I do not support the idea of a US Strike on Syria

[stevenleser]

I do not support the idea of a US Strike on Syria. I believe the UN should be allowed to complete its investigation and then the Security Council should determine what action is taken if any. And then if the Security Council decides on force, an international coalition that does not include the US should be used.

We in the US have spent enough money and lost enough people, had enough people suffer disabling injuries in wars in the last several years. It's time for other countries to step up to the plate to enforce international law. We're not the only ones capable of doing so, and lately it only cultivates ill will against us. We should sit out the next 25 or so attempts to use force to enforce international law.

[HardTimes99]

1. If international law is truly enforced, Bush, Cheney and that entire Junta will be in the dock

at the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Otherwise, IMHO, international law died on March 20, 2003. We're back to pre-1648 (Treaty of Westphalia) time now. Thanks a lot, Cheney.

[Squinch]

2. Steven, you and I sometimes disagree, but I am right there with you on this one.

[Glorfindel]

3. Thanks! You said it just right.

I agree with every word you posted!

[JaneyVee]

4. I agree. Let the inspectors finish, form an international coalition, we can charge

Assad with war crimes and take care of the judicial aspect. Let other countries take care of the force aspect.

[whttevrr]

8. This ^^^

Charge Assad with War Crimes. Let Jurisprudence decide.

[jeff47]

31. Not a good idea.

The problem is every rebel group in Syria is awful in it's own way. Just like Assad is awful.

Letting jurisprudence topple Assad with war crimes removes him from power, and one of the rebel groups will win the ensuing civil war. And be just as awful as Assad.

IMO we need to remove Assad's chemical weapons via airstrikes, and then let the Syrians sort it out. The result will be awful, but it will not be our awful.

[RC]

33. Sure, blow up the chemical weapons and let the wind carry the problem away.

Depending on the prevailing winds and landscape, they should be well enough dispersed is something under a thousand miles or so, to some safe level.
Too many DLC, New Democrat, DINO's, etc., war hawks, have not thought this through enough. But using the excuse that it looks like a nail, when the real reason is the only tool you want to use is a hammer, has gotten very old. Didn't Iraq teach us anything? Syria now, is a direct result of our doings in Iraq. So stop it already!

[jeff47]

35. If we only owned explosives, you'd have a point.

But we also have these "incendiary weapons" that people complain about. Seems like a good time to get rid of a few.

Syria now, is a direct result of our doings in Iraq.

Yes it is. But this appears to be Assad feeling out how far he can go with chemical weapons. He needs to be "redirected" back to conventional warfare before he gasses entire cities.

[RC]

41. I read around here this morning, that we gave them the chemical weapons. The same as we did Iraq.

Don't you think if we stopped exporting our war toys, peace might break out? Since we are somehow involved in most of the conflicts, I'm thinking yes, Peace just might break out.
I fear for the United States, if Russia and China decide enough is enough, when we invade Syria and/or Iran. Because they might very well bring WWIII to our country, laying to rubble several or more of our large cities. That would be a very bad thing, as I live in one.
I wonder what the war hawks, if they survived, would think of their wars then.

[jeff47]

44. No, most of the chemicals were made in Syria

with the Soviets supplying a significant chunk.

The Soviets also supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. The story around here was how we didn't object when the Iraqis used them against the Iranians in the 1980s.

The US hasn't made significant quantities of chemical weapons in quite a while. IIRC, back in the 50's or 60's, we decided to rely on nukes for WMD MAD. (Need more TLAs on the end of that sentence!)

Don't you think if we stopped exporting our war toys, peace might break out?

That is just a form of "American Exceptionalism". There's plenty of other countries in the world that export weapons. There's a reason the AK-47 shows up in conflicts everywhere - the Soviets exported many tons of them.

[whttevrr]

34. My point is...

There needs to be a more thorough investigation of what happened. The video of chemical weapons in a tunnel that 'rebels' were using didn't get much play in the media. The report of Syrian soldiers being affected by something suspicious fell of the radar fairly quickly.

