Kick and Goddamned R if you don't want to Attack Syria!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

Geez, the history is going to destroy us.

No, I see the hyperbole argument early. Yes, we take out the Syrian government, and yes, another religious fundamentalist government is propped up in the Middle East.

Why the fuck are we debating this under what is, supposed to be, a progressive president!!

This is ridiculous.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. K & GD & R !!!!!!!

Transparency, Culpability, and our Security are still hold .

[Fantastic Anarchist]

2. Thank you.

I see the press doing the same thing as last time.

[Laelth]

3. Can't afford another war right now, thank you. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[grahamhgreen]

90. Blows my mind how the NEVER address the cost in any pro war post.

[calimary]

145. Well, that's just part of the equation, dontchaknow.

It's all about being the most macho, the biggest bully on the block, the "Mine's BIGGER" "We're Number One! We're Number One!" thing. Nobody bothers to think any farther than that. It's all about spoiling to have somebody try to knock the battery off our obviously-bigger-than-yours shoulder. It's like being with a bunch of dogs. There's ALWAYS that Alpha Male dynamic that is damn near inescapable.

That's why romney and mccain and dubya fancied themselves as President. They figured they just simply had it coming because THEY needed to assert their Ultimate Dominance, and grab the ultimate Mr. America crown. Of course, with them, there was also the weasely little "gotta top Daddy and assert MY head of the family status now" that afflicted all three of them.

That's why so many old farts in their comfortable easy chairs wanna play war. Many of them never got the chance - when they HAD the chance. How many of 'em took a pass when Vietnam was raging? How many of 'em are too young ever to know war, and wish they had a chance to play Rambo with REAL shootin' irons mowin' down the bad guys like they do in the movies. How many of 'em have a John Wayne complex or a Clint Eastwood complex or an Ironman complex or a Zero Dark Thirty complex - just wanting and needing really badly to prove how virile and macho they are? I'll bet "Carnival cruz" from Texas has the biggest hard-on for war in the entire Senate. And I'll bet he's never served either. They all LOVE war, especially those who never served. I guess they figure they score their he-man certifications if they can agitate for war even while they pansied out when they had the chance as young men. They wanna roar for war without ever having to get their hands dirty, or their bodies bloodied and broken.

And remember, when you fight that war in that nice plush easy chair from some fancy office in Washington DC, you enjoy all the "glory" of war without the muss n fuss of having to get your hands dirty forcryingoutloud.

[grahamhgreen]

187. Hear hear!

[hibbing]

168. Never

Hey,
Always always always plenty of money for war. It is disgusting what we spend.

Peace

[cantbeserious]

4. President Obama Strikes Again! - Liberal, Progressive - Yeah, I Won't Fall For That BS Any More

eom

[jessie04]

5. If you love Egypt and Libya, you're going to love Syria.

Assad is a pos....the insurgents, that include al-qeida, want to form a fundamnentalist caliphate.

What could possibly go wrong.???

[LuvNewcastle]

6. It's no wonder that all those countries want nukes.

America will always find a reason to invade if that nuclear deterrent isn't there. Our foreign policy is the major reason for nuclear proliferation.

[Savannahmann]

7. Because our Progressive President made a condition which he thought was safe.

The idea was that by making an outrageous condition for military action, he could/would make it impossible to have to follow through. The President felt that nobody in their right mind would use the weapons when he had an entire military at his disposal. Now that fucking Rethug we nominated for Defense is stabbing us in the back (What the hell were we thinking) and so the Press is clamoring that the condition has been met, the line that the President warned Syria not to cross.

So the reason we're debating it is because our President issued what is in effect an ultimatum, and if we follow it up, we're no better than the Crusaders of old. If we don't we're brash teenagers talking, but with no intention of doing anything. So the next time that the President issues an ultimatum, nobody will believe him.

We talked our way into a stupid situation, and we are now stuck trying to figure out what would be the least worst answer, because there isn't a good answer. If we say fuck it we're not going, Israel will never believe us again, and when we urge restraint, they'll flip us the mighty middle finger and do whatever they want. Same for all the other regional conflicts that can/will crop up over the remainder of President Obama's administration.

So the President can say the condition was not met, Hagel was wrong, and fire Hagel. He won't do that, we fought too hard to get Hagel in for some reason. He can say Hagel is wrong, and Hagel will resign on his own, which is the same as firing him. We can say that the condition was met, but the situation has changed. Israel will never trust us again when we say restraint, and expect full blown nuclear war in the Middle East as Israel launches nuclear weapons at Iran to keep them from getting the bomb. Turkey will go on a full blown ethnic cleansing assault on the Kurds on the border. Why not, the Americans won't do anything right?

So that is how we got here. Now the question is how the fuck do we get out of this mess without more Soldiers dying?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

9. I can confidently say one of two things:

You either don't know what you're talking about, so you issue conjecture, non sequitur, and red herring, which doesn't do anything to address what I was talking about, or,

You either don't know what you're talking about, so you issue conjecture, non sequitur, and red herring, which doesn't do anything to address what I was talking about.

One of the two above should keep you busy.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

18. You got a few things wrong ...

And one of them is I'm not pissed at you. Your kind, and yes, I said your kind (as in warmonger - as it should be defined) want war, and I don't.

