Did I just stop by DU and find people AGAINST military action on Syria?

[Barack_America]

The DU community now condones chemical murder of innocent civilians?

Please enlighten me how such a position is acceptable.

I personally don't care if Assad and Putin are BFF's, there are lines regarding what is and is not acceptable to humanity. There is no doubt that a chemical attack on civilians bolts across these lines. I suspect Putin is fully aware of this as well (politically, at least).

In my opinion, military action against Assad would certainly be the best, and possibly, the only legitimate use of the tax money I have invested in our arsenal of cruise missiles, drones, etc.

Plan it carefully, then let it rain. Humanity said "never again" following the Holocaust. Let's hope we meant it.

[Deep13]

1. How do you know it was Assad?

Anyway, the "never again" ship sailed along time ago.

[Barack_America]

8. You believe Russia's excuse.

It was Assad because it could be no else.

You believe the rebels are dependent on us for light arms, but possess chemical weapons? You really believe that, if they had access to such weapons, that their first target would be themselves?

[SwampG8r]

10. the 'rebels"

are the same "terrorists" that we supposedly are trying to squash aren't they?

[Jesus Malverde]

156. The same people who killed our troops in Iraq...nt

[Deep13]

23. Haven't heard Russia's excuses.

Assad is the last person who would use chemical weapons. He is winning the war and does not want to invite any more foreign intervention than there already is. It could be the rebels, of course. There are plenty of places from where they could have gotten it including captured government sources. The USA could have supplied it. The CIA has done worse. Likewise, it could have been Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, Iran, or even Russia. Maybe they want to be rid of Assad, but cannot back down from supporting him publicly. Use of chemical weapons would invite foreign intervention and end Assad. That is motive for any anti-Assad party.

Anyway, things are rarely as simple as you suggest.

[leveymg]

81. We don't know who's responsible, but we do know who might benefit by this atrocity - the opposition

So, why should the U.S. play right into the hands of the most likely perpetrators?

Think about it.

[bvar22]

159. Have you never heard of "False Flag" provocation used to justify Military Interventions??

Anyone who buys the Government's version of events to justify Military Response
hasn't been paying attention for the last 60 years.


[font size=3]
Trust Us.
They are evil dictators who kill their own people !
If you're not FOR the WAR in
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
[font size=5] Syria,[/font]

you're WITH
The Communists
AlQaeda
The Terrorists
Saddam
Qaddafi
[font size=5] Assad

Terror! Terror! Terror!
Evil Dictators! Booga...Booga
USA....USA...USA
[/font]

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

184. +1

[Carolina]

205. Touché, bvar22

Your post should be billboard!

[SQUEE]

206. BRAVO!!

[Luminous Animal]

2. Who are we fighting for

[Art_from_Ark]

56. Don't ask me, I don't give a damn

Next stop is Syria-nam

[Carolina]

84. I'm with you, Art

this fucking country is falling apart and going to hell. All it knows is war and guns.

It can spend resources on this shit but cut meals on wheels at home
It can spend resources on this shit but cut Headstart at home
It can spend resources on this shit but not on education at home
It can spend resources on this shit but not on infrastructure at home
It can spend resources on this shit but not on real jobs programs at home
It can spend resources on this shit but cut social security (which is what a chained CPI does) at home

[Art_from_Ark]

93. My mom and I were talking about exactly those things the other day

That was our sentiment exactly.

[Jesus Malverde]

147. +1...nt

[steve2470]

105. totally agree with you

We've had 3 QUAGMIRES now: Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Isn't 3 enough for us to learn ? The Syria conflict is a civil war, made much worse by outside intervention. We need to stay out, as terrible as the war is and has been. President Obama gets my approval and respect for getting us out of Iraq, finally, and Afghanistan next year.

[reformist2]

94. And even if we got involved, the chance of actually making a net positive contrib is close to zero.

Look how well we 'liberated' Iraq.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. Geez can't somoene else be the world's police for once? Why do we have to be in perpetual war?

There will always be bad guys who hurt people. Does that mean we must be at war at all times all through the course of history? The UN and NATO should really be the ones leading these interventions. If we are to play a small role in a coalition put together by NATO that is fine, but we need to stop leading the charge into war every single time. Who's next? Iran? North Korea? When will it ever stop?

[steve2470]

19. agreed 100% nt

[Barack_America]

20. If you're comfortable passing the torch to Russia and China.

Unfortunately, there really aren't any other players that have even a mild interest in human rights (and, unfortunately, I have to rate our own interests as "mild", but at least it's something.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. Russia and China are not the only countries in the UN. There are lots and lots and lots of countries

in the UN. Why do we always have to be the ones at war?

[Barack_America]

36. Unfortunately, it's the superpowers who call the shots.

And I truly do mean "unfortunately". We'd all be better off if the UN had more power. As it stands, it's still a game of "line up behind your superpower of choice". With no better option available, I'll be standing with Western Europe, Canada, etc. behind the US.

[Ken Burch]

62. Which means you've given up on EVER ending the age of war.

Congratulations. You've become an imperialist. Very "pukka" and all that.

[MADem]

70. Wow, what a helpful post, NOT. Hey, anyone who objects to little kids getting gassed....

you're an IMPERIALIST, because someone on DU sez so!

[eridani]

73. That is worse than blowing them up with drones how? n/t

[MADem]

85. Who is "them?"

"Them" in this case is ARSENALS....weapons caches.....bunkers full of gas and weapons.

"They" don't have feelings. The people getting gassed do, and the feeling they have is that of being painfully suffocated.

Frankly, I'd rather see a few weapons storage facilities go boom, courtesy of a few cruise missiles, with the imprimatur of the UN, than have to watch more images of little children twitching and gasping for air as their little lips turn blue and their skin turns grey and mottled, and know that we stood by and did nothing.

But you go right on ahead, please--pull up your sanctimony and stand tall and proud on it, 'cuz that's what ya do....

[Bluenorthwest]

92. March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld:

''We have analyzed -- every single target has been analyzed, and the weapon has been carefully selected and the direction in which the weapon is delivered has been carefully examined, and the time of day when there is greatest prospect of minimizing any innocent lives. It is an enormously impressive effort, a humane effort.''

Your words reminded me of Don's. The human war where no one really dies....

[MADem]

172. We aren't lead dog, here, and Rummy is retired.

The Secretary General of the UN is the one pitching a fit about the images of those twitching, gasping little kids. This isn't about "we have analyzed..." -- there's video. Watch it, if you can stomach it, and then make snarky, stupid comments like the ones you just made.

There's a UN Inspection Team IN SYRIA right now that can investigate this matter.

My words remind you of Don's? What a shitty, stinky, nasty-ass thing for you to say.

Here's my objection--I saw a film of children who were plainly poisoned. I want to get to the bottom of that. You, apparently, don't give a fuck.

How nice that YOU have your sanctimonious little priorities in order. I'm glad they aren't mine.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

139. You're one of the few who recommended this post

What are you still doing here? If you feel so strongly about getting involved in another slaughter, put that damned keyboard down and get busy.

[bvar22]

162. LOL!

[MADem]

170. You are obnoxious and rude, and proudly so, too. You're also dead wrong--as usual.

Apparently you are a cheerleader for gassing little kids, then, based on your comments?

That's the only conclusion I can come to.

