I get the desire not to engage in full-scale war...but we're okay with chemical weapons?

[truebrit71]

I understand that the US is tired of waging foreign wars, a phrase I thought I'd never type to be honest, but we have a dictator using chemical weapons on innocent civilians here. Does our bush-era Iraq cynicism trump the bodies of dead children?

The irony that the majority of Americans don't want to fight a war against someone that actually DOES have WMD, as opposed to gormlessly backing the chimp-in-chief's mis-adventure against a country that DIDN'T have WMD is a bitter pill to swallow...especially when we see the very real cost in the tiny sheet-wrapped bodies of innocent children on the television screen...

I don't pretend to know the answer, or what the 'appropriate' response is, but I think we have a moral obligation to let whomever unleashed chemical weapons on civilians know, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is completely unacceptable..

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. The talking points have been distributed, haven't they? nt

[cali]

3. yeah, the few who are pro attack are pulling out all the stops on cheap

stupid sentimental idiot compassion shit.

[truebrit71]

14. Hmm, so I ask a serious question and I'm "pro attack"?

That's not what I said. I am pro "we-can't-let-this-shit-happen-without-doing-SOMETHING-about-it-but-there-are-no-good-answers-so-what-do-we-do" however...otherwise what is there to prevent them doing it again....

Hey, at least I didn't give that weak-ass bush-ism that Obama used saying we have to do something "in case they use them here"...now THAT was some cheap, stupid, idiot shit...

[MADem]

25. Hey, don't feel bad.

I've repeatedly advocated strikes against STUFF, not people, and I'm still called a warmonger and one charmer even called me a babykiller.

[cali]

35. Yes, we can "let-this-shit-happen-without-doing-SOMETHING-about-it

How about first do no harm? If we want to save Syrian lives- and I do- we can mount a massive relief effort for the 1.5 million Syrian refugees.

and what on earth makes anyone think that a limited missile strike will be any kind of deterrence?

Here's news: Our military actions in the region have been terrible for the people of the region.

[truebrit71]

40. Do no harm? Tell that to the innocents that we're gassed to death...

....we're past the point of "do no harm"...and I don't think that a missile strike, limited or not, will be any sort of deterrence, so what's the solution? We do nothing and give a tacit approval of the use of chemical weapons on civilians? As a human being I don't think that's an acceptable answer.

[cali]

42. We use chemical weapons and we make war and kill people. that's just fact.

no, we are not past the point of "do no harm"- or do you believe that we had something to do Ghouta?

Yes, harm has been done in Syria- by both fucking sides, but we haven't done it yet.

As a human being, I find "idiot compassion" as Chogyam Trungpa put it, appalling.

[KittyWampus]

46. Most of us are not pro-attack. Many of us are anti-attack yet not spouting Bush-era narratives

[BainsBane]

6. Why is the idea of someone thinking through a problem so objectionable to you?

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. The opposite of thinking is what's going on. nt

[BainsBane]

12. No, every post where someone looks to explore an issue

You just on top of them because it doesn't fit your script.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. Trying to gin up support for an attack

by claiming peoples' moral compasses have been obscured by Iraq is stupid, shitty, cynical, and unworthy of
serious consideration.

If you want Syria attacked, put on a helmet and go attack.

[truebrit71]

21. Please show me where I was trying to "gin up support for an attack"...

...

[mike_c]

33. will you state unequivocally that you're not?

eom

[truebrit71]

37. Absolutely I will. I am not trying to gin up support for an attack.

I am trying to figure out how we should respond to what should be considered some sort of moral imperative to insure that this sort of mass killing by 'banned' weapons doesn't happen again...

[mike_c]

39. thank you....

You see the point, of course. The pro-war rhetoric gets awfully passive-aggressive sometimes.

[truebrit71]

44. Sure, I can see that...but I am not 'pro-war' by any stretch of the imagination...

...I was vociferously against the Bush wars based 100% on lies, which is why the irony about the REAL use of WMD's this time tastes so bitter.

The war in Iraq was one of choice (by TPTB - not the 'common folk') based on theoretical WMD, and now we have a despot that actually DOES have WMD, and is actively using them, and now we don't want to do anything about it...

It's maddening...