So, you pushed your tiresome little propaganda, come to my thread, repeat it, and I called you on it.

No biggie. Except, it's the same bullshit that you did. You just want to root for your team.

I don't.

Get over it.

[Savannahmann]

28. And again you demonstrate your incredible ignorance

I never said we should go to war, or attack. I merely outlined the mess we are in. Because I didn't say this is fucking bullshit, the way you started this thread, you assume I wanted war. Again, your ignorance and stupidity comes through. All I did was outline the thinking that is going on in the circles of power. I did not endorse any course of action. I figured I was doing so by "kicking" your thread to the top. Apparently, you were too wrapped in your own agenda to see that as well.

Perhaps it is that my post was too long to maintain your obviously limited attention span. The last line of my original reply was.

So that is how we got here. Now the question is how the fuck do we get out of this mess without more Soldiers dying?

So my respect for you is zero, because it is not possible to make it less so. You seriously hurt the cause you advocate, perhaps you should leave it to others who appear better suited for the discussion of issues.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

36. Your ad hominem, not withstanding ...

Your point was quite transparent.

I wasn't going to waste my time with your red herring, so you call me "ignorant." That's fancy.

Have a nice day.

Do give my regards to Hillary.

[MADem]

202. Hey....this is a discussion board, not a "toss insults" board.

You don't need to call people morons and accuse them of having a limited attention span.

If you have valid points to discuss, you should skip the shit flinging and just make your points without trashing the members here.

You've been here since 07, you should know better.

It is possible to disagree without being so damned disagreeable. Maybe you won't find yourself locked out of threads if you don't behave like a frigging jerk....and no, it wasn't me that dropped the dime on you.

[GitRDun]

204. +1

There is no need for anger / belittling people.

[luckyleftyme2]

40. your obliviously a!

you obviously take war lightly! I wonder if you ever wore a uniform? the boston Marathon
bombing was but a minute example of what bombs and shrapnel can do to the human body!and it doesn't matter if your republican,democrat american or muslim once cut lose it doesn't discriminate! but the results are always the same! and it "ain't pretty"!
the very last thing I want my president to do is go to war! to make a mistake and go to war for weapons of mass destruction.or atomic weapons that were not being built! we have casualties in our family from that last mistake! ya know the 10 year wrong war! so when you jump others because they don't want to make the same mistake again you should realize we aren't the only country on this planet! why isn't any other going in?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

44. First, I'm sorry for your loved ones.

I can only imagine the pain, and that would never even come close to what you feel.

This, I know.

I'm only trying to ensure that none, like yours, continues.

I can sense the anger and frustration in your post, and it is yours that I chose to respond to in a genuine way. I do have feelings, and when I saw what happened, although only from a TV screen, I could feel the anger well up in me.

Yet, I still don't even to try and presume to know what you feel. I can only try to prevent more of that.

I hope you can see that going to war with Syria is not going to help you. That may seem harsh, but it is not.

I'm not a pacifist, but I'm also no a fool.

[Life Long Dem]

74. An ultimatum of unspecified U.S. action.

"President Barack Obama has defined use of chemical weapons as a “red line” for the United States that would trigger unspecified U.S. action."

http://www.euronews.com/newswires/1928684-us-looks-into-possible-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria/

[grahamhgreen]

91. LOL. It's the same excuse Bush used!

[HiPointDem]

113. +1.

[grahamhgreen]

200. That sell-out Donkey is not a Progressive! Answer to your question: Special War Tax of 91% 0n Wealth

[UnrepentantLiberal]

8. I highly doubt Obama will send troops into Syria.

At the most he will arm some of them and maybe do a no-fly zone. That's my guess.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

10. That's so awesome.

Cool!

[HiPointDem]

114. he's already arming them.

[grahamhgreen]

201. Give an inch, he'll take a mile.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. Kick and Rec. n/t

[barbtries]

12. NO MORE WAR

that is all.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

13. Thanks, I was beginning to be hopeless.

See some stupid responses above.

[randome]

23. So chemical weapons use is okay with you?

Knowing that sarin can easily drift into other countries' territory?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

29. Is fallacy okay with you?

But let's say that you have your facts in order (which we both know neither of us knows anything), let's say Sweden takes this one?

Why us?

Wait, uh? Oh, we're so mighty? Really?

[randome]

38. The odds of Obama doing anything unilaterally are miniscule.

Only an international effort would be used to intervene in Syria, if intervention is warranted. Russia will not sit quietly while action is taken unless they are on board with it.

Why us? I agree, the U.S. does not need to be directly involved. But like it or not, we have the power to convince the U.N. to do something.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

39. You mean to "coerce" ...

Otherwise, your point is pretty valid, but not the right choice to make.

[Left Coast2020]

180. Hey! We could send Dick, George, and Wolfowitz

[barbtries]

63. so war is okay with you?

how's war going to fix it without killing many MORE people before their time?

i never said that chemical weapons use is okay by the way.

[randome]

65. I'm not sure how to stop chemical weapons from being used during a civil war.

If Assad needs to be taken out militarily to make that stop, maybe that should be the option to pursue.

