Massacre of Civilians Just Fine

The massacre of children and women continues in Syria, largely with weapons of war employed point-blank against civilian areas.

The Obama administration ‘s heart may be in the right place this time but the president has spent so much time degrading the US military and he is so much in debt to the communist wing of his party that he is paralyzed.

Ron Paul’s libertarians have it easier: The intra-societal conflict in Syria is somehow our fault and it’s none of our business  how many children Assad kills as long as they are Syrian citizens. I am waiting for some Paulista to give me a high moral reason why this is the right moral position to have. Maybe, they are too ashamed to oblige,

My position is clear, always has been: When you have a chance to hurt an enemy while performing a humanitarian mission at little risk, you should not miss it. If we blew up twenty of Assad’s tanks from the air, we would change the balance of power against the dying fascist regime of the Baath part. (Saddam Hussein’s own old party.)

About jacquesdelacroix

I am a sociologist, a short-story writer, and a blogger (Facts Matter and Notes On Liberty) in Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Massacre of Civilians Just Fine

  1. Terry Amburgey says:

    Communist wing? You’re playing fast and loose with your terminology again. Making stuff up as you go along seems to be a particular danger among conservatives. Do you have some sort of source to cite or are you just using words to mean what you want ala Ron Paul?

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Terry: Don’t huff and puff. Watch your blood pressure. Note that I did not write “Communist,” but “communist.” That means authoritarian collectivists. “MoveOn,” for example, was a communist organization. I think it had Troskyst origins because of the familiar way in which it acted. I am not going to do much more than this, find membership cards, for example, because it’s self-evident that there is a communist wing to the Democratic Party. It’s not even new. It just that this president is more indebted to them than previous presidents. It’s our generation’s little victory after thirty-forty years of effort.

  2. Martin Anding says:

    As I see it Assad is not manning any of the guns killing those women and children. Other Syrians are doing the job out of fear or stupidity. That’s the way the military works. Of course some of the military are defecting. Killing friends and relatives can’t go down too easily. So is the problem that we have not invaded Syria or that the military “followers” have lost all empathy? Do you think that blowing up some tanks will return the Syrian military to “sanity” or just make them mad at the U.S.? That didn’t work in Iraq or Afganistan.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Martin:I think blowing up twenty tanks would change the balance of power by causing many of Assad’s soldiers to switch sides and many more to simply go home. Does anyone really believe that Assad will still be in power six months from now? Do, you? Members of the Syrian armed forces have to make the same calculations. Not many want to die for Assad, except a few Alawite generals who really have no choice because of their crimes.

      As I have said before, this country should intervene in a limited manner while offering Assad asylum in Haiti or someplace like that.

      Do you think Russia or China want to go to war for Syria? Iran might but that would only advance the inevitable. That’s a good argument for not intervening this minute although Syrians are dying right and left.

      I urge you to try to remember what you were saying a few short months ago when the US very timidly intervened on the side of the insurgents.

      Personally, I am ashamed because we could help at little risk to ourselves.

  3. Women and children? Some relevant citations would be nice.

    Also, Hamas, your old friends, have turned on Assad. Should we ally with them and against Assad?

    I seem to remember Washington doing the same thing when we allied ourselves with Osama bin Laden…

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      No comment about most of your comment.

      Hamas is my old friend? I am perplexed again. Please. refresh my memory.

      • I was being sarcastic about Hamas.

        However, Hamas has just currently turned on the Assad regime.

        I repeat my question: Should we ally with them and against Assad, just as we once did with Osama bin Laden?

      • jacquesdelacroix says:

        Yes. Same as the US should not have refrained from WWII because there were Fascist elements objectively on the same side.
        And you got your Afghan war history wrong.

  4. Terry Amburgey says:

    Ah, so you are just using words to mean what you want. It is a useful tool. In the future, I will use the term fascist instead of conservative. It has fewer letters and sounds cool.
    @Brandon. Being against Assad doesn’t make us allies with others that are against Assad.

    • Being against Assad doesn’t make us allies with others that are against Assad.

      Yes, of course, good point. My larger argument is that helping to dislodge Assad will certainly contribute to the legitimacy of Hamas and the other Islamists who want Assad gone, just as bin Laden earned a lot of legitimacy from fighting Soviets.

      A quick question for you hawks: are you sure that Assad is as unpopular as the Western media portrays him to be? The minorities in Syria are probably thinking about Iraq and crapping their pants. Likewise, I am sure that not a fair number of regular Syrians would much prefer the fascistic, but stable and otherwise agreeable, Assad regime to one dominated by Islamists associated with Hamas…

      • jacquesdelacroix says:

        The people who are dying in order to carry an anti-Assad sign are just putting us on, right?

