Am I a bad liberal/Democrat because I'm torn on the Syria issue?

[Darkhawk32]

One side of me wants to use whatever power/influence we have to stop the killing of innocent people and another side of me understands and feels the reluctance to get involved with another middle-eastern country.

I understand that most people in this forum are completely against any military intervention and I can appreciate that. But, for me, personally, I'm torn.

I guess a part of me wants to hope that it would be handled like Kosovo was handled (quickly, with minimal casualties).

Oh well, my moral confusion will continue because I don't feel it's a black or white issue and one that we all must give careful consideration. I also must think about the other regions of the globe where atrocities are occurring (SE Asia, Darfur) and have to have consistent thoughts regarding that as well.

Sorry for the calm rant.

[Adrahil]

1. Nope. I'm also torn.

My wife is dead set against action. But I've read too much history, and keep hearing "peace in our time" ringing through my head.

[MNBrewer]

17. When Bashar al Assad approaches the level of Adolph Hitler...

I might agree with you, but until then... nope.

[Adrahil]

22. I can't fault you...

.... But hat voice nags me, and I take it seriously.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. So until he kills millions with gas....he is aok in your book?

[leveymg]

55. What makes him different from the Saudi princes who've paid terrorists to kill tens of 1000s

of Syrians because they are Shi'ia apostates? Why should we take sides in this 1200 year old religious war over a desert hell hole?

What's wrong is putting ourselves further into the middle of bloody civil war where both sides,once they finish killing each other, will take a break so they can both attack us with the weapons we provided them. That would be immoral and stupid and suicidal of us.

[MNBrewer]

61. Um no...

1. I never said he's "aok", nice straw man!
2. Hitler was intent on conquering his neighbors. Assad has no such expansionary designs.
3. Hitler used no chemical weapons on the battlefield, OR in civilian settings, Assad seems to have done so.

Other than both men being bad and sharing a taste for a certain style of facial hair, I don't think the Assad/Hitler comparison is very instructive.

[David__77]

2. We all have to perform our own analysis.

That is better than being swayed by simplistic formulas being put out by anyone.

[Thinkingabout]

3. I don't like wars, seen too many and innocent people are killed and injured. I think what set this

Over the edge is the chemical warfare, for many years this has been a no-no. If there is a solution without the US striking this would be good.

[liberal N proud]

4. That is what distinguishes you from republicans

You have your own opinions and don't have to be told what you think.

[Robb]

24. ^^ This thing right here. ^^ nt

[maryellen99]

5. I'm torn too nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. I'm torn too

Uber pissed off that they killed their own people, but in the same token, whose to say the opposition isn't going to be worse? Not the first time we would end up on the wrong side of history by butting in.

I wish rounding them up and sending them to The Hague was an option, but we don't even have moral standing on that given our own untried war criminals.

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. no

[DJ13]

8. Not at all

But, how does sending cruise missiles into urban areas as a response solve anything?

[dionysus]

21. thats why people, myself inculded, are torn on the issue.

if a quick strike would end the issue, it'd be easy to support. but it's not looking like it'd help all that much, so...

[DJ13]

25. I agree, which is one of the reasons I'm against any retaliatory strikes

Besides, considering how useless they would be as a response, I could see the hawks (in both parties) claiming afterwards that we need to do more, by launching a ground assault and more.

I kinda think the missle strikes are just a ruse to launch another theater of combat to take up the slack from the lost revenue from pulling out of Iraq.

[dionysus]

35. i don't think obama has nefarious motives.. the thought a lot have is "we need to save these people"

but a limited strike,it won't, I don't think, change much, and boots on the ground is not an option.
we could do a no-fly zone, and let em duke it out, but that's not good either

assad could be like fuck you and launch a ton of gas.. or, the rebels win but they turn out to be muslim fundamentalists... how do you win?

I do understand the sentiment to intervene and save people. however....

[DJ13]

36. i don't think obama has nefarious motives..

I dont either, but those advising him probably do.

[dionysus]

37. there is always that.

congress will shoot it down, and that's probably for the best.. but it'd be nice if we hadn't blown our credibility in Iraq and could actually save the day once in a while. oh well.

[joshcryer]

40. Indeed, if, as I suspect, Assad ramps up after a strike...

...then there will be cause to ramp it up to a NFZ and even possibly invade. That's insane. And that's where we're heading if we strike, because Assad needs a pretext to ramp up.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. So sending the message to other dictators that gassing your opponents will not be tolerated

is not a bigger issue than Assad?

