No. I've seen the recent videos. Sarin gas attacks on civilians. It needs a response.

[pinto]

Realize there's a range of opinion and options being considered. I support disabling Assad's weaponry as much as possible. His weaponry. Disarm as best we can. No "boots on the ground", larger scale intervention, etc.

The rest is likely up to the Syrians.

[jsr]

1. Disarm Assad and let Al-Qaeda take over?

No, we should stay out of that clusterfuck.

[pinto]

5. Disarm sarin gas capabilities as much as possible.

The rest is up to the local players. We can't "solve" a civil war. Yet we can act to limit the use of sarin gas on civilians.

[neverforget]

19. The more of Assad's weapons we destroy, the more we help the rebels.

We will be hitting aircraft, artillery and rockets all of whose primary use is conventional. The chemical weapons will remain.

[Adsos Letter]

39. I wonder how Assad's forces are responding to the threats?

I wonder how much of that capability is being dispersed, hidden, hardened, etc. while all the talking goes on.

[BlueinOhio]

100. Al-Qaeda?

Where are you getting this from? Right wingers have been hollering this just like they did with Iraq. Shiites have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Sunnis on the other hand are part of Al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia is Sunni controlled.

[Scootaloo]

110. The al-Nusra front is one of the "opposition" factions

They are affiliated with al-qaeda, and have proven to be one of the better-armed and combat-able of the groups vying for control in Syria. Part of the reason for this is because they are being funded by the Saudis, the other part is because they can draw on a network of men who have been seeing combat for years, unlike the FSA, whose ranks are made of photo clerks, bakers, and some dissident soldiers from a nation that hasn't had a war since 1973.

Were Assad to be taken out of the right, it'd be the FSA and its allies versus the mujahadeen, with a half-dozen local militia-typs thrown in to make things a mess. And I frankly wouldn't put my money on the FSA in that fight... Unless of course the US were to back them up... which would absolutely mean "boots on the ground."

C'mon man. Pay attention

[markpkessinger]

131. Here is a primer . ..

Bashar Al Assad's political party is a secular offshoot of Shia Islam. Shiites represent only 13% of Syria's population. 74% of Syria's population are Sunnis. That is why you have the various Arab (Sunni) states (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Emirates, Kuwait) encouraging the U.S. to take action (and even offering to foot the bill, according to Secy. Kerry). Al Qaeda, too, is a Sunni organization, and is aligned with the rebels. Likewise, this is why Iran (a Shia state) is supporting Assad (because he is Shia). This entire affair isn't even really about Syria: it's a proxy for the long-standing Sunni versus Shia (read Arab versus Persian) rivalry for geopolitical dominance in the regionj. The Sunni Arab nations are eager to draw the United States in a conflict that is really, in its broadest outlines a sectarian conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran over which sect will be the dominant geopolitical powerbroker in the region.

[BlueinOhio]

104. Al-Qaeda?

Where are you getting this from? Right wingers have been hollering this just like they did with Iraq. Shiites have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Sunnis on the other hand are part of Al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia is Sunni controlled.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. You go right ahead and respond, just please leave us out of it. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. Well said.

[SammyWinstonJack]

116. !

[NuclearDem]

3. No attack. Period.

1400 civilians dead is horrible, but a lot more stand to die if we aggravate the situation and trigger a regional war.

[pinto]

8. Good point. Yet there already is a regional war. My advocacy is the sarin use capabilty.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. 100,000 civilians dead and 2,000,000 displaced from the larger conflict

It may or not be a reason for action but fealty to the truth is important.

[NuclearDem]

42. Yeah, I know about the total death toll.

But since this one attack seems to be the impetus for a lot of people to act, and not the 100K already dead, I felt it was what I needed to cite there

[KittyWampus]

22. that's my point as well. If we intervene it'll have to be further down the road.

[dkf]

4. Removing chemical weapons = 70,000 troops on the ground.

You are advocating more involvement than the rest.

[pinto]

10. No, I'm advocating disarming the use of sarin gas in Syria. Not 70,000 troops.

[MNBrewer]

14. I think the statement was being made that disarming Assad of his chemical weapons would require

70,000 troops on the ground.

How do you think we'll disarm him? Sarin faeries?

