Kucinich: Striking Syria Will Make U.S. Military ‘Al-Qaeda’s Air Force’

[zimmer]

Former congressman Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) said today that striking Syria would turn the United States military into “al-Qaeda’s air force.”


Kucinich, who voted against the Iraq War and campaigned for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004 and 2008, lambasted the idea that Obama could act without congressional authorization, which he said would be a violation of the Constitution.

Kucinich: Striking Syria Will Make U.S. Military 'Al-Qaeda's Air Force' | National Review Online

This is why I respect Kucinich. He calls them as he see 'em. He tells the people where he wants t go politically, and he is consistent.

Too bad the remainder of his party lack his honesty. It would be good for the nation as we could have an open, honest discussion about events and ideas for running the country. If Libs did that, they'd get their asses kicked severely with regularity, hence their platform of lies and deceit.

 

[tererun]

This is why I respect Kucinich. He calls them as he see 'em. He tells the people where he wants t go politically, and he is consistent.

Too bad the remainder of his party lack his honesty. It would be good for the nation as we could have an open, honest discussion about events and ideas for running the country. If Libs did that, they'd get their asses kicked severely with regularity, hence their platform of lies and deceit.

Though i disagree with your broad brush on liberal issues, I have to say the statement does have validity. You take it way too far, but we would be acting for al queda if we did this, and perhaps that is important to note so people who do not understand the complexities of these harsh social arguments in that area understand this is not just as simple as that group is the bad guys all the time, and the war on terror should be ended because it certainly is not well defined or directed if in one case we support killing of al queda people because they are so evil, and in another case we are going to fight for them to win. If they win in syria and they are the horrible people we say they are, then helping them does not accomplish the goal of helping syria and stops being an option.

 

[obvious Child]

Kucinich makes the bad assumption that the FSA is a branch of al-Qaeda. The FSA is a misnomer. There is no FSA. There are hundreds of militia forces all fighting Assad and each other. The Kurds are already moving against Islamic leaning militias. Militias fighting Assad range from secular to actual al-Qaeda members. Bombing Syria doesn't equate to being al-Qaeda's air force because al-Qaeda is not in charge of the anti-Assad militias.

Second, bombing specific areas that are stopping secular and moderate militias should allow them to take territory as well as gain prominence over al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Basically, what we SHOULD have done from day 1 was get some good intelligence and start propping up specific militias.

Kucinich's claim is silly because he makes an assumption that is flat out wrong.

 

[tererun]

Kucinich makes the bad assumption that the FSA is a branch of al-Qaeda. The FSA is a misnomer. There is no FSA. There are hundreds of militia forces all fighting Assad and each other. The Kurds are already moving against Islamic leaning militias. Militias fighting Assad range from secular to actual al-Qaeda members. Bombing Syria doesn't equate to being al-Qaeda's air force because al-Qaeda is not in charge of the anti-Assad militias.

Second, bombing specific areas that are stopping secular and moderate militias should allow them to take territory as well as gain prominence over al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Basically, what we SHOULD have done from day 1 was get some good intelligence and start propping up specific militias.

Kucinich's claim is silly because he makes an assumption that is flat out wrong.

This all really boils down to the absolute fail of the war on terror. terrorism is a crime, and we cannot fight a war with crime. With crime it is prevention and prosecution. What you are saying is true which really becomes a flaw in our own ideas about the middle east and how to handle conflicts there. We have been systematically misinformed, which has lead to some massive hypocrisy where in one casde we are fighting al queda, and in another we are fighting on their side. The reality is we should not be against al queda as a group. We should be against the improper actions any group commits. Above that we really should not be playing world police until everyone agree we are, which I understand will be accomplished on the twelfth of never.

 

[zimmer]

Kucinich makes the bad assumption that the FSA is a branch of al-Qaeda. The FSA is a misnomer. There is no FSA. There are hundreds of militia forces all fighting Assad and each other. The Kurds are already moving against Islamic leaning militias. Militias fighting Assad range from secular to actual al-Qaeda members. Bombing Syria doesn't equate to being al-Qaeda's air force because al-Qaeda is not in charge of the anti-Assad militias.

Second, bombing specific areas that are stopping secular and moderate militias should allow them to take territory as well as gain prominence over al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Basically, what we SHOULD have done from day 1 was get some good intelligence and start propping up specific militias.

Kucinich's claim is silly because he makes an assumption that is flat out wrong.

