I'm going to be honest here about what I see in Syria.

[Archae]

We should just stay the hell out.

Assad and his allies are thugs.
So are the rebels, including the Al-Qaeda groups.

If the US gets into this mess, it'll be *OUR* troops that become targets, like they did in Lebanon, during Reagan.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. I'm less worried about our troops, who willingly carry out acts of terror...

And more concerned with Syrian citizens.

[Archae]

2. "Willingly carry out acts of terror?"

What sort of bullshit is that?

Our troops do commit acts of terror, and they end up going to JAIL for it.

I had a nephew who spent over a year in Iraq and then Afghanistan, and to call him a "terrorist" is pissing on his grave.
So take your shit and flush it where it should go.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. "Our troops do commit acts of terror, and they end up going to JAIL for it." In what dream world?

In an age where our military is used almost exclusively to further corporate and political interest, in an age when such a corporate military machine is readily visible and understandable, there is no longer any real legitimacy behind the claim "I didn't know any better."

I wasn't going to make this personal. You seem to want to push it that way but I won't. What I will say, however, is that the Iraq and Afghan wars were both utterly pointless as far as national security was concerned. And all of the casualties and deaths of these wars have been in vain. Which is a pill not easily swallowed. What is also clearly evident is the illegitimacy of these wars. So much so that we are forced to question the morality of anyone who willingly participated in them.

[mike_c]

26. the U.S. military exports terrorism globally....

The U.S. is the worlds most prolific supplier of terror. Unless your definition of terrorism is something other than "violence directed against civilians to influence government policy," of course.

Bumper sticker I saw recently: "The U.S. Marine Corps: When it absolutely positively must be destroyed overnight."

[Agschmid]

7. 3-3 to keep...

not sure why.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. What? This was said 1000 times during Bush/Iraq

Don't get all sensitive at this late date.

[Agschmid]

9. Need more than that...

[geek tragedy]

38. Under Bush, people here at DU were concerned for the troops well-being.

This kind of hatred was never okay.

But, apparently it is now.

[Gravitycollapse]

47. I hope you learn from this experience...

That trying to shame people into honoring the armed forces will not work. That using foul language and humiliation will only further mar your cause. Take note and take a few minutes to consider what you've said.

From the very start of this discussion, you insisted on making this personal. YOU made it personal, not I. And, in doing so, you've completely missed the point.

I am not nor have I ever been a "troop" hating leftist. I am certainly a leftist and I will NEVER apologize for that. But I have never hated in mass our armed forces. They are individuals just like you and I and they make decisions that positively or negatively effect their lives. They are not deities. They make mistakes. And they are certainly capable of making terrible decisions and, when those mistakes are elevated to the point of immorality, should be held accountable for their misdeeds.

That was the point of my original statement. I do not feel bad for soldiers who knowingly attack sovereign nations and kill innocent people. I do, however, feel bad for the innocent civilians they hurt.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. Concerned for the troops? Enough to join them? You should call 1-888-550-ARMY (2769).

Cyber-recruiters are standing by.


http://www.goarmy.com/talk-with-us/phone.html

Or is it that you don't want to be one of the troops?

But you will be behind the troops, won't you?

[Bobbie Jo]

62. What a profoundly stupid post.

Clueless.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. It is either profoundly brilliant for people to be war cheerleaders without having any skin in the

game or profoundly stupid.

If you are a war cheerleader, there's no need for you to be on the sideline with pom-poms.



If you haven't had enough war in the Middle-East, you should either sign up or drive one of your relatives down to a recruiter's office.

[Bobbie Jo]

64. No, it starts with a false premise

and goes to ridiculously stupid from that point forward.

Doubling down on the lame is nothing short of "brilliant."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. So you started with a false premise? And you admit it? What a surprise.

[Bobbie Jo]

71. Yeah, we're done here.

"I know what you are, but what am I"

Brilliant.

[dkf]

10. Me neither.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. Probably because it's a legitimate position to hold.

I don't hero worship our soldiers. Many of them are responsible for the destruction of entire nations.

[geek tragedy]

25. Yes, your contempt and disregard for their safety

has been eloquently stated.

Which is why it's a good thing the adults in the party don't care what you think.

