between surrender, using violence, and refusal to participate on pacifist grounds.

That's exactly what those supporting a violent response are saying.

Gandhi’s answer was to identify those conflicts where the issues are fundamental. Those are the conflicts when moral principles, human rights,and justice are at stake and when compromise is not possible or desirable. Then the primary task of the exponent of nonviolent means is to assist the oppressed people to become empowered by learning how to apply satyagraha, or nonviolent struggle, to change their situation, as Gandhi insisted.
Most Western conflict resolution advocates, pacifists, and peace researchers have not yet fully grasped this great contribution to the resolution of acute conflicts.

It's an interesting and relevant read.



http://www.aeinstein.org/lectures_papers/INDIA_GANDHI_ANSWER.pdf

[jeff47]

41. That only works if the government is not willing to slaughter the opposition

And the 100k dead Syrians demonstrate that isn't the case.

[Sand Wind]

43. Exactly. Nt

[LWolf]

47. No.

Have you researched the results of non-violent struggle throughout history? I don't think so, because if you had, you'd know better.

Some efforts have been successful, some not, some met with some limited success; but it's worked over and over, including in some more extreme situations.

Some of those are mentioned in the article I linked, which, based upon your very quick response, you didn't take the time to read.

[liberal_at_heart]

62. now that sounds more like it. I'm with you LWolf.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. ....

[Precisely]

45. That's a violent OP title.

sturm and drang

[eridani]

48. Not fighting for Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda = pacifism?

On what planet?

(I'd be surprised if the Saudis didn't have paid internet trolls.)

[truedelphi]

80. I guess so. Another bunch of words strung together to defend the

Indefensible, (What can be worse than helping Al Queda?) BECAUSE OBAMA! (And he's a friend of Jay Z's.)

[eridani]

81. The US has no standing whatsoever to be judging any other country on the use of WMD

Depleted uranium
White phosphorus
Cluster bombs

And aiding and assisting other countries in developing WMD capacity, ongoing. Syria is not the only country indefensibly using chemical warfare.

[jessie04]

50. Great article..

too bad the meaning was lost on some.

Yes, let Assad chemically gas a few thousand or even a few hundred thousand...he will be shamed into stopping.

[rynestonecowboy]

73. I'm usually as liberal as it gets and favor the current possible diplomatic solution....

But I agree Jessie that the article probably wasn't thoroughly read and digested by our other usually insightful DU commenters. I am the type of person to stand up for serial killers rights but at the same time it's hard to say that we should sit idle when thousands are being slaughtered just because past presidents and their conflicts were severely ill-conceived. Shame on me, the war monger.

[jessie04]

75. Since time began, there have been dictators that kill to stay in power....

only now that got a lot more efficient weapons.

[liberal_at_heart]

51. War doesn't solve anything either. We are a dispicable species. There is not much that can

change it. There are a few examples here and there through the course of history where war may have ended a particular violent event. There are other examples of peace resolving issues. And since we can never really know which will do the trick I prefer to side with peace than with war.

[jessie04]

52. few examples here and there ??

Revolutionary war?
Civil war ?
WW1 ?
WW2 ?

[Blue_In_AK]

54. Bullshit.

All we are saying is give peace a chance.

When has it ever been tried?

[Maedhros]

55. Clearly, Sand Wind is a person with an agenda.

That agenda is to promote U.S. aggression vs. Syria.

While tiresome, Sand Wind's posts are transparent. If s/he can't reason us into supporting a U.S. strike against Syria, then s/he will attempt to shame us into doing so.

Junger's thesis is that non-violence has "no effective response" to Assad's presumed war crimes. I challenge Junger, Sand Wind and anyone else to show how violence provides an effective response.

Will missile strikes remove the threat of future chemical weapon use? No. One might imagine that they will, but military experts say otherwise. A full-scale ground invasion is necessary, and that is off the table. "Degrading" Syria's chemical weapons is a chimeric goal, unlikely to change the power dynamics of the conflict.

Will missile strikes improve living conditions for Syrian citizens and refugees? No. Quite the opposite.

Will missile strikes convince Assad to step down and end the civil war? No. If Assad has used chemical weapons, then that itself is an indication that he has dug in his heels and won't go down without a fight. Russia has a stake in maintaining Assad's regime, so he can expect support from that quarter. Even if Assad were to magically vanish, a power vacuum would result that would require much infighting and bloodshed to fill.

