My decision on Syria is easy... (graphic Pic)

[JohnnyRingo]

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 03:46 AM - Edit history (2)

It's easy because it doesn't have a global impact, it's just one man's opinion.

Every DUer today seems to have their own opinion about what President Obama and Sec Kerry should- or should not- do about the genocide in Syria, and we all hold that firm view without consequence, after all, we didn't do this to the innocent citizens in that country nor do we have to decide whether to take action:



It's easy for us, history will never look back to JohnnyRingo or LiberalKing253 and ask "where were you when Assad did this and why did you decide to take/not take action?".

Whether or not our country metes out punishment for the sarin attack, I'm glad none of this horror will ever be on my hands. I can always change my opinion later depending on how things work out and no one will be the wiser. The Obama administration and other world leaders don't have that option.

On edit:
I did not intend this post to spark another heated debate over what should be done or not be done, I just meant to impress the historical weight behind such a decision. I honestly don't know what I'd do if I were in charge. -JR

[bigtree]

1. our military forces aren't the president's private reserve

. . . .and, our Constitution says that he can only launch military assaults on other nations when our own is at risk or under attack.

That's NOT just one man's opinion.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. It sounds like your legal opinion.

Fortunately for bigtree no one will ever hold you accountable.

Personally, I'm still on the fence when it comes to an attack. I really don't know what I'd do if I was in charge, and I admit I'm happy to be in such a position of irresponsibility.

As an addendum, I'd like to say I didn't post this to spur an argument over whether to attack Syria, I just want to impress what a weighty decision it really is. PM Cameron handed the ball to The House Of Commons, and it appears Obama is passing the buck to Congress.

It's likely both will now go down in history as wanting to take action, but unable to make that decision themselves. Perhaps that's a coward's way out, but I don't know what I'd do if I had to stand at a podium with reporters recording my every word. Those who think It'd be a snap are full of themselves.

[bigtree]

3. you can pretend it's just mine, if you want

. . .yet, this is the question that's actually before us. Does the president go against our own laws, or pervert our own laws, which clearly state the circumstances where the Executive - the CiC - is allowed to launch a military attack against another sovereign nation.

You can pretend it's just my own legal opinion - you can pretend that all we have to decide is whether we're appalled enough by the chemical attacks - but any presidential action which subverts these admonitions of law will not find justification in merely pointing to how we feel about the atrocities committed.

[JohnnyRingo]

4. Obama is a Harvard bred constitutional law scholar.

I'm not.

As I pointed out, I can live with whatever outcome prevails. I'm not in charge, nor will I ever be held accountable.

[Zorra]

16. Education does not necessarily lead someone to become wise, kind, honest, or moral.

Bashar al-Assad

Al-Assad graduated from the medical school of the University of Damascus in 1988, and started to work as a physician in the army. Four years later, he attended postgraduate studies at the Western Eye Hospital, in London, specializing in ophthalmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad

[truebluegreen]

17. Our Harvard bred constitutional law scholar is in charge of the military,

and constitutionally the C in C doesn't decide when we go to war, only how. Congress decides when.

Our Harvard bred constitutional law scholar was fully aware of that, when he was a candidate.

[pnwmom]

5. Our Constitution doesn't say that a single military strike constitutes going to war.

And no SCOTUS has ever ruled that it does.

[bvar22]

14. LOL.

Dropping BOMBS on a country that has not attacked us or threatened us
is an Act of WAR,
and according to most International Treaties,
is an Act of Aggressive War
which is a WAR CRIME.

[HardTimes99]

40. According to Nuremberg, aggressive war is the supreme crime that

pretty much supersedes all others.

And Bush and Cheney walk around freely, while Manning is looking at 35 years. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain't dead fish.

[polichick]

6. Too bad it ain't so easy to know who's responsible for the attack...

or what the true motivations are on "our" side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023575499

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. My decision on Syria is easy..., those who want another optional war should either sign up or -

if they are too sick, lame, or lazy - should drive one of their relatives down to a recruiter's office.