Here is some good insight from Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney on WMAL 8-27-13:

 

[zimmer]

DP.......... s l o w i n t e r n e t s c o n n e c t i on...

 

[obvious Child]

Here is some good insight from Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney on WMAL 8-27-13:

Summarize. I do not watch youtube videos unless I want to.

 

[obvious Child]

This all really boils down to the absolute fail of the war on terror. terrorism is a crime, and we cannot fight a war with crime.

This is not quite accurate.

Terrorism is a method. And every state has done it at some point in time. The Drone Program is effectively terrorism. There's no reason why a state cannot terrorize terrorists.

And if we want to go even further back, Clausewitz would argue that terrorism is just diplomacy by another method, war. But terrorism differs per Clausewitz is that it doesn't give decision makers time to make decisions the same way war does.

Ultimately, we are at war with a branch of ideologies that are anti-everything but themselves. And ideas largely cannot be destroyed, only suppressed. The war on terror is really a war on ideas and hence why it will never end. I made point about indefinite detentions at Gitmo to another users a few years back. He said it wouldn't be that way. Right now there are people in gitmo who've been there going on 12 years without trial. Indefinite detentions are just a sign of the fact this "war" will never end.

With crime it is prevention and prosecution. What you are saying is true which really becomes a flaw in our own ideas about the middle east and how to handle conflicts there. We have been systematically misinformed, which has lead to some massive hypocrisy where in one casde we are fighting al queda, and in another we are fighting on their side. The reality is we should not be against al queda as a group. We should be against the improper actions any group commits. Above that we really should not be playing world police until everyone agree we are, which I understand will be accomplished on the twelfth of never.

Terrorism has its functions. The Drone program has been arguably one of the greatest successes of the Obama administration despite the fact it's terrorism. What we should be against is ideologies that are inherently anti-American and anti-America's allies.

As for the world's police, there is a time and place for things. Libya in my mind was necessary, especially after Sebrenica where the Europeans really dropped the ball. The world has a duty after the Holocaust to prevent mass murder. Gadaffi's forces were going to murder millions in Benghazi. If Assad was found to have gassed civilians, then we have not only an obligation from global treaties on weapons conventions, but from a purely humanitarian view. I'm less emphasized on humanitarian and more on global agreements. If we do nothing to enforce them, why bother having them at all?

 

[Linc]

Kucinich--Who? Didn't he move to the west coast to start a new political career? Rogue Radical Righties have pulled another leftie loon out of their hat.

 

[keith]

History would suggest spreading democracy in the ME does us more harm than good, even in the cases where we are successful. Time to reject Wilsonianism.

 

[the_recruit]

Kucinich is a turd. He's purposely oversimplifying the issue to the point of idiocy and trying to get headlines with sensationalist sound bytes. Typical politician.

 

[tererun]

This is not quite accurate.

Terrorism is a method. And every state has done it at some point in time. The Drone Program is effectively terrorism. There's no reason why a state cannot terrorize terrorists.

And if we want to go even further back, Clausewitz would argue that terrorism is just diplomacy by another method, war. But terrorism differs per Clausewitz is that it doesn't give decision makers time to make decisions the same way war does.

Ultimately, we are at war with a branch of ideologies that are anti-everything but themselves. And ideas largely cannot be destroyed, only suppressed. The war on terror is really a war on ideas and hence why it will never end. I made point about indefinite detentions at Gitmo to another users a few years back. He said it wouldn't be that way. Right now there are people in gitmo who've been there going on 12 years without trial. Indefinite detentions are just a sign of the fact this "war" will never end.



Terrorism has its functions. The Drone program has been arguably one of the greatest successes of the Obama administration despite the fact it's terrorism. What we should be against is ideologies that are inherently anti-American and anti-America's allies.

As for the world's police, there is a time and place for things. Libya in my mind was necessary, especially after Sebrenica where the Europeans really dropped the ball. The world has a duty after the Holocaust to prevent mass murder. Gadaffi's forces were going to murder millions in Benghazi. If Assad was found to have gassed civilians, then we have not only an obligation from global treaties on weapons conventions, but from a purely humanitarian view. I'm less emphasized on humanitarian and more on global agreements. If we do nothing to enforce them, why bother having them at all?

We already have a word called deterrence. Deterrence does use the fear of retaliation as a reason not to attack. Terrorism is more of a revenge thing rather than a preventative thing. It is a nuance of language, but the reality is that even under your description my point stands. Some forms of terrorism are acceptable as methods of deterring attacks while others are illegal because they are vindictive or poorly defined.