I'd like to ask DU's military strike supporters a few questions

[cali]

First, let me stipulate that I don't think you're war mongers. I believe you're motivated by the desire to stop killing. I think you're misguided.

First, do you understand that military strikes could well make things worse are regards the civilian population in Syria?

Do you know that the civil war in Syria has been bleeding into Lebanon and Turkey and that strikes could exacerbate hat situation?

What if military strikes don't deter the Assad regime but hardens his resolve? What does the U.S. do then?

What happens if H'zbollah strikes Israel? Or Iran?

This is by no means a complete roster of questions.

These aren't far fetched scenarios. They've been brought up as concerns by high ranking military officers including the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If the reality was that we could use the U.S. military and save the civilian population of Syria, oust Assad, see a secular government take over and stop all the atrocities without loss of life and without boots on the ground, that would be one thing.

That's about as realistic as my traveling to the moon on a lawn chair powered by helium balloons.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. Empty speculation on your part

[cali]

5. no, it's not empty speculation. see post #4. but the shameless hypocrisy

of that accusation coming from YOU is remarkable You speculate ridiculously on this day after day with NO evidence or links, going so far as to pose absurd "what if Iran used a nuke on its own people" nonsense.


do you have a scrap of intellectual honesty in you?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. I see your humor meter is zero

[cali]

8. I see you won't answer after repeatedly berating others

for not answering your totally silly question about Iran bombing its own citizens.

typical.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. "exasperate" or "exascerbate"

Either is likely.

Let's stay the hell out of this.

[cali]

4. lol. thank you for the correction. the latter. oops.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. "Let's stay the hell out of this." That's exactly what military-strike supporters are going to do.

Some people always seem to be behind the troops. The question is how far behind.

[cali]

3. just to emphasize that the above are realistic ramifications of a strike:

From a middle east scholar. Robin Wright, the author of "Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World," is a distinguished scholar at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center.

The risk of taking on Syria

So the U.S. launches a military strike. Then what?

As the Obama administration and the U.S. military plot military action against Syria, they should be spending just as much time — and arguably more — considering what happens next. Once Washington crosses the threshold of action, there's no retreating from blame for anything that follows, whether through action or inaction. And in the weeks and months to come, dangers will only deepen.

First, quick hits rarely achieve enduring political goals — and often produce more costs or unintended consequences than benefits. I've seen it so often before.

I lived in Lebanon in the fall of 1983 when the Reagan administration ordered the Marine peacekeepers deployed in Beirut to open fire on a Muslim militia. The commander bluntly warned Washington that a strike would have dire consequences for U.S. policy and his troops. "We'll get slaughtered down here," he predicted. Nonetheless, the cruiser Virginia stationed offshore fired 70 deafening rounds on the Lebanese fighters.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0829-wright-syria-consequences-20130829,0,7387106.story

More:

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20232943-what-happens-after-a-strike-on-syria-it-depends-on-how-far-the-us-goes?lite

[The Straight Story]

7. Some answers, and a question

First, do you understand that military strikes could well make things worse are regards the civilian population in Syria?

-Yes, so could doing nothing. So could the moon not looking right in the sky and people seeing it as a sign from god and using that to justify more violence.

Do you know that the civil war in Syria has been bleeding into Lebanon and Turkey and that strikes could exasperate that situation?

- So basically it is getting worse all on it's own already?

What if military strikes don't deter the Assad regime but hardens his resolve? What does the U.S. do then?

-If it hardens him to keep using chemical weapons take him out.

What happens if H'zbollah strikes Israel? Or Iran?

-Israel will kick their ass. They have ALREADY struck at Syria and no one did jack about it. Syria has sent shells into Israel. Now they might as well send chemical weapons because the only response we will get from people is "So what, it's not america and they aren't americans, let me be gassed and die - not my problem."

Now, let me ask a question:

If the US strikes who the heck is going to do anything about it? No one. No way in hell. And I know that because these other countries are sitting on their asses while Assad uses chemical weapons which we are all against.


