Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

[T-Rexx]

I'm very disappointed by the sheer mindless pacifist attitude of like 90% of the people on here, it's just ridiculous..

Peace is never "mindless."

Killing people so you can show what a tough guy you are, however, is.

I have a SERIOUS question for everyone on this forum....

If Assad developed a super-virulent large scale chemical weapon, used it, and 100,000 Syrians lay dead in an attack, their bodies piled high on the streets with too many to be able to bury, would you THEN support military strikes against Assad's ability to use those weapons?

Of course not.

You don't assist people who are the victims of violence and oppression by killing those who have survived the violence and oppression.

The solution to murder is not more murder. George W. Bush killed 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq and claimed that was helping them. How is the murder of 100,000 people by Assad bad, but the murder of 100,000 people by America good? How many people must America kill before we have done enough good for the world?

I don't want prevarication and excuses and ducking the question, I want to know if 100,000 dead at the hands of a psychotic despot would be a justification for a military strike. Why? Because my point is being I know some of you would STILL be against military action because you're against it AT ALL TIMES. You'd be against if if a nuclear weapon was detonated. Sheer mindless pacifism.

You seem to think that violence and murder are good things, and that peace is bad.

Your solution to psychotic despotism is psychotic despotism.

So now Obama is thrown under the wheels of the bus by all the frequent supporters he always had on here for actually STANDING UP to the barbaric inhuman slaughtering of innocent people?

Obama is not "standing up to the barbaric inhuman slaughtering of innocent people."

He is proposing the barbaric, inhuman slaughtering of yet more people so he can pat himself on the back and declare himself a morally superior person.

Let's just have any tin-pot dictator and tyrant kill as many as he wishes without any sanction shall we?

By "tin pot dictator" did you mean Putin, Assad, or Obama? Or possibly George W. Bush?

There seem to be a lot of tyrants out there, intent on killing people. And yet, you disparage the idea of peace as "mindless."

What was that saying about evil flourishing when good men do nothing? It's never been such a pertient question as now. America ducks back and runs away whimpering in the face of this, then it's a DISASTER for the future rights and dignity of the people of the world. Wake the fuck up.

You demand that America solve all of the world's problems.

America requests that the world stop draining her blood and exhausting her finances on behalf of your stupidity. Twice, you people started world wars that we had to solve for you. You exterminated thousands of Jews during WWII, requiring our intervention to correct. You proved incompetent at preventing yet another genocide at Srebrenica, again requiring US intervention.

You people are hopeless. We're tired of solving your problems for you.

How about you show a little responsibility for yourselves? Wake the fuck up.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Now because another 300 -1400 are dead from a CW attack it suddenly makes a difference? Why?

Because the METHOD is one of disturbing mass extermination, bordering dangerously towards genocide. And every nation on earth should be horrified by that.

Putting it in conventional gunfire terms, it's the same as the difference between standard one-by-one casualties over the space of a month, and the systematic mowing down of every human being indiscriminately in the space of an hour.

The first crime is tragic enough. The second is premeditated slaughter of the most evil degree.

And why aren't the countires with the most to win or lose doing anything about it?

Because regrettably, most countries don't give a shit about human rights and will let countless people die without lifting a finger. That attitude has now pervaded even Britain, and has already pervaded the UN.

If we (U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, etc.) don't stand up AGAINST it, and don't send the MESSAGE through militrary strikes that it won't be tolerated, then you cede the ground to those who stand up FOR it (Russia, China, numerous tyrants of Africa/Middle East, etc.)

You turn a blind eye ONCE, you're tacitly endorsing ALL such chemical attacks in the future.

This entire CW attack is nothing more than a ploy to invite a strike by the west in order for the conflict to expand by invocation of treaties so that the Syrians can directly attack western allies and Iran can overtly be drawn into the conflict as well. It is a zero sum game.

Were this 2003 and George W. Bush and his clique I might agree with you. Obama is NOTHING like that, and I'm frankly surprised how many are now foolishly comparing them as if they're two peas in a pod. They're nothing similar.

And remember once again, this is not a ground invasion, this is not even regime change, although I wish it was to be honest. It worked in Libya and the situation was turned around. It can work in Syria too.

How many innocent Syrians should the West kill with bombing attacks in order to avenge the 350 (GB figure) to 1430 (US figure) innocent people who were killed by gas. Because I can absolutely guarantee you that a strike against Syria is going to result in a collateral 'casualty' toll at least 10 times the figure either source is quoting once the shooting is over.

Nothing like 10 times, not even the same. Precision-targetted missiles against installations and hardware, with the specific aim of damaging arsenals, machines, weapons, air defences, for example, will keep deaths to a minimum.

BUT you know EXACTLY what Assad will do, right? He'll use attitudes such as yours for propaganda value and is probably already shepherding people into those installations, tying them up, or locking them in.

Are you going to allow yourself to be fooled by the propaganda game? Are you going declare that your own President just as evil as this monster Assad? Do you believe the United States and the West have moved beyond those tactics as nations, and as human beings?

You don't assist people who are the victims of violence and oppression by killing those who have survived the violence and oppression.

The solution to murder is not more murder.

How is the murder of 100,000 people by Assad bad, but the murder of 100,000 people by America good? How many people must America kill before we have done enough good for the world?

You seem to think that violence and murder are good things, and that peace is bad.

Your solution to psychotic despotism is psychotic despotism.

Obama is not "standing up to the barbaric inhuman slaughtering of innocent people."

He is proposing the barbaric, inhuman slaughtering of yet more people so he can pat himself on the back and declare himself a morally superior person.

What a load of complete nonsense. You're now stating a ridiculous case of moral equivalency.

By this measure, you would have declared Churchill and Roosevelt exactly the same as Hitler and Stalin.

You seem to have an image in your mind of a despotic, evil, tyrannical Obama, raining carpet bombs down, deliberately killing as many innocent Syrians as he can, using the same weapons and tactics as Assad has done, and perhaps most importantly, BEING NO BETTER.

And this is maybe the most fundamental point. That you don't believe Western civilisation has evolved and grown into anything more humanist and progressive as the medieval-style African/Arabic warlords and murderers.

There isn't going to be another 10,000 deaths at Obama's hands. He's trying to STOP those who WOULD. And your callous attempt to throw him into the same league as Assad is very disturbing.

