This Modern World: And Away We Go -- - Nothing Says "We Care" Like A Tomahawk Missile Strike

[kpete]

?1377889701

[adirondacker]

1. Spot ON! nt

[n2doc]

2. It shows that Obama is SERIOUS! Leaders must listen to what he says!

After all, as the leader of the free world(tm) it is critically important that people RESPECT what he says.

[RoccoR5955]

10. Don't you mean

The Sheriff of the World Police?

[sabrina 1]

13. I always wondered about that 'leader of the free world' thing. Do they know

that the free world has its own, mostly democratically elected leaders?

[HumansAndResources]

82. "Free Countries"?? Oh, The Ones Supporting Death Squads

When Reagan bombed the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Bengasi in April he claimed that the Sandinistas were "building up another Libya in the shadow of the United States." And during the most serious moments of the battle between Congress and the White House over contra aid, Reagan declared during a meeting with contra leaders Arturo Cruz, Alfonso Robelo and Adolfo Calero, "I'm a contra, too."

... and then ...

Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels | Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330

... it's not like the same guys are in charge no matter who we elect ... or something.

But returning to your point, their "democratically elected" leaders mostly support the wars as well - at least, the elected-leaders that "we" don't call 'dictators', because they aren't tools of the Transnational Corporations and obedient in the UN. The latter are "made examples of" and face the consequences. Loose that food-aid and bankster-investment money, and you will find it difficult to get 're-elected'.

Democracy could work much better, when Individual Citizens are not "de-facto homeless" without "paycheck-permission" to live - stripped of their shares of their nation's land and natural resources. But at that point, 'national government' would only exist to defend from foreign-invasions.

[sabrina 1]

91. Well, I'm talking about European countries, Latin American countries, Australia, India, iow,

the rest of the world who have their OWN leaders, and as far as I know, none have elected the US President as their leader. So who are they referring to when they say 'The Leader of the Free World'? We are probably the most unpopular country on the planet right now and I doubt that any of these sovereign nations view the US President as any kind of 'leader' of any of their countries.

[cheapdate]

17. From my perspective, if it's true that Bashar Al-Assad used nerve gas

to kill all of those people in West Ghouta, then he deserves a message that only a cruise missile can deliver. And if he didn't seem to understand the message and was to do it again, then he would deserve another message. The use of nerve gas by a state as an instrument of war should not be tolerated, for reasons that should be obvious.

This doesn't mean that I'm in favor of unilateral action by the US -- I'm not.

Nor am I concerned about such irrelevant considerations as "US credibility" or, "the appearance of weakness" or, any other such superficial concerns. The concern is over the use of nerve gas. It's neither a hypothetical nor a speculative concern. Nerve gas was used to kill roughly 1,000 or more people in a gruesome and grisly manner.

I don't support US action unless it's part of a clear and unequivocal agreement by the UN Security Council.

I'm concerned that the proof that the Syrian government was responsible is not solid enough, although I believe that likelihood that they (the Syrian government) were responsible is almost overwhelming. The incident took place while the Syrian government was in it's third day of heavy bombardment of the West Ghouta suburb.

But there is not incontrovertible proof.

And in a truly fucked-up situation, punishing Assad might make the situation worse if it resulted in al-Qaeda elements acquiring possession of part of Assad's chemical weapons stockpile.

[n2doc]

22. What message is that?

Obama has said he won't assassinate Assad. So we blow up some stuff, maybe kill a few of his military, so what? If Russia wants they can send more chemicals over.

If we kill Assad then Al Qaida takes over. Then we have to fight them. On the ground. Just like in Iraq. The days of installing our own hand-picked Shah are long gone.

This is all such kindergarden level stuff, it would be funny, except that people have and will die.

[Enthusiast]

30. It doesn't pass the smell test.

There is something else in the works.

Maybe someone will hit some of our guys. Maybe we will lose some personnel. The President can say, "This will not stand." Or something equivalent.

[cheapdate]

47. The message would be that there will be a significant price to pay

for using nerve agents in populated areas. You are correct in that it's a message that a kindergartener could understand. Even a short action by the US could inflict substantial losses to the Assad government's military capabilities.

There is no good answer in Syria.

[n2doc]

49. So, we weaken Assad, and strengthen Al Qaida?

Because that is the end result in a Civil War. One side gets weaker, the other gets an advantage.

If there is no good answer, then why bomb? You have to realize that if Assad isn't killed, then our actions will only improve his stature among those who hate America. He may lose some military assets but gain stronger followers. Even Saddam played that card.

[HumansAndResources]

83. Russian CW? Or Saudi Arabian?

The Saudis are the ones who allegedly supplied the 'rebels' with their nerve-gas (given all we have are allegations all around).

I'm not aware of any evidence Russia sold/gave chemical weapons to Assad, though they did plan to sell some purely defensive systems, and was roundly attacked - given how all nations are obliged to lie prostrate to "humane" Western Bombing. After all, if one of "our" people were to die while murdering thousands of "them" - that would be a moral tragedy.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly. Why support Al Qaida (pronounced "CIA-duh&quot ... again??

