Members of Congress call for Syria strike- Members of USA call for Congressmen to STFU.

[KittyWampus]

I think Engel has seen too many movies if he thinks we can just "destroy the Syrian Air Force" as if that's all it takes… and one wonders what he thinks then comes next….


Members of Congress call for Syria strike

By David Savage
August 25, 2013, 7:25 a.m.
WASHINGTON —

A Republican senator and a House Democrat joined Sunday in calling for President Obama to launch air strikes against the Syrian regime in response to reports it used chemical weapons against its citizens.

“I do think we have to respond, and I do think we will take action,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on "Fox News Sunday." He called for the administration to attack Syria in a “surgical way,” such as by launching cruise missiles directed at military targets.

Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), appearing on the same program, agreed the administration should launch an attack on Syria.

“I think we have to respond, and we have to act rather quickly,” he said. “We can’t afford to sit back and wait for the United Nations.”

Engel said the United States could hit a series of military targets, including attacking the bases and runways used by Syria’s air force. “We can destroy the Syrian air force,” he said.

While both urged swift military action by the Obama administration, Corker said the president should seek approval from Congress before acting. He predicted there would be bipartisan support for a measure that authorizes military action against the Syrian regime.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-members-of-congress-call-for-syria-strike-20130825,0,7685160.story

[MADem]

1. I think we should wait to hear from the UN inspection team--they were only granted access today.

Anything we do needs to have broad international concurrence, and it should be focused on the issue of the CWs, not the larger issues in Syria.

[MFrohike]

3. Holy shit

This post could be straight out of 2003. Wow, there's some deja vu.

[MADem]

5. Which post?

YOURS?

This situation is entirely different from 2003. The Secretary General of the UN wasn't expressing any particular outrage in 2003, and dozens of nations weren't horrified by the stark images of dead children lined up like cordwood.

I want to know who did this and who supplied the CW. Snarking about Colin Powell's little phony vial, and trying to make that the "same" as the images of hundreds of dead is just a bullshit comparison.

Surely you're not suggesting that all those dead people were very clever, very still ACTORS?

Doctors Without Borders are appalled as well. Anyone with a sense of human decency would be.

[MFrohike]

6. Relax

I posted my exact reaction with no commentary other than to remark about deja vu. If I feel like beating a subject to death, I'll post more. Ok?

[MADem]

8. I have a little difficulty 'relaxing' when I see so many little kids lying dead in their shrouds.

It offends me.

[MFrohike]

9. That's a mighty high horse

Try not to fall off of it if the "red line" get erased again.

[MADem]

10. There you go again--mocking a situation that just is not fucking funny.

I am not on a "high horse," I am concerned, and I don't think this is a situation that should be snarked about or joked about. I hope the UN can thread this needle and get those CWs out of there. An orderly destruction would be best, in a cooperative fashion, but this circumstance has to be resolved.

[MFrohike]

12. Mocking the situation?

No, I'm mocking YOU. You used the prospect of dead children in an attempt to forestall any debate on the subject. You jumped up on a high horse to demand action without acknowledging the facts of the situation. What facts? There is no clear evidence whether chemical weapons were used at all, nor who used them if they were. Further, how exactly do you think you can resolve this problem without actually getting involved in the conflict? Even if you could seize one stockpile with the mythical "surgical strike," the borders are porous as hell and more could be gotten. What do you do then?

I'm mocking you because you're using manipulative emotional techniques to advocate a course of action that ain't nearly as easy as you'd like to think. I didn't like it when Bush and co. did it 10 years ago and I don't like it now. If you can't openly and honestly discuss the realities of the situation and the difficulties you'd have to overcome in order to attain your desired outcome, then you're not really serious about this situation.

[KittyWampus]

14. Actually, you started some shit about this being right out of 2003. There are some stark differences

And frankly, since MADem clearly said the UN Inspectors need to weigh in… one wonders where you stand.

You seem to be the one who is derailing any discussion.

[MFrohike]

16. Ok

I'll let the "you're either with us or against us" bit slide and answer the loaded question. I think that if you want to get involved in Syria, you need to figure out the extent of the involvement. What is the ultimate goal? What means will be needed to achieve it? Is it within our capabilities? Can we maintain public support for involvement without damaging other foreign policy objectives? Can we achieve a lasting solution or is this is an effort to be seen to be "doing something?" What are the likely local outcomes of involvement? How will this affect the trans-national jihadi situation? How will this affect Israeli-Arab relations? What is the likely blowback?

