IMHO, we need to intervene in Syria. We can't ignore what amounts to genocide,

[Cleita]

however, it doesn't have to be a military solution. I have been listening a number of experts on a number of media options other than our corporate media. There have been many other options to deal with Assad suggested.

First is getting the countries who are supplying both sides with arms to stop. Since some of these countries are allies, that should be easy enough. Getting Putin to stop giving Assad might be harder, but surely there is something we can give Putin that he wants to get him to stop. I believe Obama missed an opportunity here at the summit. Disarmament is a must and this must be done by the international community, not just us.

Second is freezing the assets of Assad and his family and inner circle. Without money they can't buy weapons and influence. The international community can do this.

We need to give the refugees the relief they need. This would be a better use of money than the one and a half million each of those missiles cost.

There are many, many other suggestions and we need the international community on board with this. Whereas the Brits have said no and others maybe, we might get them on board much more easily with non-military solutions. Diplomacy, meetings and other means need to be tried. President Obama needs to get away from the war hawks and MIC representatives who are advising him and start looking for other solutions outside of the military one. That one should only be at very last resort if all other means fail.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Yes, but even this would have to be done very carefully

to minimize the damage to innocents.

[HereSince1628]

4. Yes, and it seems to me that US citizens are generally innocent.

Minimizing damage to all is actually a pretty good principle, if very difficult to practice within the combat arts.

[Niceguy1]

2. we should do all of that

And execute a fsw surgical strikes to get his attention. .maybe his air assets or a few munition areas.

[Cleita]

8. It's already mentioned he will use human shields.

He apparently has in the past so this is no idle threat.

[Niceguy1]

11. human shields are commonplace

Sadly... Afganistan, iraq, vietnam, korea, wwii, every war the enemy uses them.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. ITA

Anyway we can give humanitarian aid to the people of Syria as quickly as possible is good - and that needs to include Lebanon that has graciously and without complaint absorbed millions of refugees.

Military strikes (killing and injuring more people) should be an absolute last resort.

I have hope that the delay in the past week has allowed some of those negotiations to continue.

[Cleita]

26. I meant that the refugee camps, like in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey should

receive humanitarian aid to help out with the huge strains they are having to cope with.

[Coyotl]

5. The USA was created by genocide, it is still ignored, & Natives still live in concentration camps.

Maybe the USA should do something about the people they suppress first!

[Niceguy1]

6. concentration camps?

Hardly. ..around here they have casinos and take peoples money they are doing well...kind of ironic lol

And how long ago was that? By your standard there isn't a single country on earth that is qualified to intervene

[Coyotl]

9. Go visit the res in South Dakota, or Arizona.

Yes, concentration camps, at least until they are given back their land. And you know when that will happen.

Water Politics and the History of the Fort McDowell Indian Community
http://jqjacobs.net/southwest/fort_mcdowell.html

[Cleita]

17. I think the Alaskans came up with the best solution. They don't have reservations except for one.

First Nation people and others, white and black, live and work side by side, go to the same schools and own businesses just like everyone else. Last time I was there, the First Nation people were the ones who were running the businesses catering to tourists like bus trips to glaciers, kayaking and other outdoor ventures. They also gave us lectures while on the tour about their people and their customs like how the clans don't intermarry among their own people but must marry outside their clan stuff like that, very interesting. Also, most of the old, white families are ethnically mixed with natives. Sarah Palin's kids have eskimo ancestors through their father for instance. There is only one reservation, a small one in the panhandle, and it was founded by religious to protect the First Nation people from the original white settlers.

I find the reservations here neglected and mired in poverty. We can do better and we must.

[Igel]

54. You're forced to stay in a concentration camp.

They're usually small, with guards and draconian systems in place.

Most reservations are large, and in much of the country consist of at least a portion of the lands the tribes used in 1600. Most are no more densely inhabited than they were in 1750. Some are more thinly inhabited. Some tribes have no land, for a set of reasons too varied to generalize over. In any event, the residents are allowed to freely leave and enter. They often have their own systems of government.