[Bluenorthwest]

17. What a tawdry tactic. Shall I ask you why peace is so objectionable to you? It's the same shitty

tactic. Cheapens your position. It just does.

[BainsBane]

23. It isn't

This is exactly the problem. The idea of thought is entirely objectionable. It's not a tactic. I don't support armed intervention. What I want to do is explore the problem, and the idea of actually thinking is what appear to be most offensive. Would it be too much to actually ask what my position is?

[truebrit71]

47. That's what this thread is supposed to be about...

...what to do?

[BainsBane]

73. I could see that

I was responding to the attacks on you for simply asking the question.

[truebrit71]

77. I know...and I was quite surprised to be honest...

...I didn't expect that sort of a response at all...especially the "talking points" accusation...that made me LOL...

[BainsBane]

79. People reject any question or information

that doesn't fit their preexisting narrative. Too many see the world in simplistic black and white terms and everything is either on their side of that of their enemy--in this case military involvement by the US. I was accused of "drinking the Kool-aid" for saying the fighter jet's dropping of chemical weapons on a school must have been Assad since the rebels don't have fighter jets. People don't want the US involved in another war, which is understandable. But for some reason they then feel compelled to deny any complexity in the situation. Now many even deny that Assad has engaged in any wrong doing. It's absurd.

This is a complication situation with no easy answers or, it appears, good options. I myself end up playing devil's advocate in both pro- and anti-war threads since there are so many unanswered questions. The fact that the UN and US allies don't support a strike is persuasive to me, as is the recent disclosures to the Washington Post about reservations by military leaders. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023561707
That, however, doesn't mean I'm not concerned about what Assad ongoing atrocities Assad will continue to inflict.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Claiming that thought is objectionable to others is bullshit just like saying you hate peace.

It is a tactic, and it is a dishonest and cowardly one. I just saw you complaining on another thread that someone said you hate peace. I assume that was answering your tone with similar tone. 'You object to thought!' 'You hate peace'. This is not dialog it is random recrimination using characterizations and hyperbolic phrasing. If you don't like it, don't do it to others.

[BainsBane]

65. You're hardly in a position to accuse others

You started this conversation like virtually everyone you participate in by denouncing others, like when you accused all of HOF of being transphobic--after two of us had spent all weekend on MIRT nuking transphobic trolls.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. And there is more recriminatioin of others. Good stuff.

I denounced the content of the OP, and I also denounced a specific post in HOF that said 'I don't care what people call transgender people, he, she, who cares' and I'd do it again. Sadly not many in HOF shot down that bigotry, so I had to.
Now characterize me some more it is so fun!!! You are so qualified to do so!!!!

[BainsBane]

30. By the way, there is no peace

Even if the US does nothing, there is no peace. People are dying and will continue to die either way. The question is which option is more dangerous.

[truebrit71]

15. Not to me they haven't....

But thanks for the un-warranted snark...

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. "And if someone suspects you've been told what to say, DENY IT."

"Accuse THEM. Turn the tables."

[truebrit71]

24. No-one has "told me" what to say...

...believe what you will...

[KittyWampus]

43. it's possible to reject intervening in Syria w/o resorting to Bush-era narratives.

[niyad]

2. you mean, like agent orange, napalm, depleted uranium, white phosphorus--you know, the stuff THIS

country uses?

[quinnox]

4. There are other options other than military

Not using military does not mean chemical weapons = we approve.

[BainsBane]

7. What do you think could be effective?

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. You putting on fatigues and carrying a rifle would be very effective

from where I'm sitting, since you seem so bloodthirsty.

Go fight. Don't waste your precious time on us peace hippies who don't understand the amount of skull crackin' that needs doing.

[BainsBane]

19. You assume anyone who wants to think through options supports war

I do not. You aren't even passably observant on my positions on this matter.

[Dreamer Tatum]

22. Where do you stand on cutting your pinkies off?

it's an option, cutting off your pinkies. Have you "thought through" them yet? Given it serious consideration? Weighed the alternatives?

Attacking Syria solves nothing in the world. NOTHING. It's just dick-swinging at Iran.

[BainsBane]

26. Yes, I can see your foreign policy acumen truly is impressive

I stand in awe.

[MADem]

36. What a nasty response--and factually untrue as well.

Please answer the question--how would you resolve this issue of chemical weapons being used against an innocent civilian population?