Please stop using stupid rhetoric that has absolutely no basis in reality.

You demand that America solve all of the world's problems.

America requests that the world stop draining her blood and exhausting her finances on behalf of your stupidity. Twice, you people started world wars that we had to solve for you. You exterminated thousands of Jews during WWII, requiring our intervention to correct. You proved incompetent at preventing yet another genocide at Srebrenica, again requiring US intervention.

You people are hopeless. We're tired of solving your problems for you.

How about you show a little responsibility for yourselves? Wake the fuck up.

Don't give me that pile of shit, you're being a hypocrite of the worst kind now.

If it were up to you, you'd have allowed both the Holocaust and the subjugation of Europe to occur without lifting a finger to help. And you'd have declared your own President Roosevelt 'just another Hitler' when he entered the war.

Yes I TOO wish NATO and the European Union and the UN would take more of a role when the cause is a just one. They have been infected with the same sort of attitude as you.

Your attitude of pacifism in the face of evil, refusal of ANY moral superiority for those who act with good intentions, together with a misguided isolationism, plays STRAIGHT into the hands of those who desire such outcomes for ALL of us.

 

[palbert]

@ ChickenGuy,

Perhaps Pope Francis will announce a Crusade. Or, endorse the strike.

Wait a minute. He hasn't has he?

 

[darden]

one of my biggest concerns, at least from what I've heard coming from Obama, is that there doesn't seem to be much preparation for the next step after any kind of bombing.

if we bomb Syrian army targets but they continue to use chemical weapons, how will we escalate our response?

who should we bomb if it turns out that both the Syrian army and the rebels are using chemical weapons against each other? what if it's discovered that it's just the rebels using chemical weapons, not Assad?

if our bombings shift the balance of the civil war potentially leading to Al-qaeda forces taking power, are we now responsible for that?

what happens if destabalizing the Assad regime leads to Syrian chemical weapons caches getting stolen by Hezbollah or Al-qaeda and used against Western allies?

what happens if bombing Syria leads to Syria bombing Israel or Turkey?

 

[Kulindahr]

Good questions, darden.

So far as I can tell, no one at all has actually proposed going after those responsible. If Assad's brother was the one who gave the orders, we should go after him; if it was Assad himself, we should go after him. But shooting at people who didn't give the orders and weren't involved in carrying them out while not doing anything to the people who did the deed sends a screwed-up message -- indeed for people like the Assads, who seem not to care much about human life, it sends the message that they can get away with using chemical weapons so long as they still have people who will carry out the orders.

 

[Sausy]

Fighting Hitler and the Imperial Empire was the right thing, yet even then we had to strike a bargain with a stone faced killer in Stalin for a decisive win to end the Nazi regime in Europe. War at best is a necessary bloody mess, but rarely justified... Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, now Syria are too complex for military solutions. The Middle East nations in modern times with few exceptions are composed of rival tribes, cultures, religious sectarianism and it's no surprise so much of the region is caught in turmoil, but I was wrong to think we could make a difference before militarily and unless our security is directly threatened, and only as a last resort with all other conceivable options exhausted we should stay out of conflicts... certainly in the military sense. I definitely count Syria as one place we should absolutely NOT engage militarily. It's all understandable to be emotionally affected by chemical warfare victims but so many have died conventionally, how are their deaths any less abhorrent?

So many things can go wrong, as darden pointed out... we would bear responsibility if the situation on the ground in Syria deteriorates or someone decides to do something shocking and provocative. If our bombardment leaves Syria a failed state where chemical waeapons fall into malevolent hands? The impulse to do something to help alleviate the suffering is humane and understandable, but getting involved in this(pardon the pun)" Russian roulette" could lead to FAR worse.

 

[Jack Springer]

‘The day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently … If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view … My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world … then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately makes us safer.’

- Barack Obama, November 21, 2007

 

[Kulindahr]

‘The day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently … If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view … My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world … then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately makes us safer.’

- Barack Obama, November 21, 2007

Words of a clueless, naive community organizer who thought we could all sing Kum-Ba-Ya and just get along.

 

[T-Rexx]

Because the METHOD is one of disturbing mass extermination, bordering dangerously towards genocide.

I am well aware that you and Obama are very much enamored with the method by which people are murdered.

That is something I cannot understand. If Assad had mowed down 1,400 people with machine guns (which, of course, he has), you would not be so concerned with their deaths. But, because he used gas, you feel it necessary to protest the deaths by killing off some more of them.

Because regrettably, most countries don't give a shit about human rights and will let countless people die without lifting a finger. That attitude has now pervaded even Britain, and has already pervaded the UN.

If we (U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, etc.) don't stand up AGAINST it, and don't send the MESSAGE through militrary strikes that it won't be tolerated, then you cede the ground to those who stand up FOR it (Russia, China, numerous tyrants of Africa/Middle East, etc.)

You turn a blind eye ONCE, you're tacitly endorsing ALL such chemical attacks in the future.

You seem to think that bombing and killing Syrians will help "protect" them from poison gas.

Attacking people does not change their behavior. The USA did not suddenly convert to Islam out of fear because Al-Qaeda blew up a few important buildings. War creates a siege mentality that can then be used to justify abhorrent behavior. And that is exactly what happened in the USA. Suddenly, it became okay to imprison people forever in extrajudicial prisons without charge or trial. It became okay to torture people. It became okay to spy on Americans without suspicion or warrants.

Attacking people does not make them better people. Attacking Syria will make it more likely that Syrians will be oppressed, not less likely. But the point is not really to try to help innocent Syrians. It is to make Barack Obama satisfied that he is the tough guy he likes to imagine himself to be.

War just makes life worse for everyone.

Were this 2003 and George W. Bush and his clique I might agree with you. Obama is NOTHING like that, and I'm frankly surprised how many are now foolishly comparing them as if they're two peas in a pod. They're nothing similar.

That's true. Obama is not like Bush.

Bush had some international support for his war-mongering. Obama doesn't.

And remember once again, this is not a ground invasion, this is not even regime change, although I wish it was to be honest.

Exactly. It has no point whatsoever except to make Obama feel like a tough guy.