It's also a tough call as to whether they have a shorter or longer life span than in pre-Columbian times, or a higher or lower standard of living.

[Coyotl]

77. I realize that the Anglos quit shooting the one's that refused their confinement. But hey,

read history.

[RC]

101. And North Dakota

Poverty can be a killer.

[Cleita]

12. Even though that was almost half a millennium ago that it started, we do need to

revisit that and what we did to the African American community and start coming up with a plan for reparations to both communities. It doesn't mean we ignore what is happening today in front of our eyes.

[99Forever]

7. Actually...

.. we not only can "ignore what amounts to genocide," but have and do many, many times. That has been laid out here more times than I can count. The to be blunt, "doing something to be humanitarians" rings pretty empty and is basically a canard.

That said, I have no objection to REAL humanitarian aid, aid that has NO military involvement, no weapons to EITHER side, and fucking "intelligence community" dirty tricks.

[Cleita]

10. It's time for that to change. As a matter of fact it should have changed after

Nazi Germany, however, waging war does nothing about addressing this problem. It has to be a different solution and it has to be by international consensus. Not only that, we need to look at other countries where atrocities are being committed, like in Africa, not just the oil rich ones. The international community needs to set up norms and interventions, non-military ones, to follow in the future. Syria is a golden opportunity to make a whole new policy on brutal dictatorships and other ways innocent people are treated inhumanely.

Our President could show leadership here and make his mark in history as the Peace President. He needs to live up to his Nobel Peace Prize.

[99Forever]

19. I so agree with all you said.

This must be the next step in human evolution. It is the the only way we remain viable on this fragile Planet.

[tblue37]

13. We regularly DO ignore genocide, though.

The administration isn't even using genocide as an argument for hitting Syria anyway. The "red line" was the use of chemical weapons, not the number of civilians killed, because using chemical weapons violates international law.

[Cleita]

14. Yes, Nazi Germany's holocaust for one. Our inner circles knew it was going on.

World policy for this kind of thing should have been formulated then, however, we didn't. There were many genocides after that most notoriously Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after the Vietnam war. It's time the world gets together and decides how to deal with Syria forcefully without military force and then create a template for the future for how murderous dictators are to be dealt with.

[tblue37]

15. And Rwanda, Darfur, etc. you are absolutely right. nt

[Katashi_itto]

16. Yes we can ignore it. The Repukes have made the well run dry.

I am against anything that spends money overseas.

[Cleita]

18. Even for starving children who are dying from curable diseases? n/t

[durablend]

20. We ignore them in this country

What makes other countries so special?

[Cleita]

21. We shouldn't ignore them here either. All children no matter where they are from are

special because of their vulnerability and reliance on adults to take care of them. If their own families can't care for them because of circumstances beyond their control like war or famine, we in nations that are better off should feel an obligation to extend a helping hand. Any nation that can spend one and a half million dollars on a single war missile, not to mention the millions to maintain the war machine that delivers them, ships, planes, etc., can afford to help out both domestically and abroad.

[Katashi_itto]

24. I was talking about wargames. Poor wording on my part.

But now that you mention that....do we not have children who are dying from curable diseases in the US?

Do we not have food insecure children in the US?

So maybe not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I'll play

What's the difference between a kid in Sierra Leone starving to death and kid in Detroit starving to death?

Either I am affected by their suffering or I am not.

[Katashi_itto]

75. We have a responsiblity to citizens of the nation.

Well supposedly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. I am a citizen of the world

I can understand defending my nation if it's attacked but beside that my being an American is nothing more than an accident or fortune of birth. I could have been the starving child in Sierra Leone and he could have been me.

[Katashi_itto]

90. Your absolutely right. And had not the Repukes wasted our treasure, ruined our economy, destroyed

our middle class, I would totally agree with with you. However that is not the case anymore. We are close to a being 3rd world country ourselves. Let richer countries play policeman or not.

