General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRe: Syria. Look at it this way.
A ragtag bunch of rebels, struggling against a leader they consider an unelected tyrant, are hanging on for dear life.
The leader disregards his nation's laws and the standards of war. He barely holds off the rebels. Eventually he orders his generals to destroy entire cities in an effort to put down the rebellion.
You are the leader of the nation with the greatest military force in the world. You are called upon to intervene to stop the bloodshed and punish the tyrant, hopefully forcing him out of office. You can lead a decapitating strike, having your ships start an intense bombardment that will cripple much of the tyrant's warmaking ability in a matter of days.
Do you choose to intervene?
Congratulations, Lord Palmerston. You have stopped the American Civil War, ended the Lincoln Administration, and guaranteed the victory of the Confederacy.
Folks, Syria is in a civil war. They are not threatening their neighbors or anyone else. This is an internal matter. We have no right to intervene militarily.
Sanctions? Yes. Boycotts? Yes. Bombs? No.
This is not our war.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)But someone used chemical weapons. Once someone gets a free pass to use them, others will follow suit.
It's not the job of the US to go after whichever group used the chemical weapons.
However it should be the duty of all civilized nations to band together and take some kind of action against those who used poison gas on civilians.
I do not support unilateral US intervention, nor do I support having the US, UK and France go it as a threesome.
I do hope the UN will come up with a way to tackle this war crime, but I'm not holding my breath.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Saddam Hussein used them against the Kurds after the first Gulf War, and no one did anything.
If Assad uses them against another nation, then we could have a call to intervene. Not internally. And especially when there's doubt about who used them.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)atreides1
(16,136 posts)Sometimes hard decisions have to be made...look at history!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You can be happy that you were practical as you look over the 100,000 corpses.
Chemical weapons should be a "red line". Yes, shooting someone makes them just as dead, but shooting 100,000 people takes a lot of time and effort. Gassing 100,000 takes virtually none.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sure, 6 months, but 2 MILLION casualties.
Why would Assad gas an entire city? Multiple nations are champing at the bit to wade in there and wreck shop already, over a small attack.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)I will assume by your response that you are in favor of US bombing in Syria to "punish" Assad. Is that correct?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If nothing happens, Assad will realize he can use his chemical weapons to put down the rebellion in one night.
And so he will. He'll gas the rebel cities.
Will innocents die in the bombing? Yep. But it will kill far less than doing nothing.
But hey, this is the Rwandan's.....er.....Syrian's war!
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)10? 100? 10,000?
What if Assad falls and some of the rebels begin killing Alawites and Christians by the truckloads? Then what? How many more American and Syrians are you willing to have die to stop those people?
How strongly do you feel that the US should intervene? What level of personal sacrifice are you willing bear to punish Assad? Are you willing to personally fight to topple Assad? How about something less than personally putting yourself in harms way. Would you be willing to cough up $10,000 dollars of your money to punish Assad? $1000. dollars?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, if there are no repercussions, Assad will kill millions with his chemical weapons. He's only held back so far due to fears of retaliation by other countries.
I do not support invasion or toppling of Assad, because there are no "good guys" in this war. What I want is Assad to feel a massive chemical weapons strike is off-limits.
That requires a retaliatory strike, because we have no other options to keep Assad's chemical weapons in their bunkers. There are already sanctions against Syria, so we can't threaten that.
How much is a Syrian's life worth to you? $1? Nothing?
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)You are privy to the war strategies of the Syrian Armed Forces? The fact is you not only have no idea what Assad would do, you have absolutely no compelling proof that he even instigated the chemical attack.
I guess you are part of the 9% of Americans that favor striking Syria to punish Assad. I would bet out of that 9% there are only a few dozen that would offer to put themselves in harms way to punish Assad. The rest would tap dance around a direct yes or no answer to that question.
Would you risk your life to punish Assad?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the world community in banning them? How about depleted uranium? Do you call often or are you callous enough to never have called at all?
We use landmines which rip kids to bits when they are looking for scraps of food. 161 of our peer nations have banned mines, we and 34 other very classy UN nations insist upon using more mines to rip more kids to bits.
