Skip to main content

I see no moral obligation to act on Syria. Not militarily, not with aid. We can do the latter because it makes us feel better, but the hell and the evil in that country is so intertwined with the populace that, in my opinion, we cannot guarantee any 'aid' ends up only in 'innocent' hands.

Who are the 'innocent' in this conflict, except the children and the disabled elderly?

Who will we shoot at? Who will we embargo? Who will we bomb?

Will we shoot at Assad? Here's what the rebels are up to:

NSFW, TRIGGER, ETC.

Shooting at electrical workers:
http://www.liveleak.com/...
Abusing the 'Yellow Man of Syria'
http://www.liveleak.com/...

Will we instead fight against the rebels?

Assad is bombing civilian-populated areas with non-precise weapons and airplanes:
http://www.liveleak.com/...

Who is 'right'? Who is 'good'? Chemical weapons use is horrible, a war crime...but when you see two bad people duking it out in the street, both bloodying each other terribly, do you step in?

It's not for me, no thanks. And intervention in Syria is less popular in the US than Congress.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So what do you suggest? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, kyril, Dr Swig Mcjigger

    We let Syria call our bluff and do nothing? Show them, and every other asshole with chemical weapons, that if they use them against a civilian population that there will be no consequence?

    What could possibly go wrong?

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 07:54:26 AM PDT

    •  What do you mean 'our bluff'? (12+ / 0-)

      We can encourage our UN partners to act if they so choose. Or, we can just come out and say: large factions of the rebels in Syria are literally evil, and therefore any act against Assad merely supports another evil.

      I could swallow a no-fly zone but not strikes.

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 07:57:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Given (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, kyril

        the Arab League has full-throatedly called for intervention, given that there is international political will for a truly multinational force, and given that there is the strategic capability of strikes that specifically cripple Syria's ability to carry out chemical attacks, you still advocate inaction?

        How many thousands of people dying from sarin gas attacks are you willing to accept as a consequence of inaction?

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:00:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not on me, or us. (11+ / 0-)

          I'm not going advocate stopping another country from stepping in, but it's not our fight, and it's certainly not Nazi Germany where the US is the only one that can stand against it.

          While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:02:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We're not talking about unilateral action. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, doroma, kyril

            We're talking about multilateral action. Why should the US in particular have nothing to do with it, but other nations should not?

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:06:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wasn't making the judgement FOR them. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              allenjo, Victor Ward

              I'm saying I wouldn't try to stop them or ask someone else to stop them from acting.

              While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:14:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why do you make the judgement (0+ / 0-)

                for the US government but not any other?

                Is it simply because you're an American? That seems like a cop-out at best.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:16:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ha, but I'm an American! nt (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Victor Ward

                  While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

                  by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:27:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, see, my man, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kyril

                    that just don't cut it.

                    It's either justifiable to intervene in Syria or it isn't. And that's true for any country, not just the US. If it's not OK for us, it's not OK for them.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:37:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  On your theory and unfortunately also (5+ / 0-)

                      the theory that basically got Obama sucked in, all anyone has to do to draw us into a homegrown conflict is to use chemical weapons.

                      That's not a very sophisticated foreign policy approach and I mean that in the sense that either decision "go" or "no go" ends up being wrong on some level.

                      Personally, I'd like to see the Arab League step up to the plate and clean up their own region.

                      •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

                        Why do they have a special obligation nobody else has?

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:53:56 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Who is they? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Victor Ward
                          •  The Arab League. (0+ / 0-)

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:03:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is their region. (6+ / 0-)

                            They understand it better than we do.  They have to live with the consequences of neighbors in civil wars.  They have to step up to the plate and start policing their own region.  We have to stop parenting them because we are not their parents.  They as a region have to start self governing.

                            Meanwhile, we need to start massive solar and wind projects - as well as alternative energy projects - so that we can get off of our dependency on the region's oil - and allow the peoples of that part of the world to finally start building nations that are not akin to a crack dealer's ring.  Maybe then they will break out of this constant cycle of creating authoritarian and theocratic governments and finally get on with making real progress towards societies that can thrive in the 21st Century and beyond.

                          •  Accepted (0+ / 0-)

                            that they understand the region better than we do, and that they are more directly impacted by nearby conflicts. This is definitely true.

