If UN inspectors agree with the Obama administration, will you support the war?

[Gravitycollapse]

That's a question I don't personally have an answer to at this point in time.

[emsimon33]

1. No

We have been lured into so many conflicts under false flags and for bad intentions. We need to let the UN or NATO or some other alliance not formed by us and not led by us to intervene is the accusations seem true.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. And, what if no one else does anything?

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. Do you have kids?

[Gravitycollapse]

13. No. I'm only 23.

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. So you're elligible to be drafted, should the need to send you to the Middle East ever arise.

How would you feel about that?

[Gravitycollapse]

30. It would depend very heavily on whether or not what I would be fighting for was just...

And not simply another war over power or resources.

I would have no problem going to war to actually help people who need help. Not that I'm sure such a situation is actually possible in the modern era of the US war machine.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. So in the context of your OP, are you suiting up or not?

Someone is gassing someone else. You don't really know who, but you know it's wrong. Innocent people are dying, and in horrible ways.

It's your OP. How "just" is your cause?

[Gravitycollapse]

34. I cannot say whether or not military action would be just at this point.

And, like I said, I'm not really even sure the US is even capable of waging just war when we've traveled so far down the rabbit hole of war-for-profit.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. Totally understood.

As always your posts are well reasoned.

Have to sign off now. Good evening to you. We'll continue this tomorrow I hope...

I didn't mean to offend.

[Javaman]

70. All wars are fought over resources.

don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

give me a war and I will tell you the resource.

[emsimon33]

11. We are guilty of aiding other countries to use chemical weapons against civilians

at what point will the hypocrisy catch up with us if it has not already. We can no longer be the world's policemen. It doesn't work in the long run. We need to have the Arab nations take care of Arab problems. Who I feel most sorry for in all this (other than those who were gassed, of course) is Turkey which is our ally and sits right next to Syria. Turkey is part of NATO.

We do not have the money or resources to fight any more wars unaided except for paper allies who really do not bear the brunt of the battle.

If Obama strikes at Syria, I hope that the Swedes demand his Noble Peace Prize returned.

Or, if the Republicans are all eager to go to battle with Syria, perhaps Obama can leverage doing so to get some concessions from the Republican Congress and then our dead and maimed soldiers and our tax dollars MIGHT (only a small might) be worth it (but I doubt it).

[Gravitycollapse]

12. When did the United States aid in the use of chemical weapons?

[emsimon33]

16. Iraq against Iran

Then, of course, we dumped our ally, Iraq. It is what we so often do as a nation.

[emsimon33]

17. See the post noted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014575860

[Javaman]

71. nope. nt

[enigmatic]

3. no n/t

[Recursion]

4. Nope. Can't find a compelling US interest here

I don't see a way that fighting against (or for) Assad advances US interests at all.

[cthulu2016]

23. The interest would be enforcing a unilateral American ban on use of chemical weapons

As to whether that is a SUFFICIENT interest... beats me.

But that would be our national interest cited.

It has merits, but not necessarily enough merits.

(The world's top dog in conventional weapons does have an arguable interest in discouraging unconventional weapons.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. No.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. That would be NO. n/t

[Scootaloo]

7. If the UN agrees, something has to be done

Seriously, using chemical weapons really is a big deal worthy of some sort of response.

However, is war, military action the best response to it? I don't think so. it doesn't make any sense to go "Well, Assad killed over a thousand Syrians, so we're going to attack Syria and kill tens of thousands of Syrians," after all.

And unfortunately "the rebels" have so many factions going on, all of which are just as shitty as Assad as far as I understand, so it's not exactly like we can stick with just giving them backup, as we did in Libya.

I'm just not aware of the options available - If the UN confirms this, what can the United States do that would benefit the people of Syria?

[leveymg]

24. If we wanted to benefit the people of Syria, we would simply dump currency from the air.

But, that wouldn't serve the real purpose of this exercise, would it?

BTW: it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to establish with any legal certainty who gassed Bhouta and what the intentions actually were. Nobody is going to be able to figure out who pulled the trigger on this one. Here's why:

If the US has real-time intelligence (intercepted orders to use chemical weapons) we'd be complicit in their actual use,and probably wouldn't be willing to give away the capability to decypher the Russian communications equipment the regime is using.

Absent such an intercept, or HUMINT (someone coming forward with a credible proof of such an order being given) nobody is going to be able to prove who fired those rounds, or intentionally substituted the ordinance.