[Gravitycollapse]

31. War is a nasty place. If you don't want to assume the risk, don't go...

But don't expect me to bow down and kiss you're feet because you joined the armed forces.

[geek tragedy]

37. Apparently asking a bit of human decency is too much for you. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

44. Human decency would dictate that you not blow up a village with a drone...

Or invade a sovereign country for dubious reasons. But time and time again, soldiers continue to commit these atrocities. Why? Because we don't hold them accountable.

[ocpagu]

48. I see more human decency in his argument than in yours.

People know what is an army. Do they want to join it? Ok, go ahead. But don't expect us to be condescending with their actions or accept their mistakes because the government told us that we should be blindly patriotic. They knew what they were doing by joining the most controversial death-machine of the planet.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. Why haven't you signed up? Have you even driven a relative down to a recruiter's office?

[bluestate10]

19. It's some on DU. The post should have been hidden. Not because the person is stating a claim,

but because the claim is outrageous and horribly untrue.

[Gravitycollapse]

35. If it is horribly untrue, prove it wrong.

[Bobbie Jo]

61. People like this

Don't deserve the time of day much less an explanation.

[LittleBlue]

68. She has a right to her opinion

Like everyone else. That's why.

[bluestate10]

18. Are you serious? Our troops "willingly carry out acts of terror"?

I agree that we have rogue troops on occasions, but the men and women fighting for us as a group is the most ethical fighting force on earth.

[geek tragedy]

23. Troop hate does exist on the left, to the point

where some around here don't care about their safety.

And, yes, that is what DU's community values are these days.

[sabrina 1]

39. That is an outright lie. But why am I not surprised to see this far right wing meme

here on DU. ONE person, and I've been here a long time, expressed that opinion. And you launch into FR rhetoric about the 'Left hating the troops'. That is pure garbage.

Many DUers ARE soldiers, do you know any of them? I doubt it, most of the ones i know oppose THIS invasion and opposed all of Bush's wars. Maybe because they've been there and seen what war really is. Not just something to make a politician look good.

Many DUers who have family members in the military, as I do. You need to retract that statement and apologize to DU for bringing that Right Wing garbage here. We saw enough of it during the Bush years. It is disgusting to see it right here on DU.

[geek tragedy]

40. Gravitycollapse is a troop-hating leftist.

The kind who would spit on an Iraq vet with spinal trauma.

And none of his troop hating posts have been hidden by a jury. Which means hating troops, to the point of gloating over injuries they receive in war, are DU values.

So, yeah, this place is infested with anti-American, anti-troop sociopaths.

So, there are some decent people like you here. But not nearly enough.

[sabrina 1]

42. You accused DUers of Troop Hate. You know perfectly well that is what I am talking about.

Troop hate does exist on the left, to the point

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 03:23 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

where some around here don't care about their safety.

And, yes, that is what DU's community values are these days.

Just in case it gets deleted.

Really? DU's community values is to 'hate the troops'.

Tell that to DU's troops many of whom don't support your political views but they ARE definitely on the 'left' and proudly so.

I repeat what I said, this is Right Wing bullshit that has been so thoroughly debunked as it was revealed over and over again that most of THEM and their leaders were nothing but Chicken hawks and keyboard warriors.

Karl Rove airc, had the nerve to make that same accusation against the 'left', (I always know who I am talking to when they use 'left' as if it was a pejorative), and Rove received tens of thousands of responses from the 'hated left' most of them Military Personnel who didn't just cheer for war they would never fight in, unlike that little weasel coward who, ALSO, despises the 'left'.

That is quite a revealing statement. But it won't be a surprise to the 'left' that you feel so detached from you write about them as if they were on the other side. Are they on the other side? I have never, ever seen a Democrat play into that garbage that was so prevalent until the Left finally had enough and dealt with it permanently.

Man that brings back unhappy memories. You should have the decency to apologize to DU for dragging that up all over again here. But I won't hold my breath.

[Gravitycollapse]

45. Show me where I've EVER gloated about someone suffering a traumatic injury.

Show me.

[KansDem]

52. "...some around here don't care about their safety."

Don't care about their safety?

Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests now worn by the majority of troops in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops.

--more--
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07armor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I would hazard to guess that not a single DUer would advocate sending improperly-equipped US soldiers into combat. But the fucking Bushistas didn't mind. And they did it under the banner of "patriotism."

It's insane that the fucking cowards who lied us into war didn't want to provide our troops with the proper armor...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. You're behind the troops?

[Gravitycollapse]

32. It's not a matter of a few rogue soldiers. It is the entire military machine...

If you, for instance knowingly participated in the Iraq war after it became obvious we were here for dubious reasons, you are culpable for the atrocities commited by our armed forces, up to and including the literal war itself.

[Gravitycollapse]

43. This is the kind of base nationalist flag waving response I've come to expect...

I do not hate our soldiers. Even if you say it a thousand times, I do not hate them. I do not worship them, either. And I do not pity those who go off to fight an illegitimate war. I just don't. If we want to deal with culpability, responsibility, acknowledging what we've done, then the soldiers who knowingly went off to wage an illegal war are responsible for their misdeeds. That's not a judgement of all soldiers. Far from it, I am demanding that we hold certain individuals accountable for what they've done instead of giving blanket permission for armed persons to do whatever they want.

I do not feel anger towards you. I feel bad that you are so clouded by your personal hatred that you can't imagine what I'm talking about.

[The Straight Story]

53. And so are YOU if you worked a day in your life during that time

Because you enabled it all through your taxes.

If you own property, bought anything, etc - you were willingly paying for it all. Unless you don't live in the US or left it during that time.

[Gravitycollapse]

55. Sure, that would absolutely be true. The fortunate exception here is that I was 13...

when we invaded Iraq. Of course, I am not an adult and my money still goes toward the military industrial complex. And for that I have no reasonable excuse. And neither does anyone else.

[The Straight Story]

56. And people who join the military are just signing on to serve their country, you and me

My son joined up during that time. Needed a job and the economy was in the tank (thanks to bush and such).

He went to Iraq. Hated it. Saw friends die. But he did the job he was sworn to do (unlike some in our government).

You said:
"If you, for instance knowingly participated in the Iraq war after it became obvious we were here for dubious reasons, you are culpable for the atrocities commited by our armed forces, up to and including the literal war itself. "

Do you have any idea how many jobs there are in the military across the globe???

Total Army: 1,097,050

We never had more than 160,000 troops in Iraq (and that is broken up by branch, so Army would be less than that). So less than 10% of people in the US army were there.

In other words, 90% of people in the army, or those who signed up for it, were certain of being there in Iraq. People didn't KNOWINGLY participate in the Iraq war (though some may have signed up for that). You didn't know where you were going. Germany, England, bases all over the world. Staying here, etc.

But all of us living and working here were paying for it. And we kept paying for it the whole time, and we were not willing to self sacrifice and find ways to not pay for it.

Our troops obeyed the law, did what they were told to do, went where they were sent. They didn't have a choice after signing up.

The rest of us did have a choice, and we chose to just complain about it while still funding it.

So lay off the troops and people who took a job when they need it most and the armed forces were hiring - because they needed the money and we were paying them.

Blame the people who used them.

[Gravitycollapse]

57. "I was just doing what I was told" is not an ethically sound argument...

When carrying out an illegal war.

I'll blame everyone involved. The opportunistic politicians. The war profiteers. The soldier who blindly carry out these atrocities. And the citizens who do nothing to stop it.

But the bottom line is I'm not out there killing. And the soldiers are. Whereas I am reflecting a general indifference to death, the soldiers have run the reaper out of business. Not because they are forced to kill. If they refused to raise their weapons on the battlefield as the enemy approaches, there would be no way to counteract that. Throughout this chain of indifference and corporate and political interest, the last stop is the soldiers trigger finger. They have the power to negate all of what comes before. So it makes it all the more grotesque and immoral when the soldiers carry out immoral orders.

[sarisataka]

76. Only one little problem...

If they refused to raise their weapons on the battlefield as the enemy approaches, there would be no way to counteract that. Throughout this chain of indifference and corporate and political interest, the last stop is the soldiers trigger finger. They have the power to negate all of what comes before.