Please enlighten us with how YOU would solve this thorny problem!

Or is your solution to do nothing, to "let 'em die?"

Now, if that is the case, that's pretty bloodthirsty, if you ask me.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Saddam gassed the Kurds, 4 months later Rumsfeld was shaking his hand, sent by Reagan to

make nice with the guy who had just gassed thousands of people. What was your reaction to that? Did you call for war? If not, why not then and why now? Kurds don't count or what?

[MADem]

68. Yes, and what's your point? Really--What. Is. Your. POINT?

Is Rummy still in charge of the Defense Department? Hmmmmm?

Do we live in a static world where voters don't vote, and governments never change?

Who is "calling for war" here?

I'm advocating a targeted strike against STUFF--the STUFF that al-Assad uses to kill grannies and little kids by the thousands in their beds.

I didn't like the Kurds getting gassed either (in case you somehow, in your tortured logic, think that just because that horrific thing happened that means that "I" approved of it--and that does seem to be the absurd construct you're shopping). I happen to have a very fond view of the Kurdish people based on personal interaction--I particularly like their culture, and find their history very compelling. If it were up to me, and I had a magic wand and could wave it, I'd give them what they deserve--an actual nation called Kurdistan.

We should have targeted Saddam's "stuff" too, but we didn't do that.

Go on and read your post back again--do you realize what a lame "argument" you're making? It's just .... asinine.

Rummy did it--and I didn't hear YOU protesting! Ergo, since I didn't hear it, you MUST have APPROVED!!!!

[LWolf]

89. It takes a moron to miss the point.

FUCKING HYPOCRISY

[MADem]

90. Look who's talking! That was probably the worst attempt at conflation I've ever seen!

Hypocrisy happens when the SAME PERSON, for personal, ideological or pecuniary reasons, behaves in different ways responding to similar circumstances.

Unless "Rummy" is a shape-shifter, that's not the situation, here.

If you're going to try to personally insult someone, you should at least try to make a little sense. Otherwise, you find yourself, as you do right now, in a "smelt it--dealt it" situaton.

[LWolf]

93. Heh.

It looks like it's time to pull this out; I knew I shouldn't be feeding the firebugs' flames. It's just so tempting, when I find empty garbage coming from morons who just needs someone to attack, to poke at them with a sharp stick. Conflation, lol. Have at it.

[MADem]

95. You don't think you should be feeding flames...yet you do it.

I think, instead of going on about "morons," that you might want to take a look in your mirror, and maybe do a little introspection, if that's possible.

[LWolf]

97. You are right.

I shouldn't be. I am very well acquainted with myself, thanks.

Usually when I am irritated by people who attack without substance, I ignore them. Sometimes, though, I give into temptation. As a child, I was known to stir up ant hills with a stick to watch them scurry around. It was entertaining. Even when I suffered a bite or two. When I don't have the requisite store of patience to put up with the stupid online, I sometimes do the same. It's entertaining. It seems like there are people who are simply addicted to flames. There doesn't have to be any reasoning at all behind their need to click their bic. I SHOULD be tossing water or a blanket instead of fuel at them, and I usually do. When I'm particularly disenchanted with the world, though, I'll toss them some fuel. It's what they want, after all; someone to attack. I can take it. My flame suit is up-to-date.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. Rumsfeld was acting as an official of the US government, same government that

is today claiming that the use of gas has always meant instant reaction, they pretend this is the first use of such weapons since WW1. No one held Saddam accountable, no one held Rummy and Reagan accountable, did they? No one held Rummy accountable when, years later, he told more lies about WMD.
Try to wrap your mind around it. Saying 'hmmmmmm' and Rummy is not cutting the thick fog of illogic you have laid down here.

[MADem]

105. Rumsfeld is not "the decider."

Let's go back to Franklin Pierce's Secretary of War, why don't we, and see what he might have thought?

Try to wrap YOUR mind around it--Rummy ain't "in charge." Nor is Bush, nor is Cheney, nor is Reagan.

Conflation doesn't cut it. That's what's "illogical" here.

[qazplm]

106. my reaction to that is we became complicit

and it was morally wrong and indefensible to let that go unchallenged.

So, do we repeat that mistake or not is my answer.

