Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: President Obama is NOT a tool of the banks/MIC, a liar or a murderous warmonger [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)114. Nice post. And a great example of how to be passionate and convincing without name calling.
"Ok, so Barack Obama seems poised to drag us into another military conflict. It's a bad idea."
I agree.
"The opposition to Assad is rife with al Qaeda/islamists. Shall we put them in power? If not, how do we prevent it?"
I suppose "rife" is a subjective term. Assad has from the beginning portrayed this as a "you are with me or the terrorists" choice, at the beginning when the protests were massive and peaceful.
What I read is that, aside from Assad's propaganda, the Al Qaeda linked Al Nusra Front numbers from 6,000 to 10,000 fighters and they are some of the best fighters in the opposition. That accounts for 10-20% of the total rebel fighters. That may qualify as "rife" and they are certainly a force that will have to be reckoned with in the long run.
"How many people will WE kill as a result of our military involvement? What of the Christian and Alawite minorities after the fall of Assad? What of the Sunni/Shia conflict after the Christian/Alawite ethnic cleansing?"
If we commit a war crime to allegedly punish a war crime, how are we any better than Assad? Is it possible to "punish" for a war crime without committing one ourselves? I suppose it is possible but very difficult.
I agree that what happens to minorities in Syria has to be considered, as does what has happened to the majority in past decades. In that way it is similar to the advent of majority rule in South Africa. Many whites were concerned that's majority rule would be very dangerous for the white minority. While about half of the white population has indeed emigrated from South Africa, the worst white fears were never realized.
"The President has said that it seems clear that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, but I don't believe him. I don't trust the people advising him. I don't trust the organizations in charge of providing the intel. I'm not saying the President is lying (per se) but I don't think he's actually telling the truth."
I think it is obvious that Obama is not itching to get involved in the Syrian conflict. If he were, as Bush/Cheney were in Iraq, he would have found a pretext long ago (or invented one as they did).
He knows the history of the intelligence communities mistakes and lies in the past as well as any of us and takes what they report with a grain of salt. That does not mean that he could never be convinced that Assad's forces used chemical weapons.
Many of us will not be convinced by anything we hear from Obama or any other American official. Even if the UN inspectors were to implicate syrian forces (hypothetical, at this point, but certainly a possibility), many of us would not be convinced. I suppose that is because I know that I support a policy of not intervening and ANY investigation by ANYONE that reaches ANY conclusion that lessens the likelihood of that policy being implemented is something I am going to have a hard time "believing".
I know the habit of choosing policy first then accepting evidence that supports it and rejecting or discrediting evidence that does not, is a common republican trait. They choose policies like smaller government, lower taxes and global warming as a hoax among many others. Then they latch on to any "evidence" that seems to support their chosen policy and reject or discredit all evidence that clashes with what "they know is the right thing to do". I do try to fight this habit; sometimes with more success than others.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
162 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
President Obama is NOT a tool of the banks/MIC, a liar or a murderous warmonger [View all]
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
OP
I never came close to discussing the motives of people ascribing motives to the President
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#17
Not if you want a serious discussion directly related to Syria. As any marriage counselor
pnwmom
Aug 2013
#107
I agree here, z. People have lost a lot of trust due to the actual things that are being
Nay
Aug 2013
#125
It's true that I wish all discussion of a topic would at least begin with discussion of
Nay
Aug 2013
#140
My post wasn't meant to be exhaustive, that's for sure---your points are good additions.
Nay
Aug 2013
#143
The ethics? I'm somehow unethical because I feel the president is not acting in my best interest?
Ed Suspicious
Aug 2013
#38
Should he be impeached? Will you press your congress critter to file for impeachment?
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#40
No, my congress-critter needs no nudging from me. Sunspots Johnson would like nothing more
Ed Suspicious
Aug 2013
#43
So you passively accept an illegal war by soeone you claim has ill motives.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#46
No. I don't passively accept. I do what I can, and what I can do is let others know that
Ed Suspicious
Aug 2013
#51
If saying "this isn't the best argument to achieve what you want" is a mark of intolerance
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#10
Oh yeah...like you're open-minded. So here are the search results for "bankers hate Obama"
BeyondGeography
Aug 2013
#14
I know all about them...there's a much broader range of people saying the banks hate Obama
BeyondGeography
Aug 2013
#62
And there we go with the labels of those we don't agree with. The OP did not call anyone "hater" or
pampango
Aug 2013
#16
Nice post. And a great example of how to be passionate and convincing without name calling.
pampango
Aug 2013
#114
Right on! He has gone against what he promised. The candidate Obama is very different from
Dustlawyer
Aug 2013
#29
I think the more world-weary among us knew soon after 1/20/2009 that something
Doctor_J
Aug 2013
#23
No, he's not a murderous warmonger, but the MIC has a gun directly pointed at his head...
RevStPatrick
Aug 2013
#21
Here's an idea: HE NEVER HAD THE BELIEFS YOU THINK HE HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE. nt
Dreamer Tatum
Aug 2013
#128
More likely the MIC sees profits in it. Cant afford to be world's police and save Social Security.
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#161
Either bought, or "threatened" just enough (in subtle "ways") to toe the line
Amonester
Aug 2013
#64
"Men are not judged by their words......but by their actions." Frederick II
Ed Suspicious
Aug 2013
#56
Because policies are justified and excused by supposedly superior motives and character.
TheKentuckian
Aug 2013
#134
Anyone who lives on the grid is a tool of the banks and feels the heel when it is applied.
gordianot
Aug 2013
#44
Hi, Larry Summers here, and I agree completely...except war in Syria is ok.
Safetykitten
Aug 2013
#49
I don't think he has some nefarious intent. I think he's blinded by good intentions.
AtheistCrusader
Aug 2013
#60
It would be nice if more discussions here followed that same principle.
Proud Liberal Dem
Aug 2013
#108
Bullshit. From failing to prosecute Bush war crimes & banksters, to mandatory crapsurance, attacking
grahamhgreen
Aug 2013
#101
Yes, I'm a Democrat:) hopefully it won't be yet another neo-con tool of the war machine.
grahamhgreen
Aug 2013
#106
No, because his job is to REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, not make crap
grahamhgreen
Aug 2013
#119
But you have been saying the whole time that it doesn't matter what evils are perpetrated
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#122
He's just been pushing for war, Iran, N Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, whatever. And if you
grahamhgreen
Sep 2013
#162