[pinto]

27. I assume the idea is disabling delivery systems, not stockpiles.

[MNBrewer]

37. The mobile delivery systems...

[pinto]

43. Doable, I'd guess.

[warrant46]

52. Delivery Systems ?? The US would have to destroy every artillery piece (and there are thousands)

Ain't going to happen, firing a few dozen cruise missiles, is like pissing on a forest fire.

And for those who want to get involved in bringing about "Democracy in Syria" they need to immediately go to the nearest Army or Marine recruiting office and volunteer for at least a four (4) year tour of duty.

You will learn how to shoot and learn to use a bayonet to disembowel whoever the chain of command tells you is the enemy.

You will learn to shout HooRah !!

You will have no choice in the matter, you will follow orders and kill who they tell you to kill.

And after Syria they will probably send you to Iran for a Redux !!

[leftstreet]

6. The Arab League should take it to the UN

They can decide how to handle it

[Agschmid]

11. So that got a bit nasty?

[sibelian]

13. Good thing, too.

Enough of this bullshit.

[pinto]

15. What's your idea on a response to the gas use? We need options.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. Excuse me, but he just gave you several options.

[pinto]

64. Thanks.

[frylock]

60. spend the weekend poring the last week's postings..

this has all been discussed.

[99Forever]

71. Something besides kneejerk "bomb the fuck out of them" insanity.

You know, the shit warmongers never bother trying. Might cut into the war profiteers bottom line.

I understand that the only tool YOU have is a big fucking hammer, but that sure doesn't make every problem a big fucking nail.

[warrant46]

58. Well put

I was part of the cluster fuck 45 years ago.

Nothing has changed except the draft dodgers and Chicken Hawks like Cheney, Bush, Cliton and Liebermann sleep soundly every night in their waterbeds. And some idiots like McLame want to start it all over again.

And 58,000 dead lie still in their graves

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. ...

[cali]

16. That doesn't seem possible without boots on the ground

or bombing the shit out of Syria, killing a lot of people- at least from what I've read.

[KittyWampus]

20. Shoulder-fire anti aircraft missiles to take down Assad's helicopters. He already has trouble

moving on the ground.

[cali]

28. how would that cripple his ability to use chemical weapons?

And what do you mean when you say "he already has trouble moving on the ground"? I assume you mean regime forces, but in that case, that's not an accurate statement. His forces control large portions of the country.

Using chemical weapons doesn't take a sophisticated delivery system in any case, and getting rid of the chemical weapons and manufacturing facilities is reportedly too risky to do with airstrikes.

[Cleita]

29. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023616006

btw, I didn't pull these points out of my ass. Various experts who have been major players in past wars like Hans Blix, various Congressmembers from both sides of the aisle and retired military have posited these suggestions as an alternative to a military solution. Many experts in Arab studies have said that bombing a war zone will only escalate the situation within. I think a combination of disarmament, targeted sanctions against the regime, and a call to negotiations for peace for all sides to participate in is worth a try before we get involved in another military mis-adventure.

[lumpy]

75. Sounds so simple...but how do you disarm an unwilling opponent..targeted sanctions requires

military strikes...a call to negotiate for peace to participate has been tried, and continues to be tried...how do you take over Assad's assets without force. All this without raising a finger ?

[Cleita]

86. Military intervention should be tried at last resort after every other means have

been tried. So far not much of anything has been tried. Disarmament should be first and we, who are providing all the players with weapons should stop doing so. That's a good first step and it doesn't involve any missiles. Then the UN needs to step in and get them to lay down the arms they have. That's where the negotiators and arms inspectors step in and so on.

[lumpy]

92. The US has not been supplying Assad with weapons, only the rebels (that is a mistake and should

cease if so in my humble opinion). How to disarm Assad and the rebel armies cannot be done without Military action. US negotiations with the UN are still ongoing and yet might bring results. Yet, if Assad is unwilling to go along UN influence, then that leaves a problem. I would like to see involving the UN but if UN members are reluctant to do anything that leaves no solution.
Maybe it might be better to just ignore the whole thing, but it leaves the US ignoring the signed resolution agreement against chemical weapons swinging in the wind and US integrity in want.

[Cleita]

93. I never said we are supplying Assad with weapons. Russia is though and we are

supplying the rebels through Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well as some small direct supplies.

[lumpy]

98. Yes, the claim is that Russia is supplying Assad with weapons. However you said that WE

(interpreted as including the US)were supplying ALL the sides. I guess you meant to say Russia is supplying Assad, my interpretation was faulty, sorry.