As a citizen of the world, let the world deal with it.

[Scootaloo]

80. You mean like those Iraqis under sanction during the Clinton administration?

[Cleita]

82. I hated that as well. n/t

[Scootaloo]

86. Winning hearts and minds

Just like our "limited action" in Syria will, I'm sure.

I trust the president's intentions. Really, I really do, I think he wants the best - even though I have to admit, the US getting concerned after two years looks REALLY fucking flakey - buuuut... I know too much about hte middle east, including the situation in Syria, to think that we'll actually achieve that "limited" thing he's talking about. Unless we do what Reagan did to Gaddhafi in the 80's, chuck a couple of missiles and then run away while flipping the bird.

[joshcryer]

22. What you suggest is good sense. But it requires the UN.

And given that Russia has money to make, it would never go this route.

[Cleita]

23. Actually, from what I'm reading Russia wants to maintain a seaport in Syria.

Maybe negotiators could assure them of keeping that port. I think the real problem with Russia is that we need to find out what Putin wants in exchange. I don't see that this has happened. It's how you negotiate. Obama seems to have no problem giving away the store to the Republicans in Congress, to get what he wants, so why has he become so recalcitrant in this?

[joshcryer]

25. They have billions in arms deals with Syria.

And the sanctions against Iran made them lose billions, as well as the emancipation of Libya. They literally lost tens of billions of dollars due to US meddling. They actually wanted a military base in Libya, too. So yeah, that probably plays into it a bit. I think the arms deals are the real reason though.

[polly7]

27. Just arms deals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations

Russia has significant trade relations with Syria. Its exports to Syria were worth $1.1 billion in 2010 and its investments in the country were valued at $19.4 billion in 2009 according to The Moscow Times.[11][12] Besides lucrative arms contracts worth at least $4 billion, Russian firms have a substantial presence in Syria's infrastructure, energy and tourism industries.[8] Stroitransgaz, a natural gas facility construction company, has the largest Russian operation in Syria. In 2010, it was involved in projects worth $1.1 billion and had a staff of 80 Russians working in Syria. Stroitransgaz is building a natural gas processing plant 200 kilometers east of Homs in the Al-Raqqa region and is involved in technical support for the construction of the Arab Gas Pipeline. Tatneft is the most significant Russian energy firm in Syria. The company began in 2010 through a joint venture with the Syrian national oil company to pump Syrian oil and it planned to spend $12 million on exploratory wells near the Iraqi border.[11] Other firms with large business interests in Syria include steel pipe manufacturer TMK, gas producer ITERA, and national carrier Aeroflot.[8]

[Cleita]

29. Much of that could be negotiated on. It would be the carrot the UN dangles in front of Putin.

The stick could be that if the US does start a war there that Russia stands to lose it all.

[joshcryer]

32. Pipelines would be lucrative.

But in a war torn country pipelines tend to be fubar'd. Just look at Libya for an example of that (disappointing though it may be, I hope they're able to push back against the Muslim Brotherhood trying to destabilize the country).

As far as I can tell Russia stands to lose billions in Syria on arms deals.

[Cleita]

28. We are making gobs of money on arms deals too, which is why there is this push

for war. Our MIC is also seeing the billions they are going to lose, but it has to stop somewhere. I think the world leaders need to meet and hammer this out.

[joshcryer]

33. Yeah, the US makes about $30 billion on arms. Russia, about $15.

Russia is definitely following our lead on arms deals (and neither country should be applauded for it).

[DevonRex]

74. But it's an open secret that Russia deals under the table.

We do not. Our record keeping is called the gold standard because everyone knows what, when and to whom we've sold.

Russia, as always, smuggles officially. Not black market, but the government. Then there is the black market, too. Most of that is overland trade now, if we're talking ME.

The conservative estimate is to double their stated trade for government sales. The black market trade is how they let some people get and stay rich (when they want to add another layer of deniability to the deal) for a percentage of the profits but that percentage is unknown. BUT this kind of market is very, very lucrative because of either the commodity involved or because of the identity/nationality of the buyer.

