Are you against military action in Syria?

[senseandsensibility]

I get the feeling that many DUers are, and many are unsure. I am against it. I am for peace. But I wonder what the breakdown is.

If you wouldn't mind, could you state your opinion? Not calling anyone out. I just really would like to hear different opinions, and the justifications for them.

[David__77]

1. 100% against. Regardless of congress or UN votes, or who used what weapons.

Yes.

[roguevalley]

51. agreed. I made a comment on a thread without checking to see which

forum it was from and got banned from the BOG. I gave my all for peace.

[senseandsensibility]

110. Thanks David

for your decisive answer. I started this thread more than 24 hours ago and nothing has happened to change my mind.:

[JaneyVee]

2. I believe if evidence shows chemical weapons were used the US has an obligation to intervene.

Enough is enough in Syria.

[Hayabusa]

29. This is my opinion as well.

[adieu]

48. Just asking

why does the US have an obligation to intervene? I don't see Sweden or Norway or Indonesia or Sri Lanka having any obligation to intervene, regardless of the amount of evidence. Why us?

[MADem]

77. I favor a limited action against "STUFF."

A punitive and limited action that takes out some of the equipment that al-Assad uses to slaughter civilians--that's all.

Obama isn't expecting to completely decimate al-Assad's ABILITY to use CW. He just wants to let him know how much it will HURT if he tries it again.

[Coyotl]

106. What if the evidence points to the rebels using them?

[Billy Love]

108. That is the Arab League problem, not the U.S. problem.

And Arab League agrees, but they are extremely lazy to get their military action going.

They'd prefer to see U.S. spend the bucks we don't have to go strike them.

Arab League: Pay us $150 billion dollars up front before we agree to a strike, and we'll just light a match for you.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Very much against. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Stay the hell out.

There's nothing good to come from interfering there.

[dkf]

5. Absolutely against getting involved in Syria. No no no no no.

I am against the war in Syria for the same reason I was against the war in Iraq. We cannot let ourselves get into the middle of a civil war that will rage long after we have wasted our blood and treasure. The hatred between Middle East factions is not solvable by us.

[senseandsensibility]

6. Agreed on all points.

I have nothing but respect for those who pay the ultimate price, and that is why I am against military intervention except in the most extreme cases.

[NaturalHigh]

7. Yes. Hell yes, in fact.

How long have we been at war now? It's time to take care of our own and quit getting involved in overseas conflicts.

[senseandsensibility]

16. Taking care of our own has been on hold since at least 2003.

And the need to do so is greater than it has been since the last republican depression.

[NaturalHigh]

103. Yes it has.

We have neither the resources or manpower for another war.

[Renew Deal]

52. This is a right wing argument

[LibAsHell]

58. No it isn't

You may be confusing this argument with, "we shouldn't provide any foreign aid because we need to take care of our own", but saying that we should stay out of war is certainly because we've got our own shit to deal with is certainly not a right-wing argument.

[Renew Deal]

72. Yes it is

"It's time to take care of our own and quit getting involved in overseas conflicts."

Good old isolationism. It's been one of the strains of the anti-intervention argument. Another person said that we should "quit playing God." I would love to know if they consider food assistance, unemployment, etc. to be playing God.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. That poster said 'conflicts', do you confuse food assistance with conflict?

Do you claim that the only sort of influence or intervention that exists comes in the form of death and bombs? Sounds that way, because when you are told we should stop with the conflicts you claim the person has said 'let's isolate and ever help anyone'.
What leads to isolation? War. What leads to being unable to help when help is possible? War.

[NaturalHigh]

102. I never said anything about food assistance or unemployment.

I don't know where you're getting this crazy shit. My point has been that we shouldn't go bomb Syria.

Like I told another poster - if you are so keen on getting involved in another war, you should visit your local recruiting office so you can practice what you preach.

[Enthusiast]

93. LOL! Really?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[NaturalHigh]

101. Bullshit.

Wanting to feed and clothe our own people rather than spend millions a day to bomb another country is a right wing argument? You need to check out a political science class some time.

[morningfog]

8. Against it, absolutely.

[HardTimes99]

9. Strongly opposed and will be communicating same (again) to Rep. Maxine Waters and

Sens. Boxer and Feinstein this Monday and thereafter.

No military action without a vote to authorize in the U.N. Security Council. Been my position since 2002 and the run-up to Operation Shocking and Awful. If Russia or China veto it in Security Council, them's the breaks. No military action without U.N. approval!

[senseandsensibility]

13. I need to call Boxer and Feinstein as well.

I'm sure Feinstein will be for taking action.