-----

First reports of chemical weapons use

December 24, 2012: Syrian rebels stationed in the city of Homs first accused the government of using chemical weapons. The U.S. disputed the rebels' claims, saying the weapons used were instead nerve agents due to reports the gas created a strong odor and was inhaled heavily. An odorless gas, Sarin only needed to be inhaled in small amounts.

March 19, 2013: Both Syrian nationals and rebels reported chemical weapons were used against each other in the city of Aleppo. Neither side's accusations were verified.

Early confirmation

April 18, 2013: Great Britain and France informed the United Nations they were in possession of evidence confirming the Syrian government conducted chemical weapon attacks in the cities of Homs, Aleppo and possibly Damascus.

April 25, 2013: U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced to reporters the United States believed the Syrian government used chemical weapons. A letter from the White House stated, "Our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent Sarin."

June 13, 2013: The U.S. intelligence community said, "100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete." President Obama began to consider expanding the United States' assistance to Syrian rebels beyond previous non-military levels.

[cali]

11. a response: first of all, no doing nothing would not make things worse.

things might get worse, but they'd be getting worse on their own, not because of an intervention. this is pretty basic. the rest of that particular response is just silly and not close to being germane.

Yes, of course it's getting worse on its own. It's a civil war with deep sectarian roots.

The taking out Assad option involves boots on the ground in Syria and it involves killing civilians. period. no military analyst says anything to the contrary.

"Israel will kick their ass" is just dumb. and deplorable. again lots of civilian deaths- which YOU are purportedly trying to avoid.

And btw, The U.N. has also reported the use of chemical weapons by the rebels.

Your question is unclear. Are you asking who would attack U.S. interests if the U.S. launched military strikes? What on earth does the world sitting back, as you put it, in the case of the Assad's use of chemical weapons have to do with that?

[The Straight Story]

17. What it has to do with it is

Why bother caring what the international community thinks if all they do is whine and don't do anything about things?

Assad is pretty much proving that the rest of the world is willing to ignore doing something like gassing a thousand people. So why should anyone else be deterred from using such weapons? Why should we worry if people yell and shout if we strike him when they don't want us to? They have no weight to their words if they are willing to continually allow him to use chemical weapons and do nothing.

If we 'go it alone' I don't see a big deal (assuming, of course, congress has a say). Someone has to stand up when such weapons are used or it gives a green light to every tom, dick, and harry (and betty) to use them in terror attacks, to kill uprisings in their country (Maybe Egypt will use them on some rowdy crowds).

Ignoring this whole thing could have far larger implications world wide over time. Up until now it was taboo, people were afraid of massive retaliation, so it kept their use at bay.

Next up, why not some biological weapons. Unleash a nice virus, will help wipe out even more folks. Not like anyone will do anything about that either except complain and write strongly worded resolutions that will be vetoed.

[cali]

27. You've jumped off the ledge.

I think I'm done with trying to have a rational discussion with you. you believe the U.S. has the right to do whatever it wants wherever it wants if it's for the "right reasons".

I think that's stupid and dangerous as hell and sets in cement some very bad precedents.

[The Straight Story]

37. Sigh, no I am making a valid point, not saying the US does

But saying doing nothing is basically saying that assad does have the right to do whatever he/syria wants.

That mentality, when applied to the US, suddenly makes people take notice.

Funny how people get up in arms when it is Obama the US and are concerned but want to just ignore and do nothing when it is someone else.

[MNBrewer]

18. It will continue getting worse, no matter what

And nothing we do will change that. The only "good" thing that will come out of our intervention is that we can feel good that we did SOMETHING.... whatever that something is, we sure as heck did it. We did the FUCK out of it, booyah!!

[The Straight Story]

19. Oh, and about my Israel comment

Israel knows how to deter people because they have made it clear they won't put up with anyone's crap.

THEY have launched air strikes into Syria and the world didn't fall apart. Why can't we with similar results while sending a message?