Then they die. The enemy does not stop in combat to ask your political views, nor do they care that you do not shoot back. They are happy that you don't because they live. Since the only survivors are the opposition, no one will know these soldiers made this noble statement and refused to fight. It is the ultimate example of dying in vain.

Illegal orders must not be obeyed but there has to be more of a reason than 'I don't think this is right', you must have clear and articulable reasons based on US or international law, supported by evidence, that the order is illegal.
Example- you are ordered to shoot at a car in a restricted zone that has not responded to attempts to stop it- it could be civilians or it could be a suicide bomber. You can try to further communicate or shoot to miss at first but you have no clear reason to disobey the order; the vehicle is a continuing threat by not stopping.
-you are ordered to shoot a group of captured personnel who have detained for suspected weapons. Clearly illegal as they can be separated and searched. Barring any aggressive action or obvious weapon they are not a threat.

[Dreamer Tatum]

70. Well that explains it, then - you're a child. nt

[sarisataka]

75. That cleared it up for me

someone speaking with the wisdom of youth backed by the self-assurance of inexperience

[ocpagu]

49. "but the men and women fighting for us as a group is the most ethical fighting force on earth"

1 - They aren't "fighting for you", unless you're a billionaire, an oil magnate or something like that.
2 - They are far from being "the most ethical fighting force on earth"

[geek tragedy]

24. Maybe you can spit on some when they return from

tours overseas. You'd get bonus points for spitting on amputees, since you've made it clear you don't value their safety or well- being.

Heck, maybe you could go deface tombstones at Arlington.

[Gravitycollapse]

34. If you are injured knowingly fighting an illegal war, that is your fault, not mine...

Just as I would not feel particularly bad for a burglar who injures himself when he falls through a skylight trying to break into a home.

Are there good soldiers out there? Of course. But they are vastly outpaced by the hundreds of thousands of others who knowingly carry out illegal wars.

[BainsBane]

67. Your position is entirely classist

You blame those whose economic circumstances gave them no option in life other than joining the military while completely ignoring your own complicity in paying taxes that fund those wars.

Our military is largely made up of the poor and people of color, and I find it incredibly hypocritical that you sit in harsh judgement of them while refusing to reflect on the role that you and the rest of us play in funding war and benefiting from its spoils.

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. That is utterly false bullshit

gravitycollapse is offensive, but you don't have to lie about the makeup of the military to make a point.

[BainsBane]

74. Lie? WTF are you talking about?

[Dreamer Tatum]

77. Your assumption that the military is mostly minorities. Proven false MANY times.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/

[JustAnotherGen]

54. N/T

[MH1]

28. Your attack on the honorable members of the US military is duly noted.

I hope that one day you have some kind of experience that makes you appreciate that there are people who are willing to serve in the military and put their lives on the line even for total creeps and asswipes.

And it's people like you who make me REALLY wish Charlie Rangel would be successful in bringing back the draft.

But then, you'd probably pull a Ted Nugent to get your sorry ass out of serving.

[Gravitycollapse]

33. Clearly I have struck a nerve here...

Which is not surprising considering the kind of blind nationalism behind the hero worship of our armed forces.

All the while, it is our soldiers who are carrying out these illegal wars. If you go off and fight an illegitimate war, I don't feel any pride for you. And you cannot expect me to feel anything but contempt for your acts.

[davidpdx]

50. Hero worshiping? Grow up for godsakes

Most of the people who join the military are good honorable people. There are some who are bad apples and some who are influenced by those who are bad apples. I live in South Korea and there is always backlash toward the troops when something happens that paints all of them as evil. It's such a broadbrush it's ridiculous.

If you have a chip on your shoulder and are actively going around trying to piss people off and pick fights, maybe you should consider taking a break from DU. Personally I'm sick of the shit behavior from people like you.

Ps-If you have any doubts that I'm completely taking the others side, take a look at the second hidden post in the thread and guess which person alerted on it. I abhor it coming from both sides.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:09 AM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Hide it and TPTB needs to deliver a pizza.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This whole thread is a train wreck. Apparently the earlier post that set off this one was not hidden? In any case, to single out this particular post in the thread does not make sense--the whole thread is a problem.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[Gravitycollapse]

51. Yeah, just a bunch of honest working individuals waging illegal war, right?

Spare me. If you knowingly participate in an illegal war, you are culpable.