[HardTimes99]

18. DiFi's war-pig husand Richard Blum will make lots of money risk-arbitraging defense industry

stocks tied to the Syria kerfluffle.

I look at contacting DiFi as a formality, a necessary evil for being a citizen who lives in a dying republic.

[Billy Love]

39. DiFi needs to abstain.

and submit her resignation as soon as possible.

Her war pig of a husband has been profiting from this war since 2002. Enough is enough.

[libdem4life]

46. Yes. And not just from the war. But, I digress.

[gopiscrap]

10. I am 100% against it also

[RGinNJ]

11. Yes. I will never agree killing solves anything.

[fujiyama]

12. I am dead set against this

It's nothing more than a proxy war between Saudi and Russian oil interests.

It's time to stop protecting Saudi interests with American troops. Every action we've undertaken in the region over the last fifty years is on their behalf - and what do we get in return? The spread of Wahhabiism.

[Neutrino_603]

14. Against U.S. military action ...

I believe the 'collectively' well-to-do Arab League of Nations should be stepping up with greater frequency to address diplomatically as well as militarily the multitude of problems within their direct sphere of influence.

[WCGreen]

15. The problem I have is the justification for retaliation has come and gone......

The time to act was right after the incident was uncovered and to bomb a military installation.

[Carolina]

17. Completely against

Any intervention

[Scootaloo]

19. If I thought it would help the people of Syria, I would be for intervention

It won't, so I'm not.

That's not to say there are no options that could achieve that. it's just that the methods needed aren't even in the discourse.

[jazzimov]

20. I am for LIMITED force

so many here seem to assume that the response will be all-out war. I can say that I am against that, too.

But that is not what is being debated - I support a LIMITED strike just to prove that Chemical Weapons will not be tolerated.

Some here have made a very good point, that some countries have done much worse with conventional weapons. I can agree with those points.

However, they are NOT outlawed by the international community. Perhaps they should be, but that is an argument for a different day and is irrelevant to this discussion.

to be clear: I DO NOT SUPPORT ALL-OUT WAR AGAINST SYRIA! And neither does the WH.

[sabrina 1]

34. 'This war will take months, no weeks'. There is no such thing as 'limited military action'

in the ME. We will be supporting Al Queda who are currently driving the Kurds out of their land in Syria, 'Syrian Rebels' = Extremists, the reason why the Brits decided to vote 'no' on intervention.

The President can get out of this by telling the people about the Al Queda plans to take over Kurdish Land with OUR help, should we be foolish enough to even think about giving them air cover for their plan, as they have stated, 'when Assad falls' to establish their own nation in Northern Iraq and Syria after driving out the Kurds. Tens of thousands of Kurds have already been driven out of Syria by the 'Syrian Rebels' We are on the wrong side here, unless there never was a War on Terror to begin with.

[Billy Love]

40. Um, even one tiny strike will break out an all-out war.

No, no strikes. Not even a fart.

It's the Arab League's problem and they need to handle it first.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Against.

[Initech]

22. Hmmmm... let me put it this way:

[City Lights]

23. Put me down as against.

I don't want to get involved in another country's civil war. Too many unknowns.

[spartan61]

24. I am totally against any

military action in Syria. We are war weary after so many years of war. What good did it do to go into Iraq? Things there are now worse than they ever were. If we bomb Syria, we have no clue what else it could lead to. This should be handled by the UN and not just the USA. It's time to use all the money that we have spent on wars and killing to start rebuilding our own country and its crumbling infrastructure.

[locks]

25. I have always supported Obama

but I emailed my Congressman and both Senators (all good Dems) that I cannot support ANY military intervention in Syria and I have supported Obama because I believed he would stop these crazy wars, cut the military and use the money for health, education and the environment.

[Nite Owl]

26. I am against

a military action. Too many innocent lives will be lost, it won't be Assad or his command as they know what is coming and will keep safe.

[Melynn]

27. I believe in Obama

And I trust his judgement. Whatever he does, I will support.

[northoftheborder]

28. Opposed to military action.

[sabrina 1]

30. Completely against it!

[cloudbase]

31. Against, until such time that the president

can honestly articulate the issues that are a threat to our national security. At that point, I will reevaluate.

[LuvNewcastle]

32. No how, no way

[LWolf]

33. YES.

I am against military action anywhere.

[Blue_In_AK]

35. I am a pacifist.

I am against military action.

[BillyRibs]

36. This is a false flag operation. The Answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

If it isn't a false flag operation, it will be the exception to the rule for the last 100 years.