[KittyWampus]

17. It's too soon, IMO. Wait until Assad does it again.

[Junkdrawer]

24. or Bandar Bush...or some mercenary hired by Qatar..or....

literally dozens now with motives and opportunity.

Big money is involved.

[Cleita]

18. This has been suggested, actually disarming both camps because there really are

no good guys at this point. We need to freeze Assad's assets as well as those of his inner circle and family. Then the other world leaders involved need to force all factions, including the present government to the negotiating table to hammer out a peace. There, the Syrians can decide what they want to do to Assad. Do they want to send him into exile, the Hague, or put him on trial themselves. I doubt if any side will want him to continue as dictator.

[KoKo]

45. Bring in UN Weapons Inspectors to Tag and destroy, deactivate or remove the CW's.

They could only work in protected areas that Assad Controls...but, if he would be willing to allow that then the only CW's that would be left would be under the Rebels control and they should be approached to turn them over to UN Inspectors.

That might be a UN Resolution that both Russia and China would support. If the Chem Weapons are why we want to strike the country with missiles and bombs then bringing in the UN Inspectors and even UN Peace Keeping Troops would be more effective.

It should at least be tried. The only reason it wouldn't be is that we want the disruption in Syria to continue after we bomb out Syria's Air Defenses and then on to Iran (the PNAC Agenda).

[Cleita]

48. I know the PNAC agenda is foremost with our leaders. We are going to have to make them think

otherwise. I believe they are looking at the polls that are overwhelmingly against this. However, we need some leadership to suggest these alternatives and then work to implement them. Sending missile strikes should be the very last resort when every other option has been exhausted.

[KoKo]

62. Putin said at the G-20 he wanted to wait for UN Inspectors... We need the

UN to be strengthened. Obama at the Press Conference from G-20 yesterday seemed to downplay any effort to engage the UN. He said they take too long with their "resolutions" and that the gassing needed to have action. I posted the transcript here on DU...and I'm paraphrasing...but, I thought it odd that he seemed to have so little regard for the UN.

Syria would seem to be ideal situation for UN involvement because of the Refugee crisis (worsening because just last week Syria thought they would be under bomb attack) and so these people don't know what's going on...but, living under threat of attack doesn't help their mind set. The stress on families and children having to flee country and their jobs has got to be overwhelming and not good for the other countries they are fleeing into who have little resources themselves.

It's a humanitarian crises which the UN was supposed to be able to intervene in with Peace Keeping Troops and in this case Weapons Inspectors. It might at least destabilize the situation so that a Geneva 2 conference could be called with Syria, Iran, Russia and US plus the Arab League to come together an work out a solution. UN Peacekeepers could give them time to do it.

I'm probably being too optimistic that this could work ...but, it seems like it's worth a try to avoid an eventual destabilizing of the whole region with USA involved in military actions for years.

[Cleita]

66. Exactly, you and I are on the same page with this. It's definitely a job for the UN, no matter

how slow they are. Obama can use his time waiting by addressing a few problems we are having here at home. Gotta give Putin some praise here for not being a hot-head. I wonder what some of his predecessors would have done? Remember the guy who beat his shoe at the podium at the UN. Can't remember his name. The free world was in shock at this behavior by a Russian premier.

[lumpy]

79. Putin and Assad are allies in a sense. They are close trading/political buddies. I guess Putin

can be praised for holding on to Russia's interests.

[Cleita]

87. Well you can if you want to. I'm only giving him credit for not

going off half cocked before the UN makes its report.

[Raksha]

133. His name is Kruschev. Doesn't look like I spelled it correctly -maybe Khruschev?

First name is Nikita anyway.

[lumpy]

101. Yes, it would be ideal if UN members woud take this seriously and become partners to agree

to adhere to the chemical weapons agreements that many of them signed. I would hope that the US administration will continue on trying to get a UN solution. Many of us have put a lot of hope into the United Nations becoming a strong force for accomplishing a better world.

[MNBrewer]

50. I like that idea.

but who will do it? Not US. Not their neighbors. It's difficult to imagine how an international force could get in and establish a peace keeping mission. Perhaps partition is the solution. I don't know. All possible outcomes seem awful and ridden with corpses.

[Cleita]

69. Read Ko Ko's suggestion just above.

It could work if we can get our politicians on board with it.

[lumpy]

85. Some of these ideas suggested are very impractical and require military action, unless Assad

was willing to go along with them. Seize his assets...disarmament has been suggested without military action ?