Nothing like 10 times, not even the same. Precision-targetted missiles against installations and hardware, with the specific aim of damaging arsenals, machines, weapons, air defences, for example, will keep deaths to a minimum.

I fail to understand how killing people will "keep deaths to a minimum."

BUT you know EXACTLY what Assad will do, right? He'll use attitudes such as yours for propaganda value and is probably already shepherding people into those installations, tying them up, or locking them in.

Assad was using poison gas before I objected to a US invasion, and he will use poison gas after.

My attitude has precisely zero effect on his behavior.

Are you going to allow yourself to be fooled by the propaganda game? Are you going declare that your own President just as evil as this monster Assad? Do you believe the United States and the West have moved beyond those tactics as nations, and as human beings?

The only nation ever to use nuclear weapons in anger is the USA.

Of course, when we did it, it was a good thing.

Everyone knows that God is on our side.

By this measure, you would have declared Churchill and Roosevelt exactly the same as Hitler and Stalin.

Roosevelt and Stalin were attacked. To a large extent, so was Churchill.

If Assad had attacked the USA, I would support military action against Syria. He has not.

You seem to have an image in your mind of a despotic, evil, tyrannical Obama, raining carpet bombs down, deliberately killing as many innocent Syrians as he can, using the same weapons and tactics as Assad has done, and perhaps most importantly, BEING NO BETTER.

And this is maybe the most fundamental point. That you don't believe Western civilisation has evolved and grown into anything more humanist and progressive as the medieval-style African/Arabic warlords and murderers.

You seem to think it is moral for western countries to kill Syrians, because our hearts will be in the right place when we do so. And why do you imagine we have "evolved" culturally further than Africans and Arabs? Much of what we are, we are because of them.

There isn't going to be another 10,000 deaths at Obama's hands. He's trying to STOP those who WOULD. And your callous attempt to throw him into the same league as Assad is very disturbing.

GWB killed at least 100,000 innocent Iraqis in order to save them from Saddam Hussein.

I have no idea how many people Barack Obama intends to kill in Syria. But I would prefer it be none.

Don't give me that pile of shit, you're being a hypocrite of the worst kind now.

If it were up to you, you'd have allowed both the Holocaust and the subjugation of Europe to occur without lifting a finger to help. And you'd have declared your own President Roosevelt 'just another Hitler' when he entered the war.

Again, the USA was attacked in WWII. And, it's fortunate for you Brits that we were. Otherwise, you'd be speaking German right now.

Yes I TOO wish NATO and the European Union and the UN would take more of a role when the cause is a just one. They have been infected with the same sort of attitude as you.

Your attitude of pacifism in the face of evil, refusal of ANY moral superiority for those who act with good intentions, together with a misguided isolationism, plays STRAIGHT into the hands of those who desire such outcomes for ALL of us.

It is easy for you Europeans to demand that the USA do your dirty work for you.

If you are so concerned about protecting Syrians, why don't you guys kill them?

 

[Ninja108]

It's not our job to be the world's policemen. There is nothing that can be done in the Middle East right now other then to stay out.

 

[T-Rexx]

Words of a clueless, naive community organizer who thought we could all sing Kum-Ba-Ya and just get along.

Regrettably, Obama no longer seems to be that "clueless, naive community organizer" for which he won a Nobel Prize.

He seems to have morphed into a clueless, naive warmonger.

 

[tigerfan482]

@ ChickenGuy,

Perhaps Pope Francis will announce a Crusade. Or, endorse the strike.

Wait a minute. He hasn't has he?

The Church is too busy fighting the wars against gays, abortion, women, and other moral topics to care much about people being slaughtered by chemical weapons. Their stance is God will take care of all of those problems and they'll handle all of the social issues since he's too busy dealing with everything else.

one of my biggest concerns, at least from what I've heard coming from Obama, is that there doesn't seem to be much preparation for the next step after any kind of bombing.

if we bomb Syrian army targets but they continue to use chemical weapons, how will we escalate our response?

who should we bomb if it turns out that both the Syrian army and the rebels are using chemical weapons against each other? what if it's discovered that it's just the rebels using chemical weapons, not Assad?

if our bombings shift the balance of the civil war potentially leading to Al-qaeda forces taking power, are we now responsible for that?

what happens if destabalizing the Assad regime leads to Syrian chemical weapons caches getting stolen by Hezbollah or Al-qaeda and used against Western allies?

what happens if bombing Syria leads to Syria bombing Israel or Turkey?

Maybe we should just send in a large international ground force, confiscate all of the chemical weapons, destroy the factories and production facilities, and then leave and let the two groups fight it out. You can't make the world a perfect place, but you can level the playing field so one side isn't shooting AK's and the other is employing chemical weapons.

So some counter questions for you. What happens if the world just stands aside and lets Syria continue using chemical weapons? What happens if Assad decides to manufacture more and distribute them to his buddies in Iran and Lebanon? What happens when Russia and Iran keep supplying Syria with arms and money to influence the outcome to what THEY want? What happens when other regimes see that chemical weapons can be used without consequence and decide they may be quick resolutions to their issues?

Good questions, darden.

So far as I can tell, no one at all has actually proposed going after those responsible. If Assad's brother was the one who gave the orders, we should go after him; if it was Assad himself, we should go after him. But shooting at people who didn't give the orders and weren't involved in carrying them out while not doing anything to the people who did the deed sends a screwed-up message -- indeed for people like the Assads, who seem not to care much about human life, it sends the message that they can get away with using chemical weapons so long as they still have people who will carry out the orders.

I asked this before and I'll ask it again - would you be OK with countries sending in ground troops to arrest Assad, his brother, etc.? If not, how do you propose implementing your solution? Once you arrest the few who ordered the attacks, what do you do with the chemical weapons that are there to prevent others from using them?

Fighting Hitler and the Imperial Empire was the right thing, yet even then we had to strike a bargain with a stone faced killer in Stalin for a decisive win to end the Nazi regime in Europe. War at best is a necessary bloody mess, but rarely justified... Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, now Syria are too complex for military solutions. The Middle East nations in modern times with few exceptions are composed of rival tribes, cultures, religious sectarianism and it's no surprise so much of the region is caught in turmoil, but I was wrong to think we could make a difference before militarily and unless our security is directly threatened, and only as a last resort with all other conceivable options exhausted we should stay out of conflicts... certainly in the military sense. I definitely count Syria as one place we should absolutely NOT engage militarily. It's all understandable to be emotionally affected by chemical warfare victims but so many have died conventionally, how are their deaths any less abhorrent?

