Ten Good Reasons to OPPOSE Military Intervention in Syria.

[bvar22]

#1 We have been shown NO conclusive PROOF that Assad is behind the attacks.
We haven't even seen anything approaching a Smoking Gun.
The administration's Case for WAR is shakier than Colin Powell's Case for the attack on Iraq.

#2 The administration is depending on the same people for "intelligence" who have a history of LYING to Congress and the American People.

#3 Assad does NOT constitute a threat to OUR National Security,
despite John Kerry's baffling attempt to claim he does. The Groups that Assad is fighting in his Civil War (AlQaeda & other Radical Islamist factions) DO pose a threat to our National Security.

#4 Bombing Syria is NOT the only option.
Therefore, opposing a Military response is NOT endorsing the Gassing of Children despite the pathetic and transparent attempts to equate the two on DU.

#5 Our Military is NOT the World Police.
It exists for the defense of the United States,
NOT to Teach the Bad Guys a Lesson, where EVER they are.

#6 We can't find the money for Meals-on-Wheels and Head Start.
We're BROKE, according to all the politicians who are also cheering for the New War.

#7 After ALL the LIES , destruction, and Hundred of THOUSANDS of unnecessary Dead Children WE have caused in the Middle East, we have absolutely NO Moral High Ground for deciding to kill more, however "limited".

#8 Joe Lieberman, Karl Rove, Dan Senor, Elliott Abrams, and Dick Cheney are FOR it.

#9"Because we say so, or we'll BOMB you" is NOT good Foreign Policy.

#10 Anything we do the "punish" Assad or weaken him
WILL help Al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim factions in Syria.

#10a The USA has a TERRIBLE record Failure & Blowback from Military Interventions in the Middle East over the last 60 years.

[leftstreet]

1. DURec

[Avalux]

2. K&R. Please add John Yoo to #8

http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/the-benefits-outweigh-the-costs-in-syria/

[Jon Ace]

3. K&R (nt)

[customerserviceguy]

4. Excellent

It's really hard to pick a "best" reason from that list, they're all spot on.

[Bryn]

5. Kick

K&R ~ great post

They tried to cut Social Security/Medicare and cut Meal on Wheels for seniors & Head Start yet all of a sudden we can afford another war?

If we go to Syria you can be sure gas prices will shoot up through the roof then prices for food will follow.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Title should be "Two good reasons to oppose military intervention in Syria, and nine bad ones".

#6 and #10 are both strong arguments against military intervention.

All the others are not.

1) No proof, but some very, very strong evidence.
2) As above; the evidence it was Assad's regime who was behind the attacks, while not 100%, appears pretty damn strong.
3) Nor did the interrahamwe.
4) I'm not aware of any other option with a hope of accomplishing anything. (Of course, bombing may well not accomplish anything either). And the OP doesn't name these other options they claim exist. Basically, I think the choice boils down to a) drop bombs, or b) wring hands futilely.
5) True, but not relevant to the question "would US military intervention in Syria do more good than harm?"
6) Yes, I think this is a strong argument against military intervention - the money would almost certainly do more good elsewhere.
7) There is no such thing as "moral authority", it's just two words than sound like they mean something together but actually don't. There is only "will this action do more good than harm?".
8) They're also in favour of not setting fire to one's trousers while in public.
9) In some cases, it isn't; in some cases, it is.
10) Yes, I think this is a strong argument against military intervention - harming Assad will help the opposition, and some of them look to be as bad or worse as he is.
10a) That would indeed be an argument against a ground invasion of Syria, but not against a more limited bombing - by contrast, the intervention in Kosovo worked well.

[Maedhros]

9. Evidence not nearly as strong as you think.

Not nearly.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/18559-how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria

[baldguy]

11. Obamas opponents are desperate to tag him as just another Bush.

And they're more than willing to fracture the truth to do so.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Do you think that's what the OP is doing? I don't. N.T.

[Supersedeas]

24. the politics of personality--even in matters of war

[bvar22]

13. The threshold for which YOU believe are good reasons for BOMBING people...

...is obviously much lower than mine.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. My threshold is very simple - "is it likely to do more good than harm".

It has the added advantage of being the correct standard to apply to pretty much any political decision, not just bombing.

Admittedly, it requires one to estimate the likely consequences of an action, but so does any meaningful standard.

What standard do you use? If it's not that one, how do you justify sometimes supporting actions that are likely to do more harm than good, or opposing ones that are likely to do more good than harm?

[bvar22]

18. Do you REALLY believe joining Syria's Civil War..

.. on the side of Radical Islamist factions and Al Qaeda is going to do more good than harm?