Can't find nearby recuriter's office? Cyber-recruiters are standing by.


http://www.goarmy.com/talk-with-us/phone.html

Just call 1-888-550-ARMY (2769).

[dflprincess]

35. There's a few more threads you need to post this on

I see you rarely get a response to it when you do post it (outside of from those of us who wish we'd thought of it).

Strange how the hawks don't thank you for posting the number for them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

37. The hawks do seem to shrink away.

How many of them know that the most famous chickhawk from WW II was this guy, someone who liked to dress up as a Marine?

[rhett o rick]

8. My concern is that the decision to punish is based on a profit motive. Get the war contractors to

provide the missiles for cost and then I will listen.

[arely staircase]

9. The people who did that deserve cruise missiles up their asses.

But what then? See, this isn't easy for me. But my God, those kids look like my students.

[rhett o rick]

10. And another thing. Before we take it upon ourselves to be the world's police, we should ask theworld

if they want that. And I also would like to see our charter, i.e., how do we decide where to spend our resources in policing the world. Seems like we couldnt care less about some countries.

[JohnnyRingo]

22. I agree that Blue Helmets should be at the scene...

..and those UN forces should ideally have the backing and enforcement of NATO troops.

I think I understand that you believe this to be a global problem, and I agree. I believe the same should occur if N Korea launched even a single nuclear strike. The global community cannot tolerate such a scar that forever alters life on Earth, and while this chemical offense is local only to Syria for now, it has far reaching implications without some kind of deterrence. We could see a different world after this date if tinhorn dictators find immunity when using such attacks during their most desperate times.

My grandfather suffered his entire life from the gas used in WWI and I'm sure everyone knows a Vietnam vet.

[rhett o rick]

23. Dont forget those that will suffer for decades from the effects of depleted uranium used in

Iraq.

[mgc1961]

11. Good point.

My Dad did not want me to follow in his military footsteps as a young man, but as an old man I tried to volunteer in 2002. I was denied because I didn't have a skill for which they would grant me an exceptional enlistment beyond the age, if I correctly recall, of 35.

Challenging the young recruiter to a foot race didn't help.

[JohnnyRingo]

13. Hilarious.

...because I'm picturing someone trying to convince a recruiter for an age exception:

"...Ok then, how about arm wrestling?" "Let's go kid!"

[GeorgeGist]

12. Why not attack Assad ...

and leave Syrians alone?

[truebluegreen]

18. Great idea! How?

And, then what? Sit on the sidelines while the multi-faction civil war heats up and hope for democracy to bloom?

[Bluenorthwest]

15. I hope Kerry and the rest of the deeply regret their Iraq War lies and believing of lies told them

Since none of them was held to account, perhaps today Kerry is seeing that all of his rhetoric and bullshit about Iraq harms his ability to advocate action when it might really be needed. I wish that our Sec of State was not some guy who told me Saddam's WMD were a threat to our national security. It would be great if one person in the administration had been right about Iraq.

[JohnnyRingo]

19. I openly wept when Bush launched the Iraq war.

I couldn't believe our country was invading a Middle Eastern country based on supposed WMDs and focused in particular on occupying a sovereign nation.

While as I mentioned earlier, I don't know what I'd do if I were in the position of power, I don't think I'd shed a single tear if I awoke tomorrow and discovered US cruise missiles have neutered Assad's ability to use the chemical weapons that cause such indiscriminate carnage.

It's easier to look away when no one is recording my actions.

I think congress is fully aware of the gravity of such a decision because while Obama is asking for consent, I don't see any representatives packing their bags to head back to DC. I'm betting they throw it back in his lap like a political hot potato.

[BOG PERSON]

20. you could have dispensed with all that text

it's an unnecessary distraction from that gigantic photo of dead children, which was all you really wanted to show us

[JohnnyRingo]

24. It is indeed impactive.

And you're right, the overall point is that this is a weighty matter to decide. Do we look the other way (away from that image), or do we stare into it and feel rage?

I'm serious when I say that I've never been so torn on a foreign affair, and I didn't intend to garner support for war, but if that's what that image inspires, it comes from within... not me.

I included the picture to bolster my reason for being glad I don't have to be the ones who decide.

It's with great irony that as was writing this reply, I had to leave the house. My son called to tell me his dog got run over by a car. He said it was suffering immensely and asked if I could come to his house and shoot it. He said he didn't want the dog to suffer the night. I immediately sank with despair but reluctantly told him I would.

On the way there I found myself driving 10mph below the limit as I pondered the gruesome task I was faced with. I played it over and over in my head as I drove, not sure how to go about what I might have to do. By the time I got there, I found to great relief that the dog died and he buried Shadow out back. I just got back home at 11:45pm and considered how close I came to an irrepressible memory of snuffing a life.

There are some painful responsibilities that are thrown in our laps, even when it doesn't directly concern us. If we stall long enough sometimes matters sort themselves out, but we all have to be prepared to act if they don't. I'm so glad I got to unload my .22 and put it away I can't tell you how relieved I am.

[BOG PERSON]

25. deliberate emotional manipulation is impactive too

i'm sorry you had to put down a dying dog. i love dogs, but i don't know what a dying dog has to do with a sovereign state.

[JohnnyRingo]

29. I'm not trying to manipulate anyone.

Truth be told, I really don't care much for Muslims. They're on my list right below Jehovahs when it comes to extreme religions. I also frankly don't care that much for dogs. I'm more drawn to cats, but I sure didn't want to do that terrible deed for my son and I was preparing myself to do so.

If nothing is done to punish Assad, I'll sleep just fine. After all, Syria is the 2nd most armed society on the planet, right behind the US. If Obama sits on his hands long enough, they may just take care of this problem themselves. If on the other hand, I wake tomorrow and hear that US cruise missiles destroyed Assad's future ability to launch chem attacks as I slept, I'll be fine with that as well.

If anyone is "manipulated" by that image, it comes from their own conscience and sense of justice, not me. Any one can just look the other way and go about their daily business at home as you feel at ease doing.

I could have told my son to just go to bed and bury his dog in the morning. Why should I have to do something so gruesome when it wasn't my dog or my fault? Instead, I at least made the effort to do the right thing, however unpleasant that was, when my son was emotionally unable to do so. You're different than me though, perhaps you would have complained about getting blood on your hands for something that isn't your concern.

[BOG PERSON]

36. hollywood psuedo morality

"real heroes get their hands dirty doing what duty thrusts upon them - unlike the beautiful soul who sits out every confrontation rather than lay bare his own uselessness"

realitys been turned on its head. nobody that means well is asking us to do this.

you compared delivering a country into the hands of gulf potentate proxies to euthanizing a dog.

[JohnnyRingo]

38. I've no more patience for you.

For someone with a Karnac level of reading my mind you sure seem lost on the metaphor about having to sometimes make unpleasant decisions for which there is no reward. I clearly wasn't comparing bombing a nation state with shooting a dog.

Now I just think you're trying to aggravate me, and your apparent reference to a higher morality will end our discussion. I still don't know that I want intervention, but if that horrid image sways you, don't blame me. I used it to highlight the gravity of a decision that must be made by global leaders.

Perhaps it would be better if the media ignored this atrocity for the sake of your devout isolationism. Neither I or the rest of the world care about how you feel on this, and that's my point. With the spotlight of history upon you, your (and my) opinion would have more impact.

Finally, don't think for a moment you have the democratic or moral consensus on this matter. I've been discussing this for days with friends, and they seem almost equally split on what to do. The same follows here on DU.

Don't bother with me anymore, I'm not trying to sell you anything.