So many things can go wrong, as darden pointed out... we would bear responsibility if the situation on the ground in Syria deteriorates or someone decides to do something shocking and provocative. If our bombardment leaves Syria a failed state where chemical waeapons fall into malevolent hands? The impulse to do something to help alleviate the suffering is humane and understandable, but getting involved in this(pardon the pun)" Russian roulette" could lead to FAR worse.

First off, why did you throw Kuwait in there? We drove Saddam out and Kuwait is now a normally functioning country (and an ally of the US.)

Second, as I said before, you can't stop people from killing people. You can however work to stop people from committing mass, indiscriminate murder against groups of people. What makes you think that if the world backs off from Syria that Assad will see the errors of his ways and throw away all of his chemical weapons? What makes you think that if he is willing to go balls to the wall if we attack, then he isn't capable of doing that in the future in any other circumstance? Why do you think it is ok for Russia and Iran to be able to influence the outcome of the civil war in Syria but not other countries? Do you think stepping back and letting Assad or the rebels use chemical weapons to massacre people will somehow make them like us more? They're going to hate the US either way and they're going to continue their activities against the US, Israel, and others as they have in the past. Saddam Hussein didn't start off as a crazy dictator who gassed everyone he hated. He developed into that after years of being allowed to do what he wanted. People like Assad don't just wake up and realize the error of their ways. Once they push the envelope, they don't retreat back to a peace-loving position. If we step back now, we may very well be cleaning up the bodies of people in London, Paris, or New York City who were exposed to Syrian produced sarin gas that Assad decided to share with his friends. No matter what is decided, Assad will be a problem for other countries in the future.

 

[tigerfan482]

I am well aware that you and Obama are very much enamored with the method by which people are murdered.

That is something I cannot understand. If Assad had mowed down 1,400 people with machine guns (which, of course, he has), you would not be so concerned with their deaths. But, because he used gas, you feel it necessary to protest the deaths by killing off some more of them.

Because it's the method that is the issue. I'm sure people everywhere would have a problem with 1,400 people being mowed down with machine guns. The difference is that with machine guns, you aim and shoot. The same thing with guided missiles and precision bombs. You can predict where they will go and the area of damage they can inflict. Yes, there are unintended civilian casualties with these types of ordinances, but they're not the targets. If Assad went out and mowed down only civilians with machine guns, then I'm sure you'd have a response from the international community. With weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons, you can't control who it kills and what the area of damage is. That's why they are weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION and that is why there are international bans on them.

You seem to think that bombing and killing Syrians will help "protect" them from poison gas.

Attacking people does not change their behavior. The USA did not suddenly convert to Islam out of fear because Al-Qaeda blew up a few important buildings. War creates a siege mentality that can then be used to justify abhorrent behavior. And that is exactly what happened in the USA. Suddenly, it became okay to imprison people forever in extrajudicial prisons without charge or trial. It became okay to torture people. It became okay to spy on Americans without suspicion or warrants.

Attacking people does not make them better people. Attacking Syria will make it more likely that Syrians will be oppressed, not less likely. But the point is not really to try to help innocent Syrians. It is to make Barack Obama satisfied that he is the tough guy he likes to imagine himself to be.

War just makes life worse for everyone.

It's funny because this entire rant is full of things that aren't even true. First, I've not seen any plans that include Syrian civilians as targets. Can you provide a link? Second, the goal is not necessarily to change their behavior. It is to remove or degrade the capabilities to exercise said behavior. People like Assad generally won't change their behavior and have to be captured and imprisoned. Third, unless you are an enemy combatant who isn't a United Stated citizen or green card holder, you can't be indefinitely detained and have every right to habeus corpus (Section 1029). Fourth, it never became OK to torture people and numerous people spoke out against it. In fact, in January 2009, the monster President Obama banned waterboarding and other interrogation techniques. Fifth, it as never become OK to spy on American citizens and you have yet to offer any proof that it has happened. In fact, there are specific laws in place that prohibit spying on Americans without a court order.[/quote]

That's true. Obama is not like Bush.

Bush had some international support for his war-mongering. Obama doesn't.

Bush obtained international support based on a lie. I won't even call it faulty intelligence because I believe he knew there was no evidence of the claims he was making and presented the information anyway. President Obama does have international support (10 countries have publicly announced support of US actions in Syria), and would have much more if not for Bush's lies and deceit.

Exactly. It has no point whatsoever except to make Obama feel like a tough guy.

And your statement has no point whatsoever except to make you feel like you're making a point.

I fail to understand how killing people will "keep deaths to a minimum."

Again, can you post a link to the target list that includes "citizens of Syria"? Also, explain to me how letting Assad off the hook for using chemical weapons would contribute to keeping deaths to a minimum.

Assad was using poison gas before I objected to a US invasion, and he will use poison gas after.

My attitude has precisely zero effect on his behavior.

No, but countries adopting attitudes like your's are what enables him to use chemical weapons and to continue using chemical weapons in the future. But you sum it up nicely - attitudes won't keep Assad from using chemical weapons. Military action will.

The only nation ever to use nuclear weapons in anger is the USA.

Of course, when we did it, it was a good thing.

Everyone knows that God is on our side.

We did use nuclear weapons, but not out of anger. It was the first and last time they were used. The US is now ardent supporters of the idea that nuclear weapons should never be used. Just because a mistake is made in the past doesn't mean a country is doomed to never being able to do or advocate for the right thing in the future.

Roosevelt and Stalin were attacked. To a large extent, so was Churchill.

If Assad had attacked the USA, I would support military action against Syria. He has not.

That is a perfect example of what happens when you sit back and take the attitude of "it's not my problem". When Hitler invaded Poland, it wasn't the US's problem. When he started his march across Europe, it wasn't the US's problem. Japan invaded China and it wasn't the US's problem. All of a sudden, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and it is the US's problem. We go in, eventually win the war, and find that Hitler has exterminated over 6 million Jewish people. Many more of them may have been alive had the US taken some interest early on when an evil person started doing evil things. As I said, people like that don't pull back, they push forward and keep doing more and more until it's all of a sudden everyone's problem and many more people have died than should have.