[lyonn]

23. You laid out the pros and cons very well

Syria is a political mess. The message we get from that country is that there are so many factions, the good, the bad and the ugly - ok - silly example. Deciding who the biggest bad guys there is complicated. But, I like the way you outline it.......

It seems obvious that the U.S. would/should get world support for any action.

Edit: When in doubt don't shoot......

[awoke_in_2003]

45. There are no pros. nt

[cheapdate]

48. Do you think that using nerve agents on populated areas

is nothing that should require a substantive response?

[n2doc]

50. Violence begets violence

Perhaps a response that differs from violence. Perhaps sanctions. Let Assad know that he is a prisoner of Syria forever, that if he sets one foot outside of there he will be arrested and taken to the Hague for trial. Perhaps locking up all outside funds of his government. Declare his government to be illegitimate and remove his ambassadors from the UN and all other nations.

I don't hear much along these lines. All I hear is "blow shit up".

[cheapdate]

54. I believe there is much more going on along

those lines than gets discussed in the popular media. At some point, the gruesomeness of chemical war transcends strongly worded condemnations and endless debates by the international community and demands direct action to stop the killing.

[Scootaloo]

52. So the purpose is to basically masturbate our sense of self-righteousness?

Because some things are very clear:

1) Throwing missiles at Syria will not help Syria
2) Missiles will not diminish anyone's ability to use chemical weapons
3) Civilians blown up by tomahawk missiles are just a dead.
4) by degrading conventional weapons, it makes the use of chemical more likely
5) Weakening Assad does not do anything to halt the real problem, the civil war itself
6) US involvement could spread the conflict further than it already has and place our allies in the region in danger of reprisal attacks

That is to say that lobbing missiles at Syria will only be COUNTER-productive to any meaningful goal, whether it be strategic or humanitarian. The only reason to do it, and hte only reason I've seen anyone advocate it, is so that the US "looks tough" on a moral question.

[cheapdate]

58. That's an outrageously cynical way to frame

what is essentially a simple and straightforward moral question.

No, I would not say that the purpose would be "to basically masturbate our sense of self-righteousness", at least not from my perspective, nor would it be to "look tough".

The purpose would be to express to the Assad government in the most blunt terms possible that using nerve gas on populated areas will not go unpunished or ignored.

[Scootaloo]

64. I don't think you understand the concept of morals.

As I explained, a missile strike at Syria would be - in the very best-case scenario - utterly irrelevant. In the worse scenarios, such a strike makes things worse - For the Syrians and for the other nations in the region and for ourselves. What is an act that causes no benefit to anyone and carries lots of real or potential harm? It's an immoral act, isn't it?

Can you respond to one immoral act with another, and pretend to have taken a moral stance? Of course not, two wrongs don't make a right.

So what I think is going on in your head is that you saw this awful thing happen, and you feel bad. So you think "something needs to be done" that will make you feel better. So you want to blow up some more Syrians, to "make a gesture" or "send a message," so that your conscience can be salved. It's all about you, what you want, how you feel - the people of Syria are just props to the angsty high school play happening inside your conscience.

Look at those "goals" - "do something," "send a message," "make a gesture." They're all very non-substantive, aren't they? Tell me. If Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against Syrians, do you think that throwing a few missiles at him "as a gesture" will make him blush and apologize? "Oops, my bad, won't happen again"? "Tee hee, oh you got me!" "Aw shucks, I guess you're right, I HAVE been naughty!" I can only hope you're not so deluded.

Punishment? You mean like twelve years of sanctions and the occasional hail of missiles "Punished" Saddam's brutality? Exactly what hardship do you imagine Bashar Assad will face, here? Nothing, is what. Several of his soldiers - who, I'm sure it will surprise you, are not evil, terrible subhumans in need of immediate death - will have their innards turned into outtards. With them no doubt hundreds or even thousands of civilians will die because - as it turns out? Explosions aren't very discriminate killers. How fortunate for your freshly-salved conscience then, that you will be able to dismiss the death tolls we create in Syria as nothing more than propaganda.

You want to have a moral position? Apply your fucking brain to a solution for ending the war that's causing the whole problem in the first place, instead of just lazily coasting along with whatever mindless option is handed to you by someone with authority.

[cheapdate]

71. We agree that for the sake of argument

the Assad government used nerve agents on a populated area and killed roughly 1,000 people is a true statement.

First, you argue that no limited military action by the US would have any positive influence whatsoever over the Syrian government's behavior, especially the likelihood that they will use chemical attacks in the future.

You seem to believe, quite inaccurately, that the proposed military action would consist of "throwing a few missiles at him", when in fact such an action would most probably entail an intense and sustained bombardment from five carrier groups in the Mediterranean, two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, as well as other aircraft and assets based in various places around the region.

You seem to believe with much confidence, that a US strike against Syria would have a null effect, that is, that it would have the same effect as no strike at all. I would suggest that your confidence in this proposition is overblown.

It's challenging to wade through your juvenile sarcasm and and irresponsible claims of a personal nature (e.g. "the people of Syria are just props to the angsty high school play happening inside your conscience", etc., etc.) and look for valid arguments or premises that may be questioned.

