How hard is is to acknowledge that the Syrian issue isn't simple and doesn't have a simple answer?

[brooklynite]

Earlier today, I filed my first alert. Someone criticizing a public figure for his position on Syrian military intervention opined that anyone else who felt the same way should be “put in front of a firing squad”.

This strikes me as an apt analogy for the situation IN Syria. The debate at DU has included hostility, insults and over-the-top comments (on both sides) that are either ignored or accepted quietly. But occasionally something gets posted that is so excessive that a response is called for. And, while we’ve perhaps become resigned to two years of fighting, death and destruction in the Syrian conflict, the use of chemical weapons is sufficiently excessive a tactic that a response is needed by world community (the United States included), to indicate the such actions won’t be accepted without consequences.

This is a complex issue with no simple answer. The question is, what is the appropriate response, and should it include military action? A military response brings with it the risk of unanticipated civilian casualties, unanticipated shifts in Syrian power dynamics and unexpected external issues. But NO military action has implications as well: a continuation of a civil war, guaranteed deaths of civilians by the Syrian Government, and potentially the further use of WMD’s because the Assad regime believes there will be no repercussions.

I am not “gung-ho” for a military reaction, but I have a measure of trust in President’s thoughtfulness and judgment in making difficult decisions. I’m joined in that opinion by people that DUers respect, like Howard Dean, and people they detest, like John McCain. Those who take a different view are joined by people DUers respect, like Alan Grayson, and people they detest, like Rand Paul.

We have 2-3 weeks of public debate before the Congress makes any decision. Can we all accept that this is a serious issue that requires serious thought, and that it’s possible for well-meaning people to come to a different conclusion than we have?

[leftstreet]

1. You must consider that people feel they've been suckered

punked, fooled

The Democrats rocketed to power by tapping into public antiwar sentiment

See: 2006 & 2008


To watch them do a turnabout and get all war gushy rightfully makes many people really angry. In fact you could say the situation is very complex

[brooklynite]

2. "war gushy"

Thank you for reinforcing my point. I know of nobody who's enthusiastic for a military response; the question is whether there's a more viable approach and/or whether doing nothing is acceptable.

[leftstreet]

5. Obama put no other options on the table

It's not the responsibility of citizens to sit back and figure out whether there's a more viable approach

Obama should have done that

[BainsBane]

7. Amazing how people have completely rewritten the campaign in their heads

Obama opposed IRAQ, not war. He specifically said he planned to shift the attention of US military to Afghanistan. He never claimed to be anti-war. He opposed Iraq and promised to double down on Afghanistan.

[leftstreet]

9. Oh, so that's why people voted for him?

Because they just really, really wanted to 'shift' the war from Iraq to Afghanistan?

Not because he promised:

A healthcare Public Option
NO MANDATED HEALTH INSURANCE
Shovel Ready Jobs
Importation of Rxs
Letting Medicare negotiate drug prices
Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms
The Employee Free Choice Act

[randome]

26. People voted for him because they trusted him.

That's not the same thing as expecting everything you wanted. He is an excellent President overall.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Whisp]

29. I think the Shovel Ready Jobs are plentiful here on DU. n/t

[BainsBane]

38. I can't read minds

but to pretend he ran as anti-war candidate is simply false. Watch the debates against McCain. You seem not to have done so during 2008.

[Isoldeblue]

3. Watch it. Your criticism of DU and it's

current climate is taboo. I found out that the hard way.............

Btw, I DO agree with you.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. But you make OP's that call those who do not agree with you 'deranged'.

Check yourself, then come with the lecture tour materials.

[HardTimes99]

16. +Infinity! - nt

[Aerows]

6. I think frustration with Congress

on any number of things has pushed a lot of people over the edge, because it just seems like there are few on the Hill that are doing the will of the people, and if they are, it's only because there is something in it for them.

I'm kind of disgusted that I'm now having to cheer on the Republican that I didn't vote for (and never will) that represents my district because he's a solid no. Going to war in Syria is a big mistake, and personally, I haven't spoken to a real person on the the street that thinks it is a good idea. That's a bipartisan sentiment, too, ranging from staunch democrats to nutball republicans. No one that I have spoken to (or heard speaking about it) thinks anything good will come of involvement in Syria.

[Yavin4]

8. You want sober, reasoned debate on DU?? Good Luck with that.

This place has slid into hell. It's just becoming a insult forum.

[lumpy]

20. Truly. Disgusting.

[Harmony Blue]

10. I refuse to support the Neo con agenda

I guess that is as simple as I can make it.

[lumpy]

21. Using cute words like Neo con agenda just doesn't cut it. What are your arguments for ignoring

the gas attacks against Syrian citizens? And what are the arguments for ignoring a serious agreement signed by the US and the bulk of the world that gassing people should be seriously responded to? It is easy to sit back and just ignore our obligations. but if we do, that will harm this country in ways that might come back to bite us, as the expression goes, in the butt.

[Harmony Blue]

25. Apparently the U.S. did nothing

when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran.

[Whisp]

30. and that will be your answer for everything.

because of Bush nothing will ever be good enough.

let's all hang ourselves as there is no hope, ever. yay.

[Harmony Blue]

31. Bush wasn't the President

when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. So, ignoring past history is something we should not do. The argument is if we do nothing we embolden other regimes with chemical weapons and yet that wasn't the case then and more than likely isn't the case now.

[Whisp]

33. then is not now, Obama is not Bush.

stay tuned for other lessons.