FWIW, I don't support any 'boots on the ground' operations in Syria, so your little snark--like every uninformed comment you've made to me today--is yet another one of your Major Fails.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

189. You're the one who likes to play old and wise

And I can understand and appreciate that, to an extent. But when old and wise decides its time to get involved in another war in the Middle East, I find myself hoping that when I get to your current age, in 15 years or so, I'm not "old and wise" enough to cheerleader for yet another war. You like to play hardball in GD, that's no secret. It cuts both ways, and you'd do well to keep that in mind instead of feigning being taken aback when someone challenges your position.

And if the only conclusion you can come to is that I want to see babies gassed, you're not very perceptive.

[MADem]

191. I don't "play" anything.

And you don't have the right to keep making shit up about what I think and believe.

You aren't telling the truth. I do not support US boots on the ground in Syria, and I've said that dozens of times on this board. You keep inventing this bullshit and flinging it out there that I do--it's rude, nasty and false, what you are doing, and the fact that you keep doing it when I repeatedly disabuse you of the horseshit you are spreading is disruptive and uncivil--to put it mildly.

ONE MORE TIME:

Your misrepresentations of my POV are tiresome and false.

I am not "cheerleading for yet another war" and you are flat out full of shit to suggest that.

Shame on you. You don't have the right to make crap up about me.

You are disgraceful and disruptive.

Go make up lies about someone else, I'm sick of your shit. Your juvenile efforts to stir the pot are blatant, and what they say about you isn't anything you should be proud of.

[Ken Burch]

61. There's no moral difference anymore between U.S. wars and Russian and Chinese wars.

Christ, stop drinking the "American exceptionalist'' Koolaid.

It's the same thing when ANY country intervenes in another country now. Our killing isn't any more Christ-like than Putin's are.

[rainy]

78. Like the USA cares about human rights ha ha ha you are killing me.

[karynnj]

122. What about at least waiting for the UN to investigate?

Not to mention, IF the Syrian government actually did this, that may change the position of Russia. Maybe Lavrov/Kerry diplomacy could help the Syrians create an alternative government -- rejecting the worst of both sides.

Read Dempsey's comments, it doesn't look like that there is a good alternative to back.

[NuclearDem]

4. Speaking of "never again"

We're discussing military intervention in a Middle East country based on specious WMD claims and while weapons inspectors are in the country.

[MotherPetrie]

5. what fucking pompous self-righteous bullshit

Being opposed to yet another open-ended unwinnable war in the Middle East is not the same as condoning chemical murder of civilians.

[Barack_America]

11. So, what's your diplomatic strategy?

Are we ever beyond the bounds of diplomacy, in your opinion? If so, when, if not now?

[MotherPetrie]

43. Stay the fuck out of it.

But if you're eager for another war then I don't see why you shouldn't head on over and offer your services.

[Carolina]

88. Touche, MP

let the OP join up and ship out!

[JimDandy]

117. Yep. And sign up for combat if you're a DU woman drumming for war. n/t

[Vincardog]

187. I am against all current foreign US military action. Your OP does not call for diplomatic action,

you called for raining down our HUGE stockpile of Drones and Cruise missiles.
How about a little consistency?

[rug]

135. + 50,000

[progressoid]

202. +1

[bhikkhu]

6. I have doubts about unilateral military action bypassing the UN

Obama is not bush, and much of humanity said "never again" after the Iraq war.

I do understand Assad has some pretty unmovable friends in the UN, but even though the situation is very bad, ignoring international law can have lasting unintended consequences. So...doubts.

[MADem]

173. I don't think there's any plan to bypass the UN.

There is a weapons inspection team in Syria now--they should be able to bring some clarity to this issue.

[bhikkhu]

198. Even then, the security council would have to approve any action

and it would take a pretty strong case to get China and Russia to go along with it...there's definitely nothing easy about getting into a war these days.

[limpyhobbler]

7. We might just make it worse.

[ConcernedCanuk]

29. That ain't true - did pretty good in Iraq and Afghanistan

.
.
.

everything is all peaceful there now . . .

oh, wait a minute . . . .

I'll rethink that.

CC

[SwampG8r]

9. i am against military action in syria

I don't care about putin
we do not have the moral authority to point out other countries failings when we have prisoners without sentences and use torture to secure information
I am tired of spending human and financial capital in faraway lands where "freedom" or "democracy"will never appear
we have problems of our own and until we have our own house in order we have no right to demand others have theirs in order
we have wasted the wealth of a generation in any measure by sending our children and our money to be lost
beat your swords into plowshares and then plow up ground for new schools and hospitals
use them to break ground on places all the veterans you create can find some peace and healing

[Barack_America]

13. That's an interesting list of grievances to equate with the use of chemical weapons...

...on civilians.

I disagree.

Perhaps then we had no right to join the fight against Nazi Germany given our civil rights track record at home?

[SwampG8r]

17. our civil rights record

at the time was not good but it had hitler beat all to shit
and that's a false equivalency anyways
I repeat I do not support military intervention in Syria
not while we have cities going bankrupt and school districts closing
not while we have waterboarding and gitmo

[Barack_America]

30. Our civil rights record now is no good, but it has Assad's beat to shit.

Our economy now is just as fragile as it was then, though I agree there was definitely an economic upside to WWII that does not exist now. Still I would argue that the humanistic duty to avenge this attack (and prevent others) supersedes economic interest. If we fail to do so, Russia, Iran and China win and effectively become the world's "deciders" regarding human rights. We don't have much of a track record to stand on at the moment, but it sure as hell is better than theirs.

[SwampG8r]

31. sounds like a job for the un

or if assad is so dangerous maybe his neighbors
those most endangered by him
can lead this
we have no dog is this hunt and I am tired of paying for other peoples hunting parties while people are thrown from their homes and children are forced from their schools

[steve2470]

38. I agree wholeheartedly about the UN nt

[Barack_America]

39. It'll still be our troops and our money even if action is through the UN.

I'm not sure where you think the UN gets its forces and supplies from. Of course I'd much rather operate via an international coalition. I'm just personally willing for the US to go it alone at this point if Assad's allies in the UN continue to insist on protecting him. There will be sacrifice of American resources and, potentially, blood regardless.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. The UN does use troops from elsewhere

For instance, this from yesterday:

UN troops in DR Congo shell M23 rebels near Goma

UN troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo have launched an offensive, shelling positions held by rebels near the eastern city of Goma.

The UN was responding to shelling from M23 rebels on Goma on Thursday, a UN spokesman said. Congolese officials say five civilians in the city died.

A M23 spokesman told the BBC it had not attacked the city, blaming the army for provoking the fighting.

A new UN intervention brigade is deploying to the area to tackle rebels.

UN troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo have launched an offensive, shelling positions held by rebels near the eastern city of Goma.

The UN was responding to shelling from M23 rebels on Goma on Thursday, a UN spokesman said. Congolese officials say five civilians in the city died.

A M23 spokesman told the BBC it had not attacked the city, blaming the army for provoking the fighting.

A new UN intervention brigade is deploying to the area to tackle rebels.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23816186

True, it's more likely that, given the Syrian government has been armed by Russia, the American or Western European military would be used against it. But the UN typically used forces other than Americans.

[freshwest]

155. Whoa, I don't usually think of the UN as launching offensive actions. Not that they don't see their

share of combat, but it's just not what I thought of in terms of their 'peace keeping' role. Thanks for the new information.

The Birchers /Infowarriors must be going nuts over this as we speak, their fantasy UN troop meme. Well, nuttier, I guess.

What's been going on in the Congo for a long time is unspeakable.