You seem to think it is moral for western countries to kill Syrians, because our hearts will be in the right place when we do so. And why do you imagine we have "evolved" culturally further than Africans and Arabs? Much of what we are, we are because of them.

A frequent refrain from you with nothing to back it up. Not only can you not show that the US would target Syrians, but now you are accusing people of reveling in the idea of it.

GWB killed at least 100,000 innocent Iraqis in order to save them from Saddam Hussein.

I have no idea how many people Barack Obama intends to kill in Syria. But I would prefer it be none.

Again, most of the civilians killed in the Iraq war were by insurgents and anti-US forces. Since the beginning of August, 1135 Iraqi civilians have been killed and we've been out since 2011. (Source) Get your facts (if you even have any) straight.

Again, the USA was attacked in WWII. And, it's fortunate for you Brits that we were. Otherwise, you'd be speaking German right now.

Ahhhh. I see where you're coming from now. It's only ok to try and do the right thing when it affects you. Otherwise, fuck 'em, right?

It is easy for you Europeans to demand that the USA do your dirty work for you.

If you are so concerned about protecting Syrians, why don't you guys kill them?

This is the one part where I'll agree with you (except about the killing Syrians part). I'm disappointed at the number of countries that have expressed support for action against Syria, yet make no effort to actually do any of it.

 

[rareboy]

Fighting Hitler and the Imperial Empire was the right thing, yet even then we had to strike a bargain with a stone faced killer in Stalin for a decisive win to end the Nazi regime in Europe. War at best is a necessary bloody mess, but rarely justified... Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, now Syria are too complex for military solutions. The Middle East nations in modern times with few exceptions are composed of rival tribes, cultures, religious sectarianism and it's no surprise so much of the region is caught in turmoil, but I was wrong to think we could make a difference before militarily and unless our security is directly threatened, and only as a last resort with all other conceivable options exhausted we should stay out of conflicts... certainly in the military sense. I definitely count Syria as one place we should absolutely NOT engage militarily. It's all understandable to be emotionally affected by chemical warfare victims but so many have died conventionally, how are their deaths any less abhorrent?

So many things can go wrong, as darden pointed out... we would bear responsibility if the situation on the ground in Syria deteriorates or someone decides to do something shocking and provocative. If our bombardment leaves Syria a failed state where chemical waeapons fall into malevolent hands? The impulse to do something to help alleviate the suffering is humane and understandable, but getting involved in this(pardon the pun)" Russian roulette" could lead to FAR worse.

Good point. Even the US realized that faced with sure annihilation...the only sensible thing to do was enter into a stony cold stalemate with Uncle Joe, his bastard son Kruschev and catamite Breshnev until saner heads prevailed. some days, you just don't jump on the first white horse that you see in the corral and rush off brandishing a sword.

 

[T-Rexx]

Because it's the method that is the issue.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I was under the misapprehension that what mattered was human life.

First, I've not seen any plans that include Syrian civilians as targets. Can you provide a link?

And I've not seen plans that prove you can blow stuff up in Syria without risking civilian casualties.

Can you provide a link?

Second, the goal is not necessarily to change their behavior. It is to remove or degrade the capabilities to exercise said behavior.

I realize that. The goal is to make Obama look like a tough guy, not change Assad's behavior.

And how does blowing up stuff "degrade the capabilities"?

Al-Qaeda "degraded the capabilities" of American commerce by leveling the headquarters of a great many financial firms. Did that make any difference whatsoever to the way American commerce gets carried out? Is it possible to accomplish anything beyond killing people with "targeted strikes?"

People like Assad generally won't change their behavior and have to be captured and imprisoned.

Agreed.

So, why is the plan to blow stuff up rather than capture and imprison Assad?

Third, unless you are an enemy combatant who isn't a United Stated citizen or green card holder, you can't be indefinitely detained and have every right to habeus corpus (Section 1029).

I see. I didn't realize that only Americans and non-combatants possessed human rights. I guess that's why it's okay to torture "enemy combatants," also.

Fourth, it never became OK to torture people and numerous people spoke out against it.

Precisely.

Just because we were attacked by al-Qaeda did not make it acceptable to torture people.

That's the point.

Bush obtained international support based on a lie. I won't even call it faulty intelligence because I believe he knew there was no evidence of the claims he was making and presented the information anyway.

Precisely.

If he had told the truth, he would never have gotten any support.

In which case he would have been identical to Obama. And that's the point.

President Obama does have international support (10 countries have publicly announced support of US actions in Syria)

There is no support "from 10 countries" for a US attack on Syria.

They have said something should be done. That is the sum total of Obama's international support on Syria.

Again, can you post a link to the target list that includes "citizens of Syria"?

Again, can you post a link explaining how it is possible to bomb a country without harming civilians?

Also, explain to me how letting Assad off the hook for using chemical weapons would contribute to keeping deaths to a minimum.

It wouldn't.

No, but countries adopting attitudes like your's are what enables him to use chemical weapons and to continue using chemical weapons in the future. But you sum it up nicely - attitudes won't keep Assad from using chemical weapons. Military action will.

Invading Syria and replacing the current regime with another might help to stop them from using chemical weapons.

But that is not the plan. In fact, the president insists that the USA will not do that.

The plan is to take only military actions which cannot possibly improve the plight of Syrians.

We did use nuclear weapons, but not out of anger.

My bad.

I had understood that we were at war with Japan at the time.

It was the first and last time they were used. The US is now ardent supporters of the idea that nuclear weapons should never be used. Just because a mistake is made in the past doesn't mean a country is doomed to never being able to do or advocate for the right thing in the future.

Yes. As I said, when the USA did it, it was okay.

That is a perfect example of what happens when you sit back and take the attitude of "it's not my problem". When Hitler invaded Poland, it wasn't the US's problem. When he started his march across Europe, it wasn't the US's problem. Japan invaded China and it wasn't the US's problem. All of a sudden, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and it is the US's problem. We go in, eventually win the war, and find that Hitler has exterminated over 6 million Jewish people. Many more of them may have been alive had the US taken some interest early on when an evil person started doing evil things. As I said, people like that don't pull back, they push forward and keep doing more and more until it's all of a sudden everyone's problem and many more people have died than should have.