Without proof, there can be no finding. The best we can probably hope for is a determination based upon motive and opportunity. In other words - who benefits? On that basis, the odds strongly point to the opposition (or their advisors) as the culprits.

You're right - this is no small thing, but it was carefully thought out.

It would have been insane for the regime to do this. It's a total lose-lose for them.

[dkf]

43. Well you can always volunteer if its so important to you.

[Scootaloo]

44. Read the post beyond the title next time

I don't support military action, as it would be a complete waste of Syrian lives. Unfortunately I have no good ideas on how this situation should be handled.

Is it okay for me to be confused and have no valid answers on something just this once?

[dkf]

46. Funny your assertion something must be done seems stronger than your opposition to military

Involvement.

[Scootaloo]

64. If that's how you want to read it, I guess i can't stop you

I can suggest you look around for my other posts on the subject, though.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. FUCK. NO.

[leveymg]

9. Nay. Does that really matter?

After all, the White House seems to be covering for that contingency when they claim the inspectors may not find anything conclusive, and that NATO can do this without the UN.

Are the weapons inspectors really even relevant to this decision?

[Gravitycollapse]

15. It would certainly be a new realm if we took the advice of the United Nations.

Seems relevant to me.

[BainsBane]

57. Did you see the video clip of the victims?

Did you read what Doctors without Borders said? Have you been watching Al Jazeera?

[Nye Bevan]

14. I get the feeling that if many DUers had been around in the 1940s

they would have strongly argued against the US sending troops to Europe.

[leveymg]

19. First person who suggests Hitler loses.

Please leave the field and accept a complimentary Gatoraid as our gift on the way to the showers.

[Gravitycollapse]

38. You need to start drinking Gatorade before the game.

Otherwise you'll just be playing catch up with dehydration.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. if you think the Middle East is the same as Europe or the threat of Assad is comparable to the

threat of Hitler - or if you think a civil war is the same as invasions of multiple countries - you really don't understand he situation at all - at all.

[bowens43]

53. to compare this to Hitlers Germany is ridiculous.

[BainsBane]

58. People want to see this like Iraq

when the events are entirely different.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. I cannot for the life of me imagine any good coming out of military strikes

Either it will not be enough to topple the Assad regime - only enough to encourage further bloodletting. Or an absolutely massive military campaign will be carried out creating a lot of bloodletting in its own right that leads to an even greater and more bloody civil war or a new totalitarian regime as bad or worse than Assad.

[leveymg]

22. That's pretty much what Gen. Dempsey wrote to Levin, as well.

So, he gives us a range that includes imposing a sustained No-Fly Zone and sticking around for a while, at the cost of unstated billions of dollars per month.

[Victor_c3]

48. I remember sounding off during bayonet training when I was 17 years old

"What makes the green grass grow?"

"Blood! Blood! Blood makes the green grass grow, Drill Sergeant!"

or, after drawing my rifle from the arms room before going to the range we had to sound off with "One shot one kill!". Basic combat load when I was on patrol in Iraq was 210 rounds. So with that in mind I should have been expected to kill 210 people. I failed miserably in that aspect. I was a 24 year old Infantry Platoon Leader in Iraq in 2004. After a year in Iraq, my platoon killed the 46 people that I'm aware of and wounded between 75 and 100 - and I had a pretty typical non-extraordinary experience in Iraq when I talk to the other Platoon Leaders in my battalion who were in Iraq with me. A lot of blood was let for nothing in Iraq and the same would happen in Syria.

Talking and thinking about it brings about two conflicting sets of thoughts and feelings. Part of me is repulsed by it and the scary part of me yearns to go back on patrol and to be a part of it. I miss the weight of wearing my body armor and the feeling of the pistol grip of my a rifle in my hand. The sense of immediacy, the feeling of danger, and the anger and rage you feel in combat is addicting and it isn't something you can shake or forget about when it is all over. Why would anyone want to inflict this on another group of people? I just don't get it. Maybe someone will be able to explain that to me.


I totally agree with everything you said.

[Jackpine Radical]

81. "What's the spirit of the bayonet?"

Kill!
Kill!
Kill!

But then I was Army, and I guess we needed simpler lyrics.

[JI7]

20. i don't think ground troops are in consideration, i think it will be arming the rebels, drone strike

and things like that.

but i really don't see them sending in the troops.

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. This is about Israel demanding war with Iran, Syria's #1 ally. America does what Israel says,

for some reason. Fuck the Zion death cult and all who its insane bidding.