                            But is proximity a determinant of moral or ethical obligation? And why is not, say, Israel, which shares a border with Syria, as obligated as the rest of the Arab League? Why not Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, or Turkmenistan, all nations proximate to Syria but not in the Arab League? Even France and Germany are no farther from Syria than some nations in the Arab League.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:33:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I use the Arab league as an example of (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lysias

                            a regional organization that is set and ready to go.  If other neighbors not in the Arab League want to weigh in, I'm all for it.  

                            As for proximity being a determinant factor, I believe that is a factor primarily because the people who live in that region have far better understanding of each other's cultures, religions and politics than we do.

                            I'm going to be apoplectic if the US stages another one of those Purple Finger elections and acts like we've brought democracy to a country that is neither culturally, sociologically, nor politically prepared to actually build a real democracy - a feat which requires more than voting - if voting was all that matter Saddam should have been perfectly acceptable - he won every vote they had for him in Iraq.

                          •  Given the pattern (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kyril, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                            of Western intervention during Obama's term, I don't see that as happening. Most likely, a push to topple the abusive dictator and then letting the country figure out how it wants to rebuild seems to be the pattern. Definitely an imperfect solution, mitigated only by the fact that other solutions or inaction aren't likely to yield anything better.

                            Of course, the elections in Iraq under Saddam were a sham, you realize. That wasn't democracy any more than Soviet elections were.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:50:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why in the world do you think that (0+ / 0-)

                            the Obama Administration really wants to topple the Assad regime?  They don't want to do that because the power vacuum that that action would create would allow the Al-Q rebels to take over.  

                            This strategic strike, if it comes to pass, will be on some warehouse that the "intelligence" community says chemical weapons are housed and produced.  Then we will back off to let Assad keep fighting off a civil war that threatens his regime.

                          •  Possibly. (0+ / 0-)

                            But that's all speculation.

                            It's also likely that Assad's use of chemical weapons was an act of desperation because otherwise he'll lose, and dismantling his ability to use them further will simply spell the end for him, as it would have if he had never used them.

                            There are a lot of moving pieces here.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:37:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We agree on the fact that there are (0+ / 0-)

                            a lot of moving parts in this situation.

                            MSNBC is reporting that we should expect three days of strikes and that they will be about "message not targets" whatever the fuck that means.

                            Personally, I think we'd be far better off going the diplomatic route as a means of sending messages.

                          •  Really. (0+ / 0-)

                            What diplomatic actions do you imagine could be taken at this point?

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:52:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And we come back to the Arab League. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo
                          •  Who have already spoken (0+ / 0-)

                            and THEY want UN intervention.

                            So what else do you imagine they can or should do?

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:54:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The Saudis have a great fighter jet force (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo

                            that we bought them.  Let them be the bad guys dropping bombs on their neighbors.  Why do we have to do their dirty work if they want military intervention.  We've given them the arms and means to do it themselves if they want military attacks.

                          •  Why do the Saudis (0+ / 0-)

                            have an obligation that we don't?

                            Is it because of their proximity? If so, why not the Turks, Israelis, Armenians or Jordanians?

                            Is it because of their shared religion? Think carefully.

                            And how is dropping bombs that 'diplomatic' option you were insisting needs to take place?

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:19:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Any Saudi on the street is going to have (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo

                            more understanding of the politics of Syria than pretty much anyone at the top levels of our government do.

                            Anyway, why do you believe that the US should intervene?  Why us?

                          •  You make more assumptions. (0+ / 0-)

                            The US should not unilaterally intervene, full stop. That'd be worse than doing nothing.

                            If other nations will step up, that's fine too. My goal is to see to it that the chemical weapons attacks stop. It's not really relevant to me who forces Assad to stop using them.

                            But you failed to answer any of my questions.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think that you have gotten your answers (0+ / 0-)

                            from me and that I have gotten mine from you.

                            I am not a military interventionist and you are inclined to believe that it is a rational option given the situation as you see it.

                            If reports from MSNBC are to be believed, the US will make a strike unilaterally.  

                          •  Were I cynical enough (0+ / 0-)

                            to place wagers on war, I would bet a large sum on the US not striking unilaterally.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:52:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe we will see a reprise of (0+ / 0-)

                            "The Coalition of the Willing" sigh.

                            But if I was taking your bet on behalf of the house, I'd exclude that kind of assortment of coerced countries from counting towards calling the intervention a "multilateral" response.