So, your point is that the USA should have started WWII earlier than it did start, by attacking Japan and Germany unprovoked, because people then should have been able to predict that atrocities were going to happen in the future.

I wonder if you could enlighten us as to who will be committing atrocities around the world today in the next few years? Who should we attack unprovoked, in order to save people from dying from atrocities yet to happen?

A frequent refrain from you with nothing to back it up. Not only can you not show that the US would target Syrians, but now you are accusing people of reveling in the idea of it.

I don't understand the complaint.

Are you agreeing with ChickenGuy that western people are culturally superior to Arabs and Africans?

Again, most of the civilians killed in the Iraq war were by insurgents and anti-US forces. Since the beginning of August, 1135 Iraqi civilians have been killed and we've been out since 2011. (Source) Get your facts (if you even have any) straight.

You seem to think the mechanism by which people die is the only thing that matters.

If I start a war, I will set in motion a chain of events for which I am responsible for having started - whether or not I intended those events to happen, and whether or not I am able to do anything to stop them, once the process has begun. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA bears no responsibility for the deaths of 100,000 innocents in a war which we started, because we didn't intend for them to die in the way they did?

Ahhhh. I see where you're coming from now. It's only ok to try and do the right thing when it affects you. Otherwise, fuck 'em, right?

Again, I don't understand the complaint.

Are you actually claiming that the USA should have attacked Germany and Japan early in WWII unprovoked, because we were able to predict the future? Because we should somehow have known that a holocaust was going to happen, and we needed to stop it by starting a war?

Why don't we also just imprison people before they commit crimes, to save their future victims the suffering?

This is the one part where I'll agree with you (except about the killing Syrians part). I'm disappointed at the number of countries that have expressed support for action against Syria, yet make no effort to actually do any of it.

There is a reason nobody is supporting USA attacks on Syria.

It is a staggeringly stupid thing to do.

 

[Kulindahr]

I asked this before and I'll ask it again - would you be OK with countries sending in ground troops to arrest Assad, his brother, etc.? If not, how do you propose implementing your solution? Once you arrest the few who ordered the attacks, what do you do with the chemical weapons that are there to prevent others from using them?

If they can come up with a plan on how to do it without killing anyone not involved, sure.



How to let Assad know we don't approve?

How about drop large rocks through the roof of his palace? or a half ton of cement mix bags into his swimming pool? Anything but the same "let's blow more things and people up".

 

[palbert]

As this Syria discussion continues and more and more countries stake out their positions, I am reminded of how the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand spiraled into WWI.

The truth is we don't know what or who is on the other side of the red line.

In recognition of that I offer an analogy drawn from nuclear weapon history.

 

[MystikWizard]

Just reading the last few pages of this thread.

So I'm guessing by this stage I'm the ONLY person still around here, except for Lostlover, who fully supports strikes against Syria? And I now also find myself (and this is even MORE ridiculous) being apparently Obama's last supporter.... in CE&P. I mean, has the world gone completely crazy?

I'm very disappointed by the sheer mindless pacifist attitude of like 90% of the people on here, it's just ridiculous. I have a SERIOUS question for everyone on this forum....

If Assad developed a super-virulent large scale chemical weapon, used it, and 100,000 Syrians lay dead in an attack, their bodies piled high on the streets with too many to be able to bury, would you THEN support military strikes against Assad's ability to use those weapons?

I don't want prevarication and excuses and ducking the question, I want to know if 100,000 dead at the hands of a psychotic despot would be a justification for a military strike. Why? Because my point is being I know some of you would STILL be against military action because you're against it AT ALL TIMES. You'd be against if if a nuclear weapon was detonated. Sheer mindless pacifism.

So now Obama is thrown under the wheels of the bus by all the frequent supporters he always had on here for actually STANDING UP to the barbaric inhuman slaughtering of innocent people?

Lol! Let's just let Vladimir Putin settle all international responses from now on shall we? Let's just have any tin-pot dictator and tyrant kill as many as he wishes without any sanction shall we?

What was that saying about evil flourishing when good men do nothing? It's never been such a pertient question as now. America ducks back and runs away whimpering in the face of this, then it's a DISASTER for the future rights and dignity of the people of the world. Wake the fuck up.

If the U.N. or NATO supports it, then YES. If the U.S. has to go it alone, or with maybe 1 other country, then NO. If the U.S. is always the one that intervenes, what message does that send to the rest of the world about their contributions to the global community? That it's okay for our country and it's citizens to always use our resources and cost the lives of our citizens while they stand and root on the sidelines?

It's all for one and one for all instead of it being "Super U.S. to the rescue" in every single incident. We can not afford always being the lone wolf interventionist.

If 90% or more of the country is opposed to U.S. involvement in Syria, maybe you and Lost Lover are the ones not seeing something that everyone else sees.

What I also find particularly delightful is the American public's victory not only over Obama through their representatives in Congress who are feeling the heat, but also over the media. The media has done everything it could to beat the war drums 24/7 on television and through articles and commentaries on the internet to persuade the public that we have to do this.

This time, the public told them to F- off and put their foot down. We have woken up as a society to the game and have showed the media how irrelevant it really is now when it comes to formulating public opinion. Welcome to the day and age of the internet where people make up their own damn minds and formulate their own opinions.

 

[tigerfan482]

Thank you for clearing that up.

I was under the misapprehension that what mattered was human life.

Human life does matter, but you can't respond to every killing of a person in the world. We've stayed out of Syria for most of the conflict because they were fighting people who took up arms against them. That's their battle and as tragic as loss of human life is, someone's life is going to end in armed conflict. However, when you start using chemical weapons (weapons that are known to not be able to have really any degree of control over who it affects) against a group of people who are a majority civilian, then that becomes an act which can be responded to because of the frequency at which it occurs, the understood universality of the prohibition of using them, and the indiscriminate effects it has on large populations of people.

Your totality views of either you respond to every life lost or you can't respond at all is not a realistic view that can be held. There are numerous instances of loss of life that can't possibly all be responded to and there are some that are significant and rare enough that they can be responded to.

And I've not seen plans that prove you can blow stuff up in Syria without risking civilian casualties.

Can you provide a link?

