Syria Inaction is NOT AN OPTION

[Jack_Dawson]

Otherwise you're basically saying...hey I'm walking down the street and see that across the street babies are writhing around and being killed and disfigured by napalm and sarin gases...anyway nothing to see here...doo-doo-doo.

And yes, Syria atrocities have been occurring for years, and it sucks the world has stood by and done nothing. But now that a**hole Assad has crossed Obama's red line and is laughing about it, because he sees how dysfunctional our Congress is...voting down if Obama says up. Voting red sky if Obama says the sky is blue.

Mr. President, please forget our Congress, they hate you and will vote for whatever you're against, and vice-versa. If you want the sun to come up tomorrow, they will convene an emergency session to make sure that doesn't happen.

We can either stick our head in the sand like the beginning of WWII, or show some leadership. I've worked many years with Europeans and, respectfully, they are not leaders. Mr. President...unleash the hounds. Assad needs to be taught a lesson - even after this many days of telegraphing it.

[geek tragedy]

1. Syria and the deaths there are not our problem.

Assad and his tribe will receive karma. We have other issues requiring our attention.

[Jack_Dawson]

3. Sooo...do nothing?

Just trying to figure our your position.

[geek tragedy]

6. Yep, do nothing. Nothing now, and nothing when Assad loses and the massacres begin.

Just stay away from that toxic mess.

[AzDar]

60. ^ This.

End of story.

[Ken Burch]

7. There's nothing we CAN do

It's not possible for us to bring down Assad, none of the rebel groups is better than him, and attacking the place just means it's US doing the killing.

We can only make things worse.

[RC]

63. BINGO!

And seeing how we helped to cause this mess by driving the refugees out of Iraq, when we invaded on false pretext, It would behoove us to provide humanitarian aid instead of more death and destruction. But then, that would be out of character for us, US.

[trueblue2007]

39. GOP CONGRESS WILL USE THIS AS REASON TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT OBAMA

THEY WILL GO AFTER HIM LIKE PACK OF WOLVES.....


War Powers and the Use of Force in Syria Posted: 08/30/2013 7:17 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-robert-worley/war-powers-and-the-use-of_b_3846110.html



"If President Obama follows the practice of post-WWII presidents, he may use military force without consultation or authorization from Congress. If President Obama follows the letter of the War Powers Resolution, he may use military force for 60 to 90 days without congressional authorization. If President Obama follows the Constitution, he must secure congressional authorization before using military force. Presidents of both parties have not been held to constitutional standards for several decades."



there is enough there for an impeachment trial--the 1st black president bwill be held to constitutional standards

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. I'm glad she let go....

[NuclearDem]

10. *snort*

[Brigid]

15. I always that Rose should have just stayed on that damned lifeboat.

If she had, Jack might have had a fighting chance to save himself, without having to drag her useless personage around for the rest of the movie.

[HooptieWagon]

4. It absolutely is an option...

...when military action on our part escalates the war and makes the situation in Syria worse.

Besides, Obama is hardly in a position to claim the humanitarian moral high ground, given all the civilian deaths his drone attacks have caused. People who live in glass houses shouldn't launch missles.

[Adrahil]

45. THis moral equivalency is nonsense.

There is a vast difference between inadvertent deaths of civilians in a strike and deliberately targeting civilians with chemical weapons. YES. It DOES matter.

[dairydog91]

52. This chemical weapons fetish is just hysteria.

There's no moral difference between targeting an area with sarin and targeting it with howitzers. It'll kill most if not all of the people in the area, civilians included. In the case of sarin, people will die from nervous system failure and asphyxiation. The howitzers will shoot shells which dismember people through fragmentation, create massive internal injuries through explosive force, or vaporize people with direct hits.

[MNBrewer]

55. Inadvertent?

So innocent bystanders who are 5 feet away from the "intended target" are somehow inadvertently murdered by the drone strike? Oops?

[LukeFL]

5. I agree. The president must act and not

Wait for congress. They will anyway vote against anything the president request their attention to.

[DearAbby]

8. I am really torn.

I can understand the President's moral argument, I also hear in the back of my mind, Military Complex speech, and I wonder, how the stocks of those companies who always profit off of wars and rumors of wars, how much they stand to gain.

You know, we have very little in which to stand on regarding morality. Look at congress, seriously, think of yourself as a leader of "name a country" would you feel USA is stable? We can't even take care of fucking business here.

A thought of a human light extinguished, diminishes us all. I weep for the dead.