[Cleita]

89. If all you can see is a military solution then we are screwed. eom

[lumpy]

95. Hey, we are screwn anyway one looks at it. I would like to see the use of chemical weapons

completely outlawed; if it is ignored possibly to be used in the future as warfare weaponry then ???
I can see some positive results via the UN if UN members would get on board and adher to the
anti-chemical weapons agreements. It isn't over til' it's over.

[frylock]

113. but it's oh so Very Practical and Sensible

[pinto]

118. Good points. Not sure what will work at this time. Convoluted, sad situation.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Tell Bandar Bush to cut the bullshit....

Outside of MSM's propaganda, he's the chief suspect.

[lumpy]

97. I don't know much about Bandar Bush- like to know more, can you fill me in.

[Junkdrawer]

99. Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023577350

[lumpy]

103. Thanks, will do.

[KittyWampus]

23. Figure out how to get a general to depose Assad. Restart negotiations. At least pretend

elections will be held in the future.

[Jesus Malverde]

25. You realize your "leave it up to the Syrians" means ethnic cleansing.

The rebels already started massacring minorities, if anyone deserves attention, it's them.

[cleanhippie]

26. Do you trust the rest of the people to secure and not use the chemical weapons afterwards?

[KittyWampus]

30. Hence, the stated intent of not advocating regime change. Keep the Syrian military intact. Jettison

Assad.

[cleanhippie]

34. Is it proven beyond reasonable doubt that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons?

I don't think so. And if it wasn't Assad, removing him does not fix the problem.

[pinto]

31. No.

[cleanhippie]

35. So what would attacking Syria acually accomplish?

[pinto]

46. I think disabling the Assad regime's ability to gas their citizens is a good thing.

No more, nor less. And, I realize we couldn't disable it all most likely. Yet I reluctantly support the attempt.

[MNBrewer]

51. But you have no idea how to do it.

And I imagine the Obama administration isn't much better off.

[pinto]

65. Yeah. That's the crux of it. (aside) I really like the global debate on this.

[cleanhippie]

56. And then what?

I'm not being obtuse, but what comes after that? There will still be chemical weapons there, there will still be people who will use them there, there will still be a war going on, there will still be civilians getting killed.

What would attacking accomplish that not attacking won't?

[pinto]

67. I don't know.

[cleanhippie]

72. Me either. Thats why I am against attacking Syria. I only see negative consequences.

And nothing positive.

[freshwest]

134. Iranian leaders said so, restated for political purpose, but their people know:

Iran ex-president says Syria government launched gas attacks: news agency

DUBAI | Sun Sep 1, 2013

(Reuters) - Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said the Syrian government, a strong ally of Tehran, had carried out chemical weapons attacks against its own people, the semi-official Iranian Labour News Agency reported on Sunday.

"The people have been the target of chemical attacks by their own government and now they must also wait for an attack by foreigners," Rafsanjani said, according to ILNA. "The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years."

(Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati, Editing by William Maclean and Andrew Heavens)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-iran-rafsanjani-idUSBRE98007R20130901

Obviously taken from:

Iran's ex-president says Syria govt launched gas attacks | Reuters

http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/20074

UPDATE 2 - Iranian agency drops Rafsanjani remarks critical of Syrian government | Reuters

DUBAI, Sept 1 (Reuters) - An Iranian news agency quoted former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Syria's government had attacked its own people with chemical weapons, but later replaced the report with a different version that did not attribute blame for the raid...

"The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years, the prisons are overflowing and they've converted stadiums into prisons, more than 100,000 people killed and millions displaced," he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/syria-crisis-iran-rafsanjani-idUSL6N0GX0G620130901?feedType=RSS&feedName=basicMaterialsSector&rpc=43

The Iranian based news agency later retracted that one part, even changed it to rebels, for reasons that are obvious. Since Iranian money has supported Assad for years and the Iranian people have not forgotten the 100,00 that were killed and another 300,000 permanently damaged by nerve gas:

Iranian Officials Walk Fine Line On Syria Chemical Weapons

...Iranians know all too well the horrors caused by chemical weapons. More than 100,000 Iranian soldiers and civilians are estimated to have been victims of the poisonous gas used by Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Many are still suffering the long-term effects of chemical agents.

Iran's support for Syria, which has already come under criticism by many Iranians, could become even more unpopular as more countries point the finger at the Syrian regime over the suspected chemical attack on August 21.

