Great NYT story on the Syrian War

[spacemonkey]

So, if a govt is going to kill its citizens, apparently it needs to use conventional weapons . Napalm = hell yeah , nerve gas = hell no . Sarcasim just don't exist on the level it needs to for this $hit,LOL.

[eric]

Apparently the UK won't be going in either way. Lucky them.

[Indy]

[exploited]

There is a good chance that this campaign will end up killing more civilians than the gas attacks did.

[The Dharma Bum]

This situation illustrates how far the concept of presidential dictatorship has been insinuated into our system.

I agree with Chalmers Johnson, we can either choose democracy or empire. If we continue with imperialism we are going to lose ourselves. The things that have to be done to sustain an empire are at odds with what America and it's people are all about.

[Indy]

Is anybody else getting tired of hearing the talking point "There are no good options here, so we have to choose the least worst one," or something to that effect.

I swear we heard that endlessly about Iraq.

What makes it so insidious is that our only options allegedly include military action.

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[Indy]

Yup back before Iraq the dissenters were painted as being soft on terror because of course they were still milking the post-9/11 hysteria so it was easy for all the newsers to no ask questions, lest they be deemed "unpatriotic."

Here there are no such issues and while the majority of the country opposes any action, as you point out, it's like Iraq II: Sandbox Boogaloo when it comes to the news coverage.

Kristol even makes a nostalgic reappearance, hyping yet another war that him and his discredited neocon buddies are totally behind? You're right: it is 2003 all over again.

[spacemonkey]

Its NOT up to the white house to do anything about Syria. Its up to the UN to get up off their a$$ and do THEIR job. End of story.