I assume a vigorous defense would be able to be put argument up against what limited information we have now. I would rather see a real investigation occur before we commit our resources to a conflict in the Middle East. And, I certainly do not believe we have any right to act without clearly defined will and purpose. And in no way should we be acting without the consent of congress and the world at large.

[bowens43]

5. agree 100% , I am not against action , I am against US involvement .

[sufrommich]

6. I agree. Either a truly international force

should mete proper punishment for using chemical weapons or we should stay out of Syria.

[whttevrr]

7. The only way I could support a strike would be if there was a unanimous decision made by the UN.

...and congress.

Recall congress and let the debate begin. I want to hear all sides of the arguments for and against. If there is unanimity, then we should assist a coalition of world powers to act.

Otherwise, we should sit this one out.

Red line or not, we should not act without a 'Worldwide' consensus.



PS> That includes the Veto Power Countries; convince them that a military strike in Syria is the right thing to do.

[JayhawkSD]

26. Yes, and universal military service

If America is so enthusiastic about war let all Americans fight in it. Not just the 1% who are patriotic or so econimically desperate that they volunteer, but everyone, including those who are currently sitting at their keyboards calling for Assad to be punished or swanning over the horror of it all. Words are cheap, pick up a fucking gun.

[mountain grammy]

9. Most Americans have a "red line" too.

Our "red line" is military intervention and the administration should not cross it. I stand with you, Steven, and the majority of Americans who want an end to American aggression and military intervention.

[cali]

10. Frankly, the fate of U.S. troops troubles me less than

what those strikes will likely unleash.

[stevenleser]

11. That worries me too. But I wanted to leave theoretical stuff out of my statement

I agree that this could really cause a conflagration in the M.E.

[ohheckyeah]

50. I think a US strike on Syria

will be like a lit match on gasoline. I believe the whole ME will erupt.

[ficuswoman]

12. no US strike on Syria

We'll be hitting innocent children, men, women and pets if we strike indiscriminately. This would be a travesty before the UN Security
Council completes their investigation. No more wars, no strikes, no boots on the ground! You're right, we've spent enough money and
lost enough lives, but I don't necessarily trust other countries to keep the peace. We don't even know the Al Que da from the rebels that have been gassed. Thanks, Steven

[malaise]

13. 100% correct

Remember though that the RWs in America do not even recognize the UN.

[Zorra]

14. Good call. nt

[woo me with science]

15. AMERICA does not support it.

Congress is less popular than cockroaches, and this strike is less popular than Congress.

THIS GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REPRESENT US. THEY RULE US.

Once again, we get the big FU from our government. They do whatever the HELL they want, even when the American public opposes it overwhelmingly. Our tax dollars poured into surveillance systems aimed at us, private prisons, assaults on journalism, and now yet another bloody war for profit. Meanwhile, they are replacing our paved roads with gravel, shutting down schools, and dismantling our social support systems.

WE DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS SHIT.

[Cleita]

29. +1000 eom

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Agreed.

Yes, Assad is a bad guy. But the rebels are worse. Sit this one out.

[Adrahil]

17. Your faith in the Security Council is quaint.

What on Earth makes you think that Russia will allow any action.... any action at all, against their client state of Syria?

The Security Council is irrelevant. So, sadly, is the U.N. It's hopelessly fractured and utterly powerless.

I agree with much of what you post int eh second paragraph, but the UN is a freakin' joke.

[stevenleser]

18. That is a separate issue. Yes, I agree we should reform the Sec Council and UN

a two thirds vote of the Sec Council and Gen Assembly should be what is required for the UN to act, not a unanimous Sec Council vote. That is ridiculous

[Scootaloo]

21. Let me guess; "Get the US out of the Un and get the UN out of the US," yes?

Just noting some trends, is all.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. We don't always agree on points or on style, but we do on this one.