But there is the greater military machine at work. With great American transplants all over the world occupying willing nations with massive military presence. Militarized globalism.

[BootinUp]

30. Thats not overboard.

[LittleBlue]

69. Same here. nt

[JVS]

3. John McCain on Leno tonight convinced me that we shouldn't get involved.

[B Calm]

46. What is that lunatic saying?

[Cleita]

4. I couldn't agree with you more.

We should do what the Brits did. They took it to Parliament, who said no, we won't go. We need our Congress to convene and debate the issue. I'm almost certain they too will say no. That's how our democracy is supposed to work with a representative government. Why won't our government do the right thing?

[Melynn]

6. I trust President Obama

He'll end up doing the right thing. You watch.

[bluestate10]

20. I trust the President, but I must admit that he sometimes put his foot into his mouth before

doing the right thing. I think that the President should have never fucking made a "red-line" claim, that claim implied immediate action. He shouldn't have made the decision to send in warships unless he was going to pound the shit out of Syria. Now, the President runs the risk of having republicans in Congress play politics with the decision and having troops that are on standby become confused about what their role is. On top of his press conference, the President went out playing golf. The appearances look horrible.

[sibelian]

79. He'll end up doing "a thing"

which will then magically BECOME the right thing.

[The Straight Story]

12. Here is what I see:

2001 November - British PM Tony Blair visits to try shore up support for the campaign against terror. He and President Assad fail to agree on a definition of terrorism.

2002 May - Senior US official includes Syria in a list of states that make-up an "axis of evil", first listed by President Bush in January. Undersecretary for State John Bolton says Damascus is acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

2003 April - US threatens sanctions if Damascus fails to take what Washington calls the "right decisions". Syria denies US allegations that it is developing chemical weapons and helping fugitive Iraqis.

2004 May - US imposes economic sanctions on Syria over what it calls its support for terrorism and failure to stop militants entering Iraq.

2006 September - Attack on the US embassy in Damascus. Four gunmen open fire and throw grenades but fail to detonate a car bomb. Three of them are killed, one is captured.

2007 April - US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi meets President Assad in Damascus. She is the highest-placed US politician to visit Syria in recent years. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meets Foreign Minister Walid Muallem the following month in the first contact at this level for two years.

2007 May - Leading dissident Kamal Labwani and prominent political writer Michel Kilo are sentenced to a long jail terms, only weeks after human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni is jailed.

2007 September - Israel carries out an aerial strike against a site in northern Syria that it said was a nuclear facility under construction. In 2011 the UN's IAEA nuclear watchdog decides to report Syria to the UN Security Council over its alleged covert nuclear programme reactor programme at the site.

2008 April - The US accuses North Korea of having helped Syria to build a secret nuclear reactor at the site bombed by Israel in 2007.

2009 June - The UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, says traces of undeclared man-made uranium have been found at second site in Syria - a reactor in Damascus. The IAEA was investigating US claims that the site destroyed in the 2007 Israeli raid was a nuclear reactor.

2010 May - US renews sanctions against Syria, saying that it supports terrorist groups, seeks weapons of mass destruction and has provided Lebanon's Hezbollah with Scud missiles in violation of UN resolutions.

2011 May - Army tanks enter Deraa, Banyas, Homs and suburbs of Damascus in an effort to crush anti-regime protests. US and European Union tighten sanctions. President Assad announces amnesty for political prisoners.

2011 October - Newly formed Syrian National Council says it has forged a common front of internal and exiled opposition activists. Russia and China veto UN resolution condemning Syria.

2011 December - Syria agrees to an Arab League initiative allowing Arab observers into the country. Thousand of protesters gather in Homs to greet them, but the League suspends its mission in January because of worsening violence.

2012 February - Russia and China block a UN Security Council draft resolution on Syria, and the government steps up the bombardment of Homs and other cities, recapturing the Homs district of Baba Amr the following month. The UN says that more than 7,500 people have died since the security crackdown began.