[Cleita]

108. Oh, I don't know. I believe a lot of our military hardware that we sell to Qatar and Saudi Arabia

is being funneled to Syria and other hot spots and our MICs know it. Can't prove it but there are rumors.

[David__77]

31. The insurgents are the greater danger to the US.

And our policy should take this into account.

[polly7]

34. Civil war is bad ... but it's a right that people should have to change leadership from within.

It's just sad and disgusting that outside forces have chosen to use these people and their country to advance their own interests all around.

1) As protests spread through the Arab world in 2011, the mostly leftist groups who organized the Arab Spring protests in Syria formed the NCB to coordinate peaceful protests and resistance to government repression. They agreed, and they still agree, on three basic principles: non-violence; non-sectarianism; and no foreign military intervention. But the U.S. and its allies marginalized the NCB, formed an unrepresentative "Syrian National Council" in Turkey as a government-in-exile and recruited, armed and trained violent armed groups to pursue regime change in Syria.

2) The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar began flying in fighters, weapons and equipment to turn the Syrian Spring into a bloody civil war. Once they had overthrown the government of Libya, at the cost of 25,000 to 50,000 lives, they began adapting the same strategy to Syria, despite knowing full well that this would be a much more drawn-out, destructive and bloody war.

3) Even as a Qatari-funded YouGov poll in December 2011 found that 55% of Syrians still supported their government, unmarked NATO planes were flying fighters and weapons from Libya to the "Free Syrian Army" base at Iskanderum in Turkey. British and French special forces were training FSA recruits, while the CIA and US special forces provided communications equipment and intelligence, as in Libya. Retired CIA officer Philip Giraldi concluded, "Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained and financed by foreign governments are more true than false."

http://www.alternet.org/world/america-has-fueled-bloody-civil-war-syria

[Cleita]

43. Would it be that it really is a civil war. There seems to be some doubts.

As I said in another post, it started as Syria's Arab spring, with peaceful protests and it degenerated into what is going on today. Some Syrians have said that the dissidents are mostly mercenaries, many al Queda, these days. We can't take sides here as both sides are jerks it seems. The original protesters are either dead or have fled.

[polly7]

45. Well it certainly isn't any more!, which was my point.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. There is no evidence that a genocide is occurring.

The inflation in rhetoric is absurd. But let's assume you can substantiate your claim that a genocide, an organized slaughter of an entire people, is occurring. Launching a few bombs will not stop this alleged genocide. Instead we will have to directly intervene with troops on the ground. So you are advocating for an invasion and conquest of Syria to prevent this genocide. Are you sure about your claims? Really sure?

[Cleita]

41. I don't know if you are following our Congressional critters but many have said the

evidence is pretty good, not perfect but good.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. Of a genocide or a chemical weapons attack?

You seem to be making the huge leap that one alleged attack using chemical weapons amounts to a genocide.

[Cleita]

51. I cannot answer that because the information they have been given is

classified. All they can say is it's not a slam dunk but pretty good information. I have heard the same from about five of them being interviewed on different talk shows both democrats and republicans. I'm sure there are transcripts you can access with Google if you don't believe it.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. That is simply ridiculous.

There is no evidence of a genocide in progress unless you are engaged in sophistry, in misusing the word "genocide" for its emotional value to persuade people to support a position that is otherwise untenable.

What happened in Europe in the 40's was a genocide. What is happening in Syria is a civil war. There is no genocide. Your position here is insulting to people who actually suffered through real genocides.

[Cleita]

59. Okay, you win. You can't talk to Warren Stupidity. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

62. You've made a ridiculous astounding claim: that a genocide is in progress.

When asked to clarify if you meant this one isolated chemical weapons attack or something else, an actual genocide, you refused to answer that question and basically said "go google it" for any substantiation of your claim that a genocide is in progress.