                          •  "Coerced countries" (0+ / 0-)

                            is your gateway to tautology -- simply assume any other nation (like the UK, Israel, the entire Arab League) is coerced and demand proof to the contrary.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 01:34:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I am talking about places like (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            raptavio

                            Palau or the Solomon Islands not counting.

                          •  OK. (0+ / 0-)

                            As long as we're clear on that, that's fair. I'd still consider it a safe investment.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:00:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Arab League. ARAB League. Syria. Not American. (0+ / 0-)

                            Think about it.

                            The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

                            by JVolvo on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 01:16:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Spell it out, JVolvo, (0+ / 0-)

                            and then YOU think about it.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:45:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

                      I think the amount of historical intervention of some other nations, like Great Britain and Russia, give them much more responsibility in this case than us.

                      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

                      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:53:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  other nations have pulled their troops out of (3+ / 0-)

              Afghanistan, soon it will be mostly US soldiers there, so other nations might be more ready for another war than the US (we still have 68,000 troops there).

              We are having to re-deploy soldiers diagnosed with PTSD back to Afghanistan.

              Our troops needs a break from constant war, as does this nation.

              "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

              by allenjo on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:43:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, I don't argue there. (0+ / 0-)

                I lost family in Iraq (IED) and a friend from Afghanistan (PTSD suicide). I've got a son who is planning to join the military soon.

                I'm definitely not in favor of putting boots on the ground in Syria - at least not our boots, owing to exactly the reasons you mentioned.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:48:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  spec op troops are already inside syria (0+ / 0-)

                  So US boots are already on the ground.

                  When you start a war, you have no idea what direction it will take.

                  If more US boots on the ground will be needed in Syria, where will they come from?

                  "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

                  by allenjo on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:52:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  NATO spec ops troops. (0+ / 0-)

                    And that's a whole other ball of wax, a whole other conversation.

                    The war is already started, by the way -- the question is whether and how to involve the US in it.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:56:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  a good time for the US to stand down take (6+ / 0-)

            a time out, allow us to end our war in Afghanistan, let the countries mongering for war, handle this without us.

            We have 68,000 troops still in Afghanistan and another year and a half of war to go, after 11 long, long years of an unwinnable war.

            Americans are war weary. This cannot continue.

            We seriously need a time-out from global dominance.

            "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

            by allenjo on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:34:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  the same Arab League many of whose members (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          burlydee, DSanchez, lysias, protectspice

          (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar) are arming and funding various rebel factions? Yeah, they're totally objective here. Pay no attention to the hidden agenda behind the curtain, ladies and gentlemen.

          Like it or not, in the absence of any imminent threat to the US, the UNSC is the only forum which can provide legitimacy for this kind of military action. The Arab League, like NATO in the Libya action, is just another figleaf to disguise the fact that this is an illegal and unilateral attack.

          At least Bush put his case to the UN before invading Iraq. He lied, but he did go before the UN to make his case. Obama doesn't even feel he needs to do that much; instead, he'll just do what he wants. It's not even clear he'll bother to involve Congress in any but the most perfunctory way.

          I thought Obama was the enlightened one who was supposed to see the benefits of multilateralism and international cooperation, as opposed to the cowboy antics of his predecessor. Guess I was wrong.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:16:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're making (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GoGoGoEverton

            a ridiculous number of assumptions, and ignoring the fact that any attempt to go through the UNSC will be met with a certain Russian veto.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  if multilateralism means anything, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lysias, protectspice

              it means you go through the proper channels and play by the rules you agreed to play by, even if you don't always get what you want.

              The Russians would veto military action, and they would have the moral high ground in so doing. There are lot of other (less diplomatic, more military) options that would be harder for them to justify opposing, which the administration hasn't bothered trying.

              If you argue we should bypass the UNSC, you're saying we should just rip up the UN Charter and go it alone. That would inaugurate a new era in international affairs, in which might makes right and whoever has the most guns is justified in doing whatever he wants.

              So Obama, in the end, has fundamentally no quarrel with Bush. Only a little quibble with the fine details of executing the military action.

              "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

              by limpidglass on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:23:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  correction: more diplomatic, less military (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

                "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

                by limpidglass on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:27:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  They would have the moral high ground? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                carver, kyril, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                Bull. Fucking. Shit.

                Their rationale is that they deny chemical weapons have been used in Syria, despite clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

                That's not the moral high ground. That's the act of a craven coward -- or worse, someone who values their financial stake more than the lives being lost.

