What gives the US the right to tell Syria what to do with their own people?

[HipChick]

When they steadfastly are disenfranchisement of their own people continue? Voting rights, stop and search based on race/skin color etc?

[Just Saying]

1. You mean like telling them not to gas people?

We certainly have our problems here but I don't think this is a valid comparison. And it's international law that says they can't use chemical weapons, not the US although they appear to be using that as an excuse for an attack.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. We started with indians in the colonies. Why should we stop now?

although we used a rudimentary form of chemical warfare then. Smallpox infected blankets.

[Just Saying]

5. Really?

We have no moral authority because of what we did a few hundred years ago?

I'm against getting involved in Syria but it's beyond me why people keep belittling the work of the international community to rid the world of chemical weapons. Banning of these types of weapons is a good thing!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Remember during Iraq and how the Germans dissented.

It's weird those who make the case that America has no moral authority had no qualms counting the Germans beneath their banner.

For the record, I'm opposed to an attack on Syria but I'm also opposed to silly arguments such as was used against you.

[Little Star]

11. Only, certain chosen countries will be allowed to keep them for....

as long as they want.

No one will ever rid the world of chemical weapons.

[Just Saying]

24. These statistics look pretty good to me.

55,939, or 78.57%, of the world's declared stockpile of 71,196 metric tonnes of chemical agent have been verifiably destroyed. (As at 28/02/2013)
3.95, or 45.56%, of the 8.67 million chemical munitions and containers covered by the CWC have been verifiably destroyed. (As at 28/02/2013)

http://www.opcw.org/news-publications/publications/facts-and-figures/

Can we all at least agree that the destruction and ban on chemical weapons is a good thing? Even if countries have them, it is and should be illegal to use them.

[Little Star]

27. Well....

"Can we all at least agree that the destruction and ban on chemical weapons is a good thing? Even if countries have them, it is and should be illegal to use them."

If only that could be guaranteed, that no one would use them. Who would stop them if the decided to use them? Who would stop the USA?

I do get that it is a good thing your statistics show. And I do agree that the destruction and ban on chemical weapons is a good idea. But it should apply to all countries, imho.

[Cryptoad]

31. ,,,,,,to that of Nuclear weapos, heh

But don't yall worry none,,, there is nobody out there that your use them against you and your family!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

38. really.

I agree that ridding the planet of these weapons is a positive move. Same applies to nukes. But, our history is replete with pretty nasty stuff. In WWI, we prodded companies to make mustard gas. In WWII, we firebombed Tokyo, used nukes, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. If you insist we move to more modern times, when Iraq and Iran were beating each other up, we supported Saddam, provided him with intel and weapons, and even gave him tools to gas the Kurds to the north. There are indications that we also helped him use chemicals against the Iranians. After all, how dare they complain about the Shah, the CIA's handpicked leader of Iran, replacing a democratically elected parliament and PM?

Nicaragua, Turkey, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, Philippines, and many other examples abound in our history. But one example stands out. What we did to the millions of inhabitants of this continent, beginning even before we kicked out the king, to the mid 1800s, is incredible. Read up on the Trail of Tears, or pick up Zinn's history books.

[pnwmom]

3. What would have given the US the right to tell Germany what to do with their own people?

If we hadn't been drawn into WW2 by Pearl Harbor, should we have just sat the war out? I realize that we didn't enter the war to save the Jews . . . but I thought that war had taught us something.

I'm NOT saying Syria is comparable -- at this point, anyway -- but I don't think we should have a principle that we never interfere in mass genocide as long as it's confined within a country's borders.

[IdaBriggs]

15. Some very good points.

We need to learn from history, yes - but not just those things that support one viewpoint or the other.

I believe we have a lot of people who are terrified we will end up in another Iraq or Afghanistan situation. Personally, I trust the administration more than that, but at the same time, I wish they had intervened before Assad started perfecting the chemical weapons dispersion situation.

[Cryptoad]

35. I am Proud to have voted

for a President who governs deliberately and knows that some things are worth fighting for!

[Little Star]

23. I believe that is a UN issue not a USA go it alone one....

[pnwmom]

26. The problem is with Russia. But I do think we should wait for the UN report -- at least. n/t

[Little Star]

29. Agree. I read today that Russia is moving Battleships into...

the Mediterranean Sea.

http://inserbia.info/news/2013/08/russia-sending-anti-submarine-ship-missile-carrying-cruiser-to-mediterranean-sea/

[pnwmom]

32. Wonderful.

[Little Star]

34. I know, huh? I just made an OP about the article in GD so others could see.

[Hamlette]

30. Which is what we said in Rwanda

and we look back in regret.

why was our intervention in the former Yugoslavia so successful? Could we do that again?

We are haunted by our ghosts at least we got rid of Vietnam as the worst example of hopeless wars but only because we replaced it with Iraq.

Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq. What will it be?

[TBF]

40. "We look back in regret"

Like hell we do. Yes, there are folks (especially on this website) who definitely would've wanted to be involved. But in terms of the USA and the MIC - there is not one iota of regret there. Rwanda has very few natural resources and therefore in the eyes of the MIC there was no reason for our involvement in that country.

[Hamlette]

45. I think you forgot the sarcasm icon n/t

[indepat]

51. This is a UN decision. The problem is when the UN will not do what

the decider wants done. At this point, the decider must either decide to act unilaterally or not, no matter the possible consequences, no matter the possible collateral damage, no matter what might be in the can of worms to be opened. Although junior squandered our national moral authority, we must still act in a righteous and just manner for righteousness sake.

[Little Star]

52. USA, USA.........

[alsame]

4. Because we are the

beacon of democracy

And we have all the war toys.

And we have to feed the MIC beast every few years.

[Little Star]

17. Sorry, I read your post wrong.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Er...there's discrimination, and then there's nerve gas attacks that kill you while

you sleep in your bed.

[sufrommich]

7. Thats like saying that because the U.S. once had slaves,

it had no right to protest apartheid in South Africa.

[hughee99]

9. Exactly! If a country wants to gas it's own people, enslave it's women,

jail or even execute people for being gay, or arm children and send them off to fight, who are WE to tell them not to. We shouldn't be telling anyone how to run their country.

Just out of curiosity, what country does have the right to comment on this?

[TwilightGardener]

12. There must be a perfect nation out there somewhere that has the moral standing to

object.

[TBF]

10. And why do we choose to do so right now? In this country? How do we benefit?

There are many dictators we can criticize in this world. Why are we choosing to fight this battle?

I can understand watching the voting in countries to make sure the people are getting who they want as a ruler, but I have a feeling there is much more to this then spreading "freedom".

[Little Star]

13. We can't even get voting rights in the USA.

[TBF]

19. We don't have enough oil.

[Little Star]

25. Not until we have all their oil too.

[randome]

36. "How do we benefit?" Think about what you're saying there.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[TBF]

39. I know exactly what I'm saying.

And I am posing the questions for a reason.

[randome]

43. Well, I for one don't care who benefits.

I'm ambivalent about attacking Syria but I don't think much about who might get something out of it. Assad clearly benefits if he's allowed to continue killing people.

Since America pretty much IS the world's policeman, like it or not, our decision to not intervene carries as much weight as the decision to intervene. But the decision should be based only on what's 'right', which is something only Obama as CIC can decide.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[TBF]

44. I disagree with your entire assessment.

Darfur? Rwanda? Nope, no natural resources there ...

What's "right"? We left that behind the day we adopted capitalism as our economic system.

[randome]

47. Like evolutionary changes, there was no 'day' when the world switched to capitalism.

We are all to 'blame' for capitalism since we, directly or indirectly, supported it and continue to support it.

If you don't, I'd like to know where you obtained the computer to post on DU.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

14. You can't be serious.

But I just can't find the sarcasm/irony/humor in your op.

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. Voting rights = gassing people. Wow. nt

[Little Star]

33. Now there is a question we should all be mulling over. Why Syria & not other places?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. As a humanity we are somewhat evolving.

That said, I used the qualifier since this is not purely humanitarian.

[dionysus]

22. .

[Rex]

49. LOL!

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. .....

Chemical weapons have been banned by treaty internationally since 1925 thanks to the horrors of their use in WWI.

There is also the emerging doctrine of "responsibility to protect":

The responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility.[1] R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of Mass Atrocity Crimes.[2] The Responsibility to Protect has three "pillars".

A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing;
The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility;
If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.[3][4]

[Zoeisright]

37. "What to do"???

What the FUCK? Since when is genocide "doing something with their own people"??

Christ on a fucking CRUTCH the stupid is strong here.

[TBF]

41. Personally I'd like to know when we're going to help the women in Saudi Arabia.

Oh wait, never mind.

[etherealtruth]

42. The US and the world have the right and responsibility to intervene on behalf innocents

I DO NOT think the US should intervene militarily (killing more Syrians is NOT the answer)... however, I believe the world has the responsibility to do something .... further isolate the leadership and the military ... I am not an expert in these matters so I don't have real solutions but there are folk that do have ideas and potential answers (aside from military intervention)

[JI7]

46. that's a pretty fucked up position to take

[Rex]

48. THIS

[FarCenter]

50. There would be no civil war & little killing in Syria had not outside forces backed the insurrection

The level of violence in Syria was comparatively low prior to the start of the insurrection.

The insurrection would have quickly fizzled out, had not outside powers, including the United States, provided the insurrection forces with arms, munitions, volunteers, and supplies.