Your argument appears to be since we let it go before we are forever not allowed to rectify that mistake in the future or choose a different path.

It's like saying because we had slavery more or less last that we can never speak out against others who engage in it...or speak out against S. Africa back in the day because we still had discrimination.

This whole you can't help unless you are pure baloney is morally wrong and logically nonsensical.

[DevonRex]

71. I agree. There might be other solutions. So let's talk about them.

But we can't act like it's OK to use chemical weapons. That can be a horrible way to die. And worse, it can be a horrible way to live afterwards.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Iraq gassed thousands of people and our reaction was to send Rumsfeld to shake Saddam's hand.

And the executive branch claimed they knew where vast stockpiles were. So Iraq had used such weapons with impunity and US blessing. Were you calling for war against Iraq then? How about 14 years later when we finally went in? Where was this sense of 'moral responsibility' then?

[IdaBriggs]

9. No, we aren't. We don't trust our own government after Junior lied.

I support intervention. Welcome to the 10% minority.

[KharmaTrain]

61. People Want Black Or White Here...

...I applaud the stands you've taken and the deliberations you've gone through; despite all the DU "experts" who already know everything and impart their "wisdom" from on high. While this administration is trying to present this action as being similar to Bill Clinton's mission in Kosovo, it's looking and sounding more like dubya's run up to Iraq and that's where the real rub is right now. And sadly, more innocent people will die as Assad does whatever it takes to hold onto power. He's making daddy's massacre at Homs look like an amateur and must now feel emboldened as his adversaries remain split on how to deal with him.

This is a very complex war in a country we truly know little about and because of that I'm extremely cautious about supporting any military action; especially if its a unilateral action. No matter how strategic the bombing, innocents will die and without some kind of coordination and possible "boots on the ground", Assad, just like Hussein, could hold out and continue to wage genocide on his own people. Unless, just like in Kuwait, you had soldiers from Arab League countries as part of a coalition...and this is what gave that war a bit of legitimacy. The US going alone makes it look like we're world's policemen and justifies all those "hair on fire" types who see this administration as just as brutish as the previous regime.

I'm one who hopes that President Obama is playing Teddy Roosevelt here...carrying the big stick and using it to try to get some kind of negotiations going. I'm more hopeful of his trip to Moscow next week than I am of a dozen cruise missile strikes and that we don't resort to any type of military action. It's a shame as so many people have needlessly died but our influence in Syria is minimal and we can't go it alone...

Cheers...

[IdaBriggs]

83. Thank you for one of the nicest compliments I have *ever* received.

You make some very valid points; I especially like your issues with an Arab coalition (which I don't think will happen because Assad is part of an unofficial monarchy situation with fake voting thrown in as cover, and the other countries do not want the "democracy" stuff spreading).

I know it is unpopular, but I am kind of big on "use poison gas / chemical weapons / nuclear weapons" means we do step in and implement regime change as Planetary Police Officers. I find state sanctioned slaughter to be abhorrent; and yes, I am good with any little dictator ANYWHERE facing appropriate action if those lines are crossed. The fact there are no consequences (remember Pinochet?) seems to embolden the little tyrants.

I am an optimist ...

Regardless, I appreciate the fact we can DISCUSS these things here.

We cannot let the evil Bush did stop us from acting in appropriate and humane ways to help our fellow human beings.

The world is a complicated place. I have to trust someone (and their chosen support team) to investigate and make decisions about things outside of the scope of my knowledge and control. I trust Obama. I *never* trusted Junior.

[KharmaTrain]

92. Well Earned And Deserved...

...I've long enjoyed your posts here as reasoned and informed over the emotional; a rare comodity on DU.

The other day I first heard of what I'll call "Post-Iraq Syndrome" or post PNAC or bush or pick your own word that describes the combination of the loss of any credibility in our government's foreign policy along with the fall out of launching a war based on illegal and false pretenses. I can understand why there's a lot of suspicion here but we don't live in a one-size fits-all world and you have to hope that this administration is not motivated like the previous regime and its motives are to prevent more genocide. The U.S. has done it in the past and I'm hoping that if force has to be used that the U.S. doesn't go it alone. This is an international problem and needs to be dealt with in that arena.

