Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

https://twitter.com/99PercentBoston/status/373881170083475456/photo/1

Our march just left this message at John Kerry's Beacon Hill townhouse. #NoWarWithSyria pic.twitter.com/jBBoie3Ar7

https://twitter.com/wellturned/status/373878956421705728/photo/1

Protestors gathering outside Kerry's house in Beacon Hill, shouting "Hands Off Syria" @universalhub #boston pic.twitter.com/ZlfeRpv8zF

https://twitter.com/masspeaceaction/status/373888324702072832/photo/1

#Boston #Syria protest has marched by John #Kerry's house and is now in front of Faneuil Hall pic.twitter.com/tK7A50J65y

I wonder what young John Kerry would think about all of this. The world is full of ironies.

His critique of the war continued in his letters home. He tried to put himself in the shoes of the occupied and wondered what it would be like “to have to bend to the desires of a people who could not be sensitive to the things that really counted in one’s country.”

By the time Kerry returned from Vietnam – discharged six months early with three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star as commander of a riverine unit in the Mekong Delta – he had developed a deep distrust of government.

Yet he aspired to lead it, first weighing a 1970 run for Congress on an antiwar platform. Instead, in 1971, Kerry became the face of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and organized a national protest in Washington. In a historic prelude to the role he would eventually play in the Senate, the 27-year-old Kerry delivered powerful testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he would later chair, in which he famously asked, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

The following day, the decorated Navy lieutenant lobbed his ribbons over a fence in front of the Capitol during a demonstration he orchestrated. The events instantly catapulted Kerry to national fame.

Four decades later, Kerry proudly displayed his war medals, pinning them to the breast of his tuxedo at the white-tie Gridiron Club dinner in Washington last March.

“To me the most important thing for our secretary of state is to live in and understand the reality of the world that we’re in – not the myth that’s created about the world that we’re in. And he has that capacity,” he said.

Nevertheless, some are skeptical of Kerry’s history of shifting positions, accusing him of being opportunistic and changing with the political winds. For example, Kerry invoked the prospect of another Vietnam to oppose war in 1990 after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, but then voted to authorize the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi leader in 2002 as he was preparing to run for president. He later voted against funding to continue the war, exposing himself to criticism by Bush as a flip-flopper.

Supporters of the former Middlesex County prosecutor and Yale debater say he has an academic tendency to examine and see an issue from all angles, frustrating even his staff who often do not know how he will vote on an issue until he reaches the Senate floor.

The old Daily Show clips mocking right wingers for criticizing Kerry's mention of a "global test" seem amusing in hindsight, although to be fair, Kerry did preface that remark with a statement that reinforces executive power over the decision to initiate preemptive attacks in the interests of national security.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-5-2004/mess-o-potamia---you-forgot-poland
Mess O'Potamia - You Forgot Poland
Less than a week after George W. Bush attacked John Kerry for forgetting Poland, Poland decides to leave the coalition of the willing. (2:53)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-5-2004/corddry---global-test
Corddry - Global Test
Rob Corddry discusses the fundamental flaw of the Kerry campaign - John Kerry's inability to say what the Republicans say he said. (2:10)

On a related note, I feel like the anti-war movement doesn't really have as much oomph as it used to. They've been slacking ever since 2008.

 

[IISANDERII]

How was he able to display his medals if he had tossed them 40yrs ago?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Utterly pathetic. I "get" that he wants to send a message about the use of chemical weapons, but Syria poses no threat to the United States. The administration doesn't have an end game planned. Sound familiar?

How was he able to display his medals if he had tossed them 40yrs ago?

Because in typical Kerry fashion he picked them up after throwing them.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Yes, protest at the Secretary of State's house over potential military action that is being brought before Congress.

Makes sense.

Also, Syria = Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Lonely1]

Has anyone made a Kerry-Cheney hybrid Photoshop yet?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Utterly pathetic. I "get" that he wants to send a message about the use of chemical weapons, but Syria poses no threat to the United States. The administration doesn't have an end game planned. Sound familiar?



Because in typical Kerry fashion he picked them up after throwing them.

Neither did Libya but look at how that turned out.

 

[markot]

You cant compare Vietnam to any of whats happening now.... at all.... even slightly.

 

[shira]

Wow that's a really nice place to live, looks like the ending of War of the Worlds - ironic

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

You cant compare Vietnam to any of whats happening now.... at all.... even slightly.

Iraq, Vietnam, Syria it's all the same to some people. US evil war mongers regardless of circumstance.

 

[Rentahamster]

Wow that's a really nice place to live

John Kerry's a pretty rich feller.

 

[IISANDERII]

Because in typical Kerry fashion he picked them up after throwing them.

Sounds like he was never true to his convictions, not even when he was fresh from Vietnam.

