General Discussion

delrem

(9,688 posts)

22. "war fantasies" isn't the same phrase as "bloodlust".

Sat Aug 31, 2013, 11:53 PM

Aug 2013

In fact on DU the most vivid war fantasies are cloaked in a pretense of nurture, of caring deeply for the Syrian people, and in collective hallucinations (supported by war propaganda) of mythic proportions. To say that the folk lost in such delusions of grandeur are full of bloodlust is wrong, but it's correct to say that they're victim of war fantasies.

Regardless of the 'will of the (US) people', bombing Syria isn't their decision to make.
Your *internal* politics and focus on the "how responsive our gov't is to the 'will of the people'" is a side-issue. Whatever US citizens convince themselves of, in the midst of blazing party politics and tortured English, is not the issue. The issue is that bombing Syria will be a war-crime, pure and simple, and it'll be added to the continuous tally of war-crimes perpetrated by the US war machine.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A US bombing attack to "punish" Syria is illegal. [View all] delrem Aug 2013 OP

Yup I agree gopiscrap Aug 2013 #1

We've gotten to the point where we think we're so above the law NuclearDem Aug 2013 #2

Ignorance of the law Ghost Dog Sep 2013 #59

This is what too many are glossing over. It will be a war crime. morningfog Aug 2013 #3

It isn't a decision for NATO, or a "coalition of the willing", to make either. nt delrem Aug 2013 #6

I agree. morningfog Aug 2013 #9

yah, I was picking nits :) delrem Aug 2013 #19

Polling of the US public shows only 25% of Americans are interested truedelphi Aug 2013 #4

Is that up from awhile ago? delrem Aug 2013 #10

they managed to do this over Libya: BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111 became a Senatorial football, MisterP Aug 2013 #5

Sorry, I don't know what that means. delrem Sep 2013 #24

Benghazi is shorthand for the content-free bickering by the GOP (the accusation that Obama "did MisterP Sep 2013 #27

The world found out how far to trust a R2P protection racket by the US, over Libya. delrem Sep 2013 #29

yeah... MisterP Sep 2013 #42

100% correct malaise Aug 2013 #7

Thank you. nt woo me with science Aug 2013 #8

Absolutely agree... jimlup Aug 2013 #11

If 'globalism' means anything, it means international co-operation - esp. on issues of war/peace. reformist2 Aug 2013 #12

International norms swilton Sep 2013 #76

K&R n/t totodeinhere Aug 2013 #13

A few hundred people were killed with nerve gas. Meh. cheapdate Aug 2013 #14

You realize that you only speak for yourself. delrem Sep 2013 #25

Yes, not only do I "realize" that I speak only for myself, cheapdate Sep 2013 #64

Over a million were killed in Iraq a considerable number by White Phosphorous, meh! sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #49

We weren't using white phosphorous on civilians in Iraq. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #61

of course we did.... mike_c Sep 2013 #74

That's a problem, it seems. cheapdate Sep 2013 #67

Four hundred children. This doesn't include adults. nt pnwmom Sep 2013 #55

The pictures of mimi85 Sep 2013 #60

There, there, there. Bolo Boffin Aug 2013 #15

Hmmm. You underscore my point, Bolo Boffin. nt delrem Aug 2013 #20

yes Chaco Dundee Aug 2013 #16

Just heard not 5 minutes ago it was 80% against strikes. Not sure how this constitutes bloodlust. Flatulo Aug 2013 #17

"war fantasies" isn't the same phrase as "bloodlust". delrem Aug 2013 #22

US: ''What are international norms?'' DeSwiss Aug 2013 #18

Uh, NO. jazzimov Aug 2013 #21

Show where those "rules that we (US) "claim" to adhere to" are written in international law. delrem Aug 2013 #23

A unilateral strike alone would not be legal. joshcryer Sep 2013 #30

wow. what a take on it.... delrem Sep 2013 #31

Just trying to think of ways around it. joshcryer Sep 2013 #33

Truly peacekeeping is total war? What kind of mindfuck is that? delrem Sep 2013 #34

That's how the UN defines it. joshcryer Sep 2013 #35

No it isn't. I suggest you converse with someone else, who speaks your language. delrem Sep 2013 #37

No need to be insulting. joshcryer Sep 2013 #38

that wasn't insulting, it was fact. delrem Sep 2013 #40

I doubt you even read the resolution I linked. joshcryer Sep 2013 #43

I don't speak Orwell War=Peace. Speak with a compatriot. delrem Sep 2013 #45

I don't believe that. joshcryer Sep 2013 #58

No country that is not only responsible for War Crimes but for the exoneration sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #52

It is "illegal"... kentuck Sep 2013 #26

I totally disagree with that last. delrem Sep 2013 #28

"Legal" is legal as defined by our laws. kentuck Sep 2013 #47

US laws don't cut it in an international arena, where the object is the bombing of another country. delrem Sep 2013 #51

US laws don't cut outside the US period dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #62

actually, they are, or at least they're supposed to be.... mike_c Sep 2013 #69

This is what Cheney means by "American exceptionalism." DirkGently Sep 2013 #32

As much as it pains me to see children gassed paulrandfu Sep 2013 #36

If the US isn't lying through it's ass again.... anyhow, such a strike is illegal plain and simple. delrem Sep 2013 #39

I agree it's illegal. Unilateralism should have died when Bush left office n/t Violet_Crumble Sep 2013 #41

So what? So is using chemical weapons. What will anyone do about it if we act The Straight Story Sep 2013 #44

Bad argument. Won't reply. delrem Sep 2013 #48

We didn't punish our own war criminals MNBrewer Sep 2013 #65

It is a warranted action to the powers that be and that is all that matters, fact. Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #46

define "warranted", define "powers that be". delrem Sep 2013 #50

I explained how it is done here in the US, and it is a fact..just as I stated. There exists Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #53

I find it to be discouraging that the US is playing out the same charade once again. delrem Sep 2013 #54

Why would those running the government change? They're not there to learn, but act. Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #56

I speak of the american population. delrem Sep 2013 #57

The American population is not giving blind consent this time and keep in mind Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #63

Syria is 1 of 5 countries that has refused to be a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. randome Sep 2013 #66

The USA is one of the few countries that has NOT signed... bvar22 Sep 2013 #68

And the only one to ever drop atomic bombs on an enemy - on civilians in fact kenny blankenship Sep 2013 #81

But it is the prerogative of the decider to decide if, when, and where a third-world country is indepat Sep 2013 #70

Only 9% are induldging in war fantasies on this one KurtNYC Sep 2013 #71

Maybe its time AsahinaKimi Sep 2013 #72

From your lips to Goddess' ears. nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #73

No "War For Profit." blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #75

Re. Legality of bombing attack. Source please. lumpy Sep 2013 #77

kick woo me with science Sep 2013 #78

kick woo me with science Sep 2013 #79

Hey, thanks for kicking my post! delrem Sep 2013 #80