The reality is this is a proxy war where we have very little influence and no assurances that any military action will hasten an end to this savage war. Just like it was the neighbors who took Idi Amin down (and into a cozy exile in Saudi Arabia), I feel it's going to be the pressure of Russians, Iranians and Saudis that can bring all these parties to some kind of resolution or truce in hostilities.

Cheers...

[Capt. Obvious]

10. We're okay with our chemical weapons

Other countries that are not our allies? Not so much.

[Lee-Lee]

13. Does it really matter if they die from a bullet, explosion or poison?

Dead is dead.

If we only act when 100 are gassed, after 100,000 or more are killed by the same people other ways, are we not just saying "it's ok to kill people, just do it in the way we approve of."

[truebrit71]

28. That's a very valid point...

...you are no more dead by bullet than by gas...But a large number of countries have signed on to a ban on the use of chemical weapons, so when they are used, some sort of response is required, no?

[Bluenorthwest]

55. The vast majority of nations bans landmines, we refuse to ban them and use them like mad.

Years after conflict, these mines blow kids to bits. Should some response be made toward us? I do not expect an answer, just as you evade the information about prior use of gas by nations we supported in doing so.

[truebrit71]

70. I know the US, specifically Bush iirc, wouldn't sign on the the landmine ban...

...and I think that is cowardice to the extreme...I apologize, did you ask me about the gas use by our "friends" in the past? No, I am not okay with the nod and wink given by the US to Iraq to use chemical weapons against Iran...

[Bluenorthwest]

101. Bush? He's not been President for some time, Obama has also kept landmines.

And I did not use the term 'friends' I said we supported the use of those weapons by Iraq, ie we gave them target coordinates, actual support.
It' just odd to hear that chem weapons are a line in the sand...when our government has certainly not acted that way in the past.

[Lee-Lee]

91. No

Just because some countries agreed, doesn't make us the worlds police any time somebody else does something.

Such disputes should be between the parties involved if one country uses it against another, or in a case like this at bet a regional dispute for Syrias neighbors to fix.

[whatchamacallit]

20. I'm more ok with them than nukes

Something only ever deployed on a civilian population by the oh-so-moral US.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. A bunch of responses come to mind.

The foremost is simply this: There is no way of reasonably anticipating that our intervention would make things better for anybody, and we could end up making things much worse. It's sorta like the old Serenity Prayer:


"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."

There are many potential Very Bad Outcomes that could derive from a military intervention.

You contrast the invasion of Iraq with our reluctance to attack Syria. Well, maybe we actually learned something from the fiasco that the previous administration led us into with their lies.

Actually, that's a qualified "us," since most of the people on this board were not deceived and many of us demonstrated in opposition the war, to no avail.

[truebrit71]

31. ...and the potential knock-on effects of a military strike make it even more complicated...

Assad has already shown he cares so little for human life that he would use chemical weapons, and he has threatened to attack Israel if the US responds with an air-strike, Iran and Russia have said they won't sit idly by...so this thing could spiral, rapidly, out of control...

So..we're back to the original question...how do we respond to this atrocity that will prevent further use of the weapons, without getting involved in the civil war, and without getting Russia and other Arab countries involved either?

[Jackpine Radical]

45. Sometimes the best available response is not to respond.

We can jump up & down & yell without doing much harm if we want, but I think that any concrete military action is fraught with danger. As Dennis Kucinich asked--What are we planning to do, become Al Qaeda's air force?

[truebrit71]

64. And that's where the frustration sets in...

...because I think you're right....

[Rex]

29. Did you worry about the dead children we killed in the first drone attacks?

How about the ones that are deformed and have died from DU in Iraq? Funny what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Dead is dead, but not for some it seems what is used to kill them is far more important then the fact that they are DEAD.

Sorry, not buying it.

[truebrit71]

32. Absolutely I did, and still do whenever Obama uses Droney to collaterally kill more...

...and I'm not absolving the US from the nightmare that will become the residual effects on the Iraqi population thanks to the use of DU, far from it, but does that mean that we just let these chemical attacks stand with no response?

[mike_c]

38. frankly, I think it does....

We have utterly squandered any moral capital we might once have had, and strikes against Syria will just be more international bullying by the biggest dog on the block. We are not the world's cop, nor should we be. I'm sick to death of the U.S. military thugging for empire all over the globe, and I'm sick to death of the political games that they're pawns in.

