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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Barack Obama
In reply to the discussion: Watch President Obama Meet Congressional Leaders to Discuss Syria [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)7. I feel the same and wish those blithely repeating our sixties mantra of 'give peace a chance,'
could grasp that millions of Syrians are not enjoying peace, freedom or justice at this time. And have not for a long time.
Those who passionately supported the Arab Spring don't seem to care about the people who were in the Arab Spring. They have thrown their heroes under the bus. Those are exactly the people Assad is killing now. Those left alive that are maimed or without a place to live, are not getting a chance at peace.
Not taking action always supports the status quo. Where would we be if slave holders were left alone in peace to decide to grant freedom and justice to those they had in bondage? Did giving 'peace a chance' liberate the slaves?
If you read the writings of Confederate philosophy at the time, no, it would have never happened:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014260932#post149
Any more than Rand Paul or others would see the injustice of personhood laws on women, denying them birth control, equal pay, education, the right of unions to exist and people to be protected from environmental and social disasters commited by corporations on them.
No, giving them peace has not led to peace for minorities, women or the world in general.
It's a mind boggling concept for those of us want to have people work out differences peacefully at the ballot box and quite unexpected, isn't it?
I read some time back, that the vociferous voices for peace send out the same energy as those who really, really love war. I've found that to be true when I examine it.
You can't escape what you radiate. You create hate with hate. I read a post saying the USA should be bombed with chemical weapons because of what was done in Vietnam. That was a war crime, which Kerry spoke out about.
There is no hypocrisy in his being against it now, He is not trying to get the power to use those, nor free fire zones, search and destroy missions, and all the things he spoke out against in 1971. He is consistent, and after that is denied by the bashers, they have little reason to use in their screeds.
The desire for Americans to be killed denies the work we have done to eliminate these weapons, and many others, from our own stockpiles and to stop their being used.
Because both the USA and Russia are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention and have reduced their stockpiles as shown here:
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.
The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed.[5][6] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.
As of June 2013, 189 states are party to the CWC, and another two countries (Israel and Myanmar) have signed but not yet ratified the convention.[1]
And those are not just chemical weapons. And the group does cover not producing more of any of the WMD listed. Member states who are working on this span the globe:

More at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Member_states
Syria is not a member to this organization and this is not the first time that Assad has used chemical weapons on his people.
The only bright spot that I can see, is Obama's calls to Putin to put pressure on Assad regarding this.
Anyone with sense knows when they hear public statements showing bravado or enemity that it is not the case. Obama in particular is not doing so and never has. Those media blurbs saying such and such president or minister is a tough guy is for the edification of the school yard crowd.
They demand red meat, and are not capable of running anything but their mouths. Which they do continously. War-like peace warriors don't find reason viscerally satisfying enough. They are as simplistic as the hawks after September 11th.
JMHO.
Those who passionately supported the Arab Spring don't seem to care about the people who were in the Arab Spring. They have thrown their heroes under the bus. Those are exactly the people Assad is killing now. Those left alive that are maimed or without a place to live, are not getting a chance at peace.
Not taking action always supports the status quo. Where would we be if slave holders were left alone in peace to decide to grant freedom and justice to those they had in bondage? Did giving 'peace a chance' liberate the slaves?
If you read the writings of Confederate philosophy at the time, no, it would have never happened:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014260932#post149
Any more than Rand Paul or others would see the injustice of personhood laws on women, denying them birth control, equal pay, education, the right of unions to exist and people to be protected from environmental and social disasters commited by corporations on them.
No, giving them peace has not led to peace for minorities, women or the world in general.
It's a mind boggling concept for those of us want to have people work out differences peacefully at the ballot box and quite unexpected, isn't it?
I read some time back, that the vociferous voices for peace send out the same energy as those who really, really love war. I've found that to be true when I examine it.
You can't escape what you radiate. You create hate with hate. I read a post saying the USA should be bombed with chemical weapons because of what was done in Vietnam. That was a war crime, which Kerry spoke out about.
There is no hypocrisy in his being against it now, He is not trying to get the power to use those, nor free fire zones, search and destroy missions, and all the things he spoke out against in 1971. He is consistent, and after that is denied by the bashers, they have little reason to use in their screeds.
The desire for Americans to be killed denies the work we have done to eliminate these weapons, and many others, from our own stockpiles and to stop their being used.
Because both the USA and Russia are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention and have reduced their stockpiles as shown here:
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.
The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed.[5][6] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.
As of June 2013, 189 states are party to the CWC, and another two countries (Israel and Myanmar) have signed but not yet ratified the convention.[1]
And those are not just chemical weapons. And the group does cover not producing more of any of the WMD listed. Member states who are working on this span the globe:

More at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Member_states
Syria is not a member to this organization and this is not the first time that Assad has used chemical weapons on his people.
The only bright spot that I can see, is Obama's calls to Putin to put pressure on Assad regarding this.
Anyone with sense knows when they hear public statements showing bravado or enemity that it is not the case. Obama in particular is not doing so and never has. Those media blurbs saying such and such president or minister is a tough guy is for the edification of the school yard crowd.
They demand red meat, and are not capable of running anything but their mouths. Which they do continously. War-like peace warriors don't find reason viscerally satisfying enough. They are as simplistic as the hawks after September 11th.
JMHO.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
12 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

I feel the same and wish those blithely repeating our sixties mantra of 'give peace a chance,'
freshwest
Sep 2013
#7
Thanks for the add. I will note, and think I've posted here already, of the Lebanese Civil War.
freshwest
Sep 2013
#10
Fine, informative OP - thanks. It will keep me thinking all day. Not easily forgotten.
IrishAyes
Nov 2013
#12