[MADem]

193. You are confusing the UN with NATO. We give MONEY to UN , and are cheap with the troops.

We only have about a hundred in blue helmets as of last month. We're generous with the cash, though. The number of boots will go up and down, but we don't give huge numbers to UN efforts.

India, Pakistan, some of the African nations are very generous with bodies for the cause....

When it comes to NATO, though, we're doing the heavy lifting.

[SwissTony]

99. Em, didn't the US join WW2 after an incident at Pearl Harbor?

Nothing to do with a comparison between US and German civil rights at the time.

[NuclearDem]

107. Nailed it.

WWII was never a crusade. If the plight of the people being slaughtered under Hitler was the concern, the Allies wouldn't have turned away shiploads of refugees. It was a response to Axis aggression and finishing what the first didn't.

[stevenleser]

165. I agree. No thank you. A sectarian war with dozens of factions, 90% of whom dont like us anyway

Let someone else do it. Let someone else do the next 12-20 humanitarian interventions.

[Butterbean]

182. I agree with every word of this post. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. Being against an attempt to start WWIII is not part and parcel with excusing what is going on.

Note that Syria are Iran's #1 ally. Note that the insane government of Israel desperately want war with Iran (who are also Russian allies, who are allied with China) no matter how they can get it to happen. Note that the US will apparently back Israel no matter what. An enormous recipe for utter disaster.

Fix the problem without it going as far out there as it possibly can.

[Barack_America]

15. This is the most convincing argument against thus far.

Suffice it to say that every alliance has its limits. I am hoping that a surgical excision, if you will, of Assad can be agreed to by all. The use of chemical weapons is so universally understood as unacceptable that it provides political cover to both those interested in pursuing military action and those willing to allow it.

This is my hope.

[Fire Walk With Me]

18. I'm with you there. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

44. Political Cover?

The use of chemical weapons is so universally understood as unacceptable that it provides political cover to both those interested in pursuing military action and those willing to allow it.
This is my hope.

So this is your "WMDs" or "twin-towers" that you can use to validate war?

[AverageJoe90]

27. WWIII? Are you fucking kidding? Even Putin wouldn't be that brazenly stupid!

China & Russia are both run by crooks, and worse than ours at that, 'tis true. But even Putin wouldn't be crazy enough to put 160 million Russian lives at risk over a couple of pathetic dictatorships that don't even see his nation as anything more than a partner of convenience, at best(Zhirinovsky MIGHT, but he's not likely to win office at any point, thankfully); and China's economy would be doomed the moment they even TRIED to fly troops to Syria to attack ours.....let alone threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons; simply put, they need us too much.

If anyone would be eager to start a regional NBC war, it'd be the fascists(not the people, mind you!) in Syria & Iran and the crazies in Israel's military.....Russia and China wouldn't dare risk their entire nations over such a hopeless & pointless clusterfuck, and neither would Obama for that matter.....this isn't 1983, folks, you think people would have moved on from Cold War thinking by now......

[Junkdrawer]

91. People said the same things in 1914....

World Wars start with miscalculation. Usually by a declining-but-still-dominant power attempting to grab as much as they can while they can.

[jessie04]

121. Exactly.

.

[AverageJoe90]

175. No, Jessie. Not exactly. Read my reply to Junkdrawer.

[AverageJoe90]

176. Here's the problem, Junk: this isn't 1914.

For at least a couple of decades before that fateful summer, tensions were slowly but surely building between the various European powers over various issues that would make the current conflict in Syria seem like a cakewalk.....many Americans might have been in denial, maybe, but many Europeans saw a conflict coming long before it happened; they just didn't know it'd blow up into WWI, true, but many DID see something on the horizon.

The situation now, however, is rather different from 1914.

[Junkdrawer]

188. History never repeats, But it rhymes...

Big issue then was that Britain was trying to deny Germany the Berlin to Baghdad railway....

Big issue now is that NATO is attempting to deny Russia their sole Mediterranean port....

[AverageJoe90]

190. Apples and oranges.

Big issue then was that Britain was trying to deny Germany the Berlin to Baghdad railway....

Though I'd never admittedly heard of this before, I doubt it was one of the biggest issues(probably would have if it was). Hell, the Balkans had been a trouble spot long before then, and that's where it started. The Middle East, on the other hand, had only a secondary role in WWI and next to none in WWII outside of Northeast Africa(the north African campaign, mainly in Libya + Egypt).

And finally, one other thing to consider is that there were several prior wars, mostly involving Israel, that had the potential to be far worse than this current conflict, given the geopolitical situation of the time(yes, all of them were in the Cold War era), and even the Yom Kippur War didn't have that high of a chance of blowing up into WWIII, even with Israel's willingness to use its nukes if the PM deemed it necessary, and the heightened tension between Nixon & Brezhnev for a time.

[Fire Walk With Me]

151. Consider how things escalate and egos flare and attack must be met with attack.

A single terrorist suitcase nuke in the right city, no matter from whose side...this is what Netanyahu and his insane government want.

[TexasTowelie]

14. If the only resources expended were drones and cruise missiles,

then you might have a point. However, once America enters an engagement of that nature it usually means that we're all in which means risking the lives of our soldiers.

I don't believe anyone at DU condones mass atrocities, but we are weary of entering battles when our intervention could lead to an escalation of the conflict rather than its demise.

[cthulu2016]

16. This seems a cynical rhetorical argument

since its only hope of being persuasive is that some reader accept, as the starting point, the bogus framing that "condone" and "military action" are antonyms.

[peacebird]

82. Much as it surprises me, i agree with cthulu2016 on this one

[Bluenorthwest]

97. More than cynical, it is weaponized rhetoric. The words themselves are an agrressive demand for

war. 'If you refuse to kill the baby, they will kill the baby'. That's the entire position of the OP, reduced to the core. The rest is just retreads of Don Rumsfled quotes about precision bombs and a week long Iraqi war.
I wonder if the 'gas attack' is like the incubator infants they said were murdered by Kuwait? That was a full blown lie generated to create what the OP calls 'political cover' for making more war.
I suppose there is a case to be made for action, but this OP does not make such a case, the OP just slams words against heads.

[PowerToThePeople]

21. And why does this surprise you?

I believe we should be against ALL military actions. I do not think I am alone in this belief.

[LeftyMom]

22. I assume by "let it rain" you mean drop bombs on people.

Considering that the people involved can barely tell who's on what side, I don't know how you expect anyone to do so from 10,000 feet, or from a computer screen in Florida. Thus I find myself wondering if you're bloodthirsty or exceptionally shortsighted.

[SwampG8r]

26. well it is a high def screen nt

[steve2470]

24. I'm assuming you're in the Armed Forces or have a friend or loved one who is ?

If not...then consider this: My son turns 18 in January. Yes, it's a volunteer force at this point. I do not see him joining up. However, just because my son won't have his body on the line, doesn't mean I don't have compassion for other people's children and grandchildren.

Is it worth my son (or someone else's son or daughter) dying in Syria ? No. Have chemical weapons been used in Syria ? Probably, but it's unknown so far who used them. Fundamentally, that is a grave issue for the Syrian people themselves to solve. I reject the neo-con argument (and its predecessor argument that got us in Vietnam, Korea and both Gulf Wars) that we have to be the policeperson of the world.

Unless you have a child or grandchild who might die over there (or a friend or other relative's kid), then I don't think you have much room to debate. Yes, you have free speech, and my free speech very strongly disagrees with yours.