[MNBrewer]

62. WHAT other dictators??

People keep talking about all these other dictators who are just ITCHING to use gas on their opponents. Which ones are we talking about here?

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Who said THAT was the plan?

[LearningCurve]

9. Not a bad liberal

But some might argue that makes you a bad Democrat.

[Boom Sound 416]

10. No hard decisions are made without being a little torn before hand

I want to see whatever who country sold the weapons held accountable. Pressure them to recover the weapons. Publicly or quietly.

I tired of hopping all over the region directly involved while the quiet indirect supplying country fuels the fire.

[KittyWampus]

11. I'm torn too. Perhaps we'll have to wait and watch more sadness unfold.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Nope!

[WillyT]

13. No... You Are Not Alone, But...

as I said in a post the other day...

I grew up post WWII (born in 1955) and basically agreed with the "Never Again" theory of certain actions of warfare.

But in years since I became an adult... and have seen so many violations of that theory, and the attendant lies in some cases... and the ignoring of entire genocides in others...

I find it damned hard to support today.

[LostOne4Ever]

14. This was posted on the very first thread I ever replied to here at DU

I thought it was one of the most insightful posts I have ever saw and still feel that way despite the fact that I have had some rather strong disagreements with this particular poster in the past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=6609


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Gravitycollapse [div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Radical openmindedness is part of being an intelligent leftist

Consider all things carefully.
Accept nothing upon faith.
Doubt the established order.

Political or philosophical discussions should never feel "reassuring." That's one of the main symptoms of conservative "discussion." There is no room for debate. They spend the entire time patting themselves on the backs. Usually for doing despicable things.

What makes us different as progressive people is our willingness to respect other intelligent opinion not simply because it has a right to exist but also because you might very well be incorrect.

The concept of being incorrect is not really an acceptable position when it comes to conservatives. The beliefs they were taught as young, ignorant children are what they grasp on to their entire lives. This is why xenophobia and group-think are so common among the "right." It's arrested development.

It is said that the more we learn the more aware we become of our own ignorance. The fact that you are torn is not a flaw but rather evidence that you are thinking about things logically and understand the shortcomings of our limited knowledge. It is not something to be ashamed about.

I am solidly against the war, but what is happening to the Syrian people gives me pause. I want us to help them, but I feel convinced we will only make things worse, or will trade one type of tyranny for another worse one. But when I see the arguments for going to war I have to sit and think. I DEEPLY believe there is almost always a better way to resolve our problems than through violence.

These are not easy issues my friend, and the fact that you are uneasy if anything means you truly are a good liberal as opposed to an unthinking partisan or naive ideologue. Be proud that no matter what you decide you took time to really consider the issue and never be apologetic about it.

AND REMEMBER, that this is true with those who decide differently than you. Though we may disagree, we all want what is best for us, our country, and the world.

Though some here may deny it fiercely we are all liberals here fighting for what is good and correct in this world.

[Savannahmann]

15. I am opposed because so far, I haven't seen any intelligent plans put forth.

If we had a goal that I could get behind, that would be one thing. If we had an idea other than bombing a few useless buildings with missiles that cost $1.5 million a pop, that would be something to consider.

But we've ruled out regime change, with good reason. The Rebels are not George Washington from Syria, they're pretty bad guys too.

We can't bomb the Chemical weapons themselves, because that would release them into the air, causing untold thousands of deaths. Gassing the people of Syria to punish Assad for gassing the people of Syria is even dumber than handing the Country over to the AQ backed rebels.

Again, give me a goal that is well considered, and well thought out, and has a chance in hell of working, and I'll reconsider my position. For right now though, with what I know, I have to be one of the voices in opposition.

I understand your instinctive and heartfelt response. It pains me whenever people are slaughtered wholesale. But I am limited in my thinking to what is reasonable, and what is actually something we can reasonably expect to accomplish.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. The "bad" ones are the doctrinaire ones who have all the answers...

and are never wrong-- in their own minds.

I posted a few days ago about Quaker angst over nonviolence and how it is so difficult for us to put our faith and convictions into action in the real world. Needless to say, that thread sank like a stone.

I see things in the world that revolt me, and not just in the Middle East. Gangs running Ecuador, blood diamonds, white slavery, female genital mutilation, Janjaweed in Sudan, the calls for revenge and death from it seems every quarter... it goes on.