If you can't even consider those questions before picking sides, then you are not serious in the least about this situation. Those are the questions that Bush and co. avoided like the plague in 2002-03. If you can't answer them, you aren't ready to go to war. It's that simple.

[KittyWampus]

18. You have a vivid imagination/chip on your shoulder & I don't even recognize your username….

maybe you're logged in here right now on a different account or something and don't realize it.


"I'll let the "you're either with us or against us" bit slide and answer the loaded question."

[MFrohike]

22. So?

You don't know my username, what's your point?

I was responding to your snide "where you stand" comment. That's the loaded question and the implied with us or against us.

[MADem]

17. What debate? There is no debate about the use of chemical weapons--it's a bad thing to do.

I hope the UN can find a way to resolve this, because it can't be allowed to stand.

If you think you're mocking me, I've got news for you....your attitude says more about you than your limp snarking words say about me.

No clear evidence chemical weapons were used at all? REALLY? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/syrian-chemical-weapons-rebel

Syrian hospitals treated thousands for poison gas symptoms, says charity
Médecins sans Frontières says symptoms indicate mass exposure to neurotoxic agent, as Syrian state TV claims chemical weapons found in rebel tunnels

Médecins sans Frontières has said hospitals it supports in Damascus treated thousands of patients for neurotoxicity, the first independent indication of the use of poison gas in a deadly incident on Wednesday in the Syrian capital.

The medical charity said the hospitals received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on Wednesday morning, of which 355 reportedly died.

Dr Bart Janssens, director of operations at the charity, said: "Medical staff working in these facilities provided detailed information to MSF doctors regarding large numbers of patients arriving with symptoms including convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress."

He said he could not confirm the cause of symptoms or the culprits. "However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events – characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.

"This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons," he said.

The news will increase pressure on the international community to take action after Wednesday's attack, which may have killed as many as 1,300 people. William Hague, the foreign secretary, said this week that the attack was probably carried out by forces loyal to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. The Assad regime has accused Syrian rebels.



And you don't have a clue as to what I am "advocating" because you're too fucking busy ass-uming and trying to fit me into a box that is defined by YOUR bias.

If I had my way, I would like to see UN send in a team of blue helmets, skilled in CW mitigation, to cordon off any bunkers of CW and initiate the destruction of them in a measured fashion.

But that would ruin your mocking/fun, I'm sure. You just KNOW how people feel, and you KNOW what people want, because you're just so snarky and smart.



Don't go into fortune telling--you'll starve.

[MFrohike]

20. Boxed me in quite nicely, don't you think?

Of course, there's a difference between suggestive evidence and clear evidence. Clear evidence would require residue testing, I believe, which I do hope that UN team will be doing. Until then, reserving judgment is the only smart choice. Anything else could lead people to think one is hysterical.

As for my assumptions, allow me to use "clear evidence" to explain them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023524905#post85 <---bit more than just cordoning off things

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023524905#post170 <---this is what I called trying to manipulate using emotion

[MADem]

21. Way to take comments out of context.

The context of that discussion was not about Blue Helmets, it was about a surgical strike. There are ways to do them that don't involve boots on the ground--I discussed that in that thread.

The optimal method is the one that causes the least agita.

And 'manipulate using emotion' my ass--I resent like hell being painted as a warmonger just because I object to the use of CW and want to see them eradicated.

People who play that "You must be a (fill in your favorite insult--warmonger, Bushco cheerleader, wingnut, etc.)" game are assholes and make DU suck. The absolute intolerance and "There can be only one solution and that's isolationism" attitude I've seen surrounding this difficult issue is both stupid and juvenile. Heckuvajob, brownies!

[MFrohike]

23. Calm down

There was no discussion about a surgical strike until you brought it up. The earlier posts in that subthread were questioning the necessity of US intervention, not how to do it. I posted your first comment in the subthread, which is what created the entire context of a surgical strike. Thus, your post is very much in context, whether you like it or not.

The optimal method is the one that achieves your desired goal. Blowing up one stockpile doesn't do much if there's more to be gotten. That's part of my point about actually doing something and being seen to do something. Additionally, if you blow up a stockpile and they don't happen to be binary weapons, you're not going to like the result.