I'm not debating this with you, because both our minds are made up, obviously.

[AverageJoe90]

32. I can agree, but what about Russia?

Sure, I don't see WWIII breaking out unlike some here, but the Russians haven't exactly been innocent, either, as they've been playing around with Assad from time to time.....if they were really that concerned about America's police role, Putin would have taken care of Al-Assad a long time ago, just like China's threatened with N. Korea as of late.....but they didn't.

If we don't play policeman, then there's a chance that Putin will.....which is why I'd like us to stay out as much as possible. Let Emperor Putin have his fun; Moscow will be sorry they did. Not that it would be a good outcome(especially if Putin wakes up one morning to find that a Syrian or Iranian nuke is about to detonate over Red Square......), but it'd be a good lesson for us, at least.

[steve2470]

34. I agree with you about the consequences if Russia gets involved

I see Syria as another quagmire which has no ending for many years to come, unless someone uses nuclear weapons (which I'm very confident won't happen). It would be another Afghanistan for Putin, and it would earn the Russians much contempt in that region for getting involved.

Unless one side wins fairly soon, I only see a UN-mediated solution working.

[Recursion]

25. What an idiotic thing to say

The DU community now condones chemical murder of innocent civilians?

Right. The two options are "condoning military action by the US" and "condoning the chemical murder of innocent civilians".

This is a matter of war and peace, to be discussed by serious adults. Idiotic posts like that don't help.

What are the international ramifications of US military action? Would it help Syrian civilians or make it worse? Would it advance or impede US security? Would it advance or impede US interests? What would the impact be on Lebanon? Turkey? Iraq? Israel? The Palestinian Territories? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Bahrain?

Do you have answers to those questions?

[awoke_in_2003]

40. +1000. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

102. And I find myself seconding Recursion, this is a serious matter and should be addressed as such

At least the OP did not use the 'rofl' emoticon. 'Let it rain' sounds like the ravings of a person who has no personal stake in any outcome.

[Mnpaul]

152. That statement sounds a lot like

a repeat of "Either you are with us or with the terrorists"

Hey, lets leap before looking again.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Yes, and I hope you always do.

Even if it is wrong and misguided in a particular situation, pacifism and/or just plain disagreement over "this" military assault should always have a place here at DU.

[ucrdem]

35. The case against Assad has never been compelling.

And these latest chemical weapon claims are not compelling either. Personally I think stepping up US military intervention would be a huge mistake and hope it doesn't happen.

[Scootaloo]

37. Please provide your proof of Assad's guilt to the UN. I'm sure they'll appreciate it

Also, bombing the shit out of Syria, killing tens of thousands of people, isn't exactly any sort of justice for the thousand-odd killed in this attack, nor does it place any moral strength on us if we did so.

[Bluenorthwest]

104. Perhaps the OP can get Colin Powell to go show the 'proof' to the UN.

That worked last time. Last time it was 'mushroom clouds' and 'chemical weapons factories'.

[Scootaloo]

110. Aluminum tubes! Evidence of absence! Destroy the world five times over!

[HangOnKids]

185. How about the "clip art"

Bring the clip art, it was so embarrassing the first time try it again!

[Initech]

41. Our military budget is 600 times that of the next 50 countries combined.

The last thing we need is to wage another war so the powers that be in the military industrial complex can make profit.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

42. So I take it OP is enlisted?

It's easy to send others off. If you're so giddy for war I hope you're going down to the recruitment office.

[Union Scribe]

45. And then, while we're in the neighborhood,

we can spread some democracy in Egypt!

[quinnox]

46. this argument reminds me of the Iraq war invasion talking point

“If you aren't for invading Iraq, you must be sympathetic with or pro-Saddam!“ It was a dumb argument then, and its a dumb argument now.

[The Straight Story]

47. If folks were being gassed in Israel and people were against intervening

I wonder what folks would say then?

It's different when people are brown and a religion we can easily vilify (some faiths you can't say negative things about or you are called anti-whatever).

And it is not like people in the ME have not been subject to many many years of being attacked, thrown out of their countries, overthrown by western governments, etc.

Gas a few thousand here and there, stay out of it, and next thing you know it is millions dying and people are asking "Why didn't we do something earlier???"

[ucrdem]

50. Intervening on behalf of the gassers would be unwise.

The problem here is that it's unlikely Assad would do something so conspicuously stupid and very likely that some member of the loose coalition of mercenary forces opposing him would. Apparently they have before, per PressTV at least:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/19/294362/chemical-weapons-used-by-militants/

So if we step in now we'll likely be assisting the gassers.

[The Straight Story]

52. And people didn't think hitler would invade poland, etc, because it was stupid.

Maybe we should just sit back and do nothing for years and see how that goes. Might be a better use of our time to hang out and argue over current tv shows, how McDonald's sucks, and whatever the latest outrage of the day we encounter that upsets us.

Would that the issues most affecting people in this world - from this to hunger, sickness, child labor, etc - got as much time here and posts as some other topics.

[ucrdem]

54. But how is Assad Hitler?

Assad is a western-trained secularist and technocrat, the kind we used to like. In fact we did like him until all of a sudden we didn't. That hardly adds up to a credible rationale for invasion.

[The Straight Story]

75. How was hitler like hitler at the start? He didn't just kill millions in one weekend

And not saying we should invade, in this day and age we have a lot of options (and should work with the UN/etc).

*IF* it turns up he is using chemical weapons on people that is a concern for everyone.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. The war against the Nazis was not about their 'killing millions' it was about their territorial

aggression. Invading Poland, annexing and taking land, country by country. From the start, long before engagement, Hitler was breaking laws, treaties and oppressing people in Germany. Of course in 36 the US cooperated in making the Olympics comfy for Nazis by showing up all happy and then preventing our own Jewish athletes from competing for Hitlers pleasure. The same IOC that today adores Russia, where Obama says we HAVE to have the Olympics, said in 36 that Germany did no discriminate against Jews or anyone and that rumors to that effect were due to a conspiracy to harm the Nazis, IOC said it was a conspiracy between Jews and the press.
But you were saying what now?

[liberal_at_heart]

53. I understand your concern. Not all of us are lopsidedly pro-Isreal. I can't stand that they keep

building illegal settlements in Palestinian territory. But I am also very weary of war. We've been at war for so long now and we haven't accomplished that much. And the western countries have never been that good at intervening in Middle Eastern affairs. We usually end up leaving them a bigger mess than when we went in to help.

[Carolina]

89. It wouldn't matter to me if it was Israel

because Israel is part of the problem and has no moral standing either considering its treatment of the Palestinians.

What part of the US needs to clean up its own decaying (literally & morally) house don't people get.

Besides, war is not the answer. What has been gained by a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan: death, destruction, depletion (our treasury and soul as a nation), decay and despair!

And spare me the holocaust analogy; everything is not the holocaust. Besides, the US has its own: what it did (and still does) to Native Americans and 200+ years of slavery and Jim Crow laws. Not a honorable legacy.

[dtom67]

48. Just bought stock in Haliburton,Dyncorp and Boeing....

So let's go kill some fucking Arabs! They are all terrorists, anyways. ( or they soon will be terrorists, after some good old American ordinance blows their fucking children's bodies into hamburger ). I'll make a KILLING ( financially ). I'm gonna need that money, since our ever-increasing war debt will devour Social Security and all other social spending in the future. Imagine the dividends I'll get ; nothing spells "profit" like the blood of brown people in the Middle East. We can Arm the rebels ( terrorists?), then when they democratically elect a Muslim Leader , we can go back in and kill the rest. I'll be set for life.