        There is a media conspiracy left (but not communist )to right of international scope to paint Assad as a bad guy. I am so glad to be in touch with people who have their own source of foreign information.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Authoritarian collectivists are not communists? What’s a communist (small c) in your book?

      And isn’t your threat a little petulant? And isn’t this what many liberal academic already do without any reason, definitional or otherwise?

  5. Terry Amburgey says:

    As far a s I can tell, the short answer is no, he’s not as unpopular as the media would suggest. If he were he’d be long gone. The Alawites & Christians seem to still be in his camp [not sure about the Druze]. One reason I’m for an earlier intervention is the sectarian situation in Iraq. The more Sunni deaths the harsher the payback is going to be…and they make up what 2/3s of the population? Assad is past the point of no return it’s a question of how long and bitter the civil war is going to be and how many bodies pile up. IMO of course.

  6. Bruce says:

    “I think that based on definition of war criminal and crimes against humanity, there would be an argument to be made that he (Assad) would fit into that category.” Hillary Clinton just said that to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations so you Lefties don’t need to worry about looking bad in front of your Big Sis. Now can we fly a couple of sorties with A-10’s and smoke a couple of tanks before they kill more innocents? Go Warthogs!

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Bruce: We are up against critics who deny obvious facts. There isn’t much I can do about people who dismiss the images given be the media of several countries (4 that I know of, in three language) because they have special sources of information of superior quality which they will not divulge.

  7. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.”
    I defy you to come up with a single elected official affiliated with the Democratic party at either the federal or state level that espouses communism.
    I’m not making a petulent threat, just pointing out that if you use words without regard to their meaning then all parties to the discourse are free to do so. I can understand your defense that ‘liberal academics do it so I can also’. That’s the argument that my daughter is making about why she should be allowed to drink alcohol even though she is under the legal age for another 4 months; the famous everyone else does it argument.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Terry: I am not making the argument that others do it and therefore I may to. I use words carefully but without undue respect for unidentified and obsolete, old dictionary definitions. The one you gave is completely irrelevant to anything, any party, any group that ever called itself “communist.” It’s a definition that would have been current in 1880. Between then and now, something important happened: Several political parties that called themselves “communist” exercised power in different kinds of countries, all with disastrous results. Those cannot be ignored when using the word “communist.” They are meaning buoys.

      There is a left wing of the Democratic Party that wants to socialize a large chunk or all of the economy (collectivists). THey might start with the health industry for example which incorporates 1/5 of the economy and growing. This fraction of the Democratic party is currently on (legislative) record as wanting to force ordinary citizens to buy a service. At the same time, they insist theforced purchase is not a tax The same group approves of government ownership of such a conventional mean of production as the automobile industry. Am I making this up? Does it sound familiar from what you know of the 20th century or were you zonked or have you already forgotten? The same groups demonstrate their contempt for democratic processes by accepting help from shock troop groups such as MOveON and the frankly thuggish ACORN. (Under age prostitution anyone?). Need I remind you of actual MoveON actions? The duly elected leader of the Democratic Party which shelters these extremists is on record as stating that one would have to vote on the bill before being able to read the content of its 2700 pages.

      As I said: Communist= authoritarian (anti-democratic) collectivist.

  8. Terry Amburgey says:

    “XXXXXXXXXX seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.” Which political party fits that description perfectly?

  9. Oooo, this has gotten…kind of good. It is not as stimulating as the threads on my own blog of course (nor is it better than having sex with a skinny brunette), but this is not bad overall.

    Delacroix actually answers one of my questions with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’:

    Yes. Same as the US should not have refrained from WWII because there were Fascist elements objectively on the same side.
    And you got your Afghan war history wrong.

    You’ll have to forgive me if I am ignorant of your (probably imaginary) version of Afghan history. Please, enlighten me on you know about the subject one of these days!

    You wrote something on fascist regimes and Islamist regimes in the Middle East awhile back, and I think now would be a good time to bring it to light, for all the world to see:

    The sad truth is that today, the world, including us, seems to have a choice between murderous violent jihadists and modernizing fascist regimes in Muslim countries. That’s a subject worth discussing. Libertarians don’t. Myself, I chose the fascists because they are not as willing to die to kill us. Also fascist systems sometimes become more representative.

    This was written on January 9th, 2011, before the Arab Spring. Have you changed your mind, Delacroix? There is nothing wrong with changing your mind (especially if you so completely wrong about something), but this statement does beg the question: why are you so inconsistent in your choices of allies in the Middle East?