[morningfog]

50. We don't border Syria. We are over 5,000 miiles from them, actually.

[Billy Love]

47. Also, Assad won't let anyone visit the city of Homs, so it's possible chemical strikes

might have occurred.

But who cares?

It's not the US problem.

Let the Arab League take care of it.

[JaneyVee]

9. Precision military strikes could also make things better in that region.

The fact that its bleeding over borders is more reason why this must be stopped.

If it hardens Assad then we take out Assad.

If Hezbollah strikes Israel, Israel will strike Hezbollah.

[cali]

13. links for your claims please.

Yikes. Talk about simplistic. I'm sorry, but saying things like "Israel strikes H'zbollah" and "we take out Assd", implies a middle east regional war. You seem to have NO understanding of that at all.

[JaneyVee]

22. You think Israel will just sit back? And taking out Assad doesn't necessarily mean

WE take out Assad. We could aid rebels in doing so, like we did in Libya with Gaddafi. I'm the furthest thing from a hawk, but enough is enough in Syria.

[cali]

24. No I don't. I think the phrase "Israel will take out" or "We take out..."

without exploring how and what that means, are callous and thoughtless.

You may not be a hawk but you use the language of hawks and speak from that perspective.

And do you grasp the makeup of the rebel forces? The sectarian forces now dominate. I've posted many links in other threads about that.

The President doesn't want regime change because of the probability that deposing Assad would lead to far greater bloodshed and regional instability.

Yikes.

[JaneyVee]

29. Meh. Your questions didn't seem to beg such nuanced answers.

And you think the rebel forces are all Al-Qaeda.

[cali]

30. the very nature of the questions I posed demands some nuance

not just stupid hawk language.

No. I don't think all the rebel forces are A-Q. Putting words in my mouth is contemptible.

disturbing hawkish dangerous language. You own all that.

[JaneyVee]

33. Riiiiiight. You're the one that said the rebels were Al Qaeda. But whatevs.

The smugness here is comparable to 1%ers. Oh wait...

[cali]

35. No, dearie. I sure as shit did not.

I said sectarian forces dominate within the rebel forces.

That you don't understand that that's the same thing is hardly a surprise.

Your lack of information and hawkish cries for "taking out" governments is just like the neocons, hon.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. If you are not a hawk you should skip the hawk talk, 'precision strikes' and that sort of absurd

stuff. It implies clean bombing when all bombing will kill innocents. It is also advisable to not gloss over all the war bits when advocating war 'we just take him out' pretends again that such an action could be simple, safe and 'surgical' as some say. Surgical bombing, precision bombing, it is hawk talk.

[JaneyVee]

34. Really? Show me a progressive president that hasn't used the military.

[BlueStreak]

14. In other words, you are looking forward to escalation?

[cali]

31. the I'm not a hawk line combined with all the language about

"taking out" this or that government, is a great example of cognitive dissonance and utter bullshit. If you propose that kind of shit, you are a hawk.

[MNBrewer]

20. we take out assad how?

[Celefin]

39. Since you ask: Fuck Assad, we're taking him out.

Just like a decade ago.
Worked a charm.

[Carolina]

48. Precision military strikes

Are you fucking kidding... That' the master of all oxymorons.

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Answers:

1 - Yes, but doing nothing so far has made the situation worse, going from the first non-violent protest to a Chemical weapons attack that is now reported to have killed more than a thousand citizens not involved in the conflict (a very heinous war crime).

2 - Yes, the war has caused more than a million refugees to flee the country causing wide scale problems in the region. Doing nothing, especially in light of a massive attack against civilians, will increase the humanitarian problem. We can not improve the situation without changing something in what's happening.

3 - So far, doing nothing has hardened his resolve. Yes, his resolved may be hardened, but since he has had a resolve-on for two years, doing nothing so far has only made the situation worse.