Bang that fucking war drum. It isn't your children who will be killed by our bombs. Make up a goddamn genocide out of thin air to justify the coming slaughter. What fucking bullshit.

You've learned NOTHING since 2001. Congratulations. It is posts like yours that indeed got me my name.

[Cleita]

65. I never made the claim that genocide is in progress. I said our Congress critters have said it

did happen, past tense, or can't you read much? Yes, don't expect me to Google your facts for you. I think you should do it yourself. Maybe you can unearn your name then.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Oh so you don't think a genocide is in progress?

You think a genocide happened. Is that your position? A genocide has occurred in Syria? Really? That is what you believe?

I haven't seen this much utter bullshit here since yesterday.

[Warpy]

36. Destabilizing Assad is not the answer

You don't get to inherit the job of heading the government of Syria if you are a nice man. We all understand that. Whether he will turn out to be as murderous as his father was remains to be seen.

The alternative to Assad is a civil war among all the various Islamic sects added to the tribal warfare that is already occurring. The alternative to Assad is a government cobbled together from those various sects, likely with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining the lion's share of control.

And don't kid yourself. Their genocide would be against the largely secular Alawites plus other religious minorities in the region.

And finally, we don't know who ordered and carried out that chemical attack. It doesn't look like the inner circle was anything but surprised by it. Given the time line for the Minister of Defense skedaddling off to Turkey, we have to hope the Turks are asking him the right questions and persuading him to be forthcoming in his answers.

[Cleita]

40. I agree there is so much we don't know, which is another reason I'm against

a military response. However, this whole mess started with peaceful protests against the Assad regime, so obviously he wasn't meeting the needs of the people. Before the shooting started, protesters that were interviewed mainly complained about how little they were paid for their jobs and just wanting a better quality of life. Assad's response was to send the army after the protesters. That started this whole mess. Soon rebels and militants started moving in. I doubt if the original protesters are there anymore. They are either in refugee camps or dead IMO. Some refugees have said that the rebels are mostly mercenaries, so I think Assad needs to be removed. We have to aim for disarmament. This is not from me, but from Hans Blix the UN weapons inspector. I believe he's right.

Next we have to take Assad's ability to pay for all those goodies the Russians and Chinese sell him and we (meaning the international community or UN if they step up to the plate) by freezing his assets. He needs to put himself up for investigation and maybe indictment for war crimes if a trial in the IC deems he is guilty. I don't see any other civilized way of doing this today with what we have to work with. But what we have to work with can be effective, if some leadership coordinates the global community, which is right now in disarray with nothing but talk of missiles as a solution.

[libdem4life]

49. Then there is another sticky question..which Syrian leader does the US prop up, protect and serve?

It is a democracy, even if only name, so there must be a leader.

[KittyWampus]

50. the alternative to Assad is a general from his army.

[Cleita]

52. Not necessarily if we follow the WWII model of the Marshall plan post Assad.

It worked fairly well in the long run.

[libdem4life]

72. The cultural differences are staggering. The white European mind set ... even at war with each

other, have few similarities to the Middle Eastern...cultural, root linguistically, religion, extended families living together for centuries...in all aspects, as I see it. In fact, it was this same type of colonial bumbling that created the neat, straight-line borders with no sense of the ancient ethnic differences after WW I. It could be argued that it laid the path to the modern conflicts.

[Cleita]

87. Most people want to be safe and be able to go about life and earn a living.

I don't think the Middle Eastern culture is that different in this respect. We can help them achieve that without weapons and bombing. Probably, in the future when the powder keg dies down, there can be an honest effort to redraw those line or maybe remove them altogether by letting the Middle Eastern people determine their own borders and destinies. Then we need to get the Hell out and back to our own civilization.

[libdem4life]

71. By vote? By power base which presents another Dictator-in-training, albeit one we like? Or by an

"election" hastily called?

To think we can magically pluck out a Syrian leader, even with token distance and approval, is more folly than Iraq and Afghanistan together...as far as what to do from the political and cultural morass that is left.