If we do nothing and chemical weapons continue to be used, it will drift across borders and possibly kill others.

Is taking Assad out worth the risk of another unstable middle eastern country? I don't know but Syria is pretty damned unstable now.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

67. Let me tell you this, and in no uncertain terms.

We've been through this before, and even though we made our voices heard, maybe we didn't say it loud enough.

AS LONG AS A CHILD NEEDS CLOTHES, MEDICINE OR A ROOF OVER HIS/HER HEAD

Then it is not our worry.

And yes, it is possible to feel empathy for other people, but we are constantly bombarded by the "fact" that we have no money to help our seniors, educate our kids, feed our poor ...

... so, if that is the case, which of course it's not, but still doesn't dissuade from my point at all,

WE DON'T WANT NO FUCKING WAR.

Capiche?

[randome]

70. Loud and clear!

[bunnies]

103. Fuckin Aye Right!

You are spot on.

[awoke_in_2003]

100. We can no longer afford to be...

the world's police. Until we can get our house in order, it is not our problem.

[grahamhgreen]

188. Americans dying from lack of health care, etc., takes precedence.

[magellan]

14. Weary K&R

I can't even begin to express my frustration with what passes for US foreign policy. It's empire building, plain and simple, and we keep paying the price for it.

[datasuspect]

15. what we want doesn't matter

get yourself a few billion dollars, then you get to have a voice.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

20. Or a few billion like you?

I have a dollar.

[rurallib]

17. send McCain and Graham, and Cantor

[Fantastic Anarchist]

30. Thread Winner!

[wet.hen88]

107. yes!

Oh yes o yes o pleeze!

[another_liberal]

19. If Israel is afraid of Syria . . .

If Israel is afraid of Syria, let Israel defend itself. We sure give them enough military aid. They should be able to do so quite well.

As for the United States invading and occupying Syria in the fashion we did both Afghanistan and Iraq: It would accomplish nothing and we have no money to pay for it anyway. Our country can't even come up with a few bucks to feed lunch to our poor school children; we have to lay off air traffic controllers; we're planning to reduce both medicare coverage and Social Security payments to our disabled and seniors.

We can't afford more military adventures in the Middle East, and it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

22. Exactly ...

I thought Social Security was, um

Wait, that doesn't contribute to the debt,

... but the Austerians ...

Wait,

I got nothing.

[another_liberal]

35. The Austerians say we are drowning in debt . . .

The Austerians say we are drowning in debt yet they are also hot to start what would be a fantastically expensive war five thousand miles from our shores. They are completely contradictory people.

[ctsnowman]

49. They are completely contradictory people.

Way too kind. They are liars plain and simple.

[another_liberal]

211. Well put.

You are much closer to the mark!

[socialist_n_TN]

175. Blowing up shit destroys infrastructure and allows for.......

the market to return a better rate of profit via rebuilding. That's the reason for war. It's basic capitalism.

[another_liberal]

212. War also distracts the middle class and working poor.

War sweeps the common people up in a patriotic fever and they completely forget who is going to have to pay for it all. As they say: "The rich man profits, and the poor get the bill."

[reformist2]

21. All this talk about 'red lines' is just a trap.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

25. War is confusing to the working class.

Remember that.

Don't take sides.

We're all in this together.

[randome]

26. So you don't have any 'red lines', do you?

Chemical weapons are okay? What about nuclear?

[reformist2]

33. You actually make my point for me. As Poppy Bush always said, leaders shouldn't do hypotheticals.

[randome]

41. The 'red line' language is only used by pundits and politicians.

The facts are that chemical weapons are being used in Syria and that needs to stop. Asking nicely for it to stop is probably not a realistic option.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

61. We don't even know who is using them!

Who are you going to ask?

[randome]

66. They're gathering evidence. Britain has detected Sarin gas, too. It's not just the U.S.

If we do nothing, Sarin gas may drift across borders and kill others. If we take Assad out, we run the risk of another unstable Middle-eastern country. But Syria is already unstable so...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

69. Oh, the good old UK.

That relieves my concerns.



Oh, and tell me what country is stable in the middle-east?

[randome]

72. I don't think we have another poodle in the U.K. this time.

But, yeah, using them as a justification for anything is not enough.

Perhaps unstable AND using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons should be the reason for intervention -by the international community.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

73. We always create poodles.

Please.

And we still don't know who is using chemical/biological weapons.

Maybe we should obliterate them into peace with war!

[Mosby]

125. israel is collecting data

They were given permission by Jordan to overfly the country using their drone aircraft to surveil (is that a word?) The conflict in Syria. This is unprecedented cooperation between Jordan and Israel so clearly syria's neighbors care about the use of chemical weapons in this civil war.

There are probably no good guys in this conflict, on one side you have syrians who want a better government, but they now have all kinds of islamists and jihadists fighting with them and on the other side you have a horrible assad regime who are using thousands of hezbollah fighters and other terrorist groups to help them hold their ground against the free syrian army.

Regardless though tens of thousands of innocent people are dying in this ongoing tragedy and things seem to be getting worse. I don't have any answers but I think adopting paulian non-intervention policies is only going to lead to more dead people.