[Adrahil]

46. If the President does NOT act....

... Then Assad will use these weapons on a large scale again. And Iran WILL develop a nuclear weapon.

Loving peace great. Eschewing military action at all costs is foolishness.

[eridani]

50. So what if Iran develops a nuclear weapon?

They couldn't pull a first use attack without being turned into a radioactive parking lot. The only effect a nuclear Iran would have would be becoming a country that is much harder to attack, and there isn't a damned thing wrong with that.

[Adrahil]

59. My main concern about a nuclear Iran

Is not that they would use it directly, but that they would use it develop technologies that could be deployed by error it's cells, and that they would use it for political cover. An Iran emboldened to exert itself more directly with a feeling a security because of a nuclear blanket is all kinds of trouble, and I would be foolish to think otherwise.

[eridani]

70. Not seeing how that would be worse than the current situation

All kinds of accidents are possible, and Russia's stash of various sorts of WMD are guarded by rusty chains and soldiers who often don't get paid on time.

Iran exerting itself is WRONG, says a citizen of a country with 800+ military bases all around the world. Jeebus.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. That would be the same Iran that Saddam gassed with chemical weapons we knew he had

using target coordinates we gave him to deliver his chemical attack? That Iran? Funny how when they were gassed it was no big deal at all. No wonder they feel disrespected.

[Logical]

9. Want a list of other tragedy's worldwide we are ignoring? Wow! n-t

[marew]

33. You are absolutely correct!

We cannot fix the entire world. We have children in our own country who are suffering daily from a lack of medical care, who are hungry every day, who live in horrible conditions. The President has already advocated taking money away from poor seniors in the form of chained-CPI. Veterans are living on the streets. And on, and on...

Many of these weapons cost millions! How can we afford that? We can't even take care of the suffering of our own.

We are a compassionate people. It hurts to see the suffering of any and all. But there is only so much we are capable of doing. We wish with all our hearts it could be otherwise.

[Adrahil]

47. S... At what pont do we act?

I respect your position, but at what point do we actually have a moral resoinsibility to act? The fact that we can't solve every problem does not logically mean we should solve none of them.

[RandiFan1290]

51. Welcome Back to DU!

http://www.todaysmilitary.com/contact-a-recruiter

[marew]

53. We have these quandries all the time

But is begetting violence against people with more violence against people the answer. I am sure minds better than mine can come up with something like going after their oil refineries- I am certainly not privy to all that is going on over there. We have looked the other way countless times when things even worse than this have happened all over the world. Why this? Why now? Because the President needs to save face? Pride? And especially when there are millions of our own who desperately need help here at home. Historically we have yet to have a successful intervention in the middle east.
I am sure we can come up with the better idea than to kill their people because they are already killing their own people.
When does they violence stop? Instead we teach them that violence is acceptable if we believe we are right. They believe they are right and justified also. We will not change their minds by acting like they do. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. And the world becomes blind and toothless.

[NuclearDem]

11. Ugh.

We must swing our dicks in front of the world. And we must do it because it would piss off Ira--

Er, I mean because it would piss off Russ--

Uh, hold on, I mean because it was next on the lis--

Wait, I've got it! Because we, um, hate war crimes! Yeah, that's right!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm needed in court to protect my predecessor from prosecution. Some whiny bullshit about war crimes.

[David__77]

12. Al Qaeda is a greater enemy, by far.

And doing anything that might possibly facilitate regime change will empower that enemy. The US "did something" in Afghanistan in the 80s, and produced generations of radical terrorists plaguing the world.

[HardTimes99]

66. Interesting little side note to your post: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor

(and an informal foreign policy advisor to Obama, IIRC) bragged openly about using Afghanistan and the mujaheddin to lure the USSR into its own Vietnam. When asked whether the deaths of 3,000 civilians in the WTC were an acceptable price to pay for this global chess, Brzezinski hemmed and hawed a bit but ultimately said that, yes, disablly the USSR was worth losing 3,000 civilians in New York City. I was flabbergasted when I saw it and put it right up there with that genius Madeleine Albright saying the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were 'worth it.'

These people are playing chess at a level where you and I are not even pawns.

[Savannahmann]

13. Ok, so we bomb Assad.

Now groups affiliated with AQ have the Chemical Weapons since you can't bomb them to destroy them. Intelligent action may be what is called for, but so far nothing I've heard comes close to that. Even your reactionary rant does little to address the question of what's next?