 

[akira28]

you guys...

How was he able to display his medals if he had tossed them 40yrs ago?

medals are a matter of historical record. So he could just write a letter and they'd send him fresh new medals.

Especially being a Senator and head of military committees and all...

 

[polyh3dron]

I wonder how they felt about us bombing Libya.

Having said that I agree with PP about the lack of end game.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yes, protest at the Secretary of State's house over potential military action that is being brought before Congress.

They protested at Karl Rove's house over potential military action that was being brought before Congress, too. Just trying to be consistent, I guess.

Also, Syria = Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not really, but to anti-war protesters, the similarities matter more than the differences. Unprovoked American military action against a sovereign state is usually seen as bad more often than not, in their eyes. Unless they were one of those fair-weather protesters whose main concern was wanting to get Bush out of office first and foremost, rather than actual concerns about the ramifications of preemptive military action.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Utterly pathetic. I "get" that he wants to send a message about the use of chemical weapons, but Syria poses no threat to the United States. The administration doesn't have an end game planned. Sound familiar?



Because in typical Kerry fashion he picked them up after throwing them.

So US was wrong in going in to bosnia?

 

[delirium]

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty."

- George Orwell

 

[PhoenixDark]

So US was wrong in going in to bosnia?

I understand the decision to go with allies/NATO, but personally I did not support it.

 

[Anticitizen One]

I'm curious what would have happened if John Kerry became president

An answer that was denied to me by my idiot "fellow Americans"

 

[Octavion Rex]

I'm curious what would have happened if John Kerry became president

An answer that was denied to me by my idiot "fellow Americans"

Most likely his agenda

 

[Nesotenso]

Iraq, Vietnam, Syria it's all the same to some people. US evil war mongers regardless of circumstance.

some incredibly stupid people then

 

[Tim the Wiz]

You cant compare Vietnam to any of whats happening now.... at all.... even slightly.

Exactly. The foreign policy illiteracy of the American mainstream is frightening.

 

[Nesotenso]

I understand the decision to go with allies/NATO, but personally I did not support it.

not even in the light of Srebrenica ?

is non-intervention always the answer ?

on the issue at hand, as I have said before U.S should get involved only with the backing of the Arab league and NATO allies. but harder questions are of course, scale of involvement, end game etc.

the war in Syria is being fought along sectarian lines. and the victors aren't going to forget the losses on their sides easily.

the situation is hardly similar or comparable to what Kerry saw and felt about Vietnam

 

[curlyfriski]

- George Orwell

Even Orwell could be wrong sometimes. Here's something he said when he was smarter:

In my opinion a few pacifists are inwardly pro-Nazi, and extremist left-wing parties will inevitably contain Fascist spies. The important thing is to discover which individuals are honest and which are not, and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which controversy is conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind. To admit that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is a fool or a scoundrel, or both, than to find out what he is really like.

 

[Derwind]

Exactly. The foreign policy illiteracy of the American mainstream is frightening.

Can you blame them? US foreign policy hasn't had a great track record over the last few decades.

 

[Simplet]

Even Orwell could be wrong sometimes. Here's something he said when he was smarter:

These are two equally smart, completely non-contradictory statements.

 

[120v]

i wish people were this concerned about "getting involved" in 2003

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Utterly pathetic. I "get" that he wants to send a message about the use of chemical weapons, but Syria poses no threat to the United States. The administration doesn't have an end game planned. Sound familiar?



Because in typical Kerry fashion he picked them up after throwing them.

LOL holy shit, he was flip-flopping way back then.

"I'm going to throw away my Medals, but I will keep them".

 

[curlyfriski]

These are two equally smart, completely non-contradictory statements.

"Young pacifist intellectuals are secretly fascists" is a pretty dopey conclusion to make and doesn't seem to jive with admitting your opponents can be both honest and intelligent.

The Carlyle bit is something I'd expect from Jonah Goldberg.

 

[Deified Data]

- George Orwell

Quote has little bearing on the conversation, outside of casually insulting well-meaning pacifists.

 

[markot]

Orwell wasnt saying anything bad about pacifists, just a small section of them. And he is right >.<

 

[way more]

Boo this man for investigating whether Sarin gas was used, Boo him!

 

[MarzipaNMOS]

so I'm still a bit confused, are people still buying the "need to intervene to show world you can't use chem weps!!" line? because you realize that just doing airstrikes on chemical plants then going home isn't actually whats gonna happen, lol.

 

[delirium]

Quote has little bearing on the conversation, outside of casually insulting well-meaning pacifists.

What? Did you even read the quote? All these people who are vehemently against Syrian intervention, where were you when Russia invaded Georgia?

I love how people always criticize the US for supporting Iraq recently for helping them attack Iran; where were they criticizing Russia for SELLING chemical weapons to Assad in the first place?