[X_Digger]

34. That's one hell of a false dichotomy you have there. n/t

[truebrit71]

49. Care to explain what you mean by that?

How is it a false dichotomy, i'm interested in your opinion...

[X_Digger]

51. Either engage militarily to some degree, or you're okay with chemical weapons.

That's the false dichotomy you presented.

Which ignores a whole host of options other than military intervention. And not wanting to engage our military has nothing to do with being 'okay' with chemical weapons.

I would have thought it was self-evident.

[truebrit71]

58. Military engagement wasn't the only option...a "response" of some degree was...

...and I certainly don't meant it to be viewed as a false choice of "if you don't agree with X then you must agree with Y..."

That's not what I was driving at...

[X_Digger]

60. "but we're okay with chemical weapons? " -- did a gremlin jump up and commandeer your keyboard?

Meh. Transparent.

[truebrit71]

62. That is one part of the OP....

...and certainly not the over-riding point of it...

Have we become so jaded and cynical because of the lies of the previous administration about fake WMD, that when there are REAL WMD, and they are being used, right now, on innocent civilians, we choose not to react in some manner?

I am not suggesting that a military response is the ONLY option, but surely, when we see our fellow human beings being slaughter en masse, don't we have to do SOMETHING?

[X_Digger]

67. I don't see you editing the OP.

No, that's a rhetorical framing tactic to set those that disagree with you at a disadvantage.

I'm not playing.

[truebrit71]

72. I didn't/haven't edited the OP?

I'm more interested in the debate rather than the techniques as you seem to be, I'm not looking to gain an 'advantage' on anyone, merely trying to get people's opinions as I try and figure out in my head how to square this particular circle...

[Savannahmann]

41. So you are comfortable picking sides in a Civil War?

What happens when we pick a side, and the next Government is no better than the last one, and perhaps is even worse? Do you honestly think that those groups backed by the Muslim Brotherhood (Read Al Queda) and Hamas are going to be more humane towards the people than Assad? I for one do not think they will be any more responsible or humane.

What will happen is that a Regime with close ties to known Terrorist Groups will have gotten control of a nation with an established chemical weapons program. I'm sure Hamas will have to seriously consider for almost four seconds who to use that on.

The Muslim Brotherhood could well use that to try and regain control in Egypt. And AQ would never use a weapon that would indiscriminately murder thousands of people. (Do I really need the sarcasm tag?)

So we would be taking sides in a Civil War, and quite possibly inflicting a regime on the population that is at least as bad, and potentially much worse.

Now, we claim we are not going for Regime Change. But if we aren't going to bomb for any recognizable goal, why drop the damned things?

We have no goal. We have no strategic vision. We will probably release another big cloud of chemical weapons by bombing the storage/production facilities. All we have is the desire to do something, and are operating under the idea that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons (we feel bad for the victims) will somehow work out because we care.

Then what about Russia and China? Russia is moving more ships into the area, and we are liable to find ourselves shooting it out with them. It doesn't even take a madman in charge of the ship in question. IT could be someone who honestly believes he is threatened or has been fired on returning fire. A glitch in the ships radar could make the Captain think he has moments to return fire at the hostiles.

Russia says they will not go along. They have even intimated that they will fight to protect Assad. Do we bomb anyway hoping that they're not crazy enough to engage with an enemy that has Nuclear Weapons? We don't think they're that crazy could well go down as famous last words as our world wide civilization ends in a blinding flash of light. That could well include you, and i'm fresh out of the sunscreen with a SPF rating of two million.

So let's look at the bottom line. Pros for getting involved. If things work out just fine and dandy, our actions might lead to Regime Change without trying for Regime Change and the Muslim Brotherhood backed groups might not send those Chemical Weapons here there and everywhere. Perhaps they'll just use them on Israel instead of on us. Of course, Israel will respond with Nukes, but who needs the area's around Tel Aviv to be radioactive free.

Cons. Russia and the US could get into a shooting war that leads to Global Thermonuclear War.

So how would the children of Syria feel if instead of choking to death from a gas, they are incinerated in a nuke, or left to die over days from Radiation poisoning?