[cali]

37. Bullshit. It really is clear what you are.

Yes, I'm going there.

Your hate and xenophobia are out of control.

[dkf]

42. Don't blame the Israelis for Obama's stupidity. This is on him.

[Scootaloo]

66. Hi there FWWM...

I hope you don't mind, but I'm forwarding another poster to you. With all this talk about "death cults" and who's controlling who, I thought the two of you would work really well together.

You kids have fun!

[Blue_In_AK]

73. I know Fire Walk With Me,

And he is not antiSemitic, despite what some may think. In fact, his father is Jewish. There's a big difference between being opposed to Israel's warlike and overreaching government and being anti-Jewish. Just saying...

[leftynyc]

80. I don't believe you

and that poster is everything that is wrong with this site these days.

[Blue_In_AK]

95. Whatever.

And you are wrong.

[leftynyc]

79. You are deranged

Nobody would be in more danger if we went into Syria than the Israelis. And that would give you a fucking orgasm. You sicken me.

[dionysus]

94. sleep well, sweet, sweet prince (you anti semitic douchebag)

[LostOne4Ever]

26. No.

We should pursue every peaceful means of ending the conflict we can think of before even imagining going to war.

[silvershadow]

27. How likely do you think UN support will be in light of the latest US spying in UN disclosures? nt

[Raksha]

29. They won't, and I won't. n/t

[cali]

31. No. Make that Fuck No!

[Ed Suspicious]

33. No. I'm convinced that bad guys are simply good excuses to bomb people.

[David__77]

36. Absolutely not.

But they will not agree. I am 100% opposed to any military action in Syria, aimed against any target or party. I am also against sending any military aid to insurgents/terrorists.

[steve2470]

39. Nope

It's a civil war with outside agents thrown in. From what I know, Assad is winning, and yes he's a murderous bastard, one of many in the world.

My "go to war" template is World War II. Show me a comparable situation and I'll consider it. Otherwise, no go.

[AverageJoe90]

40. To be honest.....no. I don't support direct intervention.

Though I despise Assad for being the war criminal and puppet of TPTB that he is, a direct war might just end in disaster; we don't need any more quagmires. So no troops on the ground. Let's stick to material and monetary support(and for the good guys, mind you! Not the Islamists), if it has to come to that.

[dkf]

41. Nope. Eternal war will decimate this country economically...the Middle East will always be a mess.

We need to just say no to all this adventuring crap.

[Victor_c3]

45. nope

Granted chemical weapons are terrible and it is horrifying to think of the children and civilians it indiscriminately kills, but we've been through this before with Iraq. Did our intervention in Iraq make it a better place? Does anyone seriously think that any intervention in Syria would make it a better place?

Sure, we can remove whatever government we want to remove whenever and wherever we want to, but is it worth creating another spot of instability in the middle east, killing who knows how many more civilians, wasting thousands of our own Soldier's lives, and trashing another trillion+ dollars? What did we accomplish in Iraq after 10+ years there and how would Syria be any different?

Did anyone not turn on the news or pay attention at all to what has been happening to Iraq in the last decade?

Watching the discussions on Syria play out on this forum shows me exactly what it must have been like on this forum during the buildup to Iraq in 2003. Even the people I would have expected to be the most leery about going to war are too easy to dupe and mislead into perpetrating it again.

Why are people so eager to create the same mistake of Iraq all over again?!?!

[BainsBane]

47. Al Jazeera says Assad bombed the infected areas

so inspectors aren't likely to find anything.

[bowens43]

54. and if they did find proof, how would that change anything?

[BainsBane]

55. This is not the same as Iraq

People who insist on seeing it that way are't paying attention. We aren't hearing about some possible WMD as an excuse. The US has tried to avoid accusing Syria of using gas because of Obama's red line statement a year ago. After this week, and based on testimony of Doctors without Borders, it looks to me like Assad did use gas. If there is a way to bomb some of Assad's military installations and factories that make that stuff without embroiling us in some prolonged military entanglement, I'm okay with it. I don't like the idea of sitting back and watching Assad gas children. Remember Rwanda?

[burnodo]

49. No

The Assad regime has not lasted this long only to do something that would almost guarantee his own ouster. He's not stupid.

Frankly, I think it's more likely the US gave rebels the chemical weapons with the promise that they'd be able to intervene only after proof of chemical weapons came out.

[MelungeonWoman]

60. That was my first thought as well.

Who benefits from all this? The war machine.