I was going to, but, fuck it. It's not worth it for me to attempt to treat civilly with someone who obviously has no regard for respectful, civil discussion. I can trash talk as well as you can, I promise, but that's not my plan for today.

Enjoy Basahr Al-Assad's next nerve gas massacre. You own it.


(P.S. ever been to Port Angeles, WA?)

[Scootaloo]

75. You know, I was accused of "supporting Saddam" in 2003, too.

So this shit:

Enjoy Basahr Al-Assad's next nerve gas massacre. You own it.

Neither bothers me nor strengthens your case.

My first point is that hammering Syria with missiles - whether it's a handful or a hundred handfulls - is not a moral action. Not because it will have no effect - in fact that's the best we can hope for - but because it's far more likely to have a very detrimental effect.

There's seven factions fighting in Syria right now. Taking down the strongest of the seven isn't going to stop the fighting, it's going to prolong it. That's how this stuff works. Prolonged fighting, of course, means more people dying. It also means the existing factions are more likely to keep fragmenting, which is another factor in prolonging the conflict.

It's also likely that many of these factions will take the occasion of our missile attacks to step up their own fighting - whether it's the opposition groups taking advantage of damage to the government's power, or the government using what it has while it has it... again, more dead people.

As I mentioned, damaging Assad's ability to use conventional methods of warfare is simply going to make him lean more on unconventional methods - 'cause I can tell you, he's not going to be conceding this fight.

Several opposition groups, as well as Iran, have made the claim that they will use these attacks on Syria as a pretext to attack American interests in the region, particularly within Israel and Iraq. While I suspect iran is blowing out its ass, I have no doubts the mujahadeen will do their best to carry through exactly as they say, or at least make the attempt. Again, more dead people - and his time likely to draw in other nations, more than they already are.

All this, so we could "send a message."

[cheapdate]

109. I agree with most all of your points

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

regarding the downside risks of strikes against the Assad government in Syria. These are the reasons why I am not in favor of strikes.

I don't agree with your position that it's patently obvious that a powerful strike against major military assets of the Syrian regime (i.e. "sending a message&quot in retribution for their purported use of chemical weapons would have no influence on Assad's future decisions regarding the use of chemical weapons. This flies in the face of basic human experience (you touch a fire, you get burned, so you don't touch a fire.)

Assuming that this conflict continues (which of course it will) and the Assad government and it's bases of power become increasingly threatened (which they may) it's easily conceivable that they (the Assad government) may turn to chemical weapons more frequently anytime Damascus is threatened, especially if they know they can do so without fear of any reprisal or repercussions.

But if they know for certain that the price of doing so will be a punishing attack by the combined air and naval forces of the United States and other allies against their own government and military, I say that's certain to temper their enthusiasm.

Also, weakening Assad through a limited strike isn't going to bring him down -- it's not designed to. But if there is any chance whatsoever of Assad ever going to the negotiating table to negotiate a settlement with the rebels, this (strikes) will surely increase the chances of that happening.

[Scootaloo]

110. Well, here's the thing...

I don't agree with your position that it's patently obvious that a powerful strike against major military assets of the Syrian regime (i.e. "sending a message&quot in retribution for their purported use of chemical weapons would have no influence on Assad's future decisions regarding the use of chemical weapons. This flies in the face of basic human experience (you touch a fire, you get burned, so you don't touch a fire.)

As you yourself point out, an increasingly desperate fighting faction probably wouldn't consider itself very constrained by the rules of warfare - they never are, never have been, never will be. This is where child soldiers, poisoned wells, mass rapes, all the fun stuff we see in the Congolese wars comes from - desperate factions making last-ditch efforts to do whatever it takes to make their opponents fall back even a few steps. And if that desperation is rooted in the lack of viable conventional weapons, while stocks of chemical weapons remain unharmed and accessible...

Also, to one of your earlier posts... we don't necessarily agree that the Assad government did this. I'm not one to rule it out, but I see three possibilities.

1) A rebel faction used a Syrian military operation as cover for their own strike at the Free Syrian Army. Remember why Assad had invited the UN inspectors to Syria? because [i[someone was apparently using nerve agents. Remember back in June, when Turkish police nabbed a group of al-Nusra militia in southern Turkey and found them in possession of sarin? Remember how al-Nusrah is the "al qaeda" faction (quotes because 'al qaeda' is becoming meaningless shorthand in stuff like this...) and is fighting the other factions and the Syrians? With the explicitly started goal of killing or otherwise removing as many Christians and Shia from the land of Syria as possible?

2) Assad's government did it intentionally; I actually find this the least likely scenario, to be honest... because as I noted, UN inspectors were present, had been invited, and fact is Assad is winning in Damascus and would have nothing to gain. Intentionally using chemical weapons would be an irrational act, especially given that Bashar Assad is, all asshole dictator features aside, not an irrational man. Rather the opposite, actually. Throwing gas at a won fight, while inspectors are present... that's something Saddam Hussein would do, just to show how mighty he is... it's not something Assad would do for any reason.