Most of America agrees with us as well.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. Agreed. n/t

[JEB]

22. I find this red line stuff really dumb.

Every school teacher from first grade up knows to not draw any red line because they will immediately by challenged. Better to keep your threats vague and deal with each problem in the individual way that works best.

[Peacetrain]

23. What is the point of the UN if it is not something like this

This idea that we can police the world is insane. Likewise a leader killing his own people.. and not just gas.. most have been killed by conventional weapons.. this needs to be denounced from the UN.. handled from the UN.. That is why the UN exists in the first place. Just for such instances.. Are we going to have to blow up the middle east to save it from itself?

What the hell is wrong with Russia, that it cannot get off its lazy butt and put pressure on Syria, instead of giving them cover.




My mind is reeling.

[JRLeft]

24. You shouldn't this is all about oil.

[AsahinaKimi]

25. I agree with you Leser san..

[jeff47]

27. It's not possible for an international coalition to not include the US

One of the side effects of our massive military spending is our allies have massively cut their spending. They've reached the point where they can not act internationally without our help.

For example, France and the UK were supposed to handle bombing Libya. They couldn't. The US had to supply tankers and other support.

Those countries are slowly rebuilding their militaries to the point where they could actually carry out an attack on Syria. But they will not be able to do it without US help for a decade or more.

So yes, we are the only ones capable of doing so at this time. And no, I do not believe that is a good state of affairs. But it is how things are for the moment.

[Cleita]

28. We also have to come to an agreement to stop

sending weapons to either sides. Apparently the Russians are not being cooperative in this, so somehow the UN needs to lean on them about this. They will then need to declare a cease fire so they can negotiate. I believe it will be up to the Syrians to decide what to do about Assad when a peace agreement is hammered out.

[DrDan]

30. the will of the people is simply not an issue

our task is to put the bodies on the front line and pick up the tab

what we "support" is not important - that has been demonstrated over and over and over and . . .

[NorthCarolina]

32. Neither does a majority of American's, but that no longer carry's any weight in todays America. nt

[brooklynite]

36. If this goes to the Security Council, Russia will Veto it...

...making that the will of the UN.

Just like the Republicans filibustering made the failure to pass the gun bill the will of the Senate.

[totodeinhere]

39. That's fine. As a major power with veto power Russia has every right to veto

any resolution it chooses. But that doesn't change the fact that w/o UN approval there should be no military action taken against Syria.

[maryellen99]

37. worried that it will become a war between The US and Russia nt

[JDPriestly]

38. I agree. Let the UN inspectors complete their work.

I can think of a couple of ways that the chemical weapons could have been delivered to Syria and even dropped from the air without Syrian government involvement. My ideas would be dismissed as "conspiracy theories," and I am not going to share them on DU because they are not based on evidence other than circumstantial evidence.

But the argument I have read that Assad is the only individual, the only player with the ability to drop the chemical weapons or use the chemical weapons in the areas in which the rebels were located is simply false.

You don't have to use a plane to drop things from the sky (as is proved in Yemen and Pakistan).

What is more, the chemical weapons found in the cave could have been placed there by anyone.

Did Libya perhaps have chemical weapons?

Does Syria produce chemical weapons? Do we know?

I do not trust "Chemical Ali" types. Their "testimony" is worthless without sharp cross-examination.

I think that John Kerry is a very honest man. But he may not have that peculiar talent that makes a person capable of thinking of many, many possible explanations for some fact that has not been explained in a way that is backed by really strong evidence. That takes some imagination. A lot of people don't have it. The inability to think of plausible alternative explanations for an event is not a moral failing or evidence of a lack of intelligence. But that the Syrian government dropped the chemical weapons from the air is not the only possible explanation, especially not in the Middle East which is full of intrigue and in which a number of very repressive regimes have been ousted in recent years.

Think Libya, Egypt, Iraq, etc.

And a number of countries in the region plus Russia and the US have an interest in what is going on in Syria right now.

So, I think we need UN backing before we take any action in Syria. I don't think either side will dare to use any more chemical weapons for quite a while.