[azurnoir]

166. so taking the as you call it 'paulian' policy of not goingh to war in Syria will likely

lead to even more dead Syrians? more than what? or like it would have in Iraq?

IMO if you want to throw gasoline on a fire, let the US get further involved and who would we be fighting for, what would our objective be? Instilling yet more Democracy?

[Mosby]

169. as you know syria is a large country

Both in size and population. Without outside intervention the death toll is going to keep going higher and higher. Right now its above 70,000.

So the question is what's your number? How many have to die before you are OK with intervention. A hundred thousand? Half a million? A million? What's your number azur?

If we do help the FSA with no fly zone for example we must ensure the safety of the smaller groups that are being protected by the assad regime like the shia, xtians, druze and of course the alawites.

[azurnoir]

173. what's my number? I don't one, do you ?

and intervention, on who's side to what end?

[Mosby]

190. look i don't know

but if the death toll goes up much more and the assad regime starts using chemical weapons i think we should do something to help.

[azurnoir]

213. about the only way we can actually help is in humanitarian ways

for refugees and victims, but any military 'help' is of little value, since the questions about goals and outcomes have as of yet to be answered

[Comrade Grumpy]

106. These are the same folks who told us all about Saddam's WMDs. I think there is a credibility issue.

And just where is this alleged chemical weapons use happening?

And who are the victims? I seem to recall government militiamen getting gassed in Aleppo last month.

This is not like Saddam and Halabja.

[HiPointDem]

115. +1

[BrainDrain]

24. Our Diplomatic track record.....

....in the Middle East is not the best. We have blundered badly in most cases and when we haven't, others have destroyed what we manged to build.

We make policy without understanding the history, and then we wonder why things go wrong. We kill without looking, drone strike whole villages without remorse and we wonder why they hate us.

We allowed the secular insurgency to die while we stood by, and now we have a theocratic rebellion being gassed/chemical-ed by a despot and we wonder how we got to this point and now what do we do.

Are people born stupid or do they take an extra-strength dumbass pill everyday? If you screw around with something you know very little about, people are gonna die. If you try and fix that error with an invasion, then more people will die. I dare you to try and find the intelligence in that.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

27. I think I'm going to like you.

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. "Are people born stupid or do they take an extra-strength dumbass pill everyday?" +1 n/t

[G_j]

98. +1

[socialist_n_TN]

177. Of course we stood by and let the secular insurgency to die.......

A secular insurgency in power would be "dangerously socialist" (most probably anyway), but a theocratic regime in power would be easier (notice I said easier, not easy) to deal with than a socialist one. For evidence of this look to Morsi in Egypt and his accommodation with the capitalists.

[GitRDun]

205. Amen Brother!

+1

[cate94]

31. K & R

[jsr]

34. Agreed.

[dreamnightwind]

37. Thank you

We need to speak up early and loud about this.
I don't know where the blame lies. Although I don't trust Obama to steer clear, it's more that I don't trust that he'll stand firm against the people who are really pushing for this intervention.

For one thing, I don't trust Hagel. He's a Republican, he has or had presidential ambitions, and he is in tied to the electronic voting machines through his connections to ES&S.

From his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel:

in 1992 Hagel moved back to Nebraska to become president of the McCarthy Group, LLC, an investment banking firm.[26] He also served as a Chairman and was CEO of American Information Systems Inc. (AIS), later known as Election Systems & Software, a computerized voting machine manufacturer jointly owned by McCarthy Group, LLC and the Omaha World-Herald company.[25][27] On March 15, 1995, Hagel resigned from the board of AIS as he intended to run for office.[28] Michael McCarthy, the parent company’s founder, was Hagel’s campaign treasurer.[29] Until at least 2003, he retained between $1 million and $5 million in stock in Election Systems & Software's parent company, the McCarthy Group.[30]

Contrarily, he is not an AIPAC stooge, and I believe AIPAC and McCain are itching for the U.S. to intervene in Syria. The chemical accusations came from Israel, if I'm not mistaken. So I don't now what to think about that. A lot of red flags for me but I don't understand all of the dynamics involved.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

42. Think about this ...

The US attacks, strikes, or invades Syria.

Who ultimately wins. I mean ultimately.

Then base your answer off that, and ultimately your actions. At that point, sides are taken.

[TwilightGardener]

89. Hagel is not pushing for intervention. Just last week he was cautioning against it, at the

Senate Armed Services hearing, and McCain and Carl Levin were publicly pissed that he was unwilling to champion no-fly zones, etc. and was warning about how difficult it would be to extricate us from intervention once it starts. I don't know who in the administration wants us to intervene--but the WH is not going to deny their intelligence findings, either way.

[dreamnightwind]

94. Well I hope that is correct

and that Hagel will keep us out of it as much as possible. One hope that I had for him was that he seemed more independent from Israel and its hawkish policies.

We'll see how these intelligence findings hold up. Intelligence that we get to hear about is often misinformation intended to produce the desired reaction.

[darkangel218]

43. K&R!

No more wars!! PLEASE!