                If they had the stones to say "Yes, chemical weapons are being used, but we believe that intervention would only help the rebels who are just as horrible as the government", then --  MAYBE then -- they could claim some sort of moral high ground.

                But this bullshit? No.

                There are a number of opportunities for multilateralism in dealing with this -- NATO, the Arab League, many other broad coalitions. (Unilateral action was Bush's thing, for those of you paying attention to fact before screaming "BUSHOBAMASAMETHING...") If you are aware of any treaty or law that requires us to act through the UNSC and only the UNSC, please present it. Otherwise, your argument falls flat.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:28:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  are they denying the use of CW? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lysias, protectspice, JVolvo

                  All I've heard is that they're saying there's no evidence that Assad's government has used them. Big difference.

                  The US has no smoking gun, because Kerry tried to shame everyone who suggested this could be a false flag by telling them they needed to check their moral compass.

                  If the administration had conclusive proof, they'd show it instead of trying to lecture and browbeat us into going along. So I have to conclude that they don't have conclusive proof.

                  In which case, there's no justification for an attack, given that there is no imminent threat. At the very least, why not wait until there is conclusive proof?

                  What this is is an action by a few states, led by the US, but including a few fellow travelers like France and the UK (who have their own agendas in this), and possibly some American client states in the ME.

                  Because those aren't the only nations that have interests in Syria, like it or not, we have to reckon with Russia, China, and Iran.

                  The international repercussions of a military strike will be very grave, and it will be deeply divisive at a time when we need international cooperation on issues like climate change.

                  "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

                  by limpidglass on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:44:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The US has no smoking gun, you say (0+ / 0-)

                    yet regional and international authorities are all unanimous based on the evidence they have...
                    And yes, Russia has denied the USE of chemical weapons:

                    http://in.reuters.com/...

                    The remainder of your post -- "fellow travelers", "client states" (so the Arab League is "client states" of the US? That'll be news to them) is loaded language that begs a whole lot of questions.

                    You are right about one thing: The consequences of action will be grave.

                    Unfortunately, so will the consequences of inaction.

                    There is no win-win situation here. There are no good options. Only bad options and worse options.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:52:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  You're making an awful lot of predictions and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raptavio

            assumptions on things that have not happened yet.

            While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:28:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the British are openly threatening (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              inclusiveheart, protectspice

              to bypass the Security Council, and saying they have justification to act unilaterally.

              Strikes could take place within a couple days. Is that time to consult with Congress, or the UN?

              "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

              by limpidglass on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:36:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Congress is out of session and won't (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                limpidglass

                be coming back in the next two days.  That's pretty much confirmed.

              •  The British are British...why did you lump (0+ / 0-)

                them into 'we'?

                While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:46:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He didn't. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo
                  the British are openly threatening (1+ / 0-)

                  to bypass the Security Council, and saying they have justification to act unilaterally.

                  Strikes could take place within a couple days. Is that time to consult with Congress, or the UN?

                  Read what's there, GGGE. limpidglass doesn't even use the word "we." Those are two  sentences that constitute two separate paragraphs, ergo, two separate thoughts.

                  I didn't want to go to war in 2003. I don't want to go to war now. I'm putting that on record.

                  But distorting what people say doesn't help anything.

                  © grover


                  So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                  by grover on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:00:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The comment that I responded to says (0+ / 0-)

                    Obama, Bush, etc etc...I say 'you're making a lot of predictions'' and I get the reply 'well the British.'

                    You can read the comments just fine, but also read the context of the subthread.

                    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

                    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:41:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Obama just does what he wants? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catte Nappe, raptavio

            Now, there is plenty to criticize Obama for, but he does not act recklessly or without consultation. If anything, he has often been criticized for taking too long to decide on a course of action, or waffling...even if you think he's chosen the wrong course (like in Afghanistan, or the drone assassinations, and much more), he doesn't do "whatever he wants"...and it's worth noting that, so far, the US has stayed out of Syria despite years of reported atrocities (some from the gov't, some from Islamist rebels).

            Obama may be wrong in all kinds of ways, but he's no "cowboy." He doesn't choose places to go to war, he reacts (or doesn't) to unfolding situations and the demands of various constituencies (unfortunately including our own war establishment).

            "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

            by Alice in Florida on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:29:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Let the Arab League intervene (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo

          if that is what they are calling for. I agree with GGGE. Both sides are equally evil. No point in getting involved as we would likely be ensuring another Al Queda run government.