3) Assad's government used the weapons unintentionally; this one's actually two possibilities. One, a simple (but fucking horrible) mix-up with a munitions delivery. Supposed to be death by fire and metal, gets death by gas instead. The other, and frankly more disturbing possibility is that Assad's grip on his own military is weakening further, to the point of commanders basically doing whatever the hell they want, regardless of word from Damascus. Either way this is somewhat backed by the apparent confusion and disorder in the Syrian units present at the time, after the attack. If they knew what happened, why would they have been confused and bewildered?

In all three scenarios, the US firing missiles at Syria is, at the very best, pointless. If it's 1, we're just helping some other asshole out, and actually encouraging them to do it again. If 2, we're dealing with an irrational nutball who will do whatever he wants anyway. If 3a, we're not telling Assad anything he doesn't already know with our "message," and if 3b), unless we specifically target the units that are going rogue, then all we're doing is punishing a regime for getting backstabbed by its own military.

I really, honestly think our effort and treasury are better used helping the victims of this war, rather than creating more of them.

[drynberg]

74. I agree, Scootaloo, but fear most Americans aren't hearing any of these arguments

From the MSM...I fear that Congress will wobble to a decision within about ten days and then so many more will die and the war will spread outta control...very scary. Please do all you can out there in DU land to raise actions of Americans before Congress votes.

[juajen]

55. We have learned from the past that anything can be staged!

I have no faith that we are being told the honest to God truth. They keep on staging. I see nothing different in this new endeavor.

[cheapdate]

59. I don't have any doubt that there was a release of nerve gas

in West Ghouta on August 21 that killed roughly 1,000 people. Practically everyone acknowledges that, including the Syrian government. What is in dispute is who was responsible.

[juajen]

53. Yep, but we are the "shoot and ask questions later" bandits

[Cryptoad]

27. NO,,,

a drone is more selective in its target!

[me b zola]

44. Who will the cruise missile target? Assad?

More "little people" killed for ruler's games. I can't see how this will punish Assad.

[cheapdate]

51. Even a short action could inflict substantial losses to the Assad government's

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

military capabilities. A short action lasting a few days could potentially target Syrian air assets including air defenses, aircraft, and attack helicopters. Syrian artillery could be targeted as well.

Or we could punish him with a strongly worded letter or harsh words at the UN.

Or we could simply let him use nerve agents on populated areas as he will with impunity.

(on edit: or we could continue to make the case at the UN that Syria was responsible and that punitive action is required -- which is the approach I favor.)

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

62. Yes, we will be killing "little people" to show that killing "little people"

is wrong.
The side that kills the most "little people" wins.
It all makes perfect sense.

[Marrah_G]

70. How many innocent civilians should die so he can be delivered his message?

You know innocent people die in these bombing, right? You know we don't have any magic missles that only hit bad people, right?

[cheapdate]

72. There is no crystal ball.

Of course I know that innocent people die when bombs fall, and will die if the US launches an attack. I also know that innocent people die gruesome and grisly deaths when nerve agents are dispersed over populated areas.

The question you present is which course of action preserves the most life? I certainly don't know the answer. I can't say that a US reprisal attack would kill X number of civilians, but would prevent Y number of civilian deaths from future chemical attacks by the Assad government -- attacks that will never happen because the last time the Assad government did it they were subjected to an intense and sustained bombardment by 5 US carrier groups in the Mediterranean and another 2 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.

[rpannier]

78. I have a question about that

If Assad's army had dropped 100 bombs or fired indiscriminately into the same area and had killed all those people would you have advocated missile attacks?
If not. Then my question is why?
The same or more people are dead. What makes a chemical weapon strike worse than bombing, firing indiscriminately or using agent orange?

[cheapdate]

80. Yes, dead is dead.

But after the horror of WWI, the nations of the world agreed that chemical warfare was so gruesome and horrible that it should never be allowed to happen again. And this was before nerve agents like VX and sarin were even invented.

That's your answer. Because chemical nerve agents are so gruesome and gassing people like vermin is something that many people consider beyond the pale, even within the frame of warfare.

[Ocelot]

19. "free world(tm)"?

Right, the same exact rationale that Bush used: fake evidence and the Saudis want it, so we'd better do their dirty work for them.

[lark]

43. What about the following part?

Not one country wants to follow us into the cluster fuck that Obama is proposing. Wonder why that is? Maybe they don't want to be part of the retaliation. After Iraq, maybe they learned something that Obama obviously missed, like give the inspectors time to do their jobs?

[n2doc]

46. France might. Maybe. Israel would rather let us do the hard stuff.

The one thing Shrub may have done is to finally destroy America's ability to drag others into fights. At least so long as there is no direct attack on US soil. Obama may find out that he no longer is "the leader of the free world" because the free world rejects him. I am sure some will blame that, if it happens, on racism. I personally think that the rest of the world, for various reasons, sees the US as a monster who can't be trusted/followed. And I think this is because of the perpetual war on terror we have decided to wage on the rest of the planet, with drone assassinations, spying and bullying. We have lied too many times. We are too powerful to take on, but we can be isolated/shunned.