The list seems endless and there is that part of me that cannot stand by and watch any more than I can stand by and watch a woman raped in the subway or an old man mugged in a parking lot.

But I am personally powerless, and even if I had God-like powers to end the misery, who's to say the cure would not be worse than the disease? Look at Iraq today and tell me the average Iraqi is better off than before we got rid of Saddam.

With Syria, Assad shows no inclination toward civilized behavior, but the revolutionary groups will happily throw out their present truce and kill each other off to gain power when Assad finally goes. The bloodshed could then be incredible.

Unfortunately, we tend to assist revolutions when it is in our political or commercial interest to do so, further complicating an already complicated situation. Even something as simple as food for the starving becomes politicized and often held up at the ports by rival factions.

In this world, confusion isn't such a bad thing. There are problems we can't solve, but can only muddle through.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. who is planning on turning it into Iraq?

[TreasonousBastard]

57. No one that I know of.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Me either

apparently ODS rages on!

[CakeGrrl]

18. No - it's a complex issue.

And the President has opened up the discussion. He has not, as some want to believe, found the easy way out of a "corner".

Now he has engaged Congress. And some of the noise from those corners is indicative of the difficulty of the decision.

[janlyn]

19. No, your not wrong.

It really aggravates me to see people jumping on war as the answer. I personally see NO proof that Syria was responsible, and I have searched and searched.Do I think they are guilty? Probably! But there is a reason that we have innocent until proven guilty. And proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And so all I see are headlines with, Kerry says " we have proof" And France says" We have proof" only to read further and find that what they say they have proof of is that Sarin gas was used, and proof that x number of people have died.

It's as if no one reads beyond the headlines.

[dionysus]

20. nope, its called being nuanced in your thinking.

[Junkdrawer]

23. It's the old two step.....

I knew it was coming.

1.) Eliminate doubt about the Crime, but allow questions about Punishment.

2.) Eliminate doubt about Punishment.

[treestar]

26. No, I don't hold with the assumption

that a liberal must be against every war in every instance.

[gopiscrap]

27. No I'm torn also but my gut says no!

[KamaAina]

28. The thing is,

we really don't have any power/influence to stop the killing of innocent people there. That's hard for an American to stomach.

[Barack_America]

29. Progressives SHOULD be torn.

Between wanting to help people abroad and at home, and doubting what resources and motivation our government has to accomplish either.

[jazzimov]

30. I'd say you're a GOOD Liberal

for realizing that everything is not black and white, but several shades of grey - AND for waiting until you have enough information.

I have made my decision, but I am the first to admit that "I could be wrong".

You, sir, are a tribute to everything that could be called "Liberal" - because you actually wait until you are sure.

As Davy Crockett used to say "Make sure you're RIGHT, then go ahead". You are in the "making sure you are right" phase. Unfortunately, in this situation there is no Right or Wrong. Every choice we make will be wrong in the long run. It is not a choice between 2 evils, it is a choice between several evils.

No one who calls themselves a Liberal could accept any of the options in good conscience.

I have accepted this, and have chosen the most Liberal option that I thought was available. Many disagree with me.

[Darkhawk32]

31. I think we can all agree that Republicans have no credibility on the issue. n/t

[jessie04]

32. Try being in the minority here ...I find myself in favor of action.

Not war...action. No boots...but destruction of his delivery structure.

I know most disagree but...

Without a response Assad will assume he has a green light.

Without a response Iran and NK will have no fear of developing nuclear weapons.

100,000 are innocents are dead , 1400 have died from chemical weapons and 400 were children.

It's rare but sometimes the US has to stand for something. I think chemical, biological and nuclear weapons use is something we have to send some message.

And for the record I was totally against getting involved until the most recent events.

[LWolf]

33. Anybody

with a decent amount of empathy may feel torn.

Some questions to ponder:

Has the world tried everything else first? Diplomacy? Sanctions?

Is there a way to take out this regime without collateral damage...killing more innocents?

Will removing this regime bring democracy to Syria? What will fill the vacuum?

What are the long-term consequences, in Syria and here at home in the U.S.?

[KT2000]

34. me too

my fear is that chemical weapons, which were almost contained will become a norm for all kinds of wars. Obama stopped it by bringing it to the world's attention. To do nothing, I am afraid those weapons will be used with impunity from here on into the future.