To justify its continued support for Damascus, Iran has the option of blaming rebels for the attack or simply ignoring the culprits and calling for the prevention of the use of chemical weapons...

These deaths are on the USA through Reagan's supply or at least intel given Saddam in the eight year war with Iran. As a bitter Iranian said:

"Our gassing was not a red line," wrote one Iranian on social media in reaction to the report.

http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-syria-fine-line/25087912.html

This is not the Reagan era. The USA, Iran, China, Russia and other nations are finding that what was appropriate according to interests in resources in the past, cloaked under belief in religion and ideology or bound by political and economic logic, will no longer hold. The values their people believe in now supercede such systems of thought.

But the world has moved significantly toward the humane with the CWC and major powers as well as small ones, reducing their WMD as never before and that should not be given up easily. Syria did not sign onto the CWC, neither did Iran, Israel or several others. They are less than 2% of the world but these weapons could cause havoc for the other 98% at any time. Russia has eliminated 90% of its total stockpiles of all kinds, the USA is still less than 60% destroyed. Most others are CW free at this time.

Some messages from Iranians agree with the government narratives, some do not:

Vox Pop: Ordinary Iranians React To Events In Syria

Text messages from Iran:

"Tell the Iranian people to pray for Bashar al-Assad's defeat because, God forbid, if he wins then Syria has to be rebuilt with Iranian money" -- Soltani from Amol

"Only with an iron fist is it possible to uproot the brutal dictatorship of Assad and free Iranians from his burden." -- Tavoos

"Iran's leaders care about Syria more than their own people." -- Balooch from Khuzestan Province

"Those [Iranians] who have invested their dollars in Syria are afraid of the popular movement of the Syrian people because they'll lose their investments." -- Farshad from Meshkin

There are even unsigned comments that welcome the USA removing Assad...

http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-farda-reaction-syria/25088946.html

[ocpagu]

32. But who attacked? No responsability has been established.

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

[lumpy]

96. If you know, what side are the residents on in Ghouta ? Other wise don't bother.

[tkmorris]

38. Understandable, up to a point

But think it through. When you propose "disabling Assad's weaponry", what do you mean? The chemical weapons alone? If so it would require that we know precisely where they are, and can target them exclusively and nothing else. That's a tall order given that these weapons are quite easy to move around, and anywhere they are stored is likely to house other conventional arms as well.

Remember that the US' stated goal here is removal of Assad from power, while leaving the rest of his government intact. That is necessary because if a full scale overthrow of the govt occurs there would ensue a chaotic struggle amongst various groups to fill that vacuum. Most of these rebel groups are very much NOT the sort of people anyone would want ruling over Syria. More likely is that the civil war would continue, and the involvement of outside parties (Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) would increase. That would be an extremely unstable situation with the potential to spread the war beyond Syria's borders at any moment.

I am very skeptical that it is possible to effectively eliminate or even significantly reduce Assad's ability to use chemical weapons without effectively destroying his military's ability to wage conventional war against the rebel groups. In effect, anything useful we could do to ensure no further chemical weapons were used would as a side effect likely mean eventual victory for the rebels. It's a complicated scenario, requiring that we consider the long term affects of any potential actions.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

40. Maybe we can all chip in.

Start a fund to send OP to Syria. I'll throw in 20 bucks.

[abelenkpe]

41. Let another nation police the world

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Of the six possible sanctions allowed by the Syria Accountability Act, only two have been

implemented. Just two. http://damascus.usembassy.gov/saa-faq.html

[bhikkhu]

47. We have a natural response to seeing people suffer

in that we identify with the victims and our hearts cry for justice.

In practice, that has led directly to long and disastrous wars. Yesterday's dead call out for revenge and retribution and we feel bound to answer the call. The problem is that there are always dead on both sides, both sides feel the same call, and over time consciences erode and devolve, wars become more brutal as they go, blood chases blood with increasing lust...

That is where you wind up, if that was how you started.

I haven't watched any videos, and have only seen the pictures of the boy that was tortured and killed, his genital burned off and so forth. That picture was one of the sparks of the rebellion in the first place...I support disabling Assad's weaponry, if we can, but I don't support anything beyond that. A quick end to the war there doesn't look likely, and I don't see any benefit to anybody here to get emotionally bound up in "the chase".