    You have also stated elsewhere that the U.S. was in the right to support the fascist Hussein against the Islamist Iranian regime, and now you are stating that you would support the Islamist Hamas faction over that of the fascist in Syria?

    Why the change of heart? I suspect it is because you do not care so much about the people of the Middle East as you profess, and that you are much more enamored with a nearly obsolete way of thinking about foreign affairs (state war is going the way of agricultural and manufacturing jobs).

  10. Terry, a far more amiable fellow than Delacroix as far as I can tell (I don’t know such a salty bastard can have so many nice friends!), writes:

    As far a s I can tell, the short answer is no, he’s not as unpopular as the media would suggest. If he were he’d be long gone.

    Absolutely. Delacroix has been watching the Western press, which is very good (the best, in fact) but it still susceptible to bias, especially in foreign affairs.

    The Alawites & Christians seem to still be in his camp [not sure about the Druze]. One reason I’m for an earlier intervention is the sectarian situation in Iraq. The more Sunni deaths the harsher the payback is going to be…and they make up what 2/3s of the population? Assad is past the point of no return it’s a question of how long and bitter the civil war is going to be and how many bodies pile up. IMO of course.

    Great point. My guess is that the Druze are half-in and half-out. Assad has kept a number of prominent Druze close, as was the custom of his father, though they are no doubt watching the Islamist factions with much interest.

    The sectarian violence in Iraq happened after the U.S. toppled Hussein. Would it have happened if the Iraqis had been the ones to overthrow Hussein? It seems to me that such an endeavor would have required cooperation between a number of factions for it to succeed.

    The administration of Justice has never been an easy thing to do. How can you be sure that the toppling of the Assad regime, which probably enjoys far more support than we think (where are the riots in Damascus?), will lead to less sectarian violence once he is gone?

    End all sanctions on the Syrian regime – throw it open to the whole of the world – and you will see the Assad regime crumble like a cookie. Bomb the regime, and you will see it struggle to the last breath, and the bad blood between the factions will then look just as it did in Iraq. And what replaces Assad might just be worse than al-Maliki in Baghdad…

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      I agree that Terry is more amiable than I am. Other than this, I have no comment. Let your discussion stand on its own merits.

  11. Terry Amburgey says:

    At the risk of inflating Jacques ego to an even more Brobdingnagian size I can tell you why such a salty bastard has many many nice friends: he has many sterling qualities that aren’t obvious in the limited interaction possible on a blog. I’m not objective of course, Jacques was a mentor during my doctoral education, a colleauge afterwards and for a very brief time, my boss. Not my superior of course but my superordinate🙂
    The short version: salty bastards add zest to life.
    Re the Druze, recently Walid Jumblatt in Lebanon has been making sounds that are anti-Assad but other leaders have been saying ‘he doesn’t speak for us’ so it’s hard to say.
    What replaces Assad may or may not be better than al-Maliki but it’ll be Sunni and not Shia which severs the connection to Iran, I see that as a plus in its own right.

  12. Terry,

    The short version: salty bastards add zest to life.

    Agreed!

    What replaces Assad may or may not be better than al-Maliki but it’ll be Sunni and not Shia which severs the connection to Iran, I see that as a plus in its own right.

    Just two things: 1) How can you be so sure a Western-backed ouster will sever the connection to Tehran? Hamas, after all, is now involved in the fracas, and they’re on the anti-Assad side. 2) Saddam Hussein was supported by Washington because he was anti-Tehran, too. Ooops.

  13. Terry Amburgey says:

    I can’t be sure, but I’m willing make what I consider informed guesses. Just how informed may be a matter of dispute🙂 The eventual winners will be the Sunni majority. I don’t think they will soon forget Iran’s support of their mass murder. For that matter, I don’t think they will harbor warm feelings towards Russia or China because of their security council vetos. Another bonus in my view.

    • The eventual winners will be the Sunni majority.

      Perhaps, but even this is true, are we going to want another Sunni government that punishes those who oppose them, or are we going to want a Sunni government that works with others?

      I don’t think they will soon forget Iran’s support of their mass murder.

      Would having an anti-Iranian government be good for stability and prosperity in the region? I guess what I’m trying to get at with you hawks is what you truly want in the Middle East. I think you actually answer this for me, though:

      I don’t think they will harbor warm feelings towards Russia or China because of their security council vetos. Another bonus in my view.

      Indeed. I suspect that stability and prosperity in the Middle East is one of the last things hawks truly want in the Middle East. Your advocacy of war, wherever it is, is not due to humanitarian concerns, but to an unrelenting hatred of enemies that no longer exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s