          •  "Al Qaeda" (0+ / 0-)

            is in the mix of the rebels but is not the beginning nor the end of the rebels.

            I'm tired of 'Let the Arab League intervene.' For one, the Arab League has been heard; they asked for the UN's help. For two, the only reason 'the Arab League' is consistently invoked seems to be since because Muslims. And that reasoning smacks of, well, do I need to say it?

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:34:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, a no-fly-zone (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoGoGoEverton, limpidglass, lysias

        includes taking out their air defenses, which are formidable. Same story as Iran, they have Russian and Chinese made anti-aircraft systems and an airforce, that would be used to take down our patrols, it would quickly devolve into actual airwar.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:14:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In the service, one must choose the lesser evil. (0+ / 0-)

        Not to make a joke of this very serious topic, but I could not help but think of this movie when reading this comment:  

        That said, I must agree with you that discernment of which evil may here be the lesser and having confidence in that assessment is a enormously difficult matter, even for our, hopefully, better informed national leaders.

        That said, if the U.S. intervenes because of the CW attacks, then the intervention will be against the Syrian dictatorship and its forces. We will never really know which side had the market cornered on evil because the victors will write the history.  

        "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

        by LeftOfYou on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:42:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Our bluff?" (0+ / 0-)

        Have you not been paying attention? Everyone is screeching about chemical weapons being a "red line."

        Look:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        It's considered a world issue akin to nuclear disarmament.

        "We need institutions and cultural norms that make us better than we tend to be. It seems to me that the greatest challenge we now face is to build them." -Sam Harris, neuroscientist

        by MarthaPeregrine on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:10:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Given that Russia sits on the UN Security council (0+ / 0-)

        and has veto power, It pretty much means we can't encourage our UN partners to do anything. Not that the UN is big on doing much about things like genocide and chemical weapons attacks anyway.

    •  Who the hell says there's any bluff re. the U.S. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSanchez, wilderness voice, JVolvo

      involved? What a Villager bait-and-switch.

      If you're so goddamn in favor of fighting in Syria, go there yourself.

      "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison, 1822

      by Superskepticalman on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:15:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  rapativo, sorry I was yelling at you. Would you (3+ / 0-)

      accept my apologies?

      "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison, 1822

      by Superskepticalman on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:15:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I suggest we fix the last couple of Muslim (6+ / 0-)

      countries we broke, before we break another one.

      Why is every fight our fight?

      Why especially this one, where--whatever our ostensible goals--every blow we strike against Assad cannot help but strengthen his enemies... who are every bit as thuggish and malign as the Assad regime?

      Why especially now, when we have no money to pay for food stamps or to repair our own bridges?

      Why especially here? If we somehow do find funds that aren't desperately needed at home, why not spend them in the Congo, where 45,000 people are dying every month from hunger and disease, years after the war there has supposedly ended?

      I'm sorry, but America's endless war against Islam has left me irreparably cynical. I find it impossible to believe the protestations of the White House and State Department that our goal is to stop the use of chemical weapons and nothing else.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:22:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your statement is predicated (0+ / 0-)

        on the notion that Syria isn't already broken, badly.

        I understand and sympathize with your cynicism -- truly. As I've said before, there are no good options here. But the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to me is something that is a you-shall-not-pass scenario not merely because of the immediate carnage caused but because of the harm down the line when such weapons are employed without severe consequence to the one who uses them. And that, to me, is an overriding concern.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:28:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Geneva Protocol notwithstanding, I distinguish (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl, JVolvo

          between chemical weapons on the one hand and biological and nuclear weapons on the other.

          I draw the same line you do regarding the latter two, because once the biological or nuclear genii is unleashed, it has the very real possibility of destroying human civilization.

          Chemical weapons have no such capability. I need no reminders about how utterly horrific sarin and other nerve agents are, but the "ingenuity" of the warmongers has devised other, "legal" ways of killing that are equally potent and horrific.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:56:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you underestimate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD

            the potential of long-lasting regional harm that contamination of chemical weapons can cause.

            You are of course correct that biological and nuclear weapons carry a much higher global consequence than chemical ones, but there are other factors to consider.

            One of the "big deals" about chemical weapons, apart from long-lasting contamination that can be, at least on a local scale, as deadly or deadlier than that from nuclear weapons, is one that's a bit colder to contemplate:

            They're cheap, and simple.