 

[boiled goose]

The international community has decided that use of chemical weapons is not allowed. The whole idea of 'rules' of what is allowed and not allowed in warfare is bizarre, although I do understand that you want to protect innocent civilian bystanders caught in the middle of political conflicts as much as possible.

The problem with the US intervening unilaterally is that they are intervening based on norms decided internationally. It is just bizarre. If there is intervention in Syria it should be with the support of the UN and the international community as part of a well planned long term strategic and consistent vision. If not, it is pointless.

What? Did you even read the quote? All these people who are vehemently against Syrian intervention, where were you when Russia invaded Georgia?

I love how people always criticize the US for supporting Iraq recently for helping them attack Iran; where were they criticizing Russia for SELLING chemical weapons to Assad in the first place?

I think they don't need to criticize Russia as it is obvious there are many problems there haha.
The criticism for the US comes from the fact that they perceive (perhaps accurately?) that there is some hypocrisy regarding foreign policy, ie support dictatorships and oppressors when they are on your side. Then again, I am not a pacifist but perhaps an idealist/pragmatist, so I should not be speaking for them.

 

[delirium]

The international community has decided that use of chemical weapons is not allowed. The whole idea of 'rules' of what is allowed and not allowed in warfare is bizarre, although I do understand that you want to protect innocent civilian bystanders caught in the middle of political conflicts as much as possible.

The problem with the US intervening unilaterally is that they are intervening based on norms decided internationally. It is just bizarre. If there is intervention in Syria it should be with the support of the UN and the international community as part of a well planned long term strategic and consistent vision. If not, it is pointless.

What you are asking for is impossible. China and Russia would never allow a UN intervention in Syria. Syria is too important of a strategy ally for Russia. You could show Russia a video of Assad with two IDs pressing the button to launch chemical weapons and Russia would veto any resolution against attacking the regime. Oh sure, they'll come up with some clever excuse that many people in the West will fall for, but they'll never allow the Assad regime to be taken out.

 

[WARCOCK]

Intervention is too risky for the region at this point imo, the west needs to sit down and talk with the Russians, Chinese and Iranians really really badly on this one.

 

[boiled goose]

What you are asking for is impossible. China and Russia would never allow a UN intervention in Syria. Syria is too important of a strategy ally for Russia. You could show Russia a video of Assad with two IDs pressing the button to launch chemical weapons and Russia would veto any resolution against attacking the regime. Oh sure, they'll come up with some clever excuse that many people in the West will fall for, but they'll never allow the Assad regime to be taken out.

I understand why Syria is important to Russia.
The whole international community should also put pressure on Russia as well.

If people don't care enough, then there should be no intervention. We just accept our place as a terrible, selfish species. The US or a few select countries picking sides is pointless again, given that we would be picking sides based on norms that were internationally decided.

 

[General Choomin]

so I'm still a bit confused, are people still buying the "need to intervene to show world you can't use chem weps!!" line? because you realize that just doing airstrikes on chemical plants then going home isn't actually whats gonna happen, lol.

No, now the need to intervene is to prove that the USA has credibility. To save face if you will. Even after Obama said he would go to the UN to get an international solution.

 

[BuggyDClown]

Boo this man for investigating whether Sarin gas was used, Boo him!

should get the newsroom team on it.

This is without a doubt the weirdest post I've ever seen on Gaf

good, I wasn't the only one also thinking this.

 

[akira28]

I understand why Syria is important to Russia.
The whole international community should also put pressure on Russia as well.

If people don't care enough, then there should be no intervention. We just accept our place as a terrible, selfish species. The US or a few select countries picking sides is pointless again, given that we would be picking sides based on norms that were internationally decided.

Some people can't do that, while having the ability to choose the alternative.

LOL holy shit, he was flip-flopping way back then.

"I'm going to throw away my Medals, but I will keep them".

except it didn't happen. But please tell all your friends on Facebook that it did.

 

[way more]

No, now the need to intervene is to prove that the USA has credibility. To save face if you will. Even after Obama said he would go to the UN to get an international solution.

Not just the US, but the entire international system. What's the point of reducing nukes, chemical weapons, or creating pollution requirements if the world just turns it's back on those committing genocide because it's too far away. If some nation doesn't step up and scold Assad he has free reign to smoke everyone as long as it's within his borders.

 

[boiled goose]

Some people can't do that, while having the ability to choose the alternative.



except it didn't happen. But please tell all your friends on Facebook that it did.

and I am glad you don't accept it. very glad.
I just hope you are more consistent than most governments

 

[delirium]

I think they don't need to criticize Russia as it is obvious there are many problems there haha.
The criticism for the US comes from the fact that they perceive (perhaps accurately?) that there is some hypocrisy regarding foreign policy, ie support dictatorships and oppressors when they are on your side. Then again, I am not a pacifist but perhaps an idealist/pragmatist, so I should not be speaking for them.