[jberryhill]

36. I'm sure it can be made simpler

[delrem]

11. It's a debate that first of all requires truth.

The first truth to acknowledge is that it isn't even close to proven that the Syrian gov't is responsible for a CW attack, and that counterarguments to any such claim exist.

The second truth to acknowledge is that US "classified proof of guilt" does not meet the criterion for proof in any but a despotic court of law.

The third truth to acknowledge is that the US has no right to unilaterally bomb Syria, regardless of evidence, classified or not - unless Syria attacks the US, which it has not. That's what the UN is for.

The fourth truth to acknowledge is that the US, hiding behind HRC's "Friends of Syria", has been leading the so-called Syrian civil war since the start.

The fifth truth to acknowledge is that the so-called "Syrian rebels" are mostly foreign to Syria, and largely belong to al-Qaeda affiliates, al Nusra or al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, and that these al Qaeda factions control "rebel held" territory and impose an extreme fundamentalist version of Sharia law (e.g. Aleppo region)

Those truths are just to start with.

[sabrina 1]

12. It is not a complex issue. It really is very simple. We have International Laws that we have signed

on to exactly so that no rogue state could go off on their own with their WMDs and take it upon themselves to be judge and jury when the likelihood is that they have a vested interest in their selective views of who is a war criminal and who is not.

The way to solve these issues is to take whatever evidence of war crimes you claim to have to the International Community. If it is legitimate then there is a process in place which has been used over and over again extremely effectively, to deal with such matters.

Iow, the Rule of Law.

Another thing is that if a country knows that its OWN LEADERS have committed war crimes, then it is a simple matter of handling it within their own national laws, and providing an opportunity for the VICTIMS of those crimes, to receive the justice they deserve.

Why anyone in their right mind things that bombing countries on flimsy evidence WITHOUT the proper investigative process, is a sane, let alone the right thing to do, particularly when the nation involved still has War Criminals of its own it has not dealt with yet, is simply beyond comprehension.

Take accused War Criminals to the International Court, lay out all the evidence so the world doesn't have to wonder about all this 'secrecy' always surrounding these issues, so that there is no question of anyone's National Security, and present the evidence in a fair trial.

The only people who refuse to take the obvious route for dealing with these issues, are those who themselves have something to hide.

It really is not complicated when you abide by the Rule of Law.

[leftstreet]

13. +1

[woo me with science]

15. +1

Thank you.

[HardTimes99]

17. Sabrina1, as usual, I bow down before your simple eloquence and civility (both skills

I am still working on).

You totally rule.

[Maedhros]

18. Eloquently put. [n/t]

[cui bono]

23. To be fair, Holder is trying to deal with our War Criminals.

Just last week he asked for immunity for them.

[City Lights]

34. Well said, sabrina 1!

[Savannahmann]

14. I posted my suggestion a couple days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3590855

In short, take the evidence to the UN once it's all in. Don't call for bombing, call for a simple resolution. Syria to surrender the CW's to the UN for safe disposal by trained CW experts. If they don't comply, sanctions on the sale of oil, and reduction of imports to Humanitarian items only.

We can easily control most of the borders of Syria, look at the map. Iraq, Turkey are on most of the borders, Israel and Jordon pretty much tighten up the rest. We can work with that.

Russia will go along if our demands are reasonable and are well evidenced. If we have all the CW's then he can't deploy them anymore.

If you can't get it through the UN, then you still have NATO, Turkey is a member if you recall. In other words, there are diplomatic options other than bomb the crap out of them.

There are alternatives, we just have to choose the hard path that has a better chance of success than the easy path of bomb the crap out of them with no chance of success, and a fair chance of World War III.

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. It's not our question to answer!

Like it is not our problem to solve!

[cui bono]

22. You yourself posted quite the hostile OP. Do you still stand by it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3592015

How do you feel about that OP that you wrote? Do you think your OP was a good discussion starter?

[kenny blankenship]

24. How hard is it to acknowledge that it's best to keep yr distance from a Category 5 Shitstorm??

[NoOneMan]

27. It may not have an answer at all. Regardless, the US may not be the one that has to answer it

Can we all accept that this is a serious issue that requires serious thought, and that it’s possible for well-meaning people to come to a different conclusion than we have?

Its also possible that well-meaning people can come to shitty conclusions, and even be influenced by not-so-well-meaning people too.

[shenmue]

28. This is DU. You're only allowed one opinion.

And if you are in any way different, get ready for the flames.

It's time for me not to be a Democrat anymore. I'm tired of the trolling, the flame wars, the hatred against one another more than the actual problem... It's disgusting. It's like some putsch by cranky kindergarteners.

God willing, they will stop with the fund drives, because they don't deserve a cent, much less enforce the Terms of Service anymore.

[Niceguy1]

32. people like to think

Of the world in terms of black and white or maybe right or wrong. In the real world you have to choose between bad or less bad. Sometimes the choices suck..ie civilians used as shields in war, chained to anti aircraft guns....

[bhikkhu]

35. Embrace uncertainty

...as that's likely to be all we have for some time to come in the middle east, and that's the world we live in.

I know lots of people would like to just turn their back and ignore it the whole current mess, or the whole region (uncertainty is an uncomfortable thing for most), but even there - the world is very much connected, and unintended consequences are the rule rather than the exception if you study history a bit. Uncertainty again.

[indepat]

37. What is simple is the U.S. is not the world's policeman and does not have either the legal

or moral authority to decide who it will unilaterally punish (bomb) for allegedly breaking international law: luckily the UN was established to adjudicate international issues with the Security Council being the enforcer of the UN's mandate.