In that part of the world, it's hard to say if there are strikes that are successful with few to no civilian casualties since there are never any reliable numbers ever released. However, Israel has conducted several strikes against Syrian military targets with little to no civilian casualties. One such strike is Opertion Orchard which destroyed the undeclared nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israeli aircraft. While there were no confirmed reports of deaths, it is alleged that up to 10 North Korean nuclear scientists may have been killed. That is much less than the thousands you are claiming will be killed.

I realize that. The goal is to make Obama look like a tough guy, not change Assad's behavior.

And how does blowing up stuff "degrade the capabilities"?

Al-Qaeda "degraded the capabilities" of American commerce by leveling the headquarters of a great many financial firms. Did that make any difference whatsoever to the way American commerce gets carried out? Is it possible to accomplish anything beyond killing people with "targeted strikes?"

Hmmm, you obviously don't realize it because you can't even paraphrase what I said correctly.

If you blow up missiles capable of delivering chemical weapons, you degrade the capability to deliver chemical weapons. If you blow up delivery systems of said missiles, then you degrade the capability of delivering chemical weapons. I don't understand how you can't make the connection between destroying something and degrading capabilities that involve that something you destroyed.

And as far as 9/11, the attacks DID degrade the American financial markets for a while. Source. However, you're comparing apples to oranges here. You can degrade a limited capability, such as chemical weapons, through targeted attacks. Complete economies, which are so intertwined with every aspect of life and have almost universal reach in everyday activities, are much more difficult to affect with any single event or small series of events. You also won't necessarily succeed in bringing down an industry or an economy by eliminating JUST the headquarters of a particular company or firm. You would be more successful in destroying the source of said firms' businesses. For instance, if I wanted to affect the price of gasoline, blowing up Exxon headquarters wouldn't necessarily do that. However, destroying one of their petroleum refineries would have a MUCH wider impact.

Agreed.

So, why is the plan to blow stuff up rather than capture and imprison Assad?

Are you in favor of sending in ground troops to arrest Assad? If so, spread the word and call your representatives to register your suggestion. Hell, we could even grab the chemical weapons while we're there.

I see. I didn't realize that only Americans and non-combatants possessed human rights. I guess that's why it's okay to torture "enemy combatants," also.

Interesting, according to the Geneva Conventions, detention of prisoners of war can last until the end of the conflict. Thus, I don't consider indefinite detention without trial torture.

Precisely.

Just because we were attacked by al-Qaeda did not make it acceptable to torture people.

That's the point.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. If your claim was to apply to this situation, then the argument would have to be that since Syria gassed it's people, it's OK for the US to use chemical weapons against Syria. Responding to an attack with a banned activity is not OK and that's what I was saying. You're saying that responding to a violation of universally accepted limitations of armed conflict with conventional weapons is not OK, which is not the same thing. So yes, I agree that we should not go in and torture Syrian military members or Assad because they used chemical weapons on their citizens.

Precisely.

If he had told the truth, he would never have gotten any support.

In which case he would have been identical to Obama. And that's the point.

The situations are entirely different. If Bush had told the truth, he wouldn't have received any international support because there were no chemical weapons and there was no evidence of chemical weapons having been used within the past decade in Iraq. With Syria, they have admitted they have chemical weapons and there is evidence of chemical weapons being used. The ONLY reason the President doesn't have the international support Bush had was because of the lies Bush told. If that were not there, then the merits alone in this situation would have a number of countries lined up ready to go.

There is no support "from 10 countries" for a US attack on Syria.

They have said something should be done. That is the sum total of Obama's international support on Syria.

Not quite correct. Here is a link to some more information. Of particular note:

The Leaders and Representatives of Australia[1], Canada[2], France[3], Italy[4], Japan[5], Republic of Korea[6], Saudi Arabia[7], Spain[8], Turkey[9], the United Kingdom[10] and the United States of America made the following statement on the margins of the Group of 20 Nations Leaders' Meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia:

Looks like 10 to me.

Signatories have consistently supported a strong U.N. Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council's responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

Again, can you post a link explaining how it is possible to bomb a country without harming civilians?

See above.

Invading Syria and replacing the current regime with another might help to stop them from using chemical weapons.

But that is not the plan. In fact, the president insists that the USA will not do that.

The plan is to take only military actions which cannot possibly improve the plight of Syrians.

Again, I lack your ability to see into the future, so I can't possibly know what military strikes (which, unlike you, I don't have the detailed plans for) will and won't improve for Syrians. However, I would say that degrading the capabilities of Assad to use chemical weapons against masses of people would at least bring them closer to the same level playing field as the opposition. I'm in favor of an international force going in, removing all of the chemical weapons, destroying the capability and facilities to manufacture them, and then leave to let them finish the fighting.

As I said before, you can't stop all violence and death from occurring. In fact, you can't stop most of it. But you can work to stop the more egregious and indiscriminate mass killings that things like chemical weapons result in.

My bad.

I had understood that we were at war with Japan at the time.

Indeed we were, but war isn't generally won out of anger. It is one out of strategy, intelligence, and superior firepower. We dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan because they were powerful weapons and it was a much wiser and quicker strategy than attempt a ground invasion of Japan. And again, while it did win the war, it exposed the vast devastation that these weapons have caused and the US has been against using them since.

Yes. As I said, when the USA did it, it was okay.

It wasn't OK more as it was unknown. The devastation that these devices caused were the reason that we survived the Cold War, with both nations realizing the power of the weapons and the devastation they caused. Were the full effects of the bombs known at the time, including the dangers posed by radiation and fallout, there may have been different decisions made. One thing that is true is that they haven't been used since. Comparing the use of a weapon with relatively unknown effects and with no active bans at the time of their use (nuclear research was in its early infancy at the time) with the use of one where the effects are well-known and banned is again, not really a valid comparison.

So, your point is that the USA should have started WWII earlier than it did start, by attacking Japan and Germany unprovoked, because people then should have been able to predict that atrocities were going to happen in the future.

I wonder if you could enlighten us as to who will be committing atrocities around the world today in the next few years? Who should we attack unprovoked, in order to save people from dying from atrocities yet to happen?

I'm saying that once Hitler started invading European countries, the US should have stepped in to assist those countries to drive him back, especially given the recent events of World War I.