Every country supports allies that are dubious at best. It's called realpolitik. This is why the US also spies on all its allies.

I understand why Syria is important to Russia.
The whole international community should also put pressure on Russia as well.

If people don't care enough, then there should be no intervention. We just accept our place as a terrible, selfish species. The US or a few select countries picking sides is pointless again, given that we would be picking sides based on norms that were internationally decided.

The international community is a community of differing goals and views. They will never agree on anything.

Intervention is too risky for the region at this point imo, the west needs to sit down and talk with the Russians, Chinese and Iranians really really badly on this one.

What do you think the US state department has been doing for the past few years? Twiddling their thumbs? Negotiation is never going to solve this civil war. Too much blood has been spilled by both sides.

 

[boiled goose]

Every country supports allies that are dubious at best. It's called realpolitik. This is why the US also spies on all its allies.


The international community is a community of differing goals and views. They will never agree on anything.


What do you think the US state department has been doing for the past few years? Twiddling their thumbs? Negotiation is never going to solve this civil war. Too much blood has been spilled by both sides.

The international community agreed that they don't like the usage of chemical weapons, correct?

Half assed ntervention will not really solve the civil war either...
Even toppling Assad would leave a power vacuum that would probably be usurped by extremists, and lead to another civil war or further genocide down the road.

 

[delirium]

The international community agreed that they don't like the usage of chemical weapons, correct?

Half assed ntervention will not really solve the civil war either...
Even toppling Assad would leave a power vacuum that would probably be usurped by extremists, and lead to another civil war or further genocide down the road.

Agreeing to a treaty doesn't mean anything if you don't back up our words.

As for your second point, doing nothing will destabilize the region, leading to further wars and genocide down the road.

 

[crozier]

so I'm still a bit confused, are people still buying the "need to intervene to show world you can't use chem weps!!" line? because you realize that just doing airstrikes on chemical plants then going home isn't actually whats gonna happen, lol.

We won't be attacking chemical plants at all. Too big a risk of releasing the stuff into the atmosphere and killing/exposing who knows how many civilians and creating an environmental nightmare. Our explicit goal would be to cripple Assad's military and help the rebels achieve victory. Exactly what we were told the U.S. would NOT be doing not that long ago...

And now that McCain is seemingly on board with the plan despite having reservations, there's a good chance that congress is going to give Obama the go ahead.

 

[boiled goose]

Agreeing to a treaty doesn't mean anything if you don't back up our words.

As for your second point, doing nothing will destabilize the region, leading to further wars and genocide down the road.

I don't disagree with you on the first point. But then the enforcer should be very very clear and consistent with their actions... the problem is that I don't think that is possible.

On the second point, I think it is impossible to stabilize the region, no matter what is done. Removing a dictator in Iraq lead to a civil sectarian war. Afghanistan is still fucked up. Egypt showed promise, yet look at it now. I am just not convinced intervention will do anything.

 

[WARCOCK]

Every country supports allies that are dubious at best. It's called realpolitik. This is why the US also spies on all its allies.


The international community is a community of differing goals and views. They will never agree on anything.


What do you think the US state department has been doing for the past few years? Twiddling their thumbs? Negotiation is never going to solve this civil war. Too much blood has been spilled by both sides.

Solve perhaps not, but they should try to contain it instead of re-igniting the region and bring the turmoil of old back to Lebanon and other neighboring countries. This they can possibly achieve by negotiating with the aforementioned powers, notably Iran. Twiddling their thumbs... i'm sure the state department is great at making concessions in the face of their possibly diminishing interests in the region lol, i dunno you just make it seem like they've exhausted all possibilities with the best intentions for the region in mind. I'm not naive, i understand our role but i was just saying the best outcome for the region as a whole i think would be reached through negotiation instead of intervention. However unlikely that is to happen.

 

[storafötter]

Agreeing to a treaty doesn't mean anything if you don't back up our words.

As for your second point, doing nothing will destabilize the region, leading to further wars and genocide down the road.

What simple minded logic. Doing something like military intervention will suddenly improve the conditions too? Wars do not rebuild countries or create infrastructures, nor educate the people. Short term changes that can cause terrible long term consequences. The western countries have a good pedigree of approving the worst people into power after a power switch.

There are very few success story like West Germany where the opposing countries helped rebuilding the country. If the Syria situation becomes a full blown war effort it is just going to become uglier. If the UN intervenes they surely be contributing to a lot of rapes and misconducts like in the Balkans.

 

[akira28]

Seems like Obama is on the receiving end of everyone's favorite George Bush moment speech. "What I wish I had said about Iraq".