Violence is the easy answer. An easy answer is rarely the best answer.

[jessie04]

82. I've been reading all her posts...No agenda at all.

But a clear opinion and backed with proof.

You are so wrong.

[grahamhgreen]

57. "Peace is War"! ROFL

[raouldukelives]

89. ++1 nt

[demosincebirth]

59. Just think if we would have joined in with the Brittish and French after Dunkirk how many lives

would have been saved, not only on the battlefield, but in the dreaded death camps that the Nazis ran all over eastern Europe. There comes a time when we just can't, just, sit back and watch. Pacifism only goes so far. Not talking about Syria, just sayin'.

[Dragonfli]

63. We need to send a message, to any evil countries that use chemicals

like white phosphorous and D.U! The foolish pacifists need to get out of the way of the bombs that will bring peace to such rogue nations thereby saving the lives of all those in those countries that our bombs don't kill!.

They will not understand any other language, we should never seek to change their murderous policies via peaceful political means. Killing people and feeding our machinery of death that can bomb them is the only way not to feed the machinery of death. we should start by posting pictures of the tragic victims in places like Fallujah and Palestine, hundreds of dead children can easily be placed on loop by the altruistic MSM, then strategically target military bases and air support facilities within their borders in order to reduce their ability to commit such atrocities that the UN turns a blind eye to!

Two countries use these chemicals that result in horrible deaths more than any others (far more than Syria) and one of them has the highest civilian death tolls due to such use!

Luckily they also happen to be countries we have the greatest amount of intel on.

We know exactly where to strike in the United States and Israel to punish them for setting an example that "it is OK to use these horrible weapons of chemical warfare that burn victims flesh to the bone and cause horrible deformities to multiple generations of innocent children".

It is unfortunate that innocent US and Israeli citizens will die due to our peace campaign, but they are not the targets and so would merely be "regrettable" collateral damage, The US should not be using them as shields by placing it's bases near residential areas the way they do.

Somehow it seems like an absurd idea now, I don't know why, same logic, same horrible deaths caused by chemicals (quite a few more even)... but after your moving and awesome post I see no other way to avoid allowing the murdering pacifists to keep killing as they do....

[rug]

65. Send them an Instagram.

It can be a picture of an explosion if you like.

[Dragonfli]

69. I need to hear screaming to be convinced the pacifists are being defeated, the evil countries

that use white phosphorous and depleted uranium must die!

killing more always reduces killing, why don't people understand that the more we kill, the more lives are saved?

If we kill seven billion, we may even be able to stop the pacifists completely and thereby save the world, because everyone that can kill will then already dead, it's a no-brainer! It is the only solution, more death and less peace, it's the only way.

[JEB]

66. We should clean our own house before

demanding Syria clean theirs. Excellent post.

[uberblonde]

64. "Well, you see, honey..."

"It turns out that every time the United States wants to start a war for imperialism, they simply pretend it's for a humanitarian purpose!"

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Well, then we're defining "humanity" funny when 100k dead isn't a crime, but 1.4k is.

[niyad]

68. at no point did this individual define "pacifism". would be interested to see what that individual

means when using that word, because not everyone defines it the same way.

that being said, the article is, as others have pointed out, el toro doodoo.


even though, in your own words, your english is not that great, would be interested to know how you define "pacifism".

[Sand Wind]

72. Right, good question...

I will reserve my answer, because It could lead to a kind of debate that will take time and need a place different than this one.

But while searching what could that mean for an English person I found this :

"Police Actions" and National Liberation[edit source | editbeta]
Although all pacifists are opposed to war between nation states, there have been occasions where pacifists have supported military conflict in the case of civil war or revolution [8] For instance, during the American Civil War,both the American Peace Society and some former members of the Non-Resistance Society supported the Union's military campaign, arguing they were carrying out a "police action" against the Confederacy, whose act of Secession they regarded as criminal.[8][9] Following the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, French pacifist René Gérin (1892-1957) urged support for the Spanish Republic.[10] Gérin argued that the Spanish Nationalists were "comparable to an individual enemy" and the Republic's war effort was equivalent to the action of a domestic police force suppressing crime.[10] In the 1960s, some pacifists associated with the New Left supported wars of national liberation and supported groups such as the Viet Cong and the Algerian FLN, arguing peaceful attempts to liberate such nations were no longer viable, and war was thus the only option.[11]

I found it interesting in the light of the debate about the "exceptionalism", "police of the world",...