[leftynyc]

45. Kick

We shouldn't do anything. Let the UN, China and Russia deal with it. Assad is their pal.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

46. I do feel for the people of Syria ...

... but we do have a UN, we do have international bodies, we can create real coalitions.

Yet, apparently to the austerians, which were never heard of in 2003, we do have a debt to shrink!!! Snap, snap!!

[leftynyc]

54. My prayers are with

the Syrian people - I met a lovely Syrian woman last summer (her family had recently left Syria for Lebanon) when I was in Greece and we had a great talk about this. She's a Christian and while she detested Assad, she claimed he always looked after religious minorities and stressed that much of the opposition only wanted to create an islamic state and that minorities and especially women would get screwed if the government was overthrown. That's when I realized the problem was much more complicated than wanting to help the people.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

59. It's always more complicated ...

Dictator, religious Dictator

Same thing to me.

And that's why I feel for the people of Syria. It's a mess. It will be solved, though, with or without our help.

One thing we can do, us as grassroots organizers, is help those that truly want to be free from authority. That's just my take, but I have to abide by the laws of the US. Other than that, I can only express my opposition to my state intervening in another state's issue.

[barbtries]

68. that's an interesting take. my experience is a little different.

my doctor is from Syria, and the last time i was in to see him we discussed the situation. he has family in Aleppo. they haven't been attacked yet, but their lives are not going on. apparently they missed a window to get out and now nobody wants them. i shared that i feared a muslim fundamentalist takeover of Syria and he said he didn't think that would be possible. according to him Syria has always been secular, for 5 or 6 thousand years.

i have to say that minorities and especially women will certainly be screwed if the country does go fundamentalist. i hope my doctor is right.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

71. I hope so, too. n/t

[eissa]

92. My family there feels the same way

as that woman. They are also Christian minorities, and while they are certainly not Assad apologists, they know all too well -- given the history of the region -- that the alternative to him would be FAR worse than anything he's done. For all his faults, Assad has successfully maintained a very secular and safe society. My sister-in-law can travel across the country (as she has) by herself, wearing what she wants, and not worry one second about any kind of harassment by anyone. Try doing that in Egypt or Iraq. Minorities, particularly women, will be the first casualties if the Assad regime falls and the Islamists take over. And make no mistake, the opposition are Islamists. It's not like our buddies the Saudis would actually support any real democratic opposition.

[yellerpup]

47. No!

This is ridiculous, No, no, no, no, no.

[Triana]

48. They were next on the PNAC list.

But NO I'm sick of this shit.

[kelliekat44]

50. Yep, you can check off the box. It's sickening. nt

[Delphinus]

51. Send the Congresscritters who are ready for war.

Let them put their lives on the line for the Military Industrial Complex.

[ctsnowman]

52. Well if a made up "free syria" news org says it happened

We should invade immediately. (snark) Why is it so much better to die by napalm than by anything else anyway.

[leveymg]

53. There's only one explanation after the Iraq War. The Saudis own much of the USG and media.

No, I see the hyperbole argument early. Yes, we take out the Syrian government, and yes, another religious fundamentalist government is propped up in the Middle East.

Why the fuck are we debating this under what is, supposed to be, a progressive president!!

[Scootaloo]

55. Another Muslim nation we hope to wipe off the face of the earth

Onward, christian soldiers!

[Walk away]

80. It's actually a secular nation that we will undoubtedly turn into a...

Fundamentalist Muslim nation. That seems to be our new MO.

[awoke_in_2003]

108. Iraq redux. nt

[Mosby]

129. what a bizarre comment

If the US and europe ends up doing anything, its going to be helping the free syrian army defeat the assad regime. Surely your aware the the fsa is filled with islamists and jihadists.

The christians, alawites and druze that are backing assad have the most to lose here.

[Scootaloo]

135. And by our support for those elements, what do you think happens to Syria?

We throw in weapons and intelligence to help kill Assad and anyone connected to his government (and their wives and children, natch), and what happens? Does Syria become a peaceful, prosperous nation with strong and secure diplomatic and economic ties?

Or does it turn into a political wasteland of rival salafist "tribes" executing one another (to say nothing of what they do to those Christians, Druze, and Alawites you just mentioned, as well as the Shia you didn't) in order to feel that they are the ones "in power"?

There will still be a space on the map marked "Syria," but it will be no more of a nation in reality than Afghanistan or Somalia. And this is the result that our nation is working toward. And it's happened so often, that I don't have the luxury of believing it is a miscalculation, each and every time.

[99Forever]

56. Kick and Goddamned R. No more WARS OF CHOICE.

I swear that if the Democrats gets us into another gawddamn, unnecessary, immoral, WAR FOR EMPIRE, I will never vote for one of them again. EVER.

[TimberValley]

57. I'd classify it more as intervention than an attack.

If chemical weapons were really used, then it seems that the greater moral wrong would be to refrain from intervention rather than to intervene.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

64. We don't even know who's using them!

Oh, but we can always ask the CIA, maybe Powell is available for a speech.

[BrainDrain]

75. Not to put too fine a point on it, but...

this is a partial list of our former "interventions",

Korea
Vietnam
Lebanon
Panama
Grenada
Iran
Iraq
Afghanistan

Except for Korea which was actually called a "police action", this is not an impressive list. I am sorry but, intervention or invasion, the result is the same. The dead don't care about your good intentions, they are still dead.