The effort to contain these weapons began in the early 1900s and most of the world has signed on - including Syria. It has been refined since. Will all of that go out the window?

[joshcryer]

38. Rec for honesty. I'm not torn on the issue.

This has been a rather civilized discussion given DU's response to other comments like this in the past.

[hrmjustin]

39. My heart says no on strikes, and my brain says it has mixed feelings on this.

[Cha]

41. I'm sure according to some.. but, not to me, Darkhawk.

Don't be "sorry" for your "calm rant". Wasn't a "rant" but was calm and I really appreciate it!

I think it calls for a rational debate. Not, "fuck France" because they had the audacity to release an article that they say is 'undeniable' evidence against Syria".

Sounds like there will be those who will only want fries if they're not French Fries.

[Arcanetrance]

42. Not at all I feel the same way

[denbot]

43. Not torn at all, it needs to be done.

I don't revel in it, but to let this slide will haunt the world in real way for a long time.

If we could get the U.N. to get Assad to a docket in the Hague, fine, but that will never happen with both Russia's and China's veto ability.

Assad needs to maintain control of his generals, and government. In order to do this he has to communicate with a lot of people, in real time or lose his ability to command. In his situation, losing control is no less fatal then high explosives.

If we could get someone else to do the heavy lifting, fine again. The is no need for an invasion. No shock and awe bullshit. Hit Assad's comand and control assets, and if we get a chance Assad.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. All the options are appalling; you'd be a fool if you weren't torn.

If the US intervenes, it will kill people; if it doesn't, it will let people die. Either way, atrocities will continue and Syria will remain a war zone. Assad will almost certainly stay in power, and even if he doesn't the alternatives don't look much better.

[jessie04]

45. kicked for civility. nt

[Skinner]

46. Definitely not a bad liberal.

Unfortunately, discussion forums are not really fertile ground for nuance, ambivalence, or uncertainty. The most certain also tend to be the most likely to post. As well as the loudest.

I suspect there are a lot more ambivalent people on DU than we think.

[YvonneCa]

63. Agreed. IMO a Democrat, liberal or otherwise, has a responsibility to...

...inform themselves on a given issue (DU helps a lot with that) and then follow their conscience to make a decision and/or take a position.

On this issue (Syria), many are ambivalent...I think because we are still in the 'information gathering' stage. We also each value different sources of information. I respect and value certain political opinions, whereas other 'good, liberal Democrats' rely on other opinion more.

And then we debate. Debate here at DU consistently clarifies issues for me and many others here. Thanks, Skinner!

[sheshe2]

47. I too am torn, Darkhawk.

Thank you for your thoughtful OP.

[DrewFlorida]

48. I'm also not sure what we should or shouldn't do.

My main concern is what the effectiveness, future ramifications, and last but not least, collateral damage will be. I do think we should: #1 Eliminate the chemical weapons stockpile, if we can do it without more civilian deaths.
#2 Secure the chemical weapons and remove them from Syria, if that is possible.
#3 Gain support from as many countries as possible for any action we may take, including UN sanctions.
#4 I don't think we should arm the rebels in Syria, because it looks as though Al Qeda could get their hands on some of those weapons.
I don't know that simply bombing the hell out of Syria will accomplish a positive goal, and may do more bad than good, but if targeted bombing of the weapons stockpile can destroy them without releasing the chemical gasses on the population, I would support that.

I hope Obama thinks this one through thoroughly before taking action.

[randome]

49. 'Calm rant'. Kudos just for that.

When it comes down to it, none of us is privvy to all the details involved in this or any other action. That doesn't mean we blindly trust our officials but for the most part I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of a doubt.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[FSogol]

50. K & R. n/t

[jessie04]

56. kick

[Skidmore]

58. I'm torn also

and really don't think there are any good solutions. I do think we need to get a serious effort underway to get rid of the world's supply of chemical weapons, ours included.

[HappyMe]

59. I am torn myself.

I don't know what should be done here. I don't want a full blown war, but doing nothing doesn't seem all that great an option either.

[cry baby]

64. I'm with you...torn, also. nt

[Darkhawk32]

65. Thanks for all the replies. Was feeling sort of lonely with my feelings. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

66. No

I'm not a fan of more war and going into more debt for it, but I also recognize that there are people who will continue to die if we don't do something....and then others will die if we do.