What a fucking load of bullshit


Please do not tell me that I must accept killing more innocents as the moral high ground in this situation. There may not be an easy answer, but I'll be damned if anyone is going to convince me that I should get innocent blood on my hands to avenge innocent blood.

Please enlighten ME on how we pay for this new killing of men , women and children?

In my opinion, the war profiteers have been spoiling for some new revenue ( Killing ) and they hope they have found an excuse to turn on the cash cow.

The money to feed that cash cow has to be borrowed in our name. The war profiteers get the money and we get the debt and the inevitable blow-back in terms of increased terrorist recruitment.

Gee, how can I pass up on THAT deal.

If the first paragraph seems graphic or too harsh, just remember that it is merely YOUR position , stripped of its polite facade.....

[jakeXT]

68. Get in at the bottom

[dtom67]

194. oh well....

Easy come, easy go .....

[SleeplessinSoCal]

49. We the people who frequent these pages have undergone somewhat abusive treatment

by each other from one topic to another. How on earth do you survive the attacks flying daily around here without it carrying over to perception of real world atrocities? I feel it damages nerves and eventually the senses. Thick skins do that. And developing one is essential to surviving DU.

[MFrohike]

51. I'm curious

We heard all about "red lines" this past spring when Assad was supposed to have done it, then it all fizzled. Why should I believe he actually did it this time?

And, while I'm asking questions, why exactly is this America's problem? Sorry to be the cold-hearted realist here, but exactly how do the people of my country benefit from intervention? What foreseeable consequences would result and what unintended consequences could result? I don't want platitudes and aphorisms, I want real answers. I'm not interested in manipulative appeals to emotion through the language of morality, but a real calculus of what good this will do. Above all, I don't want foreign policy based on feelings, vague visions, and self-righteous outrage. We had enough of that under Bush.

[Hissyspit]

55. Why in fuck would you be surprised DU is against military action??

Really? You joined DU the same week I did.

"Plan it carefully."

Yeah, that always works. Do you have any idea how mixed a population is Syria for an air war?

Maybe it would "work," but why would you be surprised people HERE are skeptical?

[Warren DeMontague]

57. We don't have the money to do it. Maybe if we cut back on cancer granny-arresting SWAT teams

http://www.alternet.org/masked-cops-raid-home-terminally-ill-medical-marijuana-patient





but I don't know if we can afford our deluxe level of high-quality domestic militarization to lock down the millions of dangerous pot smokers,

AND more foreign intervention at the same time. Austerity

[Recursion]

67. Nothing's as Keynsian as a war (nt)

[newfie11]

58. Syria was one of the 7 countries Bush wanted to go into

While I would hope Obama has nothing to do with this, I sure wouldn't put it past the CIA.
They've had lots of practice in South America destabilizing governments and Syria was one Bush and company wanted.

[Ken Burch]

59. Problem is, NONE of the armed factions would be better.

A U.S. was against Syria(which would also have to end up being an U.S. war against Iran and Russia)would be unwinnable and, even if it weren't, wouldn't possibly lead to anything better.

Switching the country from Assad to what could only be another right-wing dictatorship(no rebel group in Syria is advocating anything democratic, progressive or even close to secular)is pointless.

We have to accept the fact that we have no moral right to use force anywhere in the Middle East. No one there wants us to use it, and Iraq proves that no good comes of it.

[Ken Burch]

60. That OP sounds like something the Imperial War Office at Whitehall could have come out with in 1914.

You all but threw in the "bayoneting Belgian babies" canard.

Face reality...war doesn't work anymore, and no war can ever again be a "good war".

[cali]

63. "Never Again" happens on a regular basis.

What is the Congo if not genocide?

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. Liberals arguing that the U.S. should give weapons to Syrian rebels underestimate Assad's power

I strongly recommend reading this article in salon.com by Gary Kamiya - It is a number of months old, But the basic points still apply. I think this might help you understand the situation a little bit better:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

snips:

This is not a knee-jerk left-wing response. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor does it have anything to do with the proxy war between the U.S. and its allies and Iran and its allies. It is not driven by pacifism or opposition to all war. All U.S. wars are not axiomatically foolish, evil or driven by brutal self-interest (although most of them since World War II have been). The airstrikes on Kosovo and the Libya campaign were justified (although the jury is still out on the latter intervention). If arming the Syrian opposition would result in fewer deaths and a faster transition to a peaceful, open, democratic society, we should arm them.

That analysis has been provided by a number of in-depth reports, most notably a new study by the International Crisis Group, as well as the excellent on-the-ground reporting of Nir Rosen for Al-Jazeera. The bottom line is simple. The war has become a zero-sum game for Assad. If he loses, he dies. But the only way he can lose is if he is abandoned by his crucial external patron, Russia, which is extremely unlikely to happen absent some slaughter so egregious that Moscow feels it has to cut ties with him. Assad has sufficient domestic support to hold on for a long time, and a huge army that is not likely to defect en masse. Under these circumstances, giving arms to the rebels, however much it may make conscience-stricken Western observers feel better, will simply make the civil war much bloodier and its outcome even more chaotic and dangerous.

The key point concerns Assad’s domestic support. Contrary to the widely held belief that most Syrians support the opposition and are opposed to the Assad regime, Syrians are in fact deeply divided. The country’s minorities – the ruling Alawites, Christians and Druze – tend to support the regime, if only because they fear what will follow its downfall. (The grocery on my corner in San Francisco is owned by a Christian Syrian from a village outside Damascus. When I asked him what he thought about what was going on in his country, he said, “It’s not like what you see on TV. Assad is a nice guy. He’s trying to do the right thing.”) As Rosen makes clear, Syria’s ruling Alawite minority is the key to Assad’s survival: Absent an outside invasion, the regime will not fall unless the Alawites turn on it. But the Alawites fear reprisals if the Sunni-dominated opposition, some of whose members have threatened to “exterminate the Alawites,” defeats the Assad regime. The fear of a sectarian war, exacerbated by the murky and incoherent nature of the opposition, means that the minorities are unlikely to join the opposition in large numbers.

...

Our national instinct is to come riding to the rescue. It goes against our character to simply sit on our hands. Our sincere, naive and self-centered belief that America can fix everything, and our equally sincere, naive and self-centered belief that moral outrage justifies intervention, is a powerful tide, pulling us toward getting directly involved in Syria’s civil war.

But in the real world, we cannot always come riding to the rescue. Sometimes, we have no choice but to watch tragedy unfold, because anything we do will create an even bigger tragedy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

[JoeyT]

65. Yeah, about that.

We're cool with butchering civilians with every other weapon conceivable. Once you head down the "Our war crimes aren't war crimes because we'll fucking kill you!" road, you've pretty much ceded so much of the moral high ground you need to start letting other countries make the call.

After the Holocaust we also said "Never again" to torture, shooting at medics, and shooting at reporters. I'm not up enough on Syria to know exactly who is supporting or opposing what faction. I'm just pointing out righteous indignation toward war crimes doesn't work so well anymore.

ETA: We also said "Never again" to the "I was just following orders" defense. Hell we now apparently want to allow a "I was just giving orders" as a defense.

[freshwest]

66. The Holocaust was not carried out during a civil war in Germany. How many civil wars do we join in?

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Africa has atrocities going on that far surpass what is going on Syria and have been going on for decades. Flat out genocide, but unnoticed by many westerners.