[BethanyQuartz]

76. This list is just proof US rulers don't actually have good intentions

They know you can't bomb people into democracy. And the US isn't a democracy, either. They just want control of every region with valuable resources so their pet corporations can make money off them. And they want to keep the majority of populations as poor as possible so only the US and Europe has the economies and infrastructure to use those resources.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

160. Kosovo is notable by its absence from that list. N.T.

[mythology]

196. What of the dead where we didn't intervene?

A crime of omission is still a crime. There's a reason Bill Clinton called failing to intervene in Rwanda one of the biggest regrets of his presidency. Twiddling our thumbs during the break up of Yugoslavia didn't exactly save lives either. Where as our giving aid to the Allies before our entry in to WWII did a lot of good. Additionally I would classify our intervention in Korea as having a positive outcome for South Korea, especially since we can compare it to North Korea for a reasonably good idea of what would have happened to the entire peninsula if we didn't intervene.

As Shakespeare said "heavy hangs the head that wears the crown." People will die for a lot of the foreign policy decisions made by U.S. presidents. Pretending that we only have moral culpability if we intervene just isn't a serious philosophical position to take in my opinion.

Instead I believe a president should take the best information available, not only about the numbers of people dying both with and without our intervention, the potential economic and human costs on our end, what the probably outcomes are for once the situation has been changed etc. And then make a decision. Saying either we have to go to war, or we absolutely can't go to war without considering all of the facts are equally poorly thought out positions.

[txwhitedove]

58. K & GD R!!! No way.

[Maraya1969]

60. K and R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ancianita]

62. I've seen that movie, too. No more wars over hearsay. No facts = no war, goddammit.

[raouldukelives]

77. K&R PNAC style. nt

[yellowwoodII]

78. PNAC Redux!

We've been down this road before: Fox News and the neocons are trying to goad us into involvement in another war. Don't let them do it!

[fredamae]

79. K&R No More GD Wars! Period!! n/t

[abelenkpe]

81. K&R

[kimbutgar]

82. We can afford more wars but not fix our infrastructure

Sometime is very wrong here. Why do we have to get involved in Syria when we can't afford it?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

83. We can always afford war.

Notice how when we go to war, no one ever asks, "how much is this going to cost?"

Never.

Everything else, it's penny-pinching.

[lib87]

195. Thank you!

And those most obsessed with going to war are the first ones to penny pinch domestic spending.

[Fuddnik]

84. Kick and Fucking Rec!

[bravenak]

85. K&R Fuck War!

[get the red out]

86. Definitely no more attacks on anybody

No war, period.

[TimberValley]

87. I'm not sure what good the K&R of this thread will do.

Will policymakers see it and decide not to intervene in Syria?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

88. Nah ...

Just wanted to have our voices ignored like the last time around.

We always have documentation for posterity's sake.

[yellowwoodII]

110. Maybe Bring It to the Attention of People Here!

Maybe if enough people respond and write to the Administration and to their Congresspersons, they would pay attention. Are you suggesting that we give up?

[L0oniX]

93. K & R ...and "progressive president" LOL oh sure he is.

[PufPuf23]

95. kr

[broiles]

96. K&R!

[Catherina]

97. Kicked and Goddamned R'd! n/t

[Glorfindel]

99. Kicked & Goddamned Recommended...not one more drop of American blood

Not one more cent of American money for the endless wars in the middle east.

[polly7]

101. Kick and Goddamned Recommended! nt.

[redqueen]

102. This was the first thing I heard this morning, after my alarm... 'red line' propaganda.

The BBC, banging the drum, quoting their PM talking about a US-led invasion, and hammering that 'crossed a red line' shit.

[Tien1985]

104. K & R

I thought your op was k&r if you WANT to attack Syria, I was stunned you had so many recs!

*facepalm*

[amuse bouche]

105. Absolutely no more wars

And thanks for asking

We need to find better ways. Wars just aren't working out in the end

[redwitch]

109. kick nt- too pissed!

[HiPointDem]

111. kr

[Granny M]

112. K & R

There has to be another way. We just can't afford it. And we can't afford the unintended consequences. And we can't afford any more soldiers coming home destroyed. Please. No more.

[Hubert Flottz]

116. Let other countries settle their own Civil Wars...

like America had to.

[Spider Jerusalem]

117. I'll have to disagree.

IF there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that Assad's troops are using chemical weapons? Then I am 100% in support of an international military intervention (under the aegis of the UN, if possible, which would probably be the US, UK, and France) to remove him from power and, if possible, bring him to the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity. This would be a clear situation calling for the use of the police powers of the United Nations. There are times when military action is clearly called for and justifiable; this would be one of them.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

118. K&R. nt

[im1013]

119. K&R

"supposed to be, a progressive president" ..... exactly!

[Kalidurga]

120. I think at this juncture war would be stupid.

I don't know what my tipping point is. I think something needs to be done there the cost of human misery is high. I don't know what, I don't know when. So, basically I have no answers.