Could that be possible that this "exceptionalism" come from your civil war ?

Just a guest, I don't know a lot about this...

[markpkessinger]

74. What a contemptible pile of horse shit! n/t

[Deep13]

76. This is not that point. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

77. Im trying to think of someway of replying to this double speak article

That won't get me banned.

I am not coming up with anything.

[Warpy]

78. That's why "codswallop" crawled off my keyboard

and into my post. This is likely the most reeking pile of neoconservative serving putrescence I've read on this board, ever, and there have been some lulus over the years.

[Le Taz Hot]

79. You seem to have a consistent theme going here.

We need an avatar depicting the inevitable upcoming crash-and-burn.

[sendero]

83. Where DO these idiots come from?

This article is 100% straw man bullshit that shouldn't fool an imbecile.

I am not a "pacifist". I am a PRAGMATIC person who knows and understands what any serious person should know, that there is not a military solution to every occurrence.

This is not the first time Assad has used nerve gas. Having your leg blown off and bleeding to death is not a much better way to die. Attacking civilian targets with mortal fire is not a particularly nice thing to do but it's happened a zillion times.

What I am going to explain to my kids is that bombing Syria has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with chemical weapons, and everything to do with a lying, amoral cabal of shits that took control of our government some time ago, and who who has their own agenda having nothing to do with the interest of the average American. They blatantly lied us into killing half a million Iraqis, and now they want to start again like nothing happened. FUCK THEM.

[fishwax]

84. as opposed to launching missile strikes that may not "be particularly effective"

A violent and deadly response may not actually do any good, but opposing it becomes part of the machinery of death. That's laughable, whether one supports intervention or not.

[SecularMotion]

86. DU is becoming more disgusting by the day.

This is no longer a site for liberals and progressives. It is infested with RW libertarian assholes.

[marmar]

87. from the war-pimping Washington Post.

Birdcage liner anyone?

[KG]

88. fishwrap.

[niyad]

92. not sure even the local fishwrap would publish this piece, which is really saying something.

[Daniel537]

97. Sebastian Junger is certainly not a "war-pimp".

He's seen the horrible effects of war and doesn't take matters like this lightly. But he also knows that cheap slogans and ideas that advocate sitting back and doing nothing while a tyrant slaughters his citizens can be just as damaging.

[Faryn Balyncd]

93. This guy equates the rejection of unilateral bombing with "having no effective response to the...

...."having no effective response to the use of nerve gas by a government against its citizens".






(This guy must deserve some kind of reward for coming up with one of the most pathetic strawman arguments ever published.)

[Safetykitten]

94. Wow, did a rabbit hole just open? Is Ayn Rand back from the dead?

[malaise]

98. Maybe they should explain to the kids why there is so much poverty and

mean-spirited economic policy at home in America, but there is money to bomb the world to 'save the children overseas' while neglecting them at home.
I think the children would soon understand that this has nothing to do with them but is a nice line for the war profiteers.

[notadmblnd]

104. Just because missles aren't being lobbed, that doesn't mean nothing is being done.

Why do you think the only answer to killing and violence, is more killing and violence?

[AgingAmerican]

105. Right

We have to figure out how to explain to our kids why we are not the worlds policemen.

[treestar]

106. Yes, in fact, here it seems to mean only the US not being

in a war, since a pacifist could hardly deny there was already a war in Syria. And now being waged by prohibited means.

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. and fucking becomes an instrument of virginity!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. Internationalism is not Isolationism. Pacifism is not the "machinery of death".

Double-speak is not information.

[Vinnie From Indy]

110. More war mongering from the OP

It is becoming the sole focus of this DU'er. Would love to see the IP address of the OP.

[ocpagu]

111. Wow...

The United States is in a special position in the world, and that leads many people to espouse a broad American exceptionalism in foreign affairs. Even if they’re correct, those extra rights invariably come with extra obligations. Precisely because we claim such a privileged position, it falls to us to uphold the international laws that benefit humanity in general and our nation in particular.

Yes, go save those children, champ.