You manipulate emotion by continuously invoking dead children in Syria. If you're on their side, then anyone who even questions you is automatically against. You don't care that other people are concerned about the realities of intervention and how it might turn out to be a very bad thing, you just want to DO SOMETHING. Thus, you use dead children to shrug off their concerns by implying that they are immoral by not being as overtly outraged as you.

I've never advocated isolationism and I've actively discouraged unthinking, emotional intervention. I've asked you to answer a host of questions that need to be addressed. As I've said, if you can't answer those questions, you're not interested in doing anything, you just want to be seen to be doing something. The difference is the former is trying to achieve a real outcome, while the latter is trying to make yourself feel better.

[MADem]

24. I am entirely calm. The answer to a problem--like the deployment of CW--is not "Ignore it."

If you think that's an answer, well, that's YOU. It ain't me.

It's a problem, it needs a solution.

Those dead children ARE the issue--it's not "emotional"--it's the reason why people up to and including the UN SG are pissed off. If these weapons were killing off lizards or cockroaches, no one would be pitching a fit...but they're killing KIDS. THOUSANDS of people--and that's not "the rebels" or "the Assad camp" saying it--it's Drs.w/o Borders.

Jesus! I find this "sophisticated snark" attitude about this issue insufferable.

I haven't seen you come up with a single idea--you're real good about characterizing other people, questioning motives, making demands upon them, but you've got nuthin but mouth--what's YOUR solution? Come on, cough it up, tough guy!

Or don't--I really don't give a shit.

[MFrohike]

25. It is emotional

It's irrational, unthinking emotion that drives the need to be engaged without thinking through the consequences. Do you honestly think you can just shoot off some missiles or conduct a "surgical strike" and not have repercussions? What if you fail? What if you make things worse? What do you do then? Do you just say, "well, we tried?" What good does that do? Damn, that's what I mean when I say you're not serious about this at all. You don't seem to realize that doing your best is not good enough, it's an excuse. That's the reality of governing. It's about results, not some bullshit idea that you tried. It doesn't mean that you don't experiment, but it does mean that you don't use the resources of all without thinking it through before you act.

Not all problems have solutions and not every problem is required to be solved by the US. That's the first reality you have to confront before you get involved. If your intervention will help to ameliorate a problem, that's a good sign. If it won't, and the recent Iranian threats seem to indicate that, then it's a bad sign. Either way, you have to be honest and be willing to accept the results of the analysis without prejudice.

My solution? My solution is to be an adult and think it through. Play out the scenarios of what it really take to rid the battlefield of chemical weapons. Figure out how involved the US will really have to be in order to make this a reality and then decide whether that means we're picking sides. If we're picking sides, we have be sure we're on the right one. Determine the likely consequences and compare them to public support and try to figure out what intervention will mean for public support on this issue as well as our foreign policy generally. Most people don't like the aspect of determining public support, but this is a democracy. FDR had to worry about it in WW2 and Obama's had to worry about it throughout his administration. The people of this country have the right and the responsibility to let their elected representatives know their opinion on foreign policy, both general and specific. Above all, my solution is to be serious and do the legwork to figure out if you can do this and what will happen if you do. If the results are positive, then it's just a question of whether you actually want to do it or not. If they are negative, don't do it.

By the way, calling what I'm saying "sophisticated snark" is another tired emotional ploy. If you can't argue your points rationally, just say it. The attempted manipulation is obvious and will only get you amens from the choir, not the congregation.

[MADem]

26. I just can't get into this with you. TLDR, as the kids say. You're interested in fighting, I'm

not--and what does "be an adult and think it through" mean? WTF do you think the UN is doing right now? That's where this decision will get argued out on an international level and decisions as to roles will be taken--not on a fucking message board.

But hey, you want to be an "adult"....sounds like word salad because you're certainly not acting like one.

Have a nice day.

[MFrohike]

27. You made my point

You don't care to think it through because you want to act on emotion. If you don't like it when people disagree with you, then you should avoid subjects likely to cause disagreement.

[malokvale77]

33. I fully agree with your responses

They are well thought out and very well stated.

This situation reminds me too much of the phoney video footage, (from Kuwait) that led us into the first Gulf War.

I have skin in this game, and I don't like what I'm seeing.

[MADem]

36. What point? That your outrage and morality are situational? That you can "look away?"

You've made my point.