[BOG PERSON]

39. if it was a simple metaphor for unpleasant decisions with no reward

then why imply that anti-interventionists are afraid of getting "blood on (their) hands"

what makes me a "devout isolationist"? not wanting to aggravate a civil war. from another pov i could very well be deemed an internationalist for considering the consequences of american involvement, beyond hollywood psuedo-moralist tropes of R2P (responsibility-to-protect or alternatively right-to-punish)

if your comparison b/w bombing and euthanasia wasn't intended, then i apologize for jumping the gun. i noticed the parallel construction of "I don't much care for muslims" and "I don't care for dogs", i placed this w/in the context of your previous post, and i drew my own conclusions.

anyway, i've said my piece (and i bumped your thread with the upsetting picture)

[DebJ]

26. I get what you were saying. I agree with your original post as well.

Was just telling hubby this evening I could never, ever be President. I couldn't handle
that weight.

[L0oniX]

21. The pictures of our guys coming home in caskets are missing. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

27. As are pictures of civilians killed by US bombs and drones.

[sibelian]

33. Ah, different emotions, see.

Makes it all muddy and spooky-like.

[Erose999]

28. Do you really think US intervention would bring peace to Syria? Remember that US bombs = collateral

damage. Obama and the other technocrats pushing for this war like to use words like "targeted" and "precision" &c. They speak in a very sanitized language. Even the most advanced "smartbomb" is nothing but a tool for killing people or destroying buildings..

[JohnnyRingo]

31. I understand that.

But you have to realize there is no functioning government in Syria and we're practically giving them an exact time & place for cruise missile launches. An attack on those buildings that house Assad's ability to wage chem warfare would be nearly impossible to land on an orphanage with today's technology. Not saying the regime wouldn't claim they did of course.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not cheering for war. I'll be just fine with letting the Syrians handle their leadership problems on their own. They are, after all, the 2nd most armed civilization per capita on the planet behind the US. If what my Teabag friends say is true and guns do indeed equal freedom, then they can very well take care of a messy impeachment themselves. I'm reminded of how we heard the same about how helpless the poor Iraqis were. We discovered otherwise once our troops were in country.

If on the other hand, I awake tomorrow to news that drones and cruise missiles destroyed government infrastructure in Syria and crippled Assad's ace in the hole, I'll be just fine with that too. My grandfather suffered his entire life both physically and mentally from WWI gas warfare, and I don't think anyone should get away with deploying them, especially as a desperate move to hang onto power. Personally, I'd like to see the UN take a more proactive role in this serious matter.

[backscatter712]

30. Oooh, another slimy attempt to guilt-trip us into supporting war.

I suppose I'll be the seven-hundredth person to break the news to you that blowing shit up in Syria isn't going to stop the use of chem weapons or reduce the number of deaths.

Given that fact, what's the point behind blowing shit up again?

[JohnnyRingo]

32. Please read my above reply

I'm absolutely not cheering for war. My position is more thoughtful and nuanced than "let's get 'em" or "we have to stay out", and you'll likely see that from the reply I made to someone else who misread my original intentions.

You have every right to look away from the carnage and go about your day, but for multiple reasons I'm actually very much on the fence on this. There absolutely are ways to stop governments from deploying chemical weapons however.

The point of my post, which you apparently missed, was the gravity of this problem on a global scale, and how difficult it must be to make the right decision that will stand the test of history. Those who saw the image and attacked their keyboard with defensive rage misunderstood, but that pic was meant to drive home the seriousness of this situation, not garner support for war.

As I asked, please read the above reply. It tells much more how I feel about this situation. We probably agree more than you obviously think, but if that graphic image puts you on a "guilt trip", then that comes from within, not me.

[DirkGently]

34. The U.S. is not "in charge" of Syria's civil war.

And there are plenty of gruesome pictures of innocents being slaughtered by the other side.

This -- all of this -- is false framing.

"We" are not faced with the "choice" of "allowing" anything one way or the other in Syria.