President Obama has already ruled out a regime change. That means the lunatic who supposedly used Chemical Weapons is free to use them again. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827

Destroying the Chemical Weapons with bombs is not advisable under any circumstances. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130830/DA8G7HS00.html

If you doubt me you can ask Veterans of the 37th Engineers. http://articles.philly.com/1996-11-10/news/25650277_1_khamisiyah-chemical-weapons-gulf-war-syndrome

But that aside, what do we do about Russia and China? http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-warships-mediterranean-report-082257880.html

Do we proceed under the assumption that they wouldn't be crazy enough to back up their threats with action? The very assumption that they are making towards us right now? Tell me how we respond when the Russian Navy sails into our formation of ships firing missiles and lights us up with targeting radar? Just pretend they aren't there and keep on teaching Assad a lesson?

What about Iran? They've threatened to fire on Israel. Do we wish the Israeli people good luck and then go ahead and teach Assad a lesson? We won't be able to fight Iran, Russia, China, and Syria. We don't have a tenth of the forces we would need to do that.

What about after? Let's say for the sake of this question, that nobody does anything after we fire our missiles at Syria. Assad still has the weapons. We've blown up a few "strategically important" useless buildings. He drops more chemical weapons in his civil war, and then what do we do? Do we launch a full scale assault with the Marines? Do we drop the Airborne in and fight a large scale conventional war? If Russia ignored our missiles, or even just protested, do we think they will ignore an invasion?

These are questions that must be answered before we light the fuse on one single missile. The irrational desire to teach Assad a lesson by bombing the crap out of useless buildings is an emotional response. But we need an intelligent response, which seems to be lacking from your tirade. Might I suggest you consider these questions for a moment? Because we are liable to lose tens of thousands of troops if the Russians object with force. Please don't pretend we can go through this without getting our hair mussed.

It could conceivably even lead to full scale nuclear war. Russia or China decides that we need to be taught a lesson for violating International Law. Or they propose a resolution at the UN calling on member states to attack the United States? Do we veto that or pray that the British do?

This has the potential of being the most dangerous time in our history since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Think for a moment, and see how your suggestion could lead us to a path of extreme danger for the world, not just Syria, or the United States.

[NuclearDem]

14. Oh, stop injecting reason and facts into this.

It makes the warmongers and moralistic high horsers sad

[Savannahmann]

17. Sorry, it's a bad habit

I like to think things through before I jump. Interestingly enough, I've posted variations of that one several times, and not once has one of the bomb the crap out of them now crowd even gone near it to discuss it. I have no idea what the goal is supposed to be. Forget the Exit strategy, what is the goal of military action? We've ruled out Regime Change, we don't dare bomb the Chemical Weapons themselves. We aren't going to launch an Airborne Assault and fly a couple dozen cargo planes full of chemical weapons out of Syria. We're going to bomb the Telephone exchange, and some Intelligence Organization's building. All we'll do is wipe out the Janitorial staff, and force the Syrians to use back up buildings.

[dairydog91]

54. Begone with that analysis! We're emoting our way into a war, not thinking!

Suggesting that we can't fix the world's problems with some quick and easy cruise missile action is downright unAmerican.

[Brigid]

16. We're tapped out. We no longer have any moral authority on the world stage.

Never once have we intervened in the ME and had it turn out well. Most people I know are sick to death of war.

There, have I left anything out?

[marew]

34. Well said... nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

18. I think this should be Russia's responsibility.

Syria is their ally. The world community should put pressure on the Russians to do something this time, instead of us.

Otherwise, I think we should focus on humanitarian aid in any way possible, and perhaps indirectly arming the rebels (unless there's a good reason not to).

If Assad is going to stay in power, then I don't think we can make any difference by striking some targets, as the plan seems to be now. I also don't think we should get involved in removing him from power, because that would only be Iraq 2.0.

[ocpagu]

73. But the world community...

... is not putting any pressure for the US to do something. It's the opposite! The pressure is for the US to do NOTHING.

[David__77]

19. No Blood for Ego!

...

[frustrated_lefty]

20. So, you advocate

military action in defense of the president's manhood? Bravo.

[Warpy]

21. This one aint our job, buddy

This is one the Arab League needs to take care of.

I hope Congress does turn Obama down. It's the wisest course of action for the stupidest reason possible: spite.

[frylock]

22. and then what?

so we lob a few cruise missiles, hit some hard targets. then what? what has been accomplished? what's the next course of action?