[lark]

103. Have heard nothing affirmative about France taking part.

Have you?

[cheapdate]

61. Not true. Many countries in the region are pushing for action,

including Syria's neighbors Turkey and Jordan. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have offered material support. France has called for action. There are others as well.

[HumansAndResources]

86. Paragons of Virtue? I don't find any evidence of moral-authority there.

Why is it that France is against war, except in its former colonies in the ME / Africa ??

As to Turkey, its "OK" when they slaughter Kurds and run clandistine ops in the USA.

For that matter, it's also OK when Syrian "rebels" (read: Western-terrorist proxy-army) slaughters Kurds.

Granted, those Kurds were "leftists," which could explain a lot. All who claim "the land belongs to the people" run into trouble with Western Transnational Hegemony.

[cheapdate]

87. Yes, no one's hands are clean.

Therefore no one has the moral authority to condemn the Syrian government's use of nerve agents on populated areas. Down with the empire!

[deutsey]

95. Is it definite that the Syrian government is responsible?

Assad-hole is certainly capable of it. But as you say upthread, what remains in dispute is who actually committed this atrocity. Would such an act be beneath Al Qaeda or other rebel factions to provoke US action against Assad?

[cheapdate]

104. That would, of course, depend on who you ask.

There are a constellation of circumstances that point to Assad, and a wide range of reasons why it's far more plausible that Assad is responsible than the rebels, at least as I see it.

I think the evidence is as good as it's going to get, barring some new, dramatic revelations.

As I understand the technical details of sarin gas, any residue left behind, as on shell fragments or open canisters, degrades or evaporates in a short time -- a matter of hours.

So, I think we're left with the picture that the terrible incident took place on the afternoon of August 21, while Assad's forces were shelling the West Ghouta suburb, as they had been doing for the past three days. There is no dispute over the fact that Assad's government possesses a large stockpile of functional chemical warheads, as well as the artillery pieces and the trained gunners needed to deliver the shells on target.

I don't really know all of the details of the evidence for Assad's responsibility. Reports have been produced by the governments of France and the US that purport to present the evidence in detail. They're available online but I haven't read them.

Obviously, the Assad government vigorously denies the accusations and blames the rebels or others. There are also, I understand, reports of another eleven or so earlier incidents of nerve gas attacks on a smaller scale, and which again, many blame on the Assad government and which the Assad government vigorously denies.

Bottom line, in my view, I don't believe you could say the evidence is incontrovertible, although I think it strongly points to Assad.

(BTW: I'm against military action in Syria, just so you know.)

[deutsey]

111. That's my understanding as well

and if he's losing control, as some claim (although there are conflicting views on that, too), you can see where he might do something this terrible out of desperation.

Still, there is no ironclad case against Asswad (sic), at least not at this point, and that's what puzzles me about the Obama Administration's rush to strike early on. They basically were saying, oh trust us, Assad did it, we have to strike now. Why not lay out the case if they were so certain? Because, as the UK Parliament and even some Democrats in Congress are saying, their evidence is apparently very debatable or at the very least doesn't pose a threat to us directly.

That's one of the reasons I'm very suspicious of their motives. Even if they're being up front, it seemed like they were playing up the emotional aspect of this atrocity but not really backing up anything with substantial evidence or a convincing case. That reminds me very much of the lead up to Iraq.

Another reason I'm opposed to intervention is that America is essentially crumbling from within. Detroit is a disaster area, the national infrastructure's falling apart, we're told we have to cut and cut and cut when it comes to the needs of our children, our elderly, our own community health and safety, but we have enough money to bail out the banksters that screwed us all over in '08 AND to go intervene in a complicated foreign clusterfuck that could very well blow up in our faces ("our" being the poor and middle class kids whose feet will have to fill the "boots on the ground" if the situation over there deteriorates).

As you can tell, I'm becoming very cynical...but as Lily Tomlin said, no matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up.

[HumansAndResources]

113. Many of the Earlier CW Reports were Blamed on the Rebels

A UN Inspector admitted this. If they have some CW, they can get more - either from the Libyan stockpiles, from Saudi Arabia, etc.

Also, Assad was in a strong position - winning and taking back territory - about to go to peace-negotiations with the upper hand when this occurred - just as inspectors arrived. It is Very, Very Unlikely Assad would choose that moment to use CW.

OTOH, the "rebels" (Transnational Corporate Terrorist Proxy Army of the Middle East and Caucasuses) were loosing and needed a "bailout". These are suicide-bomber-types, trained in Saudi-funded Maddrasas, so quite capable of a "human sacrifice" or 1000 to get their way. All the "good ones" who die go straight to heaven, after all. We have to remember that THESE are the people who inherit Syria if "our" (sic) "rebels" win.

As to Moral Authority question above: Correct, the USA, a long-time supporter of CW-using regimes, who has lied to the world about who used CW before (Iran-Iraq war) and France, the former colonist of the area, have no moral authority what so ever in this matter regardless of what Assad actually does do, though all we know are the allegations of his known-liar enemies.