This has been going on for two years now. I've read disputing reports of who is the most evil in this civil war. And yes, Assad has the Sarin gas and has used it, and may use it again:

'Assad has enough sarin to wipe out Damascus'

J Post 05/24/2013

Exiled Syrian chemical arms scientist discusses Assad's arsenal, says he has used small quantities of sarin to stop rebel advances.

The regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad has enough of the nerve gas sarin to "eradicate the whole of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo," a former Syrian chemical weapons scientist told Al Jazeera on Friday.

"If the regime is to fire a Scud-B with a chemical warhead filled with sarin, the missile would create a chemical cloud in the atmosphere that is 3km long and 500m wide, which could be fatal to all people under it," the scientist, that asked to remain anonymous, said.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Assad-has-enough-sarin-to-wipe-off-Damascus-Aleppo-Homs-314290

This is happening, too. And I doubt this is the only rebel group and it has a warning, so skip the video and pictures:

Syrian Rebel Abu Sakkar Filmed Eating Soldier's Lung Has No Regrets & Promises More Slaughter (GRAPHIC VIDEO, PICTURES)

By Sara C Nelson 15/05/2013

...The clip, which was verified by Human Rights Watch (HRW), showed Khalid al-Hamad (who is also known as Abu Sakkar) hacking into the man’s body and removing organs before raising the lung to his lips.

He is heard saying: “I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog,” to offscreen cheering...

The British Prime Minister earlier confirmed nerve agent Sarin appeared to have been used during the two-year civil war.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights recorded March as the bloodiest month of the conflict so far, with more than 6,000 people killed, including more than 500 women and children.

So far the Observatory has recorded more than 80,000 deaths but believes the real number of those killed to be much higher. The UN says more than 70,000 people have died since the uprising began in March 2011.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/15/syrian-rebel-abu-sakkar-filmed-eating-soldiers-lung-no-regrets-more-slaughter-graphic-video-pictures_n_3277239.html

Other rebel atrocities are detailed at links below the story with different figures from last year:

Andrei Arbashe, Christian Taxi-Driver 'Beheaded By Syrian Rebels & Fed To Dogs'

By Sara C Nelson 31/12/2012

...More than 45,000 people have been killed in Syria since protests against President Bashar Assad's regime began in March 2011...

Al Arabiya points out Western support has so far been limited to "non-lethal military equipment" and that Western powers are "until now hesitant on whether to supply the opposition fighters with weapons..."

In August, the Human Rights Watch accused the Free Syria Army of committing potential war crimes as videos emerged of rebels "executing" supporters of President Assad in the city of Aleppo.

HRW's Middle East deputy director Nadim Houry said the executions could be viewed as a war crime: "Intentionally killing anyone, even a shabiha [a member of Assad's armed gangs], once he is outside of combat is a war crime, regardless of how horrible the person may have been. "As the opposition gains more territory, it is important to hold them to the same standard that we would apply to all sides..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/31/andrei-arbashe-christian-taxi-driver-beheaded-syrian-rebels-dogs_n_2387421.html

There appears to be some religion at play, even with different sects of Islam killing each other.

Who do you suggest we pick out among all these groups to support? And where are the European powers? Isn't this their neighbor? Why not Russia, their long-term ally?

And really, who is funding this on both sides or rather several sides? Is it a religious civil war, a proxy war for competing economic powers, or what? Has anyone invited us in?

There are stories of rescue operations for children being carried out, that won't change the people waging the civil war.

If the UN says to go in, I guess it might happen. But this is not WW2. We are not at war with Syria or the rebels. I see the humanitarian appeal.

Thinking logistically, what are you suggesting needs to happen? An open ended commitment for another ten years or more of all out warfare? An occupying army?

As awful as this is, and it truly is, I can't see how this would be done. Or if we should. But I am sure that if Obama agrees to go into Syria, the long knives will come out on the right and the left just as they did with Libya.

I can just see the articles of impeachment now. Not that the GOP hasn't had those written up since 2008. There have been websites created about it, they never stop. They insert phrases from the Constitution to make it all sound noble and official.

By this time they should have fill-in-the-blank forms ready with charges:

Benghazi! Taxation without representation! Gun confiscation! Same sex marriage! Obamacare! Wiretapping! Or whatever else they think the benighted masses will fall for.

[David__77]

71. I oppose al Qaeda, that's why I oppose going to war against Syria.

The sooner the Syrian governments defeats the terrorists, the better. Don't be a dupe.

[AverageJoe90]

174. The problem is, not all the rebels are Al-Qaeda.

In fact, originally, the vast majority of them were the secularists and other left opposition. Al-Qaeda and the MB didn't join until later on.....but I've long suspected that the BushCo factions of the MIC helped the Islamists out so they could subvert the FSA for their own devious ends(and unfortunately, it seems to have worked to an extent).

[David__77]

181. Why is that a problem? I see the problem that many of them are, and almost all work with them.

In Aleppo, al Qaeda is part of the military council that exercises a sort of state power. Not just a few analysts say that al Qaeda has the most fire power, and al Qaeda holds the largest city held by the opposition, Raqqa. It's not as if it is marginal to the Islamist insurgency. Sure, there are also other Islamist groups that I'd argue also represent a security threat to the US.

In any event, the best outcome would be a al Qaeda to be wiped out, and for the remaining opposition factions to agree with unconditional talks with the government, to agree on the means to a constitutional convention and elections.

[eridani]

72. Explain how military intervention improves the situation

Quite a few of the rebels are Al Qaeda. We do far worse to those we stick with that label in Pakistan and Yemen.

[GeorgeGist]

74. Hope this helps ...

[darkangel218]

76. If i could ban 3 things from ever existing in this universe

Would be Cancer, Hunger and Wars.

...

[rainy]

77. It is not the proper use of our sons and daughters lives as military

service members to go and fight in Syeria. It would be in no way protecting the USA. We would first have to apologies profusely for using chemical weapons in Iraq also.

[sibelian]

79. Well, you've got a big heart.

Did you notice that God also gave you a brain?

[darkangel218]

83. LMAO!!!

[JVS]

115. I didn't.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. IF the Assad regime were to be overthrown -- and that is very big IF - what next?

It will either be chaos and more bloodletting or rule by and a fundamentalist Islamist regime or rule by some other government no better than Assad. More chaos and more bloodletting is probably the most likely scenario

[Carolina]

86. Oh puhleeze

Just what we need... another war. This fucking country is falling apart and going to hell. All it knows is war and guns.

It can spend resources on this shit but cut meals on wheels at home
It can spend resources on this shit but cut Headstart at home
It can spend resources on this shit but not on education at home
It can spend resources on this shit but not on infrastructure at home
It can spend resources on this shit but not on real jobs programs at home
It can spend resources on this shit but cut social security (which is what a chained CPI does) at home

And by the way, what of the murder the US committed against innocents in Iraq and its continuous murderous drones!
And stateside, there are enough gun murders that the US no longer has the moral standing or the revenue to intervene anytime, anywhere.

So not only am I against yet another military action, I frankly no longer give a damn. If the US would stay out of the middle east, stop supporting Israel and focus on the "homeland," we'd be better off.

[Junkdrawer]

87. If you thought the attacks on Snowden/Manning were bad....

wait till DU gets its war on.

[notadmblnd]

90. John? John Bolton, is that you?

Did your friends Donny, Paul and Dick put you up to posting that here?