[cthulu2016]

23. smoke a cigarette

[delrem]

24. You're just hungry for the US to bomb more people.

[backscatter712]

25. Oh, sure, blowing shit up will solve the problem...

[idwiyo]

26. Don't forget to send a note to DU when you hit the ground in Syria wearing your confortable boots!

You go Tiger! Lead by example!

[Travis_0004]

27. Well said.

Those fuckers in North Korea are not really up to no good. Lets attack them.

I'm not really a fan of Chechnya, add them to the list (Russia might just be ok with this)

Why stop there. Texas wants to pass voter ID laws. Add them to the list.

----
My thought is, its not my problem. According to Wikipedia (not the best source, I know), there are 9 civil wars going on right now. I'm going to round up to 10, since Egypt didn't make the list. There is a lot of bloodshed in those counties, should be bomb them to. I say no, let them fix their own problems.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. Mr. President, please forget our Congress

So you want the President to violate his own interpretation of the Constitution?

[kiva]

29. YES IT IS!

Sorry, just wanted to see if that would look equally ridiculous in all caps...and actually, no, it doesn't.

[pinboy3niner]

30. Fallacious because you assume MILITARY action is the ONLY kind of action possible

In this case, military action would carry huge risks. For one example: What if, after a limited, narrow military strike against the Assad regime, that regime uses CW AGAIN?

If the 8/21 CW attacks were compelling enough to warrant U.S. military action, how much MORE compelling would further use of CW be? What level of escalation of military force would the U.S. be required to apply? With what consequences?

U.S. efforts would better be directed toward forcing the start of a peace process, with negotiations between opposing forces, to end the carnage.

[workinclasszero]

57. What if, after a limited, narrow military strike against the Assad regime, that regime uses CW..

Again?

Well seeing as how the limited missile/smart bomb attacks failed to stop Assad...and we can't blow up chem weapons...the neocon republican MIC would no doubt be screaming for boots on the ground next.

So welcome USA!USA!USA! to your third decades long war in another god forsaken shithole where every side hates your guts including the people you so foolishly think you are saving!

Oh and kiss any welfare/food assistance/social security/Medicare/infrastructure rebuilding/etc goodbye because we gotta pay for this worldwide Pax American empire somehow eh?

I mean...GASP...we sure as hell can't ask the rich to pay any taxes for it of course! AW HELL NAW..it will be paid for on the backs of the poor, the old, the hungry, and the sick like always.

And the MIC rolls on and on and on and on.....

[TroglodyteScholar]

31. If it's being considered, it's an option

You might have helped hire him, but you can't tell the man what to do....

[LibAsHell]

32. It is an option and the one that should be taken

We can continue political pressure and let Syria, Syria's neighbors and the Arab League figure it out. Bombing the country even more is not going to help anything and the analogy to WWII is not at all apt.

We cannot go to war every time bad videos are posted on YouTube. Besides, why are we suddenly so outraged about chemical weapons when Syrians have been getting killed by conventional weapons for years to the tune of 100,000+?

[ronnie624]

35. Do you think the US should be attacked for murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

If not, then I don't see how you are not in physical agony from the cognitive dissonance.

[Union Scribe]

36. "taught a lesson"

And that lesson would be, "you can kill people, but do it with regular bombs and guns like civilized people!"

[cali]

42. +1 indeed, that is the lesson.

[avaistheone1]

37. Inaction is definitely AN OPTION.

This is a crazy mixed up crisis in Syria with no clear side for us to defend. There is no upside in this for US involvement.

How about we face our own moral failings?

Each and every year 40,000 people die here in the U.S. because of lack of access to medical care. That number is supposed to be halved by Obama care. Should Obamacare prove successful there will still be 20,000 people who will die for lack of medical care. Are the Syrian children more important than are own children and people? Where is your outrage about these needless American deaths that happen year after year?

And are we resigned and comfortable with the hunger that pervades our country and its families in the U.S?

If someone can solve the problem in Syria it certainly isn't the U.S., we have no moral standing, nor are we in a financial position to do so. Instead it is high time that we get our own house in order.

[workinclasszero]

61. Crimes against humanity are ok as long as you do it slowly in the right way

Chem/bio/nuke..bad, too in your face and looks distasteful on TV. Also way to fast.

Cutting food and health care for the old, the sick, and the poor, children included?

Oh hell yeah we have an entire political party embracing that satanic ideal. And they do it in the name of god of course!