[cheapdate]

114. Assad was fighting the rebels in areas

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 06:04 PM - Edit history (2)

very close to Damascus with every thing he had available while the bulk of his army was tied down in fighting in other cities far away. That's my understanding of the actual situation on August 21 when nerve agents were dispersed over the West Ghouta suburb during a sustained Syrian military bombardment of the town. I don't know who told you that Assad was in a comfortable and strong position on August 21, but I think that story conflicts with reality. Assad was defending Damsacus and his base of power with everything he had.

In 2011, hundreds of thousands of Syrians participated in nationwide demonstrations against the 40-year rule of the Assad family. The Assad government reacted to the demonstrations with great violence, and the political dispute turned into an asymmetrical armed conflict that has gone on for two years, killed roughly 100,000 people, created more than 4 million refugees, and shows no sign of stopping any time soon.

You can frame the opposition however you wish. Your colorful descriptions speak for themselves and draw an unbelievably one-dimensional picture of a complex situation regarding the Syrian rebels and the mix of other factions, including foreign fighters who have come to Syria from all over the region, who are fighting the Assad government.

You may also frame the United States and other nations who you might find disagreeable, as "known-liar enemies". Who would you point to in this conflict as an example of someone who is not a "known-liar"? Assad? Putin? Screaming "Liar!" at people you disagree with isn't any way to discuss an issue, at least not any way that I'm interested in being a part of.

Your slogans are cute (Transnational Corporate Terrorist Proxy Army of the Middle East and Caucasuses), but they are unpersuasive in a general discussion.

[HumansAndResources]

115. Perhaps Familiarity With Bush's Support For the Jihadis in Libya Since 2007 Is More Persuasive?

...few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
... which in turn references S. Hersh, here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all

... the Guardian piece continues:

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

Thank goodness for "leaks" from hackers, or we might actually Believe The Lie that the US was the 'good guy' in all this - rather than one of the parties whose scheming - and, yes, with Jihadi-Terrorists as their proxies - is Directly Responsible for 100K Dead People.

[cheapdate]

116. Did George W. Bush cause millions of Syrians to stage nationwide demonstrations

in 2011 against the 40-year rule of the Assad family?

Was the CIA responsible for Assad responding to the nationwide protests with widespread, lethal violence -- turning the political dispute into an armed conflict?

Did Britain cause the Assad government and it's Russian-backed military to lay waste to Homs, Aleppo, and other towns and cities with massive artillery, air, and armored attacks?

Your analysis of the situation ignores a tremendous amount of context for the conflict -- the political, cultural, religious, historic, and economic background in Syria. You ascribe far too much agency to what really amounts to minor-level, clandestine maneuverings by the US and Britain -- and at the same time you deprive the Syrian people on each side of the conflict of having any real agency or influence on their own situation or destiny. The people of Syria are essentially powerless pawns in your view.

You attribute the popular dissatisfaction to the 40-year rule of the Assad family to relatively minor factors having to do with food and energy prices -- and make no mention of the increasingly corrupt, oppressive, and tyrannical nature of Bashar Al-Assad's government -- which are the real reasons for the popular demonstrations.

You even go so far as to absolve responsibility for any and all immoral or criminal acts, whether committed by the government or by the rebels, and claim the the US and their "proxies" are actually "Directly Responsible (sic)" for each and every death that has occured during this conflict.

You're perspective is stringently ideological and unrealistic. This is a pointless discussion.

[lark]

102. Are they supporting action materially?

If not, it's bogus to bring them up. Yay, Saudia Arabia is all for us killing more of their neighbors to keep the jihadist movement alive, why doesn't that comfort me any? France has called for action - what action and will they participate. If not, it's still us going it alone because none of those other places will take action with us.

[cheapdate]

108. I've heard variously that some are and some aren't.

It's a changing situation day by day. I don't have the time to follow the details at that level to know the country-by-country status on individual support for strikes against Syria. Last time I checked the Hollande government in France was all in.

I'm not all that familiar with Saudi Arabian politics, but I don't think it's precisely accurate to suggest that the Saudi government is interested in keeping the Wahabbi jihadist movement alive. I think the reality may be more muddled.

[mbperrin]

3. Couldn't have said it better.

k&r

[KoKo]

4. The NEW "Care Packages!" Mark our Rockets and Bombs with that Logo. n/t

[valerief]

5. Almost like the US was just looking for a reason to bomb Syria.

[RC]

12. Ya think?

If we do, they then have to replace all that expensive go boom thingies, they lob into Syria. Guess who pays?
And that kiddies, is why we can't have nice things like our Social Security COLA, or Universal Health Care.

[valerief]

14. Took the words right out of my mouth. nt

[daleanime]

16. Yeah, have to pay for important things first....

[suffragette]

18. Also add in the rationale for ever more surveillance and extra justification for the alphabet

Agencies to keep monitoring everything.

[KG]

6. that'll leave a mark.

[HughBeaumont]

7. . . . but hey, at least Chuckles isn't a member of the "Batshit Insane" party, right?

"Don't hate the player, hate the game!"

But what happens when the players are a PRODUCT of "The Game"?

[Supersedeas]

85. who writes the rules to this game, anyway?

he got game, but now he's got to play by their rules?

