Deep thoughts from a usually shallow man...

[OneAngryDemocrat]

One thing that I find incredibly troubling is this mad desire to 'punish' Assad militarily.

Assuming that Bashar MUST be punished, I have to ask why that 'punishment' has to take the form of a military strike?

Why not economic sanctions?

Why not simply revoke his status as a world leader at the UN and recognize someone else?

Why MUST missiles fly?

Why do they have to be our missiles?

This whole thing is worse than ridiculous.

It's a farce.

[Autumn]

1. My question is, who would profit from the actions that you list that

would work very well with no bloodshed?

I would go so far as to say, those are not the thoughts of a shallow man... thanks for posting this.

[Scuba]

2. Not much money in peaceful sanctions.

[jeff47]

3. Because they've already done your proposals

There are already sanctions on Syria.

Syria doesn't hold any particularly powerful position at the UN. And who would you recognize in Assad's place? The Syrian rebel groups are also awful.

Why MUST missiles fly?

Because if Assad determines he will not face any repercussions for gassing the rebel cities, he will gas the rebel cities to end the rebellion. One night will kill millions, and secure his position.

Why do they have to be our missiles?

Because one effect of our massive military spending is our allies have massively cut their military spending. They can't pull off the attack without US help.

For example, France and the UK were supposed to be the ones to attack Libya. They couldn't. They needed the US to provide tankers and other support. These countries are gradually rebuilding their militaries, but they will not be able to attack Assad without US help for a decade or more.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

4. I Missed Something in Your Bloodlust, Jeff...

While you were busy "justifying," I missed the actual authority that made America the world's policeman.

I mean, let's be honest... Syria's neighbors have a bigger stake in what happens in their neighborhood than we do.

And they CAN respond.

[IdaBriggs]

6. You are trying to change the subject.

You asked:

Why not economic sanctions?

Why not simply revoke his status as a world leader at the UN and recognize someone else?

Why MUST missiles fly?

Why do they have to be our missiles?

You were answered. You are not disputing the factual nature of the answers.

You are not being intellectually honest, so your "let's be honest" comment is disingenuous at best.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

7. Not At All...

"Syria doesn't hold any particularly powerful position at the UN. And who would you recognize in Assad's place? The Syrian rebel groups are also awful."

Irrelevant. Syria's neighbors can broker with whomever they choose. It isn't up to President Obama to decide for us, or them.

Or is it?

The 'need' to punish Bashar militarily is predicated on a pile of Syrian corpses.

I simply prefer that the dead be on someone else's conscience other than my own. That's all I'm saying.

If you're cool with blowing up one dictator just to replace him with another, and that's the direction your moral compass points in, there's nothing I can do or say to change that.

[jeff47]

15. Jordan and Iraq can not respond

They can't get through Assad's defenses. Turkey has a way to respond - us. They are a member of NATO, after all.

Moving on to non-contiguous neighbors, Israel could carry out an attack. But that's not a terribly good geopolitical idea either.

As for who gave us the authority, we did. And nobody else has stepped up to take over the role. I'd love for the EU or someone else to actually have the capability of being "the world's policeman". But they don't have the capability, as demonstrated by their inability to attack Libya without our help.

It would be lovely if international law actually existed as a working body of law, and so there would be nice options involving courtrooms to deal with this situation. That isn't the case right now. International law is a hodge-podge of treaties and agreements that are routinely ignored, and to which Syria isn't a signatory anyway.

[Adrahil]

22. Because someone doesn't agree with you, they have bloodlust? nt

[IdaBriggs]

5. Thank you for this post. Please note that the next responses

will have nothing to do with any of the questions that were asked that you have answered so succinctly.

[zeemike]

8. So does that mean Russia is justified in letting the missals fly

Against the rebels if they determine the rebels used chemical weapons?
an if not why not?

[jeff47]

16. If the rebels had a significant chemical stockpile, yes.

For the moment, lack of access to chemical weapons keeps them from mounting large chemical attacks.

[zeemike]

19. And then we would be justified in attacking Russia?

and they would be justified in attacking us?

There is a problem here that I think you fail to see...but don't worry, I will not try to explain it to you.

[grahamhgreen]

13. France and UK poweless to attack??? HAHAHAHA BS. Go back to your neocon think tank.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

#5 & 6 military powers in the world.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

14. Yep...

You're reading the same Tea leaves I am.

[jeff47]

17. If that were true, they could have bombed Libya without our help.

They couldn't. We had to help them in order for their planes to carry out the attacks.

[grahamhgreen]

20. Believe it or not, they could

[jeff47]

21. So for evidence, you included another video where they relied on us. (nt)

[Snake Plissken]

9. Well duh, how can billionaires cash in on tax dollars through economic sanctions?

How is cable news supposed to entertain the masses until the next season of reality tv starts with economic sanctions?

A war is the only patriotic thing to do ...

besides Jesus doesn't think we love him anymore since we haven't started a senseless war in a few years

[reformist2]

10. Also, it begs the question - if it's a punishment, who was the judge/jury???

Shouldn't there at least be a hearing at the UN????

Or is the US not only the world's policeman now, but the world's judge???

[The Stranger]

11. They've already sanctioned the living fuck out of Syria.

Go do some research.

[felix_numinous]

12. Good questions, good thinking.

All our lives we are encouraged to be non violent, in fact these days rebelliousness can get us into a lot of trouble.

We are supposed to restrain ourselves, then witness our military being used in pre emptive strikes, bombing for peace and droning people without a trial. We are supposed to restrain ourselves around police, while they can bust in at any time and terrorize who they want.

These are just more mixed messages and contradictions that demonstrate our upside down justice.

The only conclusion is that there must be more than one standard for law and order, and social standards. In a democracy, we strive to be consistent, because we know what happens when a society becomes fragmented due to privilege.

This is something a child can figure out before too long.

[winter is coming]

18. How about, "Can we meaningfully 'punish' Assad without doing more harm than good?" n/t