I have to wonder what the tipping point will be though. How long do we allow genocide or mass murder to occur? What if this spills over the borders and into other countries? What if another country decides to preemptively strike?

I think there are more questions than answers. I don't think we can just ignore this. But, I don't think we should send in bombs either, that will just make the cost of misery even higher.

[SCVDem]

121. This is a job for the UN

Not the US.

UN, get your suit together!

We are not the worlds police.

We are broke!

[Brimley]

122. I don't think my country will be

But DURec anyway.

[juajen]

123. Here we go again! Very trying, not to mention debilitating and expensive!

[Wounded Bear]

124. K & R

I'm starting to get that feeling again....the one I had before we went into Iraq.

It's part and part just plain that we are willing to sacrifice another generation of our youth to this bullshit.

I lived through the Vietnam era, history reprise and redux.

[kentuck]

126. Do you really think they could talk our CinC into going to war with Syria??

Oh, hell yes!!

[Deep13]

127. air support for the rebels to stop the massacre nts

[Matariki]

128. Our country is perpetually at war, isn't it?

except they're calling it something different these days.

[LongTomH]

130. The only reason this is happening at all is the usual gaggle of Republican Chicken Hawks

K&R

[jg15]

131. War Sucks...

War Sucks... Hitting civilians (i.e. women and children) with poison gas sucks... Not sure how far the Russians are willing to go in the security council with sanctions are actions - which sucks...

My question - if there is real hard proof that thousands of woman and child are getting hit with poison gas (and that's a big if)... What options are available to the international community (remembering that Russia will probably be more than a little slow to drop the hammer on the Syrians). I don't see any really good military or economic sanctions other than doing what we are already doing (i.e. - arming the rebels and that isn't a great option because some of those guys aren't real nice either)....

So the Syrians in an act of incredible stupidity cross the big red line and gas there own in droves... What are the none blowing people up options available - have to think we have a couple cards to play short of b-52's and m-1 tanks...

[BainsBane]

132. I agree on not attacking, but it is not a religious fundamentalist

government. If that's what you're saying. I'm not quite sure.

This state of permanent war has got to end. If the UN wants to take action, we can assist. Absent that. no.

[Luminous Animal]

133. K&R

[azurnoir]

134. K&R great post n/t

[Richard D]

136. KR

The thought of this sickens me.

[randome]

137. The problem with many responses on this thread is that all future wars apparently lead to the past.

Iraq.

Obama needs to make his decisions based not on what George W Bush did or what occurred in the past.

He needs to make his decisions based on what's happening now. In that respect, to be a dispassionate thinker, the only way to approach this is to cauterize what happened in Iraq. Pretend it never happened.

If any of us can do that as well, then it seems that SOMETHING needs to be done about the use of chemical weapons by Assad.

Some say the U.N. Well, the U.S. is part of the U.N. so once more we would be sending troops if troops are needed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

159. Exactly. And what about treaties and alliances that the US is signatory to? Do we just ignore....

those? Many reasonable people have said that all the president's options are bad ones, and I empathize with that position. Hillary would have made her decision much sooner, as we know, and from a report I heard on NPR this morning, John Kerry has pretty much taken the position of Hillary. If we don't honor alliances, then we open ourselves up to many more attacks in this country because their intelligence agencies won't be willing to share with us.

We can't forever limit our willingness to help based on a screw-up by the last president, and if we do that, we should just tear up all our treaties, close our borders, and retreat from the world. This president doesn't want war, he's as war weary as the rest of us, but the thought of loose nukes falling into the hands of some radical element makes the whole world hostage to them.

Seventy to eighty thousand people have died so far, and either way you slice it, we've made enemies there because of our perceived inaction. And if we do intervene, we'll still be "the enemy". Other than sitting on the sidelines, what are our options? I want to hear from the Progressive Caucus, especially those on the Foreign Relations Committee.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

181. We heard all these arguments when Vietnam started up.

How did that work out for us?
It's not our country, it's not our war.
The world needs a stronger UN more than ever.

[Tarheel_Dem]

184. And when the UN inevitably passes a resolution? What then? Do we say NO?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

192. At least it will be discussed and put to a vote.

[Tarheel_Dem]

194. It's been discussed for two years. Only Russia & China have declined. Russia....

will come aboard, because if these weapons aren't secured, and fall into the wrong hands, both Russia & China will have real cause for concern. As the death toll mounts, the Syrian people know who has been standing in the way, and they likely won't forget it.

[superpatriotman]

138. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for posting

[idwiyo]

139. K&R

[jwirr]

140. And GD R.

[RyanThomas]

141. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

The GOP has gotten that down to a form of art.

[markpkessinger]

208. It isn't about getting a different result . . .

For a certain group of very well connected individuals, wars are tremendously profitable. And if one (or two) are winding down, it's time to start building the case for another one -- whichever country happens to be convenient. That is the sad reality of what this country has become.

[frogmarch]

142. K&GDR nt

[burnodo]

143. K&R

[kickysnana]

144. Or anywhere else either. n/t

[Lady Freedom Returns]

146. The Conservatives in Congress are not helping.

They are wanting another war. We have to call our government officials to make sure those voices that back yet another war is not heard. The voices that are being mobilized to call their/our officials as we type.