4 - H'zbollah and Iran both have military units operating in Syria aiding the government in their war on civilians that want a more representative government. They may attack Israel. Certainly, that is was done in the first Gulf War when Saddam attempted to widen the war and separate the coalition created by the first Bush President from his allies in region by firing SCUD missiles at Israel. Resorting to a play ground analogy, you can't refuse to stand up to a bully who is constantly kicking people in the teeth because he says he will punch your friend in the face if you don't let him do what he wants. We can not stop other people from doing stupid things, especially if we just stand back and watch. Israel has shown the capacity in the past to take care of its own interests. I am confident in that countries abilities to act to defend its people.

So far, the international community doing nothing has caused every one of the problems you bring up to get worse. Diplomacy has been used to try and get the people involved to the negotiating table and failed. We either change what we are doing to try and solve the problem or we let it runs its bloody course.

Finally, from everything said by the President this is not intended to end the civil war. It is intended as a limited strike to deter the government from using Chemical Weapons on civilians in violation of international norms and law gong back to 1925. It will erode their military ability until the Russian get their next arms shipment in port, but the purpose is not to regime change.

[BlueStreak]

12. 5) Are you concerned about the precedent ...

5) Are you concerned about the precedent of making an attack without any UN backing and without liking up the support of NATO, the Arab League or even a few other countries? Considering that Obama says he has no intention of an attack large enough to accomplish regime change, is this really a scenario with giving up that precedent for all time?

[cali]

15. yes, but I chose to address a specific set of issues.

[BlueStreak]

41. I agree with the questions you raised, and I think #5 is also important

It isn't as simple as just lobbing in a few Cruise missiles and calling it a day. This will have reverberations and consequences.

[cali]

16. the answers so far are disturbing: "Take out Assad"- as if that's a solution

to violence. "Israel attacks Iran and H'zbollah" as if that's a solution.

Frighteningly ignorant and unrealistic.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. unless this is my imagination - it appears that most of the supporters of military strikes are

also the supporters of the NSA surveillance programs - I'm guessing that in most cases they don't actually support either as independent projects in their own right. They are taking this position because they believe they are obligated to support President Obama almost unconditionally. If Obama was denouncing the prospect of military strikes and heralding Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald as champions of freedom - they would be doing the same. Therefore, operating from that mindset their answers are bound to sound ridiculous.

[cali]

25. You may be right. I haven't given it any thought.

I'm disturbed by the simplistic, dangerous and uninformed answers that those who support a strike, are giving in this thread. Actually, I'm a bit shocked by it.

[Iggo]

38. See, they remember how we took out Saddam and everything got better.

[underthematrix]

23. So here's my little bedtime story

Once upon a time, President Obama wanted to conduct a very complex operation in a noble country called Syria. The Syrian people loved President Obama and had cried out to him for help after almost five hundred children and over a thousand adults had died from what appeared to be the effects of chemical weapons. The operation involved diplomacy, international collaboration, and surgical strikes on specific targets. The complex operation also required absolute secrecy. The President's main concern was the health and safety of the Syrian people. So he got all world leaders together using a variety of channels and told them to say whatever they needed to say or do to make the plan work. He allowed his team to leak different pieces of information to cause a verbal war in the press. All of this the President referred to as cloud cover. As the media caused people to take one side or the other, world leaders were working around the clock to put their teams in place to begin the operation. Even the hate filled US House joined the effort to circumvent the public's ability to learn about the true nature of the secret operation. As the operation was under way, the President's team would complain about how his supporters were referring to him as a war monger, a Bush clone etc. The President said that's good. The operation is going well. President Assad will be stepping down shortly and his access to lethal chemical weapons has been eliminated. It's a small price to pay for the hundreds of thousands of lives saved. The End.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. I heard that story when Rumsfeld told it about Iraq.

nt

[BlueStreak]

42. Ahhh, a nice clean happy ending. That's what I'talking about.

Imagine in and it will come true. The power of positive thinking.

I'm not asleep yet. Please tell me the part about the rose petals.

[cynatnite]

32. I wouldn't call myself a military strike supporter at this point...

I do support eliminating Syria's ability to use chemical weapons on it's population without putting boots on the ground. That's the farthest I'm willing to go at this point.