[robinlynne]

37. against.

[Billy Love]

38. Very much against.

It is an Arab League problem, not the United States. Let them deal with it, and lead the attack, not us.

[backscatter712]

41. I'm against it.

Even assuming the accusations of chemical warfare were true, and it was the Assad regime that was responsible, how are we supposed to fix it? Blowing things up in Syria isn't going to be helpful.

[broiles]

42. Against. It's none of our business.

[PDittie]

43. 100% against.

[Th1onein]

44. Peace purist here. YES, I am against it.

[rug]

45. Against.

[adieu]

47. No military conflict.

No way, no how, never ever, ever again.

[Madam Mossfern]

49. Against

Is there something in the water in DC?
My Senator, Menendez has already come out for it.

I hate to say it, but I may have to resign from my district leader position and my membership to the Democratic party if this goes down.

[Ford_Prefect]

50. Hell No! We have no business getting into the middle of a civil war.

It serves no purpose for the U.S. to kill more Syrians of any persuasion. No kind of military action on our part will stop the civil war between the various factions who claim to be against Assad, yet who are murdering each other and civilians in several areas of Syria.

There is no such thing as a limited attack (as was supposed to be the case in Libya). Any action will require follow-up actions which will likely lead to collateral deaths, if not larger and more involved actions.

As it stands there is questionable evidence as to the source of the gas attacks. There is also some credible suggestion that one of the militias released the gas in at least one location.
http://original.antiwar.com/Dale-Gavlak/2013/08/30/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack/

IMO: Strategically this is one more fight about the oil in the region and appears to be one of the opening plays in a long war to attack Iran. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023569321

[Taverner]

53. I am against military action

Kill the empire before it kills us

[kimbutgar]

54. money for war and not for the people is

fill in the blank

[Violet_Crumble]

55. I'm opposed to it...

*If* there is proof that the Syrian govt is using chemical weapons on its own people, and *if* the UNSC decided to take action on a multilateral level, then I'd support it.

[Chan790]

56. Yes.

I'm an humanitarian and an interventionist, I believe that we (and global society) do factually have a total singular moral obligation to confront crimes against humanity and genocide regardless of other factors, even in the face of overwhelming public opposition. The price of being a global power is being a global policeman. Objective right and wrong is not a popularity contest.

Unsurprisingly, I'm a strident and vocal opponent of unconditional pacifism, isolationism, anti-diplomacy and anti-war movements. Altogether, they represent the lowest points of human thinking of the 20^th century. To advocate non-involvement in the face of genocide and call it "peace" is to be guilty of one of the most fundamental evils of all time.

I supported intervention in the Balkans. I advocated for intervention in Afghanistan in the 1990s when the Taliban was rising to power. I screamed for intervention in Darfur. I protested apartheid in South Africa. I organized for US involvement in the ICC. I will not be quiet now. I have no respect for those who oppose humanitarian intervention...they're as unworthy of respect as those that commit the atrocities their silence permits.

[TM99]

59. I have some questions for you Chan.

Are we a global power? Yes, we have the military might, but do we have the moral superiority given the fact that we have perpetrated genocides and used WMD's ourselves?

Can we say we are capable of being the global policeman when we have higher levels of incarcerations, some of the lowest levels of health care, education, and social services compared to even countries like Cuba and China?

Given our current deficits and finances, can we as a nation afford to intervene in every other countries affairs when 'crimes against humanity' occur? As you noted, we have not done so every time, but really only those times in which doing so also met our financial, political, or power interests in that particular region.

Here is my final question, have you actually fought in any of these 'police actions'? It is one thing to claim to be an ardent interventionist and have 'organized', it is quite another to actually have your boots on the ground in one of these conflicts. Have you seen the actual physical results of our interventions? Do you have the sense memories of those horrors? Because if you did, you would likely think very very differently.

Sadly, you do sound like nothing more than the 'liberal' equivalent of a war hawk - lots of talk about the moral & even 'spiritual' obligations and yet, you have no real concept of what is involved and what the real outcome of these 'police actions' really are like.

[senseandsensibility]

94. Excellent post.

I admire for keeping your cool and expressing yourself logically and yes, even elegantly. I agree with what you wrote, but I also am in awe of your writing style.

[TM99]

99. Thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. I took action against apartheid, which was destoryed without war, and war would have been a bad way

to end it. I met Nelson Mandela and Gregory Peck in the same day after apartheid fell, in part because the former government had banned me from entry proactively, meaning I never asked to go there, they wrote to tell me I was never, ever welcome there. And you would have liked us to bomb the shit out of Capetown?
I also note not one word about your personal part in any military action. Ever been anywhere near such a thing?