Do you advocate strongly against this? Or do you simply remain callously silent?
Easy to play the moral superstar in a vacuum.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And then let's add up how many people will die when Assad figures out nothing will happen to him if he gasses the rebel cities.
There's a reason chemical weapons are a "red line", even if you have not seen the horror of their unlimited use.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)We can't attack a sovereign nation on this kind of thing anymore.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Secretary-General of the UN says there was an attack by Assad's forces. France, who opposed the Iraq war, says there was an attack by Assad's forces.
Assad's forces are the only side in the civil war that has chemical weapons. There is a single picture where Assad's forces claim rebels have a small quantity of chemical weapons. But more damningly, Assad's forces are the only ones with the chemical-warhead-tipped rockets used in the attack. No one has supplied those weapons to the rebels, because they are useless without chemical weapons.
Assad faces a real danger of swinging from a lamppost when this war ends. If this small attack results in nothing, why would he not do a large-scale attack to save his own skin and remain in power?
We said we'd attack if he did this small-scale attack. If we do nothing, he will have no reason to believe he would face an attack after a large-scale attack.
And I firmly believe that the same people on DU and elsewhere who oppose an attack today would oppose an attack after a large-scale attack. "Bombing more Syrians won't bring them back to life" will be the argument used.
So what would Assad have to lose if nothing happens to him over this attack?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)They were bogus and the results disastrous.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Assad let the world know he has chemical weapons - they're his deterrent against Israel.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Remember the Iran-Iraq War and the mustard gas Saddam lobbed at Iranian troops? No outrage from us for that.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)around the time Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.
Someone said international laws are like stop signs in a mall parking lot - mostly interpreted just as suggestions. Sadly, I think they were right. The world community selectively intervenes in world conflicts - especially if that conflict impedes an important resource like oil.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)by the US uses and sells them.
Clusterbombs alone have killed more innocent people then all the incidents of using gas the last fifty years combined. And, they have a far more deadly legacy once the hostilities cease.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)I am horrified that the US uses these things.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Our utter failure in the Iraq-Iran war notwithstanding.
Chemical weapons are not widely used because they are a "red line". They should be. Assad could end the rebellion tomorrow by gassing the rebel cities. And if he figures out nothing would happen to him in response, he will.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)carpet bombing it with DU missiles and clusterbombs.
You know, the good ol fashion American Way.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Right?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)when it has not been proven that the latest attack was ordered by Assad.
There were two previous uses of chemical weapons in Syria that were attributed to the rebels, which certainly calls into question the provenance of this recent attack.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)of those weapons?
"I didn't order it" might be a defense at the Hague, but Obama isn't talking about a decapitation strike. It's a strike against the Syrian government.
Both sides pointed at each other, and there isn't an easy way to figure out who did those attacks because of how they were carried out.
But from what I've read, these attacks used rockets with chemical weapon warheads. The rebels do not have rockets with chemical weapon warheads. Only team Assad does.
progressoid
(50,056 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)And additionally, you are claiming we have to ignore all evil in the world, because at some time we did something wrong.
As in, we have to let Assad gas millions of people, because we dropped two atomic bombs.
progressoid
(50,056 posts)I'm not claiming we have to ignore all evil in the world. It's that nebulous, often self-serving, and yes, hypocritical 'red line' that is troubling.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)whereas White Phosphorus, and other non-WMDs, can't kill nearly as many per weapon.
The reason to strike is not because we're saints. The reason to strike is if Assad does not suffer any damage from using chemical weapons, there is no reason to avoid using them again.
Assad has not used chemical weapons yet out of fear of a retaliatory strike. If that strike does not happen, there is no reason to keep sitting on his chemical weapon stockpile. He could end the civil war tomorrow by slaughtering a few million in one night's attack. His alternative, staying with conventional weapons, has a good chance of causing him to swing from a lamppost at the end of this civil war.
We need Assad to put the chemical weapon genie back in the bottle before he uses them to save his own life. Our least-bad option for doing that is some airstrikes.
progressoid
(50,056 posts)Now suddenly we're concerned? That's, well, peculiar.