            Munitions that you rightly describe as "legal" yet "equally potent and horrific" cost much more to produce, and therefore carry a higher cost to deploy on the battlefield. It is, in many respects, a built-in limit on their use. They're also much more technologically complicated, creating a built-in barrier to their use as well.

            It's somewhat analogous to the objections some have to the use of drones to attack targets. Drones remove a built-in 'cost' to manned aerial attacks: specifically, the risk to the life of the pilot.

            Removing these 'costs' and other hurdles removes a deterrent to their use, both in whether to use them at all and how much to use them. And the consequences of having a lower-cost, easier-to-deploy means at one's disposal to kill hundreds or thousands of people are well-known -- q.v. World War I*.

            Since the inherent constraints from using these weapons are far fewer, the world community has chosen to impose external constraints. And rightly so.

            It is in not only our vital national interests, but the interests of every living, breathing person on the globe that the international community keep a bright, red, you-shall-not-pass line on the use of nuclear, biological, and yes, chemical weapons in warfare. To reopen that Pandora's box would unleash a horror too terrible to contemplate.

            It's so rare I get to use "q.v." in my discourse.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:51:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm no chemist, but my understanding is that sarin (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl, raptavio, JVolvo

              has a half-life measured in weeks or maybe months.

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:56:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And that would be a valid point (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD

                if that were the only chemical weapon in Syria's arsenal. However, it's not, sadly.

                They are also known to produce VX, mustard gas, and Tabun, among others. I can't speak to all of them, but there is evidence that mustard gas maintains potency in the soil even after decades.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:25:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  BTW (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD

                I note the tips to my comments -- from a guy with whom I know I've had many heated disagreements, I recognize them as a deliberate token of respect, and I appreciate the gesture.

                I hope we can continue to have polite discusssions in future.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:03:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Can we please stop with the 'Muslim country' meme? (0+ / 0-)

        This is soft bigotry IMO because there are plenty of other majority-muslim countries in the ME, and Assad is a secular autocrat.

        While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 10:27:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There's already evidence the rebels used chemical (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      protectspice, SpecialKinFlag, JVolvo

      weapons as well, so which side are we attacking? Both?

      And I could give a shit about this dick waving about "calling our bluff." Oh no, we have to act tough or the world will fall apart!!!! Let's bomb shit!!!!

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 10:08:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is not clear evidence (0+ / 0-)

        the rebels have used chemical weapons, indeed, there is not clear evidence they even have access to the same.

        Please cite if you claim differently.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:37:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There isn't clear evidence that (0+ / 0-)

          Assad has used chemical weapons either.

          And the UN has been trending toward blaming the rebels for gas attacks earlier. They have raided a great number of armories and such, they could easily have gotten chemical weapons from the government.

          This is not cut and dry like you are treating it.

          That said, it may be the case that Assad has used these weapons and the rebels have not. If we find that to be the case then we have a completely different conversation. I'm still skeptical of intervention unless this is happening on a broader scale. A few hundred people dead in a war that has claimed millions of lives doesn't meet a moral standard for intervention as far as I'm concerned, however they may have been killed.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 11:58:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You do realize (0+ / 0-)

            you cited the Moonie Times?

            Here's the rest of the story:

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

            The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria has sought to distance itself from comments made by one of its members that there was evidence of the nerve agent sarin being used by rebels.
            In short, precisely one person on the commission shot her mouth off without cause. This is not evidence.

            But riddle me this, Batman: What would be 'cut and dry' in your eyes? What evidence would you require to be convinced? Because everyone from the Arab League (of which Syria is a member) to nations all over the world are convinced.

            BTW, this war has claimed thousands, not millions, of lives. You're off by a couple orders of magnitude. Thankfully.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:17:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have no idea where I got millions (0+ / 0-)

              from in that comment, honestly. I know that's completely wrong. Weird. And yes, thankfully way off. Around a hundred thousand would be the correct number that I meant to cite, which I have seen thrown around numerous times. Although that could be wrong as well

              What evidence would you require to be convinced?
              Maybe some evidence that the Syrian government did this? We don't have any so far. I certainly think that there were chemical weapons used, MSF is a very unbiased source. And I certainly wouldn't put it past Assad to use chemical weapons. This specific attack seems to have taken place in Damascus, although if you have other info about the location then I'd love to see it, which doesn't seem like something the government would do.

              "Cut and dried" would be the UN team that's there now saying that there were chemical weapons launched by the regime with evidence that it was a missile used of a sort that only the regime had access to.

