I sat in on a great discussion about Syria over the weekend.

[JohnnyRingo]

I was at a picnic with a few friends & family and the Syrian gas attack came up (It was me). The discussion led to whether the US should pay retribution of some sort of course, and I noticed two things:

First thing was that there seemed to be no pat Democratic/Republican position. There was no default view for people I know to be either conservative or liberal. Some Limbaugh listeners spoke of the need to keep our noses out, and some I know to have voted for Romney said we have to do something to deter further gas attacks. Friends who I know worked for the Obama campaign held completely opposite opinions as well.

The second thing I noticed was that no one screamed "Obama is dead to me!" or that Rand Paul is a "RINO pussy". Even better, no one claimed the moral high ground for themselves based on their position. No one described intervention as a black & white no-brainer for their side.

Best of all, no one called anyone a "shithead", an "asshat" or admonished anyone to "just fucking stop!". It was a great discussion, a thoughtful exchange without heated interruptions or anyone pounding a table screaming "Jesus H Baldhead CHRIST!...". We listened to each other and treated the others with quiet respect. This civility doesn't occur at at all family debates, in fact it hardly ever does, but it was a wonderful discussion. Perhaps it's because this isn't a partisan issue for a change.

Like now, I didn't take my own resolute stand for or against intervention. I'm not yet sure what we should do. I just asked some how they arrived at their viewpoint and politely nodded at their reply. I think more were in favor of staying out for what it's worth, but it was pretty close.

[denverbill]

1. It's kind of sad you can't have the same kind of discussion on DU.

At least it seems that way to me some days.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. One other thing I noticed...

Without the heated passion of a family debate on something like Obamacare or Benghazi, it was short. People just explained their position and politely listened to others, offering some input but not calling anyone a stupid Obamabot or right wing chickenhawk.

It seems the only place where the scales of justice and the very foundation of our nation's sovereignty hang in the balance on this issue is here on DU.

Personally, after the discussion this weekend, I find myself leaning more with the non-interventionists, but there's one thing I can say with certainty: If the pres & congress decide to launch some cruise missiles, I'm not going to lose any sleep. I'm not going to get up that morning and grab a sign in a march for impeachment or demand Kerry be dismissed.

By the same token. if nothing is done militarily, I will likewise be fine. Syrians and radical religious fanatics are not my favorite people anyway. Those 400+ children are the only reason I felt stirred to action at all, and while I want to see Assad pay a price, the people who elected him should be first in line to do so. If that's not possible, I don't mind if we at least do what we can to prevent another chem attack against them.

I've never been so wishy-washy on an issue in my life, but the passions run high here in DU. I joke that if Assad was gassing a gay wedding or if there were pictures of dead puppies, DU would overwhelmingly call for his head.

[LearningCurve]

3. You had me at "gassing a gay wedding"

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. I could be convinced that it is appropriate to participate in a real UN-led action.

Either Syria broke international law or it did not.
1) if it did, then the international community needs to decide the appropriate response
2) if they did not, then see #1.

Unilateral killing will only bring harm. Beside the body count it will only serve to support the jihadis trying to seize control. It's the Taliban all over again, but with more chemical weapons.

[HappyMe]

6. I agree with what you have said here.

My husband and I had a similiar discussion at the bar this weekend. People spoke in modulated tones, gave their opinion and that was it. There was no arguing, name calling or nastiness. There were differing opinions, but nobody tried to shove their's down others throats.

The drama here seems to be set at 11.

[denverbill]

11. I will be interested to find out what happens at your next family debate on Syria.

Once Obama has made a decision one way or the other, will it become the next Bengazigate to Republicans? My magic 8-ball says 'All signs point to Yes', no matter which decision he ultimately makes. Because no matter what decision he makes, Syria will either still be at war, or Assad or the rebels will be in control. Republicans will claim the entire mess is Obama's fault and he should have chosen whichever option he didn't choose and should be impeached.

[KurtNYC]

12. That's why Obama wants a vote (which he can ignore if it doesn't go his way).

A vote will get everyone dirty on this thing.

[CakeGrrl]

9. Agreed.

These days, people hurl open insults and simply fall back on "if it walks like a duck" to defend it.

And if some aren't insulting you, others are putting you on their ignore list if your view doesn't align 100% with them.

When a largely held view is that President Obama is no different than Bush, then there's really no room for rational discussion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. It's remarkable how nice thoughtful, civil discussion can be

It's too bad we've abandoned all that here.

[JohnnyRingo]

7. It actually helped evolve my position.

There were some very good points made on both sides without all the static of name calling and partisan chest pounding.

[Xyzse]

8. Anonymity of the internet takes away some of the civility

My views tend to not be completely fixed.
Which allows me leeway and not take things personally. There are only a few absolutes for me.

Well, glad to hear you had that type of conversation.

[progressoid]

10. I'm alerting this shit-headed nazi post!