Because it certainly sounds like something the PNAC and their Neocon cronies would say.

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. don't be misled by a few loudmouths - 90% of us want more wars in the Middle East

[steve2470]

127. yep, sign me up for us going into the Congo tomorrow

After that, hmm....I'm sure I can find another hotspot for us.



(I know you were being sarcastic.)

[typeviic]

96. After the lie

about Saddam's nukes, our government has lost all credibility on the middle East. Plus, they are sort of lying now, by calling the hired mercenary army "rebels".
This is an excuse to go into Syria, because the hired mercenaries have not "won" yet, and have been trying to "win" for the last 2 and a half years. These hired mercs are just war by other means.

[OmahaBlueDog]

98. It's a civil war and neither side as a good claim to moral high ground

Stay out of it. It's not our fight.

[99Forever]

100. And so it begins AGAIN.

The War Pigs start beating the war drums.

Tell me again how "different" DINOs are from Republicans....

[myrna minx]

101. You're surprised that liberals are anti-war? Who do you believe the USA should back in this fight

before you recommend we "let it rain" bombs in Syria? Wow. Just stunning.

[maddezmom]

103. Wow, not sure why you are shocked that some Du'ers don't want another war

But I am shocked by your comment " let it rain ".

[myrna minx]

108. It's the trial balloon. We're about to be inundated with this stuff.

We can set our watches and wait for the yellow cake and throwing babies from incubators tales all over again. Hooboy.

[Logical]

106. I guess many do not trust the military to handle this correctly. Wonder why? n-t

[Douglas Carpenter]

113. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[bvar22]

200. X a TRILLION too.

The fact that a Jury hid the Livluvgrow's remarks about this filthy OP can NOT stop me from supporting Livluvgrow's PERFECT RESPONSE to this transparent WAR Mongering.

I absolutely agree with each and every syllable.

I am also absolutely delighted that ONLY 10 other members of DU have chosen to STAND with the OP by Reccing this OP.

You can find out WHO they are by simply clicking the Thread Info button at the bottom of the OP.

[Douglas Carpenter]

208. funny coincidence-- most people who recommended this OP also recommended pro-surveillance OP's

In there a pattern in their thinking here?:

[oldhippie]

116. That was also my thought on the OP ....

.... but I was thinking of a way to be a little more gentle.

I like your way better. If your post gets hidden, they should hide this one too.

[JVS]

112. I oppose military action in Syria.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. "Syrian rebels won't advance U.S. interests: Joint Chiefs chairman"

The United States should not intervene militarily in Syria’s civil war because rebels battling Bashar Assad’s regime aren’t prepared to promote American interests if the tide shifts in their favor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said in a letter released Wednesday.

Dempsey, the country’s top uniformed military commander, also warned against greater U.S. military involvement because while “we can destroy the Syrian Air Force,” such a step would “escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict."

"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Dempsey wrote in the Aug. 19 letter to Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not."

Instead, he suggested, America should provide humanitarian aid on a “far more significant scale” and “significantly increase our effort to develop a moderate opposition to Assad.”

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-won-t-advance-u-s--interests--joint-chiefs-chairman-135743341.html

That was said before the news of the chemical attack, but it remains as a valid 'realist' view of what US intervention might achieve, even if it is shown that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack. There may be other avenues - for instance, persuading Russia to give up its support of Assad if it is shown he used chemical weapons.

[ecstatic]

118. Only thing I'd support is a targeted CIA-Navy Seal operation

If what you say is true, then maybe some action is required. However, I'm against the collateral damage and civilian deaths that would result from a full scale war.

Arming random groups is unacceptable as well.

Just kill/drone the actual bad guys and call it a day. As terrible as that sounds, I'd prefer that over a pointless, long term ground war. The days of innocent civilians dying over the actions of their leaders should be long gone.

[kentuck]

119. Why don't we invite John McCain and Lindsey Graham over and see what they think?

Oh yeah! We need to teach Assad a lesson. Then we can have a base in Syria from which to attack Iran. When the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

[riqster]

120. Keep in mind that, in avenging these deaths, we would be fighting for Al-Quaida or Hezbollah

Or, at the very least, arming them. Not a good idea for our security or those of our allies. Plus, no matter which side we helped, both parties will still hate us.

I think blowing up some munitions depots and/or chemical weapons infrastructure would be appropriate, help protect future civilians from these atrocities, and as a bonus would be a brick upside Assad's head. But much more than that would be too PNAC-ish.

[n2doc]

123. We condoned it when Saddam used them agains Iran and his own people

Never again has happened many, many times. Cambodia, Uganda, Iraq, Sudan, the list goes on and on. Why don't YOU go over there and fight against Assad? I'm sick and tired of people always ready and willing to send others to their deaths over other countries wars.

[oldhippie]

124. I can't believe we actually have war mongers here ...

.. openly siding with the likes of John McCain! Is this really DU?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

128. He is different from John McCain. Unless I'm mistaken,

he is saying that he is willing to be behind the troops.

John McCain actually went.

[Nay]

132. Sick, isn't it? I can't believe it either. It's not like we have a dog in this fight, especially

considering that the US sends drones to kill whole passels of children, women, and other innocents. Who the hell are we to get all outraged? We're 3/4 of the fucking problem.

Stay out of Syria! And get the fuck out of the ME generally! We aren't helping; we're making it ten times worse.

[Arctic Dave]

125. And you think a guy who murders people with remote controlled planes is the best

person to say what is right?

Obama has been murdering children since he got into office, what do you have to say about that? What country should bomb DC for those actions?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

126. What's preventing you from going? During the Spanish Civil War, some Americans went.

When Japan attacked China before the Pearl Harbor attack, some Americans went to China to fight against the Japanese.

When Germany attacked Great Britain as part of WW II before the Pearl Harbor attack, some Americans went to England to fight against the Germans.

Something is preventing you from going.

What is it?

[mainer]

129. It worked really well in Libya.

Not.

It seems that no matter where we send our troops in the Middle East, we piss off even the people we're fight FOR, and everyone ends up hating us.

[chervilant]

130. From an opposing view thread:

I wrote:

And, I don't want to hear about the pitiable victims of the murderous Syrian 'government.' We didn't hear an outcry for intervention in Rwanda, East Timor, Somalia, or Myanmar. Might that be because there's no economic benefits to be had in those countries? Might it be for other, less "noble" reasons?

So, I have to ask you -- why the outcry about Syria's children, and not these children? How about the children in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

And, how does escalating this civil war accomplish anything other than the further enrichment of the corporate megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy?

I posted this rather appropriate (and poignant) quote on that other OP:

Every piece of this is man's bullshit. They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'Shit, it's raining!'

[Bigmack]

131. We can't afford it. nt

[rug]

133. I hope so. I just gave five bucks for a star and I don't want to demand a refund.

[kiawah]

134. Hooray! Three cheers for perpetual war!!! n/t

[Coyotl]

136. I am certainly against military action.

What do you want, another war for the USA to help bankrupt the nation even worse????

[Autumn]

137. I am very happy you just stopped by DU and found people AGAINST military action on Syria.

The alternative would just suck. I say let it rain too. We have been in the middle of a drought and can certainly use the moisture. War on the other hand is something that is not needed.