Now, exactly how to carry that out...I honestly don't know. I don't know if it would make things worse or better. I don't know if it would force Assad out (which is not a realistic objective, IMO).

The answer to your questions is "I don't know".

I would have to be in a position of knowing the answers to these before I would actually say to go ahead with military strikes despite my support of eliminating that ability.

It's not cut and dry for me.

[cali]

36. fair enough, but eliminating their ability to use chemical weapons is not,

by all reports, the goal of the proposed strikes..

[BlueStreak]

43. I am in favor of pink unicorns

Lovely creatures.

Would you please give me a little more understanding of what kind of operation would result in "eliminating Syria's ability to use chemical weapons on it's population without putting boots on the ground"?

I'm all for that and wonder why nobody thought of it before.

[cynatnite]

46. I don't know...

I know that's what I would like to see, but how realistic that is...I don't know.

[NuclearDem]

40. You clearly aren't aware of Project Lawnchair Luftballoon.

[BlueStreak]

44. Which is a real thing BTW

[oberliner]

45. Is there anything the Syrian government could do that would warrant outside intervention?

Do you have any personal "red line" that, if crossed, would lead to your supporting military action?

[BlueStreak]

49. I don't think anybody is debating whether it is warranted or justified

The issues are more in the neighborhood of:

1) Is there anything we can actually with out bombs do to improve the situation?

and

2) Is that really our responsibility? Are there other problems that better deserve our resources?

And I'll concede that 2) is a tough call. But 1) is not. Nobody, including POTUS, can articulate any scenario where we make things better by charging in there guns blazing.

[oberliner]

58. With respect to number one

What can we do that would improve the situation? Is there any action the US (and other like-minded nations) could take to make it clear that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated? (Assuming there was indisputable evidence that the Syrian government did indeed use such weapons)

[BlueStreak]

60. Sorry for my typo.

I meant to say "1) Is there anything we can actually with our bombs do to improve the situation?" which is the other side of the coin.

a) Is there anything we can do with our bombs to improve the situation in Syria? I think not.

b) Is there anything we can do without bombs to improve the situation? I don't know. I assume the State Department has been trying for the entire time. With Russia and Iran both having such a vested interest in Assad, it is difficult.

A variation of a) is "Is there anything we can do with bombs that may not improve the situation in Syria, but will make it less likely that chemical weapons will be used more widely around the world?" I think this is Obama's only thread of justification here. And I'd say the answer is "maybe". If he blasts Assad's most precious holdings and then pulls out, Assad may decide that it would be better not to irritate Obama again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. You do know that they have been working on methods to neutralize sarin and other chem weapons right?

[HooptieWagon]

53. Simple....

The warmongers are in favor of bombing the shit out of Syria because Obama is. If Obama was in favor of negotiating at the peace table, they would be ferverent peaceniks. I haven't seen any thought or logic enter in to their opinion.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Very good questions, cali...

And I agree with you and don't think DUers supporting military strikes are warmongers. They want the killing stopped, but I don't think they're thinking of the consequences

[Finnmccool]

55. Hezbollah will not attack Iran

Hezbollah and Iran are on the same side, it's Iran that funds them. That being said I'm not for a military strike.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

56. I don't think they are war mongers either, just people who can't think for themselves

and will unconditionally support anything this president proposes. As mentioned in this thread, if Obama wanted peace talks, they would be the loudest "peace puritans" on the board. If Obama wanted to bomb Disneyland on a Saturday afternoon, they would blindly support that. If this situation were occurring at anytime during the Bush administration, I doubt they would abide this. But since the president is a member of the blue team they willingly turn off their ability to think critically (and they expect everyone else to shut up and follow, because big brother knows best), and assume that the president won't fuck this up. To that I say, no human is infallible, even if they manage to receive at least 270 electoral votes.

Jesus take the wheel!

[L0oniX]

57. I'm beginning to believe I don't belong in the Dem party anymore. Fuck war and it's lovers.

[Scuba]

59. Great post and great rebuttals to the war-mongering trolls.

You deserver a gold star plus for this. Thanks cali!!!!!