[truebrit71]

53. Not at all...

...and that just adds to the complication of the situation...if we respond militarily, how do we do it so that it sends the message that using chemical weapons is NOT okay without inadvertently tipping the scales one way or the other in the ongoing civil war. Hell, I'm not 100% settled with the concept of arming the "rebels"...we have no real idea who they are, or who is funding them, but we seem not have learned the lesson from the last time we armed "rebels" in that area...

[Savannahmann]

57. Then the only solution is....

Political. Which means taking it to the UN. There is no way we can get military sanctions through, and it's doubtful we'd get economic sanctions through. That means no legal justification for much of anything except our own ability to cut off our trade with Syria, which is next to nothing anyway.

We are powerless in this situation unless we flaunt international law, and that risks war with two nuclear powers. Both of whom have the ability to strike us. So while I may not like the use of Chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, I like the alternatives even less.

[truebrit71]

59. "I like the alternatives even less"...I totally agree...

...hence the dilemma...

[BlueCheese]

52. I think it's hard to figure out what we can accomplish...

... as well as the manner in which we go about it.

I don't oppose all military intervention. The U.S. and a few other countries have the means to stop atrocities worldwide, and thus an obligation to at least consider doing so when they arise. To me, the ideal operation would be something like Kosovo or Bosnia, where NATO put an end to some fairly terrible crimes against humanity.

The problem right now in Syria, as I see it, is that I'm not sure what we can accomplish with missiles or airstrikes. It doesn't sound like we really support the rebels, and it's not clear we have the will to see any campaign through to a decisive outcome. If all we do is a hit and run, does that improve things?

My other concern is that we are about to do this alone-- almost literally, alone. Without asking Congress, bringing it before the UN or even NATO, when even the Brits have decided against it. We need at least some international or domestic legitimacy before taking action.

[woo me with science]

54. The propaganda has no credibiliity anymore. nt

[bowens43]

56. sorry but this kind of false equivalency is ridiculous. We are not the worlds policemen

being opposed to launching military strikes does not equate to liking dead babies.

dumb argument

[loveandlight]

63. if we have a moral obligation, it would be to deal with the deaths our own country unleashes

We are not the world's policeman, as others here have stated. And to the extent that anything needs to be done regarding the chemical weapons used in Syria, the UN inspectors are there, let their work finish and the world community come up with a sanction or whatever else seems appropriate.

For us, I believe we have a moral obligation to deal with the deaths by drone that our own country participates in on a regular basis. We have no moral standing in that part of the world with regard to improper use of weapons, whether chemical or any other kind, when we illegally and without compunction continue to kill civilians with our drone attacks in any country that we feel like it. Let's work hard to make that stop before we feel compelled to get on our moral high horse and demand other countries be on good behavior.

[truebrit71]

66. Agreed..

...

[RobinA]

69. I'll Answer You Straight

I am a flaming liberal who is not particularly doveish. I was in favor of Bosnia (humanitarian) and even challenging Saddam's march to the sea (national security). I do think we have a right and the President has a duty, to look out for national interests.

However, our recent (and not so recent) forays into world policemenship have not gone well and have actually harmed this country. Iraq was a purposeless disaster. Afghanistan seems to have been purposeful, but still a bit of a disaster. We seem to be utterly at sea when it comes to operating in the Middle East, as we REALLY don't understand the culture. One more war over there is not going to finally be the one that works, because nothing has changed. We don't understand what we are doing over there, and we need to cut our loses before any more terrorists get born/made/recruited. Yes, they are doing bad things to innocent people. But they are going to have to start solving this stuff themselves.

Maybe if we (and our allies, looking at you France and GB ) hadn't been mucking around over there for lo these many decades, they'd be closer to sorting things out for themselves. Or maybe not.

In my view we need to protect our oil interests, be working double time to get off oil as soon as possible, and then pull out of there lock stock and barrel (so to speak) and let them run things as they see fit. Meanwhile we can back up Israel when they run into trouble they haven't instigated.

Right now we are like the person standing in the river bank upstream from Niagra Falls who sees a person being swept towards the falls, so jumps in after him to try to save him. And we both go over. Sometimes you just can't solve the problem.

No to Syria.