Perhaps airstrikes shouldn't be the least-bad option, they should be the last option.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)I was a part of a UN peace keeping force in Beirut, 1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)Economic consequences of some sort.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Your conclusion might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)as narrated from the losing side. The South did see Lincoln as an unelected tyrant. (He only got 39% of the vote, after all.) He did use then unconventional warfare measures like Sherman's path of destruction across Georgia. He did ignore the Constitution and trample on civil rights.
And he kept the country together. Our nation would not be here as it is without him.
Great Britain could have broken the embargo that choked the South economically. They could have destroyed the Northern navy and sailed right up the Potomac and bombarded Washington the same way we're thinking of taking out Assad's regime.
They could have ended the American Civil War with a punitive strike the same way we're discussing ending the Syrian civil war. They didn't.
This is their internal affair.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)And the Syrian rebels are like the Confederacy? Am I following your comparison here?
markpkessinger
(8,412 posts)I think the OP is simply making the point that from the outside, it is virtually impossible to know the precise forces and dynamics at work in another country's civil conflict. The OP points out that our own Civil War likely looked very different at the time to those outside of this country than it did to those who were here at the time, and also different from how it looks to us, having benefit of historical hindsight.
I don't think the OP is suggesting for one minute that Assad is Syria's Abraham Lincoln. To be sure, he is a brutal dictator. But here's the thing: the opposition consists of militant Islamists with Al Qaeda elements embedded among them. There are frankly no "good guys" on either side of this conflict.
But hey, if we want to create, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet another breeding ground for terrorists determined to target the U.S., then by all means the way to do it is to intervene in this conflict. Taking sides in another country's civil conflict is a bit like intervening in someone else's domestic dispute: when it is all said and done, no matter how it turns out, BOTH parties will resent you for meddling in their affairs.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)The garbage the admins allow you to post is amazing.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)That's the name of it right?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
malaise
(269,571 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and btw, the Syrian civil war is bleeding over borders.
Still don't support any military strikes.
Your comparison to the U.S. civil war doesn't take into account one important factor: in the Syrian conflict, religious strife is a big piece of the whole. Not so with the U.S. civil war. There aren't really just 2 sides in Syria.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Great post. The only ones calling upon the Prez for intervention are the profiteeers and their shills.
Certainly the American public doesn't support intervention: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/
heaven05
(18,124 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)In the U.S. the Confederacy were the ones revolting....and Sherman burned their cities to the ground...the South has still not gotten over that one....you still won't see the name Sherman.
Oh and during our War of Independence....France helped us out (even Haiti helped us as a matter of fact).
Your premise is false on its face.
DinahMoeHum
(21,861 posts). . .which had also been in a civil war. . .
If you're going to assist anyone, it has to be on the QT, quietly and discreetly.
question everything
(47,673 posts)I am glad we intervened there.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's become a huge proxy war for the various ME powers trying to assert control over the region.
That's why bombing Assad would do no good in the long run. It'll simply leave a power vacuum to be fought over by people that aren't Syrian.
Historic NY
(37,470 posts)making its own bombs and weapons...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/world/middleeast/starved-for-arms-syria-rebels-make-their-own.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)And chemical weapons were used in that war too?
Nice try, but complete and absolute fail.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
Sanctions and boycotts hurt the general population.
I completely concur with the "Bombs No" part -
but it ain't gonna be bombs so much.
USA is considering sending missiles from afar.
Just like they did in "Shock and Awe".
Syria has a much better air defense system than Iraq had.
Also, Russia has stepped up to the plate this time.
USA messes with Syria, USA is heading down the rabbit hole IMO.
CC
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
USA has been dominating the Globe for decades.
It will not last forever.
Payback is coming,
Count on it.
CC
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reem-salahi/two-and-a-half-years-late_b_3810796.html
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Its not an EXACT equivalence,
but more than enough points of commonality to make a righteous, valid comparison.
Many people have difficulty with the exercise of standing in someone else's shoes,
and I expect that you will hear complaints that "these shoes are painful & I don't like them!"
Well Done.
DURec.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.