[chervilant]

49. Why no "It needs a response."

for Myanmar? Why no "It needs a response." for the Democratic Republic of Congo? Why no "It needs a response." in Rwanda? In Somalia? In East Timor?

Might that be because there are no economic benefits to be had in those countries? Might it be for other, less "noble" reasons? Skins too dark, perhaps? Ideologies out of sync?

Yes, sarin is an horrific weapon. Our species has become quite enamored of such weapons, and certainly not loathe to use them. I think the US is on thin moral ground with regards to intervening in Syria.

[EX500rider]

55. Why. did someone use biological/chemical weapons on their own civilians in those countries? n/t

[chervilant]

59. So, the type of weapons

used is the barometer by which we determine whether we intervene? I did not realize...

[EX500rider]

81. Yes it is...

.....most civilized nations draw the line at weapons of mass destruction (that is nuclear, chemical & biological only) used on civilians, esp. your own civilians.

[chervilant]

111. How ironic.

Dead is dead. Massacres committed with machetes and machine guns are just as horrific as massacres committed with sarin. Yet, during the other massacres I've mentioned (some ongoing), the silence has been deafening.

But, you go ahead and offer your rebuttals. I'm sure someone herein will think them relevant.

[cleanhippie]

73. What kind of response would prevent any future use of chemical weapons in Syria?

[EX500rider]

83. Regime force degradation...

.....let them know that for every use $500 million dollars worth + of their military equipment is going to be smart bombed, droned and cruise missiled into oblivion. With all American forces over the horizon out of reach.

If 100 civilians die by accident while doing this to prevent 1,500 dead of poison gas then that is a better choice of two bad choices. At least the 1.400 still living would think so.

The perfect is the enemy of the good in this case.

[NoOneMan]

88. Sounds like what we did to Saddam before a million+ civilians starved under sanctions

Then we invaded again anyway

[MNBrewer]

107. YOu have a strange concept of "good"

[EX500rider]

108. Saving a greater number of people from dying can be considered a "good" n/t

[MNBrewer]

114. Hypothetically saving a greater number of people from dying can be considered a hypothetical

"good". That's all you have. Your hypothesis.

[EX500rider]

135. In a discussion about what might happen if...

....the US attacks Syria in the future most answers will be hypothesis, yes?

[MNBrewer]

136. Some hypotheses have more reasonable assumptions built into them than others.

pure conjecture that our launching a military intervention will "save lives" is fairly unfounded.

[pinto]

122. I see your point. Yet I don't think it's about ethnicity or race. Or regional civil wars in general.

We, the US, can't solve all conflicts. Yet the use of sarin on citizens, in this instance, begs for a response. I'm sorry the UN and NATO have waffled. Though most deplore the sarin use, there's understandable differences on how to respond. What do we do?

Obama has requested Congressional input. That's where we're at right now. Everything else is speculation. And a tough situation all around.

[liberal N proud]

53. Don't we have enough problems right here?

Starving children. Americans killing Americans.


Then there is the whole sequestration, we can't afford to pay government employees, but we can pay for bombs and the flights to drop them?

NO MORE WAR!

[NoOneMan]

54. I think we need to send forks so our rebels can more effectively eat human hearts

[cali]

61. so all the rebel forces are running around eating human hearts?

wow. the things I learn on DU.

[NoOneMan]

63. Ask this guy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22519770

[cali]

68. I'm fully aware of that incident. And I'm fully aware that

some rebel forces have perpetrated atrocities, but way to miss my point.

I've been quite vocal about my opposition to any military strikes but I won't cede intellectual honesty.

Assad is the one responsible for this horrific civil war. There's simply no (honest) way around that.

[NoOneMan]

70. I don't think reality is ever that black and white

Assad is the one responsible for this horrific civil war. There's simply no (honest) way around that.

I haven't lived there. I don't really know the ins and outs. The terrorist-like rebels certainly do seem like extremist assholes though. One interesting tid bit: Drought Helped Spark Syria’s Civil War — Is it One of Many Climate Wars to Come?