[truebrit71]

76. Thanks for your answer...I particularly like the Niagra Falls analogy...

...and that's why I'm leaning more and more to the 'do nothing' response, much though it pains me to see this tragedy unfold...

[LittleBlue]

74. Awful thread

Who exactly is okay with using chemical weapons? No one I've seen.

Opposing intervention doesn't mean being okay with chemical weapons.

[truebrit71]

80. But that's sort of my point...

...if we do nothing...and that means military response as well as others...doesn't that signal a tacit approval of the use of those weapons, even though 178 countries around the world have signed a ban on their use? Doing nothing would destroy any credibility that agreement has...hence the dilemma....do we do nothing and let this activity go unpunished, or do we respond in some fashion, and maybe create even more problems down the line...?

[LittleBlue]

82. No, it would not signal tacit approval

anymore than us not intervening in the countless other tragic conflicts in the world.

If you approve of it, that's your deal, don't project on to others.

[truebrit71]

84. I'm not projecting anything on anyone...

...if we say there are consequences for bad behavior, and them don't follow through, that means the behavior can't have been that bad, no? Otherwise there would have been, you know, consequences...

[LittleBlue]

85. And there are consequences

I would think sanctions and international isolation count as consequences.

There is not a single person condoning these attacks, but you've got the idea that the only answer can be war, and anything else is tacit approval. That's not the case.

[truebrit71]

86. Sanctions and international isolation haven't worked up to this point...

...why would more of them work. I am NOT suggesting that war is the only answer, I am asking folks for their thoughts on what should be done in it's place...

[LittleBlue]

87. They haven't worked because Assad is fighting a war for

his survival. All consequences short of death will not stop him, including these stupid operations Obama has planned.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. If that is what you meant to ask, your OP is poorly phrased.

Very much so.

[B Calm]

75. The US is not the best example to be playing world policeman!

[NCTraveler]

78. I think that a number of the people completely against...

I think that a number of the people completely against the use of the US military in this instance could be swayed. I feel that I am in that camp. If a plan was laid out I would be willing to think about my support or lack of support. Right now we KNOW how bad we are at nation building. We also KNOW that just blowing shit up will not make the situation any better. So, what is the plan? For now, my plan is to oppose military intervention.

[Live and Learn]

81. There are a lot of things that I find not okay

but lobbing bombs at those that do them is not usually my first course of action.

[LWolf]

88. Of course we're okay with chemical weapons.

Fallujah. White phosphorous. We're clearly just fine with them.

[bemildred]

94. Are those the only alternatives we have? I don't think so. nt

[MNBrewer]

96. I reject the distinction between chemical and conventional weapons

The distinction was based on revulsion of this newfangled weapon deployed in large quantity in WWI, and is a century old.

That was before nukes.

Dead is dead, via a bullet, artillery shell or nerve agent.

Why is this 1400 somehow special in the >100,000 killed already?

[scarletwoman]

98. "Why is this 1400 somehow special in the >100,000 killed already?" Thank you.

I reject the distinction, too.

[qazplm]

107. almost the entire world disagrees with you

a bullet, even an artillery shell, has some ability to be targeted towards combatants, chemical agents not only don't but they persist in many cases, and kill anew.

[99Forever]

99. False dilema, much.

You want to "stop this outrage?" Hop to it, buddy. Put your own ass on the line and your own cash up to finance it. 100% of it.

[former9thward]

104. We have used chemical weapons.

Napalm in Vietnam, Agent Orange in Vietnam, White Phosphorus in Iraq. When we indict those presidents who used those then we get to complain about chemical use elsewhere.

[Spider Jerusalem]

108. Well...

the US response to claims of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime has been precipitous ("we don't need to wait for the UN inspectors!&quot , and the proposed military action ("limited strikes&quot of questionable utility in bringing about any effective change in the Syrian status quo. There are no clearly defined goals, no objectives beyond "sending a message". The destruction of Syrian chemical weapons stores and delivery capability would very probably require ground troops, not just launching missiles from 20 miles off the coast. What are the expectations here? That Assad will be properly chastened, hang his head and say "so sorry, I'll only slaughter people with conventional weapons from now on!"? Does that constitute a victory?

[ocpagu]

109. Do you want your government to help Syrians?

Pressure your government to send ships with medication, clothes, water and food.

Bombs won't help them. It's that simple.