So when will the cruise missile strikes on the RNC start? Theres republican/teabag terror centers all over this country..lets get to bombing them baby! Thats gonna look real cool on CNNABCNBCFOX, lighting up the sky like the 4th of July!

[Alamuti Lotus]

38. Anybody else notice that when somebody says "So basically what you're saying is..."

...it never has the remotest relation to what somebody is actually saying? The tactic of 'putting words into the mouths of others' is only effective when the speaker actually has the faintest understanding of the line of argument. There is clearly a lot that you do not understand, the aforementioned being on full display at the moment.

[cali]

40. of course not intervening militarily is an option.

the U.S. didn't intervene militarily in the DRC or Sudan when genocides were ongoing in those countries.

the atrocities in Syria aren't one sided. Rebel forces commit atrocities and slaughter civilians as does the Assad regime.

Military strikes such as the ones described by Obama will not stop that slaughter. They may exasperate it.

[Democracyinkind]

41. Of course it is.

By the standards you're peddling here, Obama would have reason to order 249 different strikes roght away.

Please enlist. I think that it should be people lile you that fight our wars.

[cali]

43. you post this and fun away?

[cali]

44. In trying to help Syria, an intervention would destroy it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-trying-to-help-syria-an-intervention-would-destroy-it/2013/08/30/ee0b2ab4-1014-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

[eridani]

48. What I'm saying is that there is no way to effectively do anything

We don't know who ordered the gas attack--the rebels also have that capability. Explain why you want to turn the US Air Force into the Al Qaeda Air Force.

[Dash87]

49. The rebels are committing the same atrocities.

[Vinnie From Indy]

56. Mr. President...unleash the hounds

What flavor of milk bone will you be taking with you?

[bemildred]

62. Yeah, actually, it is. nt

[sibelian]

64. Bold assertions do not equal clear thinking.

Feels good to cling onto moral positions, but it's the good feeling you want, nothing more.

[Jim Lane]

65. Darfur: Is inaction an option there? (n/t)

[DirkGently]

68. Wait. What are we doing about the children the other side is killing?

Last edited Thu Oct 31, 2013, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Many of the refugees say they're fleeing because of the violence from the hard-line Islamist al Nusra Front, one of the main rebel groups opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

(SOUNDBITE)(Arabic) FARIS SULAIMAN FROM QAMISHLI, SAYING:

"There are bodies without heads at the morgue today. Why? Which international norms and which doctrine that can justify their death? They are cutting heads. Heads of children are being cut. A group of al Nusra front has permitted the killing, the slaughtering of the Kurdish people."

http://www.trust.org/item/20130819095403-vmywc/

You don't seriously think the Assad regime's atrocities, whether gas was used or not, are the only horrendous deaths occurring in Syria. The other side includes violent Islamic militants who are eating people's livers on camera and slaughtering Christians and Kurds.

He says Assad would be "mad" to launch the gas attack. He says Western politicians used to host him in Buckingham Palace.

He urges MPs to look at the video of a rebel commander eating the heart and liver of a dead soldier, and of executions of Christians by rebels - "their heads sawn - not chopped - sawn off with bread knives."

"Every minority is petrified at the victory of Syrian rebels," he says. He says Britain is intent on regime change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10275441/Syria-conflict-and-Commons-vote-as-it-happened.html

NOTE: Religion is not the point. The point is that this is an ethnic conflict now. The horrors are evenly distributed.

So if the point is that "we" can't "allow" horrendous deaths, the question is why would we pretend firing a few missiles at Assad is going to fix it?

What "we" are really talking about is trying, once again, to win someone else's civil war for the "right" side.

And that's worked so well in the past, hasn't it?

[Arcanetrance]

69. This isn't a situation the US can solve there's to many sides to this and the potential for genocide

Regardless of what we do. Assad gassing people, al qaeda murdering people to set up their theocratic government. This is a situation the US can't stop the only people who can are the other Arab states

[B Calm]

71. We have enough problems right here in the US. This playing world policeman

needs to stop!

[Jasana]

72. Syria Inaction is A VALID OPTION

I am so war weary, I can't even begin to explain it. Let someone else take care of this. Why must we always be the ones to step up to plate. A choice between Assad and Al-Qaeda is no choice at all... and we don't have to make it. Seriously, just say NO.

If we continue on like this we will eventually become financially ruined. (Heck, we're almost there now.) Would you be overjoyed to see us become like the former USSR? We. are. tapped. out. Enough already. Pitch your million dollar missile warmongering to freeperville where it belongs.