I remember Nixon's famous phrase...Yes, he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch. Crude..but factual.

[Zorra]

37. Maybe it is President Obama's real intention to resolve this situation without using military force.

Assuming that it really was Assad who was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, it seems to me that having the sword of Damocles hanging over Assad's head, in the form of constant imminent threat of his personal annihilation by guided missile, will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again.

Maybe Obama and Kerry are bluffing, buying time for a calculated diplomatic intervention and preventing Assad from gassing more people at the same time. This is a humane and reasonable course of action.

That's what I would do, assuming that the limited information I have regarding events in Syria is reasonably accurate.

I want to believe this. It's more pleasant than believing Obama and Kerry are PNAC neocon warmongers.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. People are presumed to intend the consequences of their voluntary actions. He's been prepping

the country for war in Syria because that's what he intends.

For PNAC neocon warmongers, Syria is not the last stop. Iran is on the schedule.

[Zorra]

39. Well, you may be correct; I just hope you're not. nt

[Little Star]

111. God, I hope your wrong about Iran.

[kenny blankenship]

42. "Since some of these countries are allies, that should be easy enough"

THere's your problem right there.

No offense, but that statement is naive and ill-informed. They really do not take orders from us. (Let's assume for a moment that our government actually would like them to stop what they're doing in Syria) Not only is it not "easy" to make them do what we want, it's more or less impossible. They have the oil, you see.

[Cleita]

44. Really, giving orders? You see it that way?

I see it as offering carrots and sticks, which is how we got them to be allies to begin with. Negotiating is where it's at. Our allies will be easier to bring around though than our adversaries, like Russia, which will be harder but possible in the hands of the right statesmen/women.

[polly7]

47. Why exactly is Russia still considered an adversary? nt.

[Cleita]

48. They are the ones corking up progress at the UN it seems. There was a post about it here. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

53. They will do what they want to.

After the great lengths -insane lengths- this country has gone to in order to show the world that we are not to be fucked with following the 9-11 attacks, the states in question are still giving money hand over fist to Islamic fundamentalist terror / guerrilla forces, some of whom are AQ affiliates. They never stopped. They continued to fund groups of this nature in Iraq while we traded lead with them. Do you think that never came up as an issue between our government and theirs during all that time?

They. Don't. Care. Got it? They've proved that now for over a decade. It's not really open for debate.

Short of getting old school nasty with them, (which we could do, in theory, but which would invite comparisons to Napoleon and Hitler) we have no way to make them care. Their governments buy arms from us. If we piss them off, they'll buy arms from the Euroland consortia - who will most certainly take the business no matter how angry it makes us. Meanwhile THEY still have the world's largest reserves of oil. They can switch arms suppliers at will. We on the other hand cannot wish the existence of new oil into the ground under more culturally sympatico nations. You seem to be under the misguided impression that we can sugar them off from what they are up to with our money. They are the ones loaning US money, OK? Again, they are the ones with the oil. They buy our debt, which finances our warmachine. The warmachine which is our source power runs on oil as does the world economy. If they are truly pissed with us, they can stop buying our debt and sell our paper. They can even stop shipping oil and crater the global economy in 30 days - or just jack up the price and draw the torture out over a decade. The relationship has a polarity pretty much completely opposed to how you imagine it. Sorry.

[Cleita]

55. Remember there are only a few countries that manufacture weapons of destruction, mass or otherwise

and the USA and Russia are the main manufacturers and distributors. They have the ability to stop the flow of arms to hostile states, terrorists and other bad players. It has to start there. Sure there will still be a trickle of arms traded and sold, but it will be a trickle, not a wholesale arming of two armies like is going on now.

[HooptieWagon]

56. By helping the rebels, we are setting the stage....

...for genocide far exceeding that so far.