[leftstreet]

138. LOL Didn't Democrats OWN 2006 & 2008 being antiwar?

LOL

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

141. Uh...drones and cruise missles kill civilians.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Gandhi

[ZombieHorde]

142. The murder of innocent civilians is very disturbing to me.

However, our military actions seem to kill more innocent civilians than they save. We just seem to make things worse.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

143. Does the global community and it's findings matter ?

As I recall the president did say he will not move forward in matters of intervention without the full support of the global community. So than ,this is a think global matter rather than a separatist issue.

That is a very different way about dealing with it in comparison to ,oh say G.W. Bush's wording-if they don't like the way we handle global enforcement ,than let them pick up the ball and deal with it ,and pay for it too.-something to that effect.

The key note is very different.

All the details leading up to what ever will happen ,thats what is always missing in speculation-details.

[ZombieHorde]

144. When they say "full support of the global community,"

they mean they want the support of a couple of countries that were foolish enough to invade Iraq. They all (the tiny minority of countries) agreed Iraq had WMD and an invasion would be a great idea.

I don't know what the final outcome would be, but our track record has been extremely fucked since Nam.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

145. I really don't think that is what they mean zombiehorde

The global community is not about the few .

[ZombieHorde]

146. What do you think they mean by the phrase "global community?"

51%+ of all countries?

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

150. Don't you think there is a legitimate thing called the global watch dog ?

Come on now, Peter Paul & Mary-think global act local !

[ZombieHorde]

153. I don't know.

What do you think the administration means by the term "global community?"

[Comrade Grumpy]

157. "Global community" = London, Paris, Washington, and maybe Bonn and Rome

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

195. What does Putin mean by our partners ?

What does joint alliance mean ? What is the euro ?And what is the untied nations ? The greedy ones are everywhere by the way .

[ZombieHorde]

196. Putin means same-sex lover, as opposed to other-sex lover.

Joint alliance is a 420 party. The Euro is a group think value system. The UN is group think identities layered upon other group think identities.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

197. Well then in your opinion I suppose that leaves plenty of room for real change.

It wouldn't be wise to give up on hope.

[dorkulon]

148. Yes, by all means, let's empower another Islamist revolution.

Those always go so well, don't they?

I mean, hey, if they commit revenge-genocide against the Alouites and the Kurds, oh well.

[Throd]

149. Yes you did. I'm against US military action in Syria.

[whatchamacallit]

154. Awesome Warbone you're sporting Mr Liberal!

[reusrename]

158. Why not comply with the law?

Find the guilty and prosecute them for war crimes.

Oh, wait, never mind.

[mick063]

160. I thought we waited too long for Bosnia and all but ignored Rwanda

My main opposition to the Iraq war is centered on the corporate vision to build a corporate colony. I am not in to nation building for financial moguls.

I do, however, believe that any leader that uses chemical weapons on his own civilian populace should be brought to justice.

I am all for deposing Assad based upon his decision of mass murder. I would prefer that it would be done via aiding insurgents and using "no fly" zones.

I draw the line at being a bystander to gassing civilians, ethnic cleansing, or mass, indiscriminate murder, but don't go in with a carpetbagger vision to install a favorable government afterwards. Simply execute the perpetrators of mass murder and walk away.

I am against war in general, but stopping mass murder is a legitimate reason. Not oil. Not nation building.

Stop the mass murder and leave. It the mass murder starts again, kill the leadership and walk away again. Continue to do so until the message is clear that it is a death sentence for a leader to commit mass murder on his civilians.

[Nevernose]

163. I would be tempted to agree with you

Except the situation, as usual, isn't so cut and dried. Who killed those civilians with poison gas? Was it fired by government troops? If so, under whose orders? Was it the rebels' own gas released on accident? There are many reports of them using poison gas, too, and most rebels at this point self-identify as Al Qaeda, an organization that has been making terror weapons, killing civilians, and trying to make poison gas for almost two decades now. When last I checked, the rebels in Syria had killed just as many people as the dictator's forces had.

[mick063]

164. The captain of the boat is responsible for the course of his ship.

If he cannot competently manage the ship's course, put competent people in place to navigate, he must pay the price for taking on that leadership position.

There are many ways to kill a snake, but cutting off the head is most effective.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

161. Are you going to enlist and join this "noble cause"? Or urge your children or other young

relatives to fight in such an invasion?

Didn't think so.

When both sides (yes, both sides) are committing atrocities against each other, the best the U.S. can do is stay out of it.

The U.S. cannot fix the world. In fact, every time it has tried in my lifetime it has screwed up.

[GoCubsGo]

166. Thank you.

You beat me to it. Why are people so willing to commit other people's family members to fight another country's civil war? BTW, there are more than two sides to this mess, and none of them seem to be innocent of committing atrocities. Not to mention that Russia is pretty much funding the Assad regime, and we already have enough problems dealing with Putin as it is.

[The Second Stone]

167. I'm against US military action in Syria

if you support it, sign up for combat with a nation likely to do it. It is not the job of Americans to fight wars around the world.

If Syria is committing crimes against humanity, then it needs to be taken to the UN Security Council for action. If action is authorized, then we can consider participating. Until this is brought before the Security Council, it is all a series of "what ifs" by people whipping up war hysteria.

The US supports human rights around the world, it does not guarantee them.

The people that want war against Syria and Iran should really look into fighting it themselves.

[Blue_In_AK]

168. This is why there is a United Nations.

It's not our responsibility to be the ones fighting all the wars.

[Corruption Inc]

169. "Please enlighten me" LOL

No thanks.

[Glassunion]

171. Oh for fuck sakes

Not wanting another war does not equal condoning chemical murder. The two are not mutually exclusive. That is a bullshit way of describing your fellow DUers because they don't agree with war.

Are you saying that ALL options have been exercised and that we are currently in a position where our only option is to bomb the fuck out of yet another country? I'm sure the outcome will be nothing but awesome for all parties involved.

[LittleBlue]

177. Why is killing people with bullets "legitimate"

but killing far fewer people with chemical weapons a "red line"?

I think you've been duped by gun culture to think killing with conventional weapons is normal and proper.

[yurbud]

178. So the way to stop killing with one particular kind of weapon is to kill ALOT MORE people

with weapons you find morally acceptable?

[LWolf]

179. I don't know about "people." I am against it.

I am against most of the military action ever taken at any time or place on the planet.

[yurbud]

180. Why do you believe what our gov't says about chem weapons, and even if used, that that's the reason

they want military action?

Were you in a comma for the last decade or so?

[Rex]

183. You did, right here in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023525258

[WorseBeforeBetter]

186. "The DU community now condones chemical murder of innocent civilians?"

Fuck that OP. You're not here to have an honest discussion.

[Bradical79]

192. Have you paid attention to how our wars work?

Deaths of large number of civilians, private contractors murdering and raping people, corporations getting gigantic payouts from their friends in Washington... It'll be really ugly.

[markpkessinger]

199. Might I remind you . . .

. . . that "he used chemical weapons against his own people" was one of the numerous rationalizations given for going into Iraq after the WMD rationalization fell apart.

[David__77]

201. You are pro-al Qaeda I guess.

It would be treason to go to war for al Qaeda, but you advocate it.

[atreides1]

203. You first!

Or do you just believe in armchair warfare? Maybe you're one of those who think that a smart bomb won't kill Syrian civilians, regardless of what side they're on...or maybe you just don't care at all who dies????

[Iggo]

204. Yeah, you did.

Nice, huh.

[Vinnie From Indy]

207. I'll reconsider my support of action in Syria as soon as you

post here on DU your enlistment papers.

Cheers!