[MFrohike]

38. No

No, my ultimate point is that you don't get involved unless you can be pretty sure you won't do more harm than good. It's a hard lesson, but it does avoid the problem of compounding evils, which is a common problem of emotional reaction.

[MADem]

39. There are many ways to get involved without doing more harm than good.

First is to never put US boots on Syrian ground--that's easy.

Second is to back a UN intervention and a cease-fire in the area of weapons storage facilities, so that blue helmeted multinational peacekeepers can go in, cordon off the area, and begin a mission of destroying the weapons in a systematic fashion.

That seems like a simple solution to me--if Assad (and it's looking more and more likely that HE did it) will agree, then no one gets hurt.

No need for "emotional" reactions with a coordinated response.

If Assad doesn't want to 'fess up, many regional actors have the ability to put ordinance on weapons storage facilities, without having to put a boot, shoe, sandal or flip flop on the ground. It is possible to persuade from a distance.

Without getting "emotional" either.

[MFrohike]

55. It's an end goal

Now you just have to figure out how to enforce it.

[Capt. Obvious]

49. YOUR WELL THOUGHT OUT & RATIONAL RESPONSES FILL ME WITH RAGE

[HooptieWagon]

48. Agreed. An emotional knee-jerk response

ignoring the reality on the ground is only going to kill more civilians and endanger US troops. There are no "good guys"....both sides are "bad guys". There is no possible outcome that can be a "win" for the US if we get involved. There is only the certainty of another decade-long quagmire, and the real possibility of having to take on Iran too.

[CJCRANE]

32. Well said!

[HooptieWagon]

30. The Syrian Rebels have been killing civilians also.

There are no "good guys" in this war. Knee-jerk response is only going to get us in another unwinnable quagmire. Did you not learn from Iraq and Afghanistan?

[MADem]

35. Helloooooo? Since when do two wrongs make a right?

My interest is in determining the source of the weapons, rounding them up, destroying them in an orderly fashion, and preventing further transfer of them to the field of battle.

WHAT, exactly, are YOU saying? It's too hard? Fuck it--ignore the fact that people are being poisoned by the thousands?

Why is this "OK" with you?

[HooptieWagon]

40. So you want to add a third wrong?

That doesnt add up to a right either. Air strikes will not take out CWs, it stakes boots on the ground. How many civilians will die in the process? Will CW be used against US troops? How many of them are you willing to have die? What is the end game....what is achieved by victory? Will AQ be our ally?

[MADem]

41. That is not true. You aren't arguing from a place of experience.

The defecting general can tell us where the binary weapons are. They aren't stored side by side, ya know, like salt and pepper in the pantry--they are stored separately.

You blow up one ingredient stored in Spot A, and you blow up another stored in Spot B.

And if boots on the ground are needed, get both sides to agree to a cease fire in the area surrounding the weapons cache, and let blue helmets go in there to do the job. We don't need to go near the joint, just chip in as we always do with expense money for the mission.

See? It's not that hard. You're just making it hard for reasons that I just can't understand.

[HooptieWagon]

44. These aren't large immobile weapons.

They can be easily transported by truck, the trunk of a car, or by individual combatants. How the hell are you going to target that with a cruise missle? What if the CWs are stored in a wharehouse in a residential area? You going to blow it up and gas 10,000 people living nearby? Suppose they are assembled at sites in Iran....you want to wage war on Iran too? Do you realize this is a potentially bigger quagmire than Iraq and Afghanistan combined? Neither side is our friend, there is no positive outcome for the US. Simply lobbing a couple dozen cruise missles into Damascus isn't going to eliminate the CWs. And it will likely make Assad more willing to use them.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Just get both sides to agree to a cease fire?!? How?

'It's easy, just make peace!' Everything is easy if you leave out the details. 'Are you broke? Easy! Start a business with an innovative idea and you will not be broke for long!!!!!'
After reading this thread, it does seem fitting to point out that prior to Iraq Invasion we were told there were chemical weapons, we knew where they were and the war would take days, maybe weeks because getting those WMD was going to be a breezy outing.

[David__77]

13. There were people here who would have supported war against Iraq, if UN approved it.

I even ran a poll on that myself. Only archived by a right-wing site: http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/does-the-left-really-believe-in-the-un/

By that time, most opposed it even with UN approval. I hope NO ONE here would support aggression against Syria without UN approval.