[Rebellious Republican]

8. Great post! K&R

[99Forever]

9. "So would a Facebook, with fewer casualties."

Perfect.

[reformist2]

11. We should be amazed we live in an age where this thinking is now mainstream!

[valerief]

15. The medium is the message, I guess. nt

[oldandhappy]

20. sob! admit it made me laugh.

[gulliver]

21. Basically just a glib gloss.

The satiric punch depends on readers being unaware that punishing a behavior reduces the likelihood of its repetition.

[Union Scribe]

25. Really? How's the drug war going? nt

[gulliver]

26. Another glib gloss. nt

[Bradical79]

34. An inconvenient question

Is not the same as glossing over the issue. You are the one that made the easily refutable statement.

[gulliver]

35. The defense rests. nt

[Bradical79]

37. sure

[chervilant]

29. What?!?

Your insupportable assertion would be laughable, if it weren't a common expectation among authoritarians of all political stripes. We're still hellbent on flogging our children with our poisonous pedagogy, stubbornly indifferent to the historical outcomes of such behavior. In fact, we've invented a plethora of ideologies to justify our actions.

Attacking Syria will not "teach" Assad any lessons, but it will certainly prove we haven't learned some critical lessons ourselves.

[gulliver]

31. Think context.

If you think that punishing Assad won't have an effect, both on Assad and on the mental state of the type of civilians who were attacked, you are just wrong. You actually have to relocate the context of what I said to infer I am advocating child beatings and drug wars. Your last sentence shows that you get what I am saying. Your first paragraph shows the kind of rhetoric you think is in bounds.

[chervilant]

38. "Blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah, blah, blah..."

I've devoted the better part of the last thirty-five years to advocating for survivors of relationship violence. I have done significant personal research on criminology and the historic outcomes of violence.

Violence is NEVER a constructive response.

(And, your knee-jerk assumption that I referenced "child beatings" in my assertion about our species' poisonous pedagogy suggests you would benefit from personal research of your own.)

[Enthusiast]

32. In that case I guess we should have lobbed a few into Wall Street.

Or at least sent someone to prison for years. Unless, you know, we want to promote the Enronization of the world financial system.

[Vanje]

42. We should have bombed the BeeJeezus out of BP

and Haliburton, over the horrendous mess they made of the gulf.

[frylock]

39. like when we punished saddam?

and what a great deterrent the death penalty has been!

[gulliver]

40. This is different.

And I wasn't talking about the death penalty which I actually think may encourage murder.

[ChaoticTrilby]

68. I have a question about that.

The President has stated that he does not intend to have Assad assassinated. This indicates that the targets of the missiles would be soldiers and their bases. People live near these bases, usually, and become collateral damage of such missile strikes. This has always been the case, no matter how careful the attacking forces are. The very crime that we are punishing (chemical weapons used on civilians) indicates that Assad does not care about his people. Presumably, this means he doesn't care much about his soldiers either and most likely sees them as tools. Assad does not care about the people that our missiles would be hurting.

With that in mind, how would this punish him? It sounds to me like it would really just be punishing Syrian soldiers and civilians, none of whom Assad cares about, if his actions are any indication. Likely, most of the evil dictators in the world feel the same way about their people and would not be deterred. Thus, you'll have a whole lot of ordinary people hurt and will make the U.S. look nearly as bad as the Syrian government - and a whole lot more self-righteous - which may very well result in more enemies for America. Among the Syrian people. This whole thing sounds like the equivalent of punishing a stranger for attacking others...by going and hurting those victims in a different way. It makes no sense to me.

So, to emphasize the point, how will this punish Assad?

EDIT: To add, you might bring up that this would also damage his facilities and cost him money. However, do you think that something so small would really be worth the inevitable havoc it would wreak on the surrounding populace? There really might be a better way to take money from him than that.

[HumansAndResources]

89. Rulers NEVER Care about "The Troops" - Kissinger: "... dumb, stupid animals to be used"

In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/richard-nixon-and-henry-kissinger-supporting-troops?print=1 (Bob Woodward, The Final Days)

And yet, in Feburary 2009, the CFR had a "special tribute" to Kissinger, and President Obama's new National Security Adviser, James L. Jones, let us in on the fact that he received his "daily orders" from that war-criminal. http://www.cfr.org/world/remarks-national-security-adviser-jones-45th-munich-conference-security-policy/p18515

[ChaoticTrilby]

112. Of course.

The discussion was mainly focused on Assad, and so I addressed the matter as it relates to him, but rulers in general don't care about their troops. That is why it seems bizarre to me that we would try to "punish" Assad by hurting his troops and civilians. It just doesn't seem like he'd be deterred in the slightest. Indeed, if he were especially spiteful, he might even increase attacks on his own civilians just as a way of "sending a message" back to America.

I'm genuinely curious about why anyone would think that sending missiles at troops and civilians (people whom Assad does not care for) would in any way punish the man. It just doesn't make sense to me. At all. And I've yet to hear it properly explained, which makes me think that people just want more war for its own sake (or that of businesses, as it were.)

[Logical]

84. Maybe the least informative posts I have seen this week. n-t

[pecwae]

93. Surreal.

"...punishing a behavior reduces the likelihood of its repetition." A phrase I never thought to be posted here when there's ample evidence to the contrary.

[MotherPetrie]

24. K&R

[Graybeard]

28. And delivered by a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

.
"Nothing says, 'We care.' like a Tomahawk missile strike delivered

by a Nobel Peace Prize recipient."

Pardon me while I step outside and scream.
.

[ChaoticTrilby]

69. I think I'll join you. nt

[Marrah_G]

73. The Nobel commitee was punked :(

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. He must be reading DU

Ah that sensible woodchuck.

[DirkGently]

36. Cause nothing says "moral authority" like indiscriminate missile strikes.

Perhaps we could use drones. It's not an atrocity if there's a drone.

[questionseverything]

41. does any1 know

what one missle costs?

[Deacon Blue]

88. Cost for a Tomahwak

Yesterday no less than Fox was saying $1.25 million apiece. Chickenfeed!

[deutsey]

96. Good lord...

Yet we need to cut Social Security, etc.

[gopiscrap]

56. ggod cartoon and thought provoking

[99th_Monkey]

57. OMG!! Tom T hits it out of the freaking park, AGAIN!! K&R ~nt

[felix_numinous]

60. Right on.

The MIC is off the rails insane, 'taking care' of 'others' who are perpetrating human rights abuses, while our own country falls apart, and RIGHT after all the leaks.

Our opinions mean NOTHING to them, because it is their jobs to force compliance--and this is why we need a strong representation to step up and do the right thing. I always hope for this, and then get reminded again who is in charge of this country--and it ain't the government.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

65. "Our opinions mean NOTHING to them" and there you have it.

It's not opinions that the MIC fears, but actions.
We can use DU to bounce opinions and ideas off each other, but at the end of the day I would love to see a targeted, peaceful, general strike, to serve notice that we will no longer be following meekly into another unjust war.
Another endless war for endless profits.

[felix_numinous]

66. Yes

The world awaits Americans to stand up to the MIC. They have been doing so in their own countries, whose dictators have often been supplied with weapons from the West.

People are waking up which is the good news--the bad news is we have a sneaking feeling we will have to stand up to them again. And they have done everything they can to intimidate us with police brutality.

But it CAN and WILL get worse here and elsewhere if the brakes aren't put on the MIC. We all know it, and I am so sorry my posts sound so negative but I am concerned about the future these people are creating. It is not peaceful.

The longer we wait the more prepared and militarized the MIC will get too, that's a fact.

Peace~~Felix

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

77. Been involved in the movements since civil rights.

The people don't realize that they already have the power if they use it correctly like voting with their dollars and a lot of other tactics.

I once stood on a busy San Diego corner with a sign that read,

HONK
IF BUSH
LIED

the noise was unbelievable, people were coming out of stores to see what was going on.
People flashing the V-sign, people shouting in support and even a city fire truck blasting the horn.

What would this look like on a national level?

HONK
NO WAR
IN SIRIA

What would it sound like?

[DeSwiss]

63. K&R

[NealK]

67. K&R

Thanks kpete!

[idwiyo]

76. K&R

[Martin Eden]

79. If Obama sends a strongly worded Facebook post ...

... Will Russia and China unfriend Assad?

[another_liberal]

81. In all seriousness . . .

Very limited airstrikes, such as we are being promised ours against Syria will be, could end up only making Assad even more popular with his supporters. He will likely be seen as having fought the U.S. to a standstill and having made the World's only superpower back down.

[avaistheone1]

92. Yup. It could really backfire.

It is not worth doing limited airstrikes. jmo

[DirkGently]

99. It will never stop there. McCain was chirruping excitedly

on NPR this morning about how his support requires making sure we shift the balance of the war against Assad.

Because of course it will escalate.

[another_liberal]

105. He most likely gets a campaign contribution . . .

Sounds just like the old bastard. He most likely gets a campaign contribution for every new cruise missile ordered.

[DirkGently]

106. He doesn't meet many ME countries he doesn't want

to have a war in.

[another_liberal]

107. Most decidedly.

And he may just get all of that he wants very soon.

[Marr]

90. Something just occurred to me about the old "Iraq sent their chem weapons to Syria" line.

That was the neocons setting up their next intended invasion. Since everyone knew that Syria has chemical weapons, they must have figured they could point at those as the tanks were rolling through the capital and say, "see? We told you Iraq sent their weapons to Syria".

[michigandem58]

94. Taking out planes that would deliver chemical attacks does say we care

If I lived in Syria I'd welcome that type of strike.

[morningfog]

97. Unless you lived near the planes.

[michigandem58]

100. Perfect isn't an option

Airstrikes can make it better for civilians. Any harm brought to them would be unintended, but the strikes would likely result in less civilian casualites as they damage Assad's air capabilites.

[morningfog]

101. So, we could kill, what, 1490 and they should thank us?

Any that we kill should be thankful it was is and not Assad.

[bullwinkle428]

98. Except that planes didn't deliver the chemical weapons.