2012 March - UN Security Council endorses non-binding peace plan drafted by UN envoy Kofi Annan. China and Russia agree to support the plan after an earlier, tougher draft is modified. The UN statement falls short of a formal resolution, and violence continues into the summer.

Turkey changes rules of engagement after Syria shoots down a Turkish plane that strayed into its territory, declaring that if Syrian troops approach Turkey's borders they will be seen as a military threat.

2012 August - The government suffers further blows. A UN General Assembly resolution demands that President Assad resign, high-level defections gather pace - most notably Prime Minister Riad Hijab - and US President Obama warns that use of chemical weapons would tilt the US towards intervention.

2013 January - Syria accuses Israeli jets of attacking a military research centre near Damascus, but denies reports that lorries carrying weapons bound for Lebanon were hit. Unverified reports say Israel had targeted an Iranian commander charged with moving weapons of mass destruction to Lebanon.

2013 April - US and Britain demand investigation into reports government forces used chemical weapons. Prime Minister Wael Nader Al-Halqi narrowly escapes death in bomb attack in centre of Damascus.

2013 August - Rebels and Western governments accuse pro-Assad forces of using chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 300 people near Damascus. The Syrian government says it was the rebels that used chemical weapons. The US and Britain take contingency measures for possible military action. Russia and China warn against any attack on Syria.


Full time line here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995

[Martin Eden]

13. "*OUR* troops that become targets"

Does that mean you think Obama will put boots on the ground in Syria?

I highly doubt that he will.

I also highly doubt that air strikes against Assad will do any good and are more likely to have negative unintended consequences, so I oppose any military action.

[Archae]

14. He'd have to.

Obama would have to put ground troops in.
(Even under the UN.)

And our aircraft would be vulnerable to Syrian AA missiles and cannons.

[Martin Eden]

16. You're going to have to explain that to me.

Explain how limited strikes using crusie missiles from offshore naval vessels would make our aircraft vulnerable to AA fire over Syrian territory, when we will have zero aircraft over Syrian territory.

Explain how the UN would compel American boots on the ground, when there is zero chance of UN authorization with Russia's veto in the Security Council.

[Archae]

17. Cruise missile wouldn't.

But would the US stop at cruise missiles?

And you never know with ground troops.

Clinton didn't use them.

Reagan did.

Obama might, or might not.

[Martin Eden]

27. We agree on one thing.

We're opposed to military action against Syria.

Other than that, all you have is speculation that Obama will take action far beyond what he expressly stated he will do. You're jumping to conclusions on the basis of little more than your willingness to believe the worst about this president.

[JCMach1]

15. Unless there is a clear military/strategic ojective, then we need to stay out...

Since when do missiles become talking points?

[jazzimov]

22. Missiles become talking points

when the people you're talking to don't listen to anything else.

[JCMach1]

78. Assad hasn't listened very well to rebel munitions the last two years...

call me skeptical that surgical strikes will do anything but escalate the situation...

[jazzimov]

21. Like so many, you are missing the Goal and Purpose.

Obama is NOT advocating war, and specifically has ruled out "boots on the ground".

The intended Goal is to keep Assad from using chemical weapons. The purpose is, basically, to stay out of the rebel conflict. He has specifically stated that the US will stay out of it, but the use of chemical weapons was a "red line".

The purpose of whatever action may be taken is only to keep Assad from using chemical warfare.

There is a valid argument that any action taken by the US may lead to retaliation by the countries that support Assad. However, I believe from previous experience that if the US strikes are limited as Obama intends, that the other countries will find a way to "back down".

[Harmony Blue]

60. How do you keep chemical weapons from being used

if the sites are not secured? And if Syrian army command and control is targeted by Western powers that makes these sites less secure and AQ can stroll in and pick up some of these chemical weapons.

[MH1]

29. I tend to agree.

But on the other hand, I realize there may be regional implications of which I am not fully aware. So I would not have a knee-jerk reaction if we did something militarily. I'd sure want it explained to me though.

I don't think all of the rebels are necessarily thugs. But I think a large portion probably are and by now, most of the decent ones have probably been killed.

[gulliver]

73. There is zero chance of us going in.

No one is even talking about it.