I don't understand the complaint.

Are you agreeing with ChickenGuy that western people are culturally superior to Arabs and Africans?

I don't understand where any of your statement comes from. How did you read that from what I said? Is this meant to try and instigate me by trying to make me into some sort of cultural or ethnic bigot?

You seem to think the mechanism by which people die is the only thing that matters.

If I start a war, I will set in motion a chain of events for which I am responsible for having started - whether or not I intended those events to happen, and whether or not I am able to do anything to stop them, once the process has begun. Are you seriously suggesting that the USA bears no responsibility for the deaths of 100,000 innocents in a war which we started, because we didn't intend for them to die in the way they did?

No. I am saying the mechanism by which people die is one of the few discriminating factors that can be used to determine where finite resources can be used to prevent the most loss of life in a single effort.

I disagree with your reasoning about one who starts a war being responsible for everything that happens in said war. However, we'll not argue that fact since it is a difference of opinion. However, I would say that one could argue that Saddam Hussein started the second Iraq war by refusing to comply with international requirements, thus resulting in your earlier mentioned international coalition of countries going in to compel him to comply. One could argue that Assad started this civil war by not adhering to the will of the governed and militarily suppressing any opposition. In that case and by your logic, then regardless of whether it was Assad or the opposition who used chemical weapons, the blame would fall squarely on Assad.

Again, I don't understand the complaint.

Are you actually claiming that the USA should have attacked Germany and Japan early in WWII unprovoked, because we were able to predict the future? Because we should somehow have known that a holocaust was going to happen, and we needed to stop it by starting a war?

Why don't we also just imprison people before they commit crimes, to save their future victims the suffering?

Yes. I am saying that when Hitler invaded Poland, we should have been on the alert. When he started spreading east into other parts of Europe, we should have stepped in to help Europe drive him back. You didn't have to have any knowledge of the Holocaust happening in the future to know that this guy was invading other countries, especially since WWI had just recently ended.

And your pre-crime arrest analogy is incorrect. It should be that we should imprison someone who has a habit of torturing small animals and a history of assault on others before he starts killing people. You, like many on here, seem to be of the idea that trying to prevent crime and ill-acts against others is a complete violation of any kind of human norm and that our activities should just be limited to the "clean up" after the ill-acts occur.

There is a reason nobody is supporting USA attacks on Syria.

It is a staggeringly stupid thing to do.

There are countries supporting, in words, what the US wants to do. It's the actions that are lacking. However, it's not surprising given that is how the majority of the populations of these countries behave anymore. People will post themselves up behind a keyboard and type away all day, but when it comes to taking action, there seems to be limited participation.

If they can come up with a plan on how to do it without killing anyone not involved, sure.

How to let Assad know we don't approve?

How about drop large rocks through the roof of his palace? or a half ton of cement mix bags into his swimming pool? Anything but the same "let's blow more things and people up".

So what do you define as "not involved"? Would the people who loaded the weapons and fired them be considered involved? How about those that gave the order? How about those that try to forcibly stop you when you try to arrest those involved?

Also, we have already registered our disapproval. I'm not sure what the "bags of concrete in the swimming pool" or "rocks on the palace" maneuvers would accomplish, except to maybe be something that makes it into the yearbook this year. The idea is to degrade his capability to use chemical weapons on the Syrian people, not to ruin his pool party.

If the U.N. or NATO supports it, then YES. If the U.S. has to go it alone, or with maybe 1 other country, then NO. If the U.S. is always the one that intervenes, what message does that send to the rest of the world about their contributions to the global community? That it's okay for our country and it's citizens to always use our resources and cost the lives of our citizens while they stand and root on the sidelines?

It's all for one and one for all instead of it being "Super U.S. to the rescue" in every single incident. We can not afford always being the lone wolf interventionist.

If 90% or more of the country is opposed to U.S. involvement in Syria, maybe you and Lost Lover are the ones not seeing something that everyone else sees.

So if it's not right to have one country decide to go to war, is it right to have one country keep the international community from taking action? Russia has used its veto to prevent both military and diplomatic measures against Syria. Why should Russia be able to decide who gets a free pass from following the rules? Where is your outrage there?

And where do you get the 90% number? There is a majority of people who don't want the strikes, but nowhere near that percentage. And maybe those people are representative of the reason we have such a gridlocked government right now. People today want something different every day. Something like 9/11 happens and they demand more security. You put in place NSA programs and once things settle down, they demand those programs be limited or eliminated. Then the next terrorist attack will happen with chemical weapons from Syria and people will demand to know why the government didn't do more. "You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. But you can't please all of the people all of the time." Unfortunately, it seems like the number of people who can be pleased given any particular action is dwindling.

This time, the public told them to F- off and put their foot down. We have woken up as a society to the game and have showed the media how irrelevant it really is now when it comes to formulating public opinion. Welcome to the day and age of the internet where people make up their own damn minds and formulate their own opinions.

Are you kidding me? The day of the internet is where people let everyone else make up their minds for them. It has exceeded counting the number of times on here someone will post some snippet of a "news article" as fact, yet when you go read the cited source (if there even is one) you'll find something COMPLETELY different is actually contained in there. The internet has allowed for the proliferation of sensational journalism with little to no research - light on the fact and heavy on the opinion. People have lost the ability to find information for themselves and to actually research. I'd bet most internet participants these days don't even know what a library is.

While I would like to see the international community as a whole take action against Assad for his use of chemical weapons, I don't believe that will happen. If the US can't get support, then it should back down. When the time comes when a nation is attacked using chemical/biological weapons and pleads for help from the international community, I hope the US just kicks back and tells them "it's not our place to get involved - remember?" I'm willing to bet right now that if it was your friends and neighbors getting gassed by your government, you would hope that some other country with the power to stop them from doing so would step in to help. I'm sure you'll make some textbook argument about how you would do such-and-such to stand up for your rights, but realities in these situations don't match the online theoretical typings of wanna-be political scientists.

 

[JayHawk]

An interesting read that is both long and well written. Brought to my attention by a previous mod who may have posted it here himself had he not abdicated his moderation throne.

Seriously, both those in support of and those against action will learn from this piece. After a bit of background the best thing we can do is feed the hungry masses. Then let them sort out their own issues.

Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk