Re: Syria. Look at it this way.

[Pab Sungenis]

A ragtag bunch of rebels, struggling against a leader they consider an unelected tyrant, are hanging on for dear life.

The leader disregards his nation's laws and the standards of war. He barely holds off the rebels. Eventually he orders his generals to destroy entire cities in an effort to put down the rebellion.

You are the leader of the nation with the greatest military force in the world. You are called upon to intervene to stop the bloodshed and punish the tyrant, hopefully forcing him out of office. You can lead a decapitating strike, having your ships start an intense bombardment that will cripple much of the tyrant's warmaking ability in a matter of days.

Do you choose to intervene?

Congratulations, Lord Palmerston. You have stopped the American Civil War, ended the Lincoln Administration, and guaranteed the victory of the Confederacy.

Folks, Syria is in a civil war. They are not threatening their neighbors or anyone else. This is an internal matter. We have no right to intervene militarily.

Sanctions? Yes. Boycotts? Yes. Bombs? No.

This is not our war.

[morningfog]

1. Well said.

[LiberalEsto]

2. I agree that this is not our war

But someone used chemical weapons. Once someone gets a free pass to use them, others will follow suit.

It's not the job of the US to go after whichever group used the chemical weapons.

However it should be the duty of all civilized nations to band together and take some kind of action against those who used poison gas on civilians.

I do not support unilateral US intervention, nor do I support having the US, UK and France go it as a threesome.

I do hope the UN will come up with a way to tackle this war crime, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. Someone already got a free pass.

Saddam Hussein used them against the Kurds after the first Gulf War, and no one did anything.

If Assad uses them against another nation, then we could have a call to intervene. Not internally. And especially when there's doubt about who used them.

[jeff47]

4. I hope to never be as callous as you. (nt)

[atreides1]

11. Not callous, practical!

Sometimes hard decisions have to be made...look at history!

[jeff47]

16. And when Assad gasses an entire rebel city?

You can be happy that you were practical as you look over the 100,000 corpses.

Chemical weapons should be a "red line". Yes, shooting someone makes them just as dead, but shooting 100,000 people takes a lot of time and effort. Gassing 100,000 takes virtually none.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Missed the battle of Stalingrad, did you?

Sure, 6 months, but 2 MILLION casualties.

Why would Assad gas an entire city? Multiple nations are champing at the bit to wade in there and wreck shop already, over a small attack.

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. And your position is less callous?

I will assume by your response that you are in favor of US bombing in Syria to "punish" Assad. Is that correct?

[jeff47]

19. Yep

If nothing happens, Assad will realize he can use his chemical weapons to put down the rebellion in one night.

And so he will. He'll gas the rebel cities.

Will innocents die in the bombing? Yep. But it will kill far less than doing nothing.

But hey, this is the Rwandan's.....er.....Syrian's war!

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. How many Americans and Syrians are you willing to have killed to "punish" Assad?

10? 100? 10,000?

What if Assad falls and some of the rebels begin killing Alawites and Christians by the truckloads? Then what? How many more American and Syrians are you willing to have die to stop those people?

How strongly do you feel that the US should intervene? What level of personal sacrifice are you willing bear to punish Assad? Are you willing to personally fight to topple Assad? How about something less than personally putting yourself in harms way. Would you be willing to cough up $10,000 dollars of your money to punish Assad? $1000. dollars?

[jeff47]

25. A better phrasing is how many should die to prevent Assad from killing millions

Again, if there are no repercussions, Assad will kill millions with his chemical weapons. He's only held back so far due to fears of retaliation by other countries.

What if Assad falls and some of the rebels begin killing Alawites and Christians by the truckloads?

I do not support invasion or toppling of Assad, because there are no "good guys" in this war. What I want is Assad to feel a massive chemical weapons strike is off-limits.

That requires a retaliatory strike, because we have no other options to keep Assad's chemical weapons in their bunkers. There are already sanctions against Syria, so we can't threaten that.

Would you be willing to cough up $10,000 dollars of your money to punish Assad? $1000. dollars?

How much is a Syrian's life worth to you? $1? Nothing?

[Vinnie From Indy]

27. So you and Assad communicate regularly?

You are privy to the war strategies of the Syrian Armed Forces? The fact is you not only have no idea what Assad would do, you have absolutely no compelling proof that he even instigated the chemical attack.

I guess you are part of the 9% of Americans that favor striking Syria to punish Assad. I would bet out of that 9% there are only a few dozen that would offer to put themselves in harms way to punish Assad. The rest would tap dance around a direct yes or no answer to that question.

Would you risk your life to punish Assad?

[bvar22]

62. I think everybody here KNOWS the answer to that question.

*

[Bluenorthwest]

14. How often do you contact Washington to oppose our use of landmines and refusal to join

the world community in banning them? How about depleted uranium? Do you call often or are you callous enough to never have called at all?
We use landmines which rip kids to bits when they are looking for scraps of food. 161 of our peer nations have banned mines, we and 34 other very classy UN nations insist upon using more mines to rip more kids to bits.
Do you advocate strongly against this? Or do you simply remain callously silent?
Easy to play the moral superstar in a vacuum.

[jeff47]

20. K, let's add up all the people killed by the methods you deplore.

And then let's add up how many people will die when Assad figures out nothing will happen to him if he gasses the rebel cities.

There's a reason chemical weapons are a "red line", even if you have not seen the horror of their unlimited use.

[whatchamacallit]

23. We've gone from an, as of yet, unsubstantiated report to worst case scenario speculation

We can't attack a sovereign nation on this kind of thing anymore.

[jeff47]

26. Why wouldn't he?

as of yet, unsubstantiated report

The Secretary-General of the UN says there was an attack by Assad's forces. France, who opposed the Iraq war, says there was an attack by Assad's forces.

Assad's forces are the only side in the civil war that has chemical weapons. There is a single picture where Assad's forces claim rebels have a small quantity of chemical weapons. But more damningly, Assad's forces are the only ones with the chemical-warhead-tipped rockets used in the attack. No one has supplied those weapons to the rebels, because they are useless without chemical weapons.

worst case scenario speculation

Assad faces a real danger of swinging from a lamppost when this war ends. If this small attack results in nothing, why would he not do a large-scale attack to save his own skin and remain in power?

We said we'd attack if he did this small-scale attack. If we do nothing, he will have no reason to believe he would face an attack after a large-scale attack.

And I firmly believe that the same people on DU and elsewhere who oppose an attack today would oppose an attack after a large-scale attack. "Bombing more Syrians won't bring them back to life" will be the argument used.

So what would Assad have to lose if nothing happens to him over this attack?

[whatchamacallit]

48. These assumption have been made and acted on before

They were bogus and the results disastrous.

[jeff47]

59. No, in those cases the dictator in question did not actually have the weapons

Assad let the world know he has chemical weapons - they're his deterrent against Israel.

[MNBrewer]

28. do YOU know who used the chemical weapons?

[NuclearDem]

38. Hell, he got a free pass for using them against another country

Remember the Iran-Iraq War and the mustard gas Saddam lobbed at Iranian troops? No outrage from us for that.

[fujiyama]

61. I think he also used them against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war

around the time Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.

Someone said international laws are like stop signs in a mall parking lot - mostly interpreted just as suggestions. Sadly, I think they were right. The world community selectively intervenes in world conflicts - especially if that conflict impedes an important resource like oil.

[Arctic Dave]

6. Landmines, Clusterbombs and Depleted Uranium are banned by international treaties

by the US uses and sells them.

Clusterbombs alone have killed more innocent people then all the incidents of using gas the last fifty years combined. And, they have a far more deadly legacy once the hostilities cease.

[LiberalEsto]

9. And there should have been serious consequences for those.

I am horrified that the US uses these things.

[jeff47]

21. That's because use of chemical weapons usually gets a "forceful" response

Our utter failure in the Iraq-Iran war notwithstanding.

Chemical weapons are not widely used because they are a "red line". They should be. Assad could end the rebellion tomorrow by gassing the rebel cities. And if he figures out nothing would happen to him in response, he will.

[Arctic Dave]

36. He could also do it by encircling it with landmines and then

carpet bombing it with DU missiles and clusterbombs.

You know, the good ol fashion American Way.

[Maedhros]

43. You realize that you are using the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" argument

Right?

[jeff47]

53. The difference is Assad actually has the weapons in question. (nt)

[Maedhros]

55. But you're saying "If we don't attack, Assad will use them again!"

when it has not been proven that the latest attack was ordered by Assad.

There were two previous uses of chemical weapons in Syria that were attributed to the rebels, which certainly calls into question the provenance of this recent attack.

[jeff47]

57. So it's OK for his government to use chemical weapons if he's lost control

of those weapons?

"I didn't order it" might be a defense at the Hague, but Obama isn't talking about a decapitation strike. It's a strike against the Syrian government.

There were two previous uses of chemical weapons in Syria that were attributed to the rebels, which certainly calls into question the provenance of this recent attack.

Both sides pointed at each other, and there isn't an easy way to figure out who did those attacks because of how they were carried out.

But from what I've read, these attacks used rockets with chemical weapon warheads. The rebels do not have rockets with chemical weapon warheads. Only team Assad does.

[progressoid]

51. And when that red line is crossed by us?

[jeff47]

54. White Phosporus isn't a chemcial weapon. It's an incendiary weapon.

And additionally, you are claiming we have to ignore all evil in the world, because at some time we did something wrong.

As in, we have to let Assad gas millions of people, because we dropped two atomic bombs.

[progressoid]

56. I'm pretty sure the people maimed and killed by white phosporus don't care about that distinction.

I'm not claiming we have to ignore all evil in the world. It's that nebulous, often self-serving, and yes, hypocritical 'red line' that is troubling.

[jeff47]

58. The difference is a few shells just killed 1500 in Syria

whereas White Phosphorus, and other non-WMDs, can't kill nearly as many per weapon.

The reason to strike is not because we're saints. The reason to strike is if Assad does not suffer any damage from using chemical weapons, there is no reason to avoid using them again.

Assad has not used chemical weapons yet out of fear of a retaliatory strike. If that strike does not happen, there is no reason to keep sitting on his chemical weapon stockpile. He could end the civil war tomorrow by slaughtering a few million in one night's attack. His alternative, staying with conventional weapons, has a good chance of causing him to swing from a lamppost at the end of this civil war.

We need Assad to put the chemical weapon genie back in the bottle before he uses them to save his own life. Our least-bad option for doing that is some airstrikes.

[progressoid]

60. Over 100,000 people have been killed in this civil war by a myriad means of destruction.

Now suddenly we're concerned? That's, well, peculiar.

Perhaps airstrikes shouldn't be the least-bad option, they should be the last option.

[Rebellious Republican]

37. "I do hope the UN will come up with a way to tackle this war crime" My sentiments as well!

I was a part of a UN peace keeping force in Beirut, 1983.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

[grahamhgreen]

39. We used white phosphorus in Iraq. Who should stop us?

[LiberalEsto]

45. In my post # 9 I said there should have been serious consequences for the US

Economic consequences of some sort.

[michigandem58]

5. Your first three paragraphs made a good case for intervention

Your conclusion might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. The first three paragraphs were an accurate description of our civil war

as narrated from the losing side. The South did see Lincoln as an unelected tyrant. (He only got 39% of the vote, after all.) He did use then unconventional warfare measures like Sherman's path of destruction across Georgia. He did ignore the Constitution and trample on civil rights.

And he kept the country together. Our nation would not be here as it is without him.

Great Britain could have broken the embargo that choked the South economically. They could have destroyed the Northern navy and sailed right up the Potomac and bombarded Washington the same way we're thinking of taking out Assad's regime.

They could have ended the American Civil War with a punitive strike the same way we're discussing ending the Syrian civil war. They didn't.

This is their internal affair.

[michigandem58]

29. So Assad is like Lincoln?

And the Syrian rebels are like the Confederacy? Am I following your comparison here?

[markpkessinger]

33. I wouldn't call the OP a "comparison"

I think the OP is simply making the point that from the outside, it is virtually impossible to know the precise forces and dynamics at work in another country's civil conflict. The OP points out that our own Civil War likely looked very different at the time to those outside of this country than it did to those who were here at the time, and also different from how it looks to us, having benefit of historical hindsight.

I don't think the OP is suggesting for one minute that Assad is Syria's Abraham Lincoln. To be sure, he is a brutal dictator. But here's the thing: the opposition consists of militant Islamists with Al Qaeda elements embedded among them. There are frankly no "good guys" on either side of this conflict.

But hey, if we want to create, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet another breeding ground for terrorists determined to target the U.S., then by all means the way to do it is to intervene in this conflict. Taking sides in another country's civil conflict is a bit like intervening in someone else's domestic dispute: when it is all said and done, no matter how it turns out, BOTH parties will resent you for meddling in their affairs.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Coming from you that has to be the height of irony.

The garbage the admins allow you to post is amazing.

[Capt. Obvious]

17. Pab should post this on PeoplesView

That's the name of it right?

[Autumn]

10. Well done, well done.

there are many steps Obama can take should he chose to. Bombs do not even need to be considered.

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. K&R

Cheers!

[malaise]

15. But what if you and your allies have been fomenting the civil war?

[cali]

18. your description of the rebels isn't a good one.

and btw, the Syrian civil war is bleeding over borders.

Still don't support any military strikes.

Your comparison to the U.S. civil war doesn't take into account one important factor: in the Syrian conflict, religious strife is a big piece of the whole. Not so with the U.S. civil war. There aren't really just 2 sides in Syria.

[Scuba]

24. Called upon? By whom?

Great post. The only ones calling upon the Prez for intervention are the profiteeers and their shills.

Certainly the American public doesn't support intervention: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

[heaven05]

30. +10000

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. You seem to be leaving out a big part of your hypothesis...

In the U.S. the Confederacy were the ones revolting....and Sherman burned their cities to the ground...the South has still not gotten over that one....you still won't see the name Sherman.



Oh and during our War of Independence....France helped us out (even Haiti helped us as a matter of fact).

Your premise is false on its face.

[DinahMoeHum]

32. He should do what he did regarding Libya. . .

. . .which had also been in a civil war. . .

If you're going to assist anyone, it has to be on the QT, quietly and discreetly.

[question everything]

34. As was Kosovo

I am glad we intervened there.

[NuclearDem]

40. Syria is a civil war only in part.

It's become a huge proxy war for the various ME powers trying to assert control over the region.

That's why bombing Assad would do no good in the long run. It'll simply leave a power vacuum to be fought over by people that aren't Syrian.

[Historic NY]

41. That rag tag bunch is completely capable of...

making its own bombs and weapons...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/world/middleeast/starved-for-arms-syria-rebels-make-their-own.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Zoeisright]

42. Uh huh.

And chemical weapons were used in that war too?

Nice try, but complete and absolute fail.

[ConcernedCanuk]

44. "Sanctions? Yes. Boycotts? Yes. Bombs? No."

.
.
.

Sanctions and boycotts hurt the general population.

I completely concur with the "Bombs No" part -

but it ain't gonna be bombs so much.

USA is considering sending missiles from afar.

Just like they did in "Shock and Awe".

Syria has a much better air defense system than Iraq had.

Also, Russia has stepped up to the plate this time.

USA messes with Syria, USA is heading down the rabbit hole IMO.

CC

[AverageJoe90]

47. Depends on what you mean by the "rabbit hole".....eom

[ConcernedCanuk]

49. What do I mean?

.
.
.

USA has been dominating the Globe for decades.

It will not last forever.

Payback is coming,

Count on it.

CC

[AverageJoe90]

50. What do you mean by payback, exactly?

[pampango]

46. Excerpt from: Two and a Half Years Later: Inside 'Liberated' Syria

Living in the U.S., I had long stopped using the term "Revolution" to describe the situation in Syria. Yet in my time in Syria, not a single person I met used any other term to describe it. It didn't matter whether I was talking to a mother or an FSA fighter or an activist. It also didn't matter if I was talking to someone who supported the Revolution or was critical of it. They all spoke of the "thawra" (Revolution). Indeed they spoke of little else. Similarly, not a single person I met used the term "civil war" to describe the situation in Syria. I was told time and again that a civil war requires two sides. In Syria, there was only one side -- the government -- that unilaterally waged war against its people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reem-salahi/two-and-a-half-years-late_b_3810796.html

[idwiyo]

52. K&R

[bvar22]

63. DURec.

Its not an EXACT equivalence,
but more than enough points of commonality to make a righteous, valid comparison.

Many people have difficulty with the exercise of standing in someone else's shoes,
and I expect that you will hear complaints that "these shoes are painful & I don't like them!"
Well Done.

DURec.