[LibAsHell]

57. Hell fucking yes I'm against it

The Arab League, Syria, and Syria's neighbors should be responsible for dealing with this problem. We should engage and exert political pressure to facilitate the process, but bombing an already war-ravaged country is absolutely idiotic.

[Jasana]

60. No. No. And Hell No. No Intervention!

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:18 AM - Edit history (1)

We can not afford to be the world's policeman anymore. This is insane. We've been "involved" in the ME for how long now? And where has it got us? Nowhere so... No. No. NO!

[B Calm]

61. Hell yes I'm against it.

[eridani]

62. Absolutely against. There are no good guys in this fight

And no strategy that could possibly result in anything other than massively adding to the body count that already exists.

[JCMach1]

63. There are no clear military objectives in Syria beyond making a point...

missiles are not rhetoric...

[99Forever]

64. Completely, utterly opposed.

We are not the world's police force.

[karynnj]

65. The alternative to a strike is not peace

Words are important here. The choice is not war or peace. It is the ongoing civil war with a US strike as "punishment", but not to change the outcome OR the ongoing civil war, In both cases, the US is an "ally" of some, but not all, of the rebels.

The problems of thinking we can chose peace is that we have been involved by some accounts since before Obama took the Presidency. What I hate is that this is yet another example of where we are hurt by covert (but hidden badly) actions that leave us in very awful positions. (Then you have the neo cons arguing that we should have gone all in in 2011 or 2012 - though as one person noted Romney did not run on that.

[senseandsensibility]

107. The alternative to a strike is peace for us.

As I see it, we can remain peaceful and try to help through peaceful means in any way we can. True, that will not quickly or definitely make the situation in Syria peaceful. But I don't think strikes will either. By striking, neither side has peace.

[Harmony Blue]

66. I am against intervention in Syria

It is a proxy war, with religious strife, and ethnic strife throw in as well. Way to complex to resolve with a punitive, limited war and the chemical weapon sites will not be fully secured.

[n2doc]

67. Against

Tired of these dick-swinging exercises by our leaders that only end up killing more people.

[malaise]

68. 100% against

International law applies to all countries- time to stop the Western powers from violating international law.

[MH1]

69. I'm deeply skeptical but trying to keep an open mind.

Clearly there are facts and factors of which I'm unaware. If the decision is made to take military action, it's unlikely anyone will update me on the rationale sufficiently to quell my misgivings. But I'm not going to automatically assume it's the wrong decision or jump on the "Obama is EVIL!!!1!" bandwagon over this.

[KharmaTrain]

70. Part Of A Truly International Coalition...

...I far prefer using the threat of force to get parties to the table to negotiate a settlement. I am also very much against any U.S. unilateral action. However, I do support a U.S. involvement in an international coalition that includes members of the Arab League and other nearby states (not Israel) in a mission to locate and then eliminate the stockpiles of chemical weapons. I do not favor American ground forces in either a military or "peace-keeping" fashion but do support assisting other countries who can be effective in that country.

The problem now is that I suspect Assad has disbursed his arsenal and any simple missile strikes would be ineffective. It's not in the U.S. best interests to get involved in this proxy war and there's little of economic value in Syria. We've never had very good relations with this country and there are very few good options for this country to support. We need to let this war play out, but it can and must be done without mass murder...chemical or otherwise. I applaud the President for taking a step back and let's now see how our elected representatives decide...

[Celefin]

71. Against military intervention; instead use the money saved to help refugees

[a la izquierda]

73. 100% against it.

I'm a historian. This record has played before and it's skipped many a time. I'm over our role as kingmaker.

[Iggo]

74. Yup.

[smokey nj]

75. Yes, I am.

[oldhippie]

76. Against

It won't help.

[Little Star]

78. Against.....

Yep, against and I don't buy ant explanation I've heard yet.

Humanitarian, my ass. Too bad that wasn't the truth though.

[handmade34]

79. I have never believed in punishment...

like spanking a kid as punishment for hitting his sibling...

time to rearrange dynamics...

[Nye Bevan]

83. So what if we do nothing, Assad sees that he can get away with it,

and kills 20,000 rebels with his next chemical attack? And 50,000 in the one after that?

Or some other despot somewhere else sees that nobody is prepared to enforce the treaties against chemical weapons, and is emboldened to build up and use his own supplies?

If this could be avoided by a few limited and smartly targeted strikes, wouldn't that be a good thing?