[dtom67]

50. no...

And then I'd tell them to use the money they were going to spend on war to bolster social programs here at home.

[bowens43]

51. No. Absolutely not.

[peacebird]

52. No.

[dipsydoodle]

56. No and elsewhere

i.e Europe I would predict that come next elections there would be a change in the party in power.

[winter is coming]

61. No. I've got the feeling that PNAC's "lesson learned" from the Iraq War

was "instead of merely claiming there are weapons of mass destruction, arrange for there to be some".

[GeorgeGist]

62. No ...

But Obama's not going to wait, apparently.

[Chisox08]

63. No

One we can't afford it. Do we really need to be fighting another war? America is not the world's police force, bad stuff happens all over the world all the time it's not our job to try to stop it all. We have our own problems that needs to dealt with.

[GliderGuider]

65. No.

[roody]

67. No.

[Renew Deal]

68. I think you're asking the wrong question

The correct question is "If UN inspectors prove that any party used chemical weapons in Syria, will you support the war?"

[HardTimes99]

69. First you'd have to tell me whether the NSA is spying on and blackmailing officials

at the UN. Since any definitive "no" answer would inevitably come from those doing the spying, I'm going to have to say "Hell, No!"

[Generic Other]

72. Hell no

Let some other superpower step forward to police the world. The us NEEDS TO TAKE A FURLOUGH.

[former9thward]

74. No.

We have been fighting on one end of Asia or the other for 70 years now. It has to stop.

[stevenleser]

75. Sure. But not the US participating in it. Let other countries do it this time and the next 25 or so

times.

We're done for a while. IMHO

Let's cheer the UN on trying to do whatever it thinks it needs done from afar.

[Puzzledtraveller]

76. no

[treestar]

77. "The war"?

Obama hasn't even decided what to do yet. And it could be less than "war."

[Zorra]

78. I abhor violence, but if something is going to be done anyway, it would be best just to take out

Assad if it is certain he is responsible for the gas attack.

[Agnosticsherbet]

82. I support action against the Assad regeim for using Chemical Weapons in violaiton of the Conventions

of War.

I'm not sure I support "War."

Limited strikes against his military and known stockpiles of Chemical weapons with cruise missiles or drones, I'm in.

Supporting rebels, Turkish military units, Saudi military units, Jordanian military units, (or those of any regional neighbors), I'm in. (Israel is the single exception. That would be a cluster-fuck of all cluster-fucks)

Troops on the ground, I'm out.

Well, if we could somehow put U.S. Marshals in Damascus and arrest Assad in order to turn him over to the International Courts for trial on violations of International law, I'm in. That won't happen since Tommy Lee Jones is too old to do the work and this ain't no movie.

To sum up.

Limited strikes against specific targets with clear definable goals. I oppose a Jeffersonian Democracy in Damascus. It doesn't work very well here, and hasn't worked at all anywhere else.

[indepat]

83. This is a UN issue so let the UN do its thing. The U.S. imo no longer has the moral authority to

arbitrate any international situation when the policy of launching a pre-emptive war of aggression is a favored option.

[PowerToThePeople]

84. No.

It may be legal, but I still do not support war.

[AtomicKitten]

85. No thanks. nt

[LisaLynne]

86. Why does it have to be war?

If the goal is to stop the slaughter, isn't there any other way to do that? Being against military action is not being for doing "nothing".

[JackRiddler]

87. Never. Would you support a Brazilian intervention?

Your mistake is to think the US empire possesses any legitimacy whatsoever to make such a decision.

You are seriously saying the nation that launched aggressive war on Iraq and so many other countries and killed millions of people is also the legitimate enforcer of international law, whenever its government so decides.

No, no, and no.

It has never happened, the humanitarian intervention. It is always a lie.

Never.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. No.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Gandhi

[Capt. Obvious]

89. Only if I can gamble on it

[Niceguy1]

90. yes

.

[nolabels]

91. Yea, sure, just as soon a the US destroys all that they have stockpiled

Effing moral superiority my ass

[LittleBlue]

92. No. It does not make any logical sense

why chemical weapons that kill a few hundred people suddenly force us to act when 100,000 were already dead.

[get the red out]

93. War won't help this situation

And our country gets to be bad guys again.

[moondust]

96. Doing nothing would embolden Assad and others.

Now and in the future. Possibly inviting some countries to boost development of their chemical weapons technologies and stockpiles.