By the way, I don't ever think anything in the Middle East happens in a bubble anymore. Pinning it one a single, sole individual seems a bit propagandistic

[cali]

76. It's no secret how the civil war started

The conflict initially began as a civil uprising, evolved from initially minor protests, beginning as early as January 2011, as a response to the regional Arab Spring, government corruption, and human rights abuses. Large-scale unrest began on 15 March in the southern city of Daraa, sometimes called the "Cradle of the Revolution", and later spread nation-wide.[101] The government responded to the protests with large arrests, torture of prisoners, police brutality, censorship of events, and some concessions. However, the protests continued to grow. In late-April, Assad began launching large-scale military operations against restive towns and cities. The operations involved the use of tanks, infantry carriers, and artillery, leading to a large number of civilian deaths.[102]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

And it's no revelation that Assad, like his father before him has headed a brutal regime.

As far propaganda, I'm hardly pinning everything on Assad.. That's YOU putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, it's ironic as you're the one who was slinging simple minded propaganda with your silly bit insinuating that the rebels are all raving animals running around and eating body parts.

[NoOneMan]

80. Yes, I am a Syrian paid propaganda officer

Im sure that guy was just a "bad apple". Yep

I think most of them involved in the fighting are probably fuckers. I'm ok with that. I'm ok with not getting involved

I'm hardly pinning everything on Assad

Yet....here comes an absolute:

Assad is the one responsible for this horrific civil war. There's simply no (honest) way around that.

[MNBrewer]

74. Mmm....

I think the Saudis and their puppets bear some responsibility for this civil war as well.

[polly7]

82. I agree.

Check this out, it's insane:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617644

Jesus Malverde (444 posts)
16. The sense was the rebels were losing after qusair.

It's also not clear that the people involved want this war to end.

For over two years the gulf states have been encouraging their citizens to go to Syria and to wage jihad. They have even emptied their death rows to fill the ranks of the rebels. The gulf princes did not send these men to Syria to be trained and radicalized so they can return home to unemployment and social injustice.

Once in Syria these men are poorly armed and receive minimal training. Typical kit consists of a ammo carrier, an assault rifle and a t-shirt. Congress long ago authorized non lethal aid for the rebels, two years later they still lack flack jackets, helmets, or smoke grenades for cover, all easily provided non lethal aid.

The leaders then fail to use tactics common to insurgencies and send the lightly armed Jihadist to confront a modern army face to face and to hold territory that can be easily blasted with artillery, tanks and air power.

The lunacy of this can be seen with the Yellow Brigade who wore bright YELLOW t-shirts into battle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017142498

They and their commander were destroyed, documented here - warning graphic -

Warning .....what happened to the FSA yellow brigade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617644

Jesus Malverde (444 posts)
27. Secret memo says more than 1,200 prisoners fought Assad regime to avoid beheading.

Saudi Arabia has sent death-row inmates from several nations to fight against the Syrian government in exchange for commuting their sentences, the Assyrian International News Agency reports.

Citing what it calls a "top secret memo" in April from the Ministry of Interior, AINA says the Saudi offered 1,239 inmates a pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, which were were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom. Syrian President Bashar Assad is an Alawite, a minority Shiite sect.

According to an English translation of the memo, besides Saudis, the prisoners included Afghans, Egyptians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Somalis, Sudanese, Syrians and Yemenis. All faced "execution by sword" for murder, rape or drug smuggling.

Russia, which has backed Assad, objected to the bargain and allegedly threatened to bring the issue to the United Nations, said an unidentified former Iraqi member of Parliament who confirmed the memo's authenticity, says AINA, an independent outlet.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/21/saudi-inmates-fight-syria-commute-death-sentences/1852629/


110 Yemenis, 21 Palestinians, 212 Saudis, 96 Sudanese, 254 Syrians, 82 Jordanians, 68 Somalis, 32 Afghanis, 94 Egyptians, 203 Pakistanis, 23 Iraqis, and 44 Kuwaitis.
http://www.aina.org/news/20130120160624.htm

[NoOneMan]

84. CBC just did a piece about a woman whose son signed up for the fight

Real-brainwashed kid saying terrible things about Canadians and all that stuff. Its more than a Civil War going on here. There are outside forces recruiting people for Jihad and sending them in there. And their goals aren't humanitarian.

Maybe this is really why the US wants to get involved...maybe they don't care about Assad or weapons, but just want to be the vacuum fillers when he is gone instead of the trash they will inevitably enable with a bombing

[polly7]

124. I've wondered all along if this is a golden

opportunity to cross one - or two - more nation(s) off the PNAC hit list. It doesn't make sense to spend so much time, money and lives destabilizing in the ME and East Asia if you're not going to finish it off, and leave the biggest prize of all, Iran. I think Syria is a stepping stone to Iran. What I KNOW, is that this has nothing to do with humanitarian reasons or caring that children were killed.