Don't want another war? Then get the word out to get people to tell the government we DON'T want it. If not the other side will be the only voices heard and guess what will happen then.

[me b zola]

147. K&R

[Progressive dog]

148. K&R we are not the world's police

Haven't we had enough of this neocon crap?

[progressoid]

149. "We've always been at war with Eastasia"

[anotherone]

150. K&R n/t

[Purveyor]

151. Hear, hear! +1 eom

[Douglas Carpenter]

152. knr

[gateley]

153. I don't want to attack Syria, and your supposition of what would ensue is probably

right on.

But what about what's happening to these people?

Can we stand by and do nothing again -- like Pol Pot?

[yellowwoodII]

162. Standing By

I totally understand where you're coming from. I hate what I see of what is happening to these people, too.
Some of my friends have said must enter one war or another to "save somebody." I always ask them, "Which of your children are you willing to sacrifice?" If the answer is "None," then I ask them how they can ask some other mother or father to sacrifice his or her kid.
Think of the wars that we are currently in. Iraq. Afghanistan. Did you ever read about how many Iraqis have died after we enter a war to "save" them? And what kind of resolution have we brought to these countries/
Meanwhile, we just rack up some enemies in the Middle East.
When we enter these wars, we end up killing people, too.
Here's a quote from General Lane in regard to our bombing of Baghdad in 2003:
COL. W. Patrick Lane: You know, I really appreciate the care with which people are trying to avoid unnecessary deaths in the air targeting of all this stuff, but I’ve been in Bahgdad a lot. And when you look at where these targets were, right down near the central core of the city along the Tigris River, this is the densest part of the city.
It's all very frustrating, but maybe the United States can't fix everything.

[gateley]

164. Excellent and thought provoking post -- you're so right! Thank you!!

[gateley]

165. And welcome to DU, yellowwoodII!

[Newest Reality]

154. We don't need or want another war,

be it preemptive or otherwise. I think I've heard the "humanitarian" argument put forth to justify an intervention. Yeah, like that would be the real reason as history reveals, we don't do it that way.

While many of us have seen the tremendous cost of human lives, well-being and national wealth, this does not seem to be a determining factor to those who make the plans and decisions. In fact, PNAC seems to still be the blueprint for how the Midde-east goes.

So, we have a HUGE war machine with billions worth of techno-weapons available and in development. Do WE really think that is just going to sit and gather dust for long? Do we really expect a country that is armed to the teeth and heavily invested in "defense", (now: offense) to just sit idle and not USE the hyper-expensive weapons we all worked so very hard to pay for and that our children and their children will be paying for?

No way. That's not going to happen. We will have a forever war, (though occupation, preemptive attacks, and other terms really apply) ahead, as long as the MIC and investors stand to benefit from our collective wealth.

Sorry. We would have to dismantle some of this stuff and cut the budge enough to keep the war machine sparse and to the point. Right. Sure.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. Bump

[onecent]

156. KICK AND RECOMMENDED...

WHAT the hell is our government THINKING?????????? And has Obama lost his marbles??

[Paladin]

157. K&R. (nt)

[SammyWinstonJack]

158. Kick and Goddamned R!

[rgbecker]

161. Let the europeans do it if they don't like chemical weapons.

They are a hell of a lot closer.

[RILib]

163. kick

I am tired of spending American lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars that we badly need here on (1) being the world's policeman, or (2) doing Israel's dirty work for it.

[northoftheborder]

167. K&R a trillion

quadrillion

[midnight]

170. No way no more war.... We need to start a jobs program to put everyone back to work...

[otohara]

171. No No No

God no!

[rury]

172. K&R!!!!

[Fire Walk With Me]

174. Hella K&R!

[rug]

176. kick

[Bonobo]

178. Apparently you have not read the new definition of what a Progressive is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2761138

You're just being "cynical" and "regressive".

[TDale313]

179. Totally K & R

[ReRe]

182. No more War!...

...because we have one going here at home!

[tosh]

183. ...

[NealK]

185. K&R

[Initech]

186. Fuck the war machine!!!

[blkmusclmachine]

189. Obama is neither Progressive, Liberal, nor Centrist.

He is definitely right-of-center. An '80s Republican.

[MrMickeysMom]

191. Is this the way we're supposed to come out of the second great depression?

Not if I can still breathe the word, "NO"...

[pediatricmedic]

193. HELL NO

[pmorlan1]

197. K & R

Another faux search for WMD?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

198. We are in the middle of wwIII, Why stop now?

[arely staircase]

199. just a hellfire missile up assad's ass would be fine

eom

[PatrynXX]

203. can't do it.

Iraq was utterly pointless. and because of this cost far worse countries will get away with Hitler style mass murders because of it. Have no wish to pretend we will act like republicans and let this go.

[undergroundpanther]

206. KnR,KnR times 1000 billlion

Fuck the third way Fake dems are not progressives

[markpkessinger]

207. K&R!! And . . . can i ask a question?

Why the fuck is this President banging the drum for war with Syria?

[Moostache]

209. K&R - NOT in my name... (n/t)

[no_hypocrisy]

210. I don't