Before we debate a Syrian response,

[jazzimov]

let's be sure we know what we are debating.

I have seen many here debate the pros & cons of going to war in Syria. The cons of a full-out war have definitely won. But all of these arguments can be dismissed in a legitimate debate by 2 simple words:

I agree.

Simply, one side agrees that an all-out war against Syria is wrong and has more detrimental effects than any potential positive effects. But that is not what is being debated. If anything, that is a strawman argument.

So, if you are to argue against a military strike, be sure what you are arguing against and make valid arguments. And there are several that I can see.

Please don't take the "easy way out" by arguing against WAR against Syria. This is not what is being proposed.

Let's have a serious debate - about what kind of response is "appropriate" and whether such a limited strike is necessary. About the repercussions of such a strike. Will Russia or China risk WW3, or will they bluff expecting the US to back down?

As I said before, please, PLEASE! Let's have a serious debate.

With none of this "I hate war" rhetoric. I hate war, too. Let's debate the actual issues, shall we?

[Link Speed]

1. It's neither a 'response' or 'war'

It's an 'attack' and 'invasion', much the same as our other forays in the region.

Or anywhere else, post-WWII.

[jazzimov]

6. Please elaborate

because your response makes no sense to me.

You say that it's "much the same as our other forays in the region", and there is every evidence that it is not.

It is different. It should be considered differently, on it's own merits or detriments.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. When you roll the war dice, you take a gamble. It is hubis and stupidity to think we can know what

will come from it. So you have to be ready to gamble it all or you do not roll those dice. It is silly to pretend you can start an engagement and control how it all goes down, it is in fact Busho style reasoning, 'it will take a few days, we will be seen as liberators, the oil pays for it all, our bombs only kill bad guys'.

[jazzimov]

7. True, to a point.

It is a gamble, but it is a calculated gamble.

I think it is disingenuous to compare this particular "gamble" with Bush's "gamble".

Although I agree with the statement that "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it", I think that those who LEARN from history should be allowed to try something new.

This is something NEW.

[KT2000]

3. I have been troubled

by the general tone on this board over this issue. Maybe it is the level of passion but the flame wars have been awful. Tolerance needed for discussion has been lost.
Personally I believe a response is necessary - victims of genocide depend on someone taking a stand.
As far as what the response should be, I will leave that to the president. I don't know what they know.

[Arctic Dave]

4. If a foriegn country lobed missile in Washington DC

and a few military installation would it be war?

What if they didn't even use missiles?

[jazzimov]

9. that is not what we are talking about.

although that is an interesting mind-experiment.

But it has nothing to do with the current situation.

"What if.....?"

[Arctic Dave]

12. That is what we are talking about.

Lobbing missiles into other countries. Is it an act of war?

[leftstreet]

5. The US doesn't 'war,' it Occupies n/t

[jazzimov]

8. An emotional response.

Please respond in a logical manner.This is a very emotional matter, which means we need cool, logical minds to decide the best approach to take.

[libdem4life]

10. I would argue we "intervene" ... far more than we "war" or "occupy".

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[Posteritatis]

11. I think expecting any kind of rational discussion about this on DU is comically optimistic. (nt)