This whole situation is quite a bit more nuanced and complicated than "I'm against war", "Give peace a chance", and "war.... What is it good for?" etc.

[handmade34]

88. hence the change in dynamics

no easy answers here

[Arctic Dave]

81. Against it.

It doesn't serve any purpose for the US to get involved.

[randr]

84. I have always been anti war

I see war as the greatest sin of mankind and the ultimate failure of diplomacy.
However, I am conflicted by many of these situations where intervention against a psychopath may save and protect the innocent victims of atrocities. In the case of Bosnia and how well President Clinton handled the situation, I drew closer to the possibility that militaristic intervention can accomplish greater goals. The situation in Syria seems, to me, to be lacking in participation by the international community. The UN is the body that made the Bosnian conclusion possible and I would hope a diplomatic path is sought by these parties and that they assume the responsibility for the many thousands of peoples they proclaim to represent.

[avebury]

85. I am 1000% against taking military action in Syria.

First of all, I am not sure that we even know without a shadow of a doubt who committed the act. How do we know that we would actually be taking out the "bad guys'? If you are going to lob bombs at someone there is no room for error. May I point out that the world managed to "encourage" South Africa to do away with apartheid without ever resorting to military action.

The Middle East functions in a different way then the Western World. There is a history of the US being suckered into taking action which was unwarranted. Just look at the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed during Bush Jr.'s war. If the Saudis and other persons of interest are so interested in overturning the Syrian regime then let them take care of business.

The US needs to stop being the lap dog to countries like Saudi Arabia (which by the way produced the 9-11 hijackers).

[bigtree]

86. NEVER military action UNLESS the U.S. is attacked

. . . or one of our allies is attacked.

[senseandsensibility]

109. That seems like a good guideline

I really don't understand what is to be gained by intervening in this horrible situation. I can see an increase in both Syrian and American deaths actually.

[rock]

87. I am against unilateral action in Syria

We have no grounds for action on out own.

[jessie04]

89. I was against... now i say YES.

I know i'm in the minority here.

I support the President.

[jsr]

90. Syria is a clusterfuck. We should stay out of their ethnic and sectarian conflict:

[Enthusiast]

91. I am against military action in Syria.

The US has engaged in far too much Middle East military action. Just get the fuck out of their countries. And no, I no longer trust the President. I feel my trust was misplaced.

[jsr]

92. But wait, there's more: Assad is Hitler. We must attack Syria to protect Israel.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/white-house-congress-syria-protect-israel-96133.html
White House to Congress: Help protect Israel
By: Jonathan Allen
September 1, 2013 07:10 AM EDT

The Obama administration is using a time-tested pitch to get Congress to back military strikes in Syria: It will help protect Israel.

Israel’s enemies, including Iran and the terrorist group Hezbollah, could be emboldened if Congress fails to approve action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, senior administration officials said Saturday.

And for the second day in a row, President Barack Obama publicly cited the threat against Israel if Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons goes unchecked. “It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq,” Obama said Saturday in the Rose Garden. “It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”

Secretary of State John Kerry also referred to Israel repeatedly as he made the rounds on all five major Sunday morning news shows — as well as comparing Assad to Adolf Hitler.

[damnedifIknow]

95. Stop the madness

Again.

[mountain grammy]

96. Every civilized country should intervene against genocide anywhere...

but military intervention from America... NO WAY!!

[Vashta Nerada]

97. Our government can't even take care of its own people.

I'm 100% against military action in Syria.

[mike_c]

98. 100 percent opposed to attacking Syria....

eom

[Raksha]

100. I am totally, 100% opposed to any American intervention in Syria,

regardless who used the CW.

That said, though, I think it matters A LOT who used them and especially who supplied them. I can't believe the U.N. investigation team was asked not to question witnesses about that issue, especially when it's known already--assuming of course that you want to know.

In the absence of any official finding, the default position of many in the Arab world and their sympathizers is to blame Israel.

Many are convinced it was an Israeli false-flag operation, and the kind of vitriolic anti-Semitism I've seen on one pro-Assad Syrian Facebook page is frightening. True, it all came from one individual who is obviously mentally unbalanced, but it's significant that the page owner hasn't blocked him. And there are a lot more where he came from--after all, there are anti-Semitic lunatics everywhere.

[TBF]

104. Against. nt

[Coyotl]

105. Yes, all of it, every bit of it.

All the parties seem to have false agendas, such as Sharia law, sectarianism, pipeline interests, oil revenues, .....

Some say they want democracy, but war just kills voters.