              I still think one example of a chemical attack is not enough for a broad intervention. It would end up requiring a no-fly zone and sanctions, etc. And the chances of it broadening into a wider conflict after a Syrian response would be pretty likely.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:46:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The UN team (0+ / 0-)

                is specifically NOT there to determine who carried out the attack; rather, it's there only to determine whether chemical weapons were used at all.

                So your standard of proof is an impossible one.

                So why do you think every nation who isn't Russia who's sounded off on this has agreed as to who attacked whom and that it was with sarin gas, if there's no clear and convincing evidence?

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 12:51:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So then what standard of proof do you have? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo

                  Where is this evidence?

                  I've been out of town all weekend so I haven't seen all of the info. Please stop being so damn combative. I'm waiting to see some evidence beyond what a bunch of governments say. I assumed that the US was going to report on who was responsible for this attack because they had said they would do so with previous attacks.

                  As I said, I certainly don't put it past Assad to gas his own people. Or past any oppressive government. Look at what the US has done in the past and we're a democracy. We hooked Saddam up with the gas he used. And Assad is a dictator who clearly doesn't have a problem massacring civilians.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 01:12:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You think this is combative? Huh. (0+ / 0-)

                    I suppose the standard of proof I'm going for is broad international consensus (which I interpret as people-who-know-the-facts-better-than-you-or-I-ever-could-agreeing) coupled with strong tangible evidence. The videos of the horrific effects of the gas are strong enough tangible evidence; the fact that Syria is known to produce and stockpile these weapons in several facilities is strong evidence as to the culprits; the broad international consensus including that of the Arab League (of which Syria was until recently a member) is another.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 01:57:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Again, based on the fact that MSF's (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo

                      info on the gas there's really no question it happened. I haven't seen any proof that it was Assad yet except from the same damn intelligence agencies that said Saddam had WMD. So you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:31:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Skepticism is healthy. (0+ / 0-)

                        Just be sure you don't confuse it with cynicism.

                        One major distinction between the 2001-2002 runup to the Iraq war and 2013 Syria is that, well, that the weapons exist is incontrovertible; it's merely their ownership that is in question. And given the quantity that had to have been employed (in contrast with, say, the Aum Shinrikyo attacks in the 90s) to cause the carnage that it did, it limits the pool of potential sources a great deal more. Confidence is necessarily higher.

                        Also too, Bush isn't in charge.

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:37:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, I'm most definitely cynical (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          protectspice

                          as well as skeptical ;)

                          Also too, Bush isn't in charge.
                          Yeah, but the privatized intelligence/security apparatus he left behind certainly hasn't been dismantled. That's the real worry I have. More bullshit info.

                          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                          by AoT on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:49:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I understand (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT

                            that would be cause for trepidation.

                            However, you have to admit the tangible evidence is, at least so far, much stronger at this time.

                            I hope the other evidence is revealed in due course.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 03:00:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  BTW (0+ / 0-)

                    strictly speaking it's not true we hooked Saddam up with the gas he used. His regime worked hard to produce and manufacture those weapons; we chose to look the other way, much to our shame (thanks Reagan).

                    We MAY have helped supply some of the materials with which his regime produced those weapons; however, that's not known definitively.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 01:59:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  What about an airlift out for any women, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    children, or disabled who wish to escape?

    I don't agree that we should not take some kind of action to punish the use of chemical weapons ... after all, that's what we alleged Saddam Hussein had done, and look what GWB got us into over that.

    Are Syrians of less value than Kurds or Iraqis?

    We must find some answer. It would be most excellent if it didn't involve additional death and destruction, but since we lack the Organians' capacity to turn everybody's weapons into red-hot tools of self-destruction, we've got to actually figure out something better.

    What might that be?

    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

    by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 07:57:20 AM PDT

    •  They're all participating though! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie

      Who is not complicit in some faction in this war?

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:00:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh. So there are no innocent bystanders, even (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        those your earlier comment suggested might deserver mercy.

        Got it.

        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:28:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kids, the disabled. Otherwise, if you're healthy, (0+ / 0-)

          you can leave, or you can fight back.

          While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:08:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  seems to me that it's harder for folks to leave (0+ / 0-)

            than ... oh, say, it was for folks without cars of their own and gas money to get out of East Texas ahead of Rita. Or Ike, for that matter.

            Careful how wide the brush paints, please?

            LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 09:28:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The children too? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        Well, I guess their parents are probably by and large sympathizing with one side or the other, and if those children were to be allowed to grow up, they would become terrorists or Assad sycophants as well, so who cares if they die now or later, same difference.

        Is that what you are saying?

        In any conflict, this one included, the vast majority of the population are civilians. They don't deserve to be massacred at the whim of some two-bit dictator. And this applies even if some of them might sympathize with some of the less savory elements of the opposition. Noone deserves to be killed for what they believe in.

        This war, like virtually all wars, is very messy, with atrocities being committed by actors on both sides. The situation on the ground is complex, fluid, and very difficult to understand unless you can spend a lot of time digging into the details. But that does not give us license to simply shrug and avert our eyes from the horrors that take place before us. If we can do something to stop further future massacres, slow down the bloodshed, protect the population from wanton killings and persecutions, we have an obligation to do so. Even if there is not perfect moral clarity. Which there never is.

        "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

        by Drobin on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:29:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Credit Where Credit is Due (16+ / 0-)

    You and I spar a lot, GGGE, but I'm with you on this a thousand percent. It's outrageous.

    "What do we suggest?", say those who are for more war. It's not like those who oppose war are required to come up with a solution; regardless, anything that doesn't involve more death and destruction and and further draining of our treasury would be a good place to start.

     This business of sticking our noses in every goddamn bit of turmoil the world over has to stop. One of these years, someone is liable to decide to bomb the shit out of us for being so self-righteously imperialistic.

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:06:02 AM PDT

  •  A double standard (11+ / 0-)

    For the last several days, we have seen countless images of suffering in Syria, children gasping for breath, bodies kicking and twitching.  But when it comes to our own soldiers, we never see battlefield images of them suffering from gunshot wounds, or their limbs blown off by an IED.  In fact, during the Bush administration, we didn’t even get to see the flag-draped coffins.

    Why the double standard?  The reason is obvious:  we are spared nothing in the way of horrible images of human suffering when they are trying to whip us into a war frenzy; but any images of death or suffering that might make us sicken of war are kept from our view.

    •  The real double-standard: watching the Egyptian (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSanchez, lysias, protectspice

      military to more to hundreds, even thousands, of Egyptians with nary a word of complaint, only "regret" from the President on down.

      But when it's another country, like Syria, the tune changes.

      "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison, 1822

      by Superskepticalman on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:17:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What's worrisome to me is that if we do nothing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice

    we give free rein to China & Russia (heck, why should they get to intervene and we don't?).

    And equally importantly, we miss a golden opportunity to keep funneling massive $$s to the MIC, which is about all that is propping up advanced manufacturing capacity in this country these days.

  •  I agree. (7+ / 0-)

    This is a situation that has no good answers.
    There are no clear "good guys" and "bad guys", well, actually, a lot of bad guys. On both sides.
    The worst of it is the non-combatants stuck in the middle, the millions of displaced persons.
    Since we did not supply the regime with it's armaments, we have no responsibility for their misuse (as was the case in other conflicts). The Russians bear that responsibility and are not stepping up (AFAIK).
    We don't even know if that "red line" was stepped over by the regime or by the rebels, so going in guns blazing, is just plain wrong.
    About the best thing that we can do is supply technical and material support to the refugee camps, particularly in Turkey and Jordan (and possibly Iraq?) for the non-combatants and stay the H3ll out of the fight.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:09:45 AM PDT

  •  Well, if we can blow something up (0+ / 0-)

    There's really nothing that can be done. Because that's the only thing we know how to do anymore.

    Oh wait, we know how to say we believe in democracy and self-determination. Until the citizens of another nation make the wrong choice in ordering their affairs. So we got that going for us, too.

    Not sure how either one of those could possibly help the situation in Syria, but since that's all we know how to do, it's the limit of our morality.

  •  This may be the first time I've agreed with you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, JeffW, protectspice

    gogo.

    collards, meat, butter, sourdough, eggs, cheese, raw milk

    by Tirge Caps on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 08:43:42 AM PDT

  •  The only thing the U. S. can do that is helpful (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1BQ, Kane in CA

    is to give provisions to the refugee camps.  What is going on is terrible.  But if we meddle we can only make things worse and get kicked in the ass for our efforts.  

    Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. As good as I am, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway. –jbou (2013)

    by Simul Iustus et Peccator on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 10:12:00 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site