[Cleita]

57. We shouldn't be helping them or taking sides.

They all need to be disarmed or at least the weapons spigot stopped to all parties involved. Only then, when they can't kill each other any more, they might figure out that going to the negotiating table is a good idea. Assad needs to be included too, but it will be up to his people to say if they want him removed. He does need to be defanged though first. This the international community can do with freezing his assets. Other embargoes that don't affect the ordinary Syrian people could be employed too until a situation is reached where peace talks between the Syrian government and all the factions involved can be invoked.

[HooptieWagon]

64. Yes, there is much the US can do short of war...

...that we aren't doing. Most of your suggestions are good ones.

[polly7]

60. While even one civilian killed is a tragedy,

Assad forces and those citizens loyal to him make up nearly half the dead.

[Cleita]

61. Yes, they are dead, which seems like an even more compelling reason not to

create even more dead on either side.

[polly7]

63. I agree. So no bombs from a foreign military to make it all worse. nt.

[Democracyinkind]

67. Since when is ignoring genocides problematic?

After all, it is the norm.

Aside from that, there are some good points in your op that are worth pursuing.

[Cleita]

68. They aren't my points but stuff I've gleaned from various experts' suggestions on

various news shows. It seems these are the experts Obama should be consulting not the Pentagon and MIC representatives who are advising him.

[Dems to Win]

69. Agreed. 'Do something' doesn't mean we have to launch cruise missiles.

I suggest swiping Assad's $1.5 billion personal fortune. Read more here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023581450

[Cleita]

70. True.

It has been suggested that if Assad is made to resign or arrested and sent to the ICC in the Hague, his fortune be used to rebuild the country once a peace settlement is achieved. I don't believe prolonging the war going on will achieve that purpose.

[MNBrewer]

73. In what specific ways does this "amount to genocide"?

and of whom, by whom?

[Cleita]

79. Killing off a group of people for no reason other than who they are is a definition of

genocide. When you gas a population, most of them die. It's no different than the old fashioned way of killing everyone with no quarter. It's genocide.

[Scootaloo]

83. You're playing very fast and loose with language

No, genocide is a specific thing. It is a different thing from ethnic cleansing, it's a different thing from mass murder, it's a different thing from ethnocide, it's a different thing from cultural genocide, and all those things are different from each other.

If you must use the -cide suffix, then you probably want politicide - the destruction of a particular political faction. But if that "deserves a response," then we need to be bombing up Egypt, Israel (and Palestine), Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, as well, instead of just pretending Syria's the lonesome outlier.

[Cleita]

85. If you want to split semantic hairs, fine. It doesn't make the victims any less dead. n/t

[Scootaloo]

88. It's not semantics

You are using a word that does not apply and that carries much more weight than what actually happened.

Yes, they are dead. And nothing the US does will bring them back. There are over a hundred thousand dead in this civil war - and if you didn't know, almost half of them were "Assad Loyalists" (you know, the soldiers and civilians who didn't jump when the rebels told them to do so).

It's a civil war, Cleita. There's never been a civil war that didn't see this sort of carnage. And while I would perhaps favor some well-thought out form of intervention, something to put all the sides into a cease-fire and bring them to the table to hash out their issues like sane people... i'm not sure that there actually IS a way to do that that doesn't just inflame the war.

Sometimes, there really is nothing you can do. Except, in this case, work to aid and protect the survivors. There are a hell of a lot of refugees and internally-displaced people in Syria. The US is providing about a billion dollars of aid for them... which when you think about it is probably less than will be spent on these "limited strikes."

You want to do some good, pressure your representatives to crank that funding spigot for the refugees and survivors of the Syrian civil war.

[MNBrewer]

92. Calling the distinction "semantic" doesn't make their deaths a genocide.

[Cleita]

94. Your post here doesn't make you any smarter either. n/t

[MNBrewer]

97. I'm not posting to make myself smarter, I'm posting to make YOU smarter, Cleita.

Either way, it doesn't seem to have worked.

[Cleita]

98. Tata then. n/t

[MNBrewer]

91. What evidence do you have to support that

The gas victims were killed for "who they are"?