[MADem]

19. I want those CW removed--that's my focus. nt

[HooptieWagon]

42. That will take US soldiers on the ground.

How many American troops are you willing to sacrifice?

[MADem]

43. No it will not. You are not arguing your case based on any understanding of how these weapons are

stored, or what a UN peacekeeping mission could accomplish with a cease fire and a few weeks to do the job.

You're just making shit up for reasons that are unclear to me.

[HooptieWagon]

47. The two sides don't want peace.

They are determined to fight to the end. The UN is not going to send in a peace-keeping mission under those circumstances. I doubt the UN wants anything to do with another US middle-east quagmire.
And yes, it will take boots on the ground to search neighborhood by neighborhood to locate and dispose of CWs. They are small, easily transported, and easily hidden. There is 100% certainty they would be used against US or UN troops.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Rummy said Iraq would be a few weeks, max. And UN Peacekeepers keep the peace so there has to

be a modicum of peace for them to function, otherwise they are just another military force in a war. Do you think the various sides see blue helmets and drop to their knees singing Imagine?

[MADem]

54. Rummy wanted to put TROOPS in Iraq--that's not what I'm talking about.

This isn't about "Rummy." This is about a UN sanctioned event, assuming Russia and China can be persuaded to abstain should the suggestive evidence become overwhelming.

How in hell will a UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE with a mission to destroy CWs create a larger war?

You do understand that the protocol for these things is to create a cease fire zone around the work area? There are regional actors like Turkey, Jordan, SA, Egypt and the UAE that have the ability to do overflights and retaliate should anyone be stupid enough to attack UN peacekeepers.

And, FWIW, UN peacekeepers aren't incapable of defending themselves, if needs must. They know how to call in an airstrike, after all, they aren't drawn from each nation's garden club.

[leftstreet]

2. Without UN approval, wouldn't that kinda be a war crime?

These people are arrogant and fucking stupid

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

4. Why should repubs care about war crimes?

It isn't as if they'll ever be made to answer for them.

[leftstreet]

15. Are you saying the Democrats have denounced this?

[HooptieWagon]

52. True....rethugs are for it...

because it makes the MIC happy, and they can blame Obama when it goes bad.

[libdem4life]

7. The American Sheep haven't experienced the "incubator cord" incident du jour

I hope I'm mistaken, but seems like we've been here before ... the winning of the hearts and minds and all. We don't even know who are good guys or evildoers. If they want war to prop up the MIC, seeing we're not "active" much of anywhere hot, they know how to get it done.

The only Full Employment Plan our government has.

Phrase the question differently to Americans..."Are you willing to risk young men and women of your family, many of whom are just now getting their student loan payments coming due, for this "intervention" ?

Another version for a different audience..."Are you willing to lose one breadwinner and force the other breadwinner on welfare?

No. Just. No.

[dtom67]

11. Of course there will be bi-partisan support...

there is a LOT of money to be made in LNG with assad out of the way. Russia supplies a lot of natural gas to the EU, which is why they oppose military intervention in Syria. Having Syria open allows the EU to lessen its reliance on Russian gas. and we can possibly provoke Iran into a war. Two for the price of one. When the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria, we can give them the boot ( more taxpayer money for contractors). It makes perfect sense, if you discard your childish notions of Right and Wrong.

Oh , sorry.

We are supposed to pretend its all about the Syrian People.

forgot .........

[bhikkhu]

28. "Swift action" against Syria, but no food stamp program because they're on vacation

...and there's really no hurry on that sort of thing.

[madville]

29. So if the rebels did it

Do we help Syria fight them? Or is it only bad if Assad does it?

[spanone]

31. shades of the dick, cheney

[kelliekat44]

34. Love your OP subject line. !!!

[steve2470]

37. so, Representative Engel, you cool with putting your son or daughter's body on the line ?

You going to join up ?

*crickets*

Didn't think so. This issue is very near and dear to my heart, since my son turns 18 soon.

[HardTimes99]

45. Send the sons and daughters (grandsons and granddaughters) of

the 1% first.

[steve2470]

46. agreed ! nt

[GoneFishin]

53. Earlier allegations of CWs were debunked. These may be also.

If any CWs were actually used then we must consider the possibility that it was a false flag operation.

It is too convenient that use of CWs was the line in the sand, and then that line was crossed.

Smells like bullshit.

[jakeXT]

56. video