Something should be done in Syria

[el_bryanto]

What happened there was a crime against humanity, assuming we are being presented the facts accurately (which I believe we largely are). Something should definitely be done to prevent this sort of thing from happening. And yes there are equal or worse tragedies elsewhere and yes the United States has done terrible things as well. That doesn't change the fact that this is a terrible thing and something should be done to make it clear that this sort of mass murder doesn't happen in the future.

That said I oppose bombing Syria with or without Congressional approval. I appreciate that Obama went to Congress (certainly his predecessor would have handled this differently) - but I am unconvinced that bombing Syria will have any positive effect at all. Not to mention it will almost certainly kill additional civilians.

I wish we lived in a world where something positive could be done; where the United Nations had some teeth for example. I wish that we could positively deal with not only Assad and Syria but the countless other spots on the globes where mass murders are occurring.

But we don't live in that world.

Bryant

[FSogol]

1. I agree. n/t

[bemildred]

2. I would like to see a lot more food, medicine, and the other necessities of life sent NOW.

That would save lives.

[Savannahmann]

3. Yesterday there was a thread asking for alternatives.

I am a blue collar guy, and I was able to come up with one.

I don't like to repost things, so I'll link and then expound. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3590855

It does start at the UN, and the UN has as must tooth as we can give it. First, stop with the nonsensical bombing rhetoric. Second, set standards of behavior for Syria, and begin small. Bombing is like an amputation, you do that when you don't have any other choice. You try and do whatever you can to avoid that final solution. Do you think that the Russian objections would not be silenced if we made a strong case to them? We would have to show our evidence, and we would have to make the case. Not for military action, but for sanctions against Syria if they did not comply with a UN removal of the CW's. UN inspectors would remove and dispose of the CW's in a safe manner. All would be accounted for, and so long as Assad was complying, the sanctions would not go into effect.

If the UN does turn out to be unable to act, you still have the same effort through NATO. Turkey is a member of NATO, and shares a border with Syria. There is your authority, for the exact same solution. Wondering how to pay for it? The Sanctions include a statement in which Oil exported from Syria is not only to be seized, but the ship carrying it is forfeit. The sale of the ship and oil would be used to fund the international body overseeing the sanctions. Only humanitarian supplies would be allowed in. Humanitarian under the traditional definition, clothes, medicine, and food. Bombs and missiles are not humanitarian.

This is how you get compliance, and if you're still bothered by the use of CW, then go to the international criminal court, and bring charges. Show the world that the rule of law applies to all, and then you have a statement for the future. A proportional and reasoned response with a single goal, removal of the CW's. Not the mindbending redefinition of Missiles and Bombs as humanitarian.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Agreed

The problem here is 1) legitimacy and 2) effectiveness.

On the legitimacy front, I'd like to see the UN get its shit together. That doesn't mean for military action, but if there is to be military action, it should be passed through the UN Security Council. Apart from that, there must be a multi-pronged strategy for deterrence of chemical weapons usage, including targeted sanctions.

On the effectiveness front, I haven't seen a clear plan for how any military operation would deter and degrade, except in the broadest sense of making the use of chemical weapons more "costly" from a risk analysis perspective. That's necessary, to my mind, but insufficient.

[kentuck]

5. Reasonable

And rational but I would go further. I would say that we would need the majority of the international community also.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Who appointed US ...

emperor of the world?

[el_bryanto]

9. Nice to see some solid reading comprehension there nt

[otohara]

12. I See Local Syrians

on the TV begging for a US strike.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Not aiding Al Qaeda would be something.

[whatchamacallit]

8. Lucky thing nobody punished us for Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Americans are an insane breed.

[el_bryanto]

10. I'm not sure how to unpack this

But yes I am an American and if you don't like Americans than fuck you.

As to your initial point maybe someone should have - there should have been some sort of international tribunal to determine if we were justified in our actions there. I'm not sure that they would have seen the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the same way you do; the horrors of the pacific war were a lot more fresh at that time. But the question should probably have been asked.

Bryant

[whatchamacallit]

11. As an American myself, I like many of my countrymen

I just don't like the ignorant, self righteous, war pig Americans.

[Sand Wind]

13. So what are you suggesting ?

I make that post :


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023588214

[el_bryanto]

14. I don't have one - I'm more arguing for the complexity of the issue

I see too many people, mostly ones I technically agree with, acting as if this were a open and shut issue in which the war hungry DUers want to kill Syrians for profit or out of blind support for the President.

The only real solution is for leaders in that part of the world, particularly Saudi Arabia, and leaders in other parts of the world, particularly Russia, to figure out a way to start this - to provide humanitarian aid to those who need it and to make it clear that this kind of action is not acceptable no matter who does it (and that includes the United States).

Bryant

[Sand Wind]

15. Right...but that will be long road, may be in long term. Nt

[KittyWampus]

16. I agree. There may be a time to intervene but not yet. It'll have to get worse.

[Mnemosyne]

17. Fallujah. nt

[el_bryanto]

18. I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm sure you feel better having made it. nt

[Mnemosyne]

19. We have no moral high ground, especially after Fallujah. I will never feel better for that. nt