[Cleita]

93. There is a report that the victims were living in an enclave that supported the rebels,

which means they were mostly of the same tribal, religious group. So that would be killing people for who they are, kind of like Nazis killing Jews. However, if you had read about it, in so many articles written in so many publications, you would have known that. Now go Google.

[MNBrewer]

95. It's not like Nazis killing Jews, at all.

Assad has no program of eliminating Sunni muslims from Syria. If anything, it's the other way around!!!

[Cleita]

96. Okay have it your way. It's still like Nazis killing Jews. n/t

[MNBrewer]

99. You're right, to the extent that it's someone killing someone else

It's also like Alexander Hamilton killing Aaron Burr in your way of thinking, I guess.

[Coyotl]

76. IMHO, The UN may need to intervene in Syria. We can't ignore this situation.

Who is the "we" in your OP's "IMHO, we need to intervene in Syria. ..."?

[Cleita]

78. America is the We in my OP and I agree that it's a job for the UN. However, the talk is

for us to go in unilaterally with some strategic, surgical bombs. No, no no. Historically, that has only gotten us into quagmires. Will we ever learn. I do think we and other nations involved need to intervene but benignly. We are part of the problem since we are supplying weapons to the rebels and Russia is part of the problem because they are providing weapons to Assad. We have to stop doing that first. We can't just leave them alone to kill each other, since we have been part of the problem. We need to go in and fix it, without bombs.

[Coyotl]

103. If "we" is America and "we are supplying weapons to the rebels" that is a violation of law.

Not? I assume your America is the USA.

[Cleita]

104. Yes, the USA as it is colloquially known here in the USA. Since this message board

has originated in the USA, I use that term. Sure in South America, and I have lived there, America refers to both continents. My bad.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

81. Genocide?

If the Islamist rebels take over then you will see genocide!! They're already killing Christians and Alawites. If they gain control they'll kill them all.

[Cleita]

84. This is why they need to be disarmed and the UN is who should do it.

Dropping bombs in a war zone and continuing to supply weapons to the combatants will accelerate that not lessen it.

[MNBrewer]

100. But I thought it was Assad who was the Nazis killing Jews!

As I mentioned above, if anything it's the other way around. The islamist factions of the rebellion are at least as bad as the Baathists.

[Little Star]

102. The Saudis have offered to pay us to bomb Syria. This whole episode has nothing to do with....

the gassing or suffering of the Syrian people. This is about what TPTB want, that Assad is in the way of, period.

Sad but true. Those who are pushing for this war don't give two craps about the suffering of the Syrian people.

[Cleita]

106. There has been a huge death toll on all sides of this conflict. Whether it's by gas or not by gas

is actually irrelevant. It's that our PTB have made it about gas. I believe we do have to do some intervention, just not military. As a matter of fact, I deplore any military intervention on our part at all. I do realize that when the fighting stops and peace is declared, there will be a need for occupation troops to protect the civilians while they rebuild their towns and their lives. However, I would like the UN to handle that, not us.

[Little Star]

109. I share your hope. But I don't think that is what will happen, sad to say. :(

[Cleita]

107. I'm obsessed with anywhere my country wants to get involved in someone else's war with Tomahawk

missiles. Just call me a hippie pacifist if you want, but that's the way I roll.

[dionysus]

110. good idea. good post

[WilliamPitt]

112. Genocide

[Cleita]

113. Oh please not you too.

What would you call it? Give me the right word, oh mighty word smith. I will defer to your expertise. However, I'm not a master of English so forgive me for not getting my heartfelt sentiment right.

[WilliamPitt]

114. Murder. Massacre. Killing. Death.

But genocide?

Come on. That insults the actual genocides we have witnessed.

[Cleita]

115. I actually didn't call it genocide said, "amounts to genocide", a subtle difference.

But I stand corrected teach.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. keeping walking back the bullshit.

"amounts to genocide" is now "not a genocide".

got it.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. So, now that the war to end genocide is likely off, you must be very outraged at Obama, right?