Meanwhile, Assad needs to be encouraged to resign. And the rebels need to accept a reasonable replacement. The Palestinian-Israeli talks need to take place. The entire area needs to calm down.

But before all that can happen, we in the US need to go into rehabilitation for our oil habit.

We are ruining our earth and killing people to support an ugly, self-destructive habit. I don't know how AA works, but the US needs an AA program to quit its addiction to oil and gas.

Walk. Don't drive.

[antues]

40. I agree with every word you posted!

I agree with every word you posted!

[yellowwoodII]

42. Thank you

Let those hawks and neocons send members of their own families. Then I might believe how much they care about what happens in Syria.

[bobclark86]

43. "It's time for other countries to step up to the plate to enforce international law."

Like how the French and British took the lead in Libya? They've been doing it for some time.

There's 43 nations with police and peacekeepers in Côte d'Ivoire right now. No Americans.

Thirteen nations have troops and police in Kosovo. No Americans.

Five countries already have UN observers in Syria. No Americans.

There are 20,000 UN troops in Darfur. No Americans.

I love how Americans assume they are everywhere and rule the world. They don't. Other countries have helped out, and taken the lead, on many actions like that. I'm glad they do.

"We in the US have spent enough money and lost enough people,"

I know three kids who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're preaching to the choir on that. But launching half a dozen cruise missiles at some tanks and air bases being used to fire chemical weapons at civilians ain't exactly the same thing as rolling 150,000 troops into Baghdad.

Yes, some of the crap is just that — crap. Al Queda is going to get chemical weapons to the U.S.? Not so much. I understand the hesitancy to do anything in Syria. But the world isn't black and white. Everyone needs to decide just how gray is gray enough to justify certain actions, which can vary from a cruise missile to a few armored divisions up the ass.

For me, a couple of cruise missiles we were going to shoot into the ocean when they get old might be justifiable against someone gassing their own citizens. Invasion? Oh, fuck no. You need the fucking Holocaust and sending 100 planes to bomb Pearl Harbor to offset something like that, in my book. There's no need to go balls to the wall on this, and nobody is suggesting that.

[DevonRex]

45. Russia has $Billions in Syria, a navy base, a SIGINT base, & an airfield.

They've paid for half the pipeline. They have at least 5 of their largest energy corporations in Syria. They've poured $19.8B into Syria. Syria buys $4.4 $B in weapons from Russia per year and another $1.1B in other goods.

Do you think Russia will ever approve any action? It would be approving action against itself.

[stevenleser]

46. That is definitely an issue, see my #18. nt

[DevonRex]

47. And I don't disagree with your point

about deliberation with the UN.

Last night I wrote a rather long post about this stuff. I was tired and just hit the bare bones of how Russia has played expanding its influence over the past 5 years or so. When you put it all together it paints a rather shocking picture.

If you look at it that way, and not just from the standpoint of this one incident and country, things look much different. It still does not mean a military solution is the only or best option. But it does mean that we have to address the problem immediately.

And Syria might not even be the place to begin. There are people who have a lot more information than I do who will make that call. BTW, you saw the posts about Snowden being at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong, right? That's important.

I'll PM you that disjointed, bare bones outline.

[Initech]

48. I do not support the idea of war period.

[kentuck]

49. A rational voice.

Thanks.

[frogmarch]

51. K&R! nt

[Vector Tangent]

52. Stevenleser You are wrong

The USA must kill people in Syria. Our government must stay in practice or the citizens of the USA might think, it is ok for our secret branches of power not to be killing on a daily routine. The USA must continuously test and use up it weapons so that we can have lower unemployment. I mean they are not Christan. I say, "go for it, it will be fun." This is as good a reason as any other I've read or heard of. I truthfully wish peace, freedom, happiness and long lives to all.

[B Calm]

53. K&R

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. well good, I guess you're not all bad

[onethatcares]

55. I agree with this OP

it is time to stop the arms sales and propping up of dictators of any stripe with our tax dollars.

I am tired, very tired of war. More than you can imagine.