[TheKentuckian]

57. I've seen the videos from Iraq, they demand a response. It was another term

then a library.

I've seen the outcomes of our jumping in and they are fucking abysmal, even the much ballyhooed (all the sudden) war action in the now failed state of Libya, I reckon because it has yet to turn into a meat grinder for American troops or become a nation building debacle...YET. The time will probably come when the douchebags we helped will demand a humanitarian response (aka disrupting the flow of oil) and we will find or paint a strongman villain to be taken down for FREEDOM by setting up some other authoritarian scam to secure what we see as our resources, who we will also take out in due time.

[Taitertots]

77. Wow, I guess propaganda can be really effective

Are you going to watch the videos of all the people who would die if the US starts bombing Syria?

Did you watch all the videos of the people who died in Iraq based on pretty much the same propaganda (Iraq's "but he gassed his own people" meme was not as new and fresh as this one)?

[LittleBlue]

78. Russia will just re-arm them

Putin is looking for an excuse to intervene in a more dramatic fashion.

It's a religious/ethnic conflict that we cannot possibly resolve, no matter how many cruise missiles we throw at Assad. Even killing Assad won't end it, as the ethnic minorities are unlikely to submit to Al Qaeda merely because he dies.

It can't be solved except with a negotiated solution.

[Cleita]

90. Part of any agreement between outside nations who have been

arming either side would be to stop doing so until the war is over and a peace agreement signed by all parties involved.

[liberal_at_heart]

91. very good points.

[Sand Wind]

94. To the point ! +1000 nt

[Aerows]

102. I'm against cancer

but I'm not going to launch a missile attack against it in hopes that it prevents cancer from spreading.

I love you, Pinto, , but killing more people because people were killed is exactly the wrong response.

[pinto]

132. Hey! See your point. It's a tough call and a dicey situation. To use your analogy -

chemotherapy is a missile attack targeting malignant cancers. How precise the use and the side effects are part of the picture. I think we're in that sort of scenario.

I don't like any of it, but here we are.

[Valhallakey]

105. Yes you are right, and that will end it, Assad won't try to respond to our response right?

No ship sunk, no other types of tricks sending nuts across any of our borders etc... that will be the end of it. He will see the light and error of his ways. Count me in... out...

[Not Sure]

106. A response

How about a response from another country in the ME? I mean, surely there's one country, one neighbor as outraged as our president that is willing to take action. Isn't there?

[kestrel91316]

109. Of course it needs a response. I expect the UN to step up to the plate and

do their job. If the UN decides to act, I fully support our fulfilling our obligations to participate.

Otherwise, we need to butt out.

[Scootaloo]

112. Where were you for the two years of slaughter, exactly?

Want some pictures and video of people being killed between 2011 and now? Half of whom are "Assad's forces" (i.e., Syrian soldiers fighting against insurgent groups)? 'Cause it's not hard stuff to find. It's not as if, oh, suddenly people just started dying.

While we're at it, I can get you some media of the Cairene protestors our buddy, our pal Sisi slaughtered in the streets just a little while back, in an act that many of the same DU'ers demanding war for Syria, were loudly, very loudly cheering - don't see any of them demanding retributive strikes against Egypt.

You don't give a flying fuck about dead Syrians. You're pissed that the US's authoritah is not respected.

[Katashi_itto]

117. "It needs a response." Post something on Facebook.

[pinto]

119. LOL. That's probably been done a thousand times.

[Katashi_itto]

120. !

[pinto]

123. ...

[joshcryer]

121. going to the UN is the best response

[Cryptoad]

126. Does Assad obey

the UN?

[joshcryer]

127. up to Russia

[BootinUp]

125. I think Obama has the right plan

It may not involve much actual military action. In other words the threat and perhaps a small attack will force a more permanent solution to evolve.

Doesn't surprise me that you are one of the more cool headed posters at this time.

[Dash87]

128. You would need boots on the ground to affect Assad's ability to use chemical weapons.

Bombing them would be a bad idea, and they're all probably in underground bunkers. We would need to invade Syria and physically take the weapons away to do this.

This in turn, would cause at least a war with Iran.

[doc03]

129. So when are we going to bomb North Korea? I'm sure

the same or worse has been done over there.

[pinto]

130. I've no idea if, when or where we'd "bomb North Korea".