Nothing GOOD will come from Bombing Syria and killing more Syrians.
History is on MY side.

Can you point to a US Military Intervention in the Middle East over the last 60 years that something"good" came from?

The last time we did "Limited WAR", we drove a stable country with the highest standard of Living in North Africa STRAIGHT into the arms of radicalized Islam and Sharia Law.

Libyans Say Sharia Will Be Law of the Land
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/11/libyans-say-sharia-will-be-law-of-the-land.html

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. No.

As I said in #6, I think there are good reasons to think that,, on balance, bombing Syria would probably, but only probably, do more harm than good.

[sulphurdunn]

16. All are good reasons to stay

our sword in Syria.

1. Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Killing people requires proof, far more proof than the discredited WMD argument.

2. As above, there is no "very damn strong" evidence that does not originate from very damn dubious intelligence sources i.e our own.

3. Assad poses no greater threat to our national security than did Saddam's WMD program. Even if the Syrian government has chemical weapons there is no reason to believe it would commit suicide by deploying them against us.

4. We don't need to accomplish anything, including wringing our hands. The fallacy is assuming that what happens in Syria is our business. If it is, it is only because we have chosen to back the Israeli, Saudi, Sunni, big oil alliance against Shia dominated Iran and Syria.

5. When was the last time US military intervention did more good than harm? If a majority vote of the UN general assembly designated us world cop, you might have a case.

6. The money would be better spent (at interest) on anything else. Too much of the nation's resources have already been diverted to militarism in the name of national security.

7. Moral authority is just "two words" until you don't have any. Whether an act will do more harm than good in war is as much a moral as a strategic question.

8. It would be a commission of the ad hominem fallacy to suggest that the worst war mongers in modern American history can be discredited solely because they are advocating for war again. Nevertheless, questioning their motives is not unreasonable.

9. Not when the nation you threaten to bomb is no military threat to you.

10. Mentioning Kosovo is a straw man argument, using the Balkans as an example of military intervention working well is quite remarkable considering.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Plain as the nose on your face

Good list!

[abelenkpe]

8. Someone needs to explain to me

Why my friends and former co workers are having their unemployment slashed due to sequestration but there is money to bomb Syria. Why are our schools underfunded and constantly holding fundraisers but there's money to bomb Syria. WTF?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. Good list. Covers most of the angles. K&R

[raouldukelives]

14. Wall St and war profiteers welcome it.

That is the only good reason I can see to do it. Or what people who are invested in the markets consider a good reason. Or at least, their money does. Even if they think they are anti-war, that money speaks volumes for them.

[bobclark86]

17. A bit of devil's advocate...

#1 We have been shown NO conclusive PROOF that Assad is behind the attacks. We haven't even seen anything approaching a Smoking Gun. The administration's Case for WAR is shakier than Colin Powell's Case for the attack on Iraq.
--Umm... except there ARE chemical weapons used in Syria, as opposed to empty tubes in Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Assad actually has them, with four known manufacturing sites and large stockpiles. If the government didn't use the chemical weapons, the rebels GOT them from the government. They didn't just appear one day out of the blue. Knocking out those facilities isn't the worst idea ever. We ain't talking about 300,000 men in tanks rolling through Damascus.

#2 The administration is depending on the same people for "intelligence" who have a history of LYING to Congress and the American People.
--Did the president sit down at one of his first Cabinet meetings and say "What do we need to invade Iraq?" Nope. They're working under a different set of rules.

#3 Assad does NOT constitute a threat to OUR National Security, despite John Kerry's baffling attempt to claim he does. The Groups that Assad is fighting in his Civil War (AlQaeda & other Radical Islamist factions) DO pose a threat to our National Security.
--Not all the rebels are Al Queda. Also, Assad is backed by Iran, which IS a threat (building nukes, threatening our navy, calling for the death of all Americans, etc.). Oh, and Israel is in striking distance (and is the only nuclear power in the region...) AND it sets a precedent that if you gas your own people, we'll let it slide. Places like North Korea, Myammar, Iran, etc.

#4 Bombing Syria is NOT the only option. Therefore, opposing a Military response is NOT endorsing the Gassing of Children despite the pathetic and transparent attempts to equate the two on DU.
--What other options are there? We've been talking to them for years now. They won't listen to us talk. This guy is getting pretty damn desperate.

#5 Our Military is NOT the World Police. It exists for the defense of the United States, NOT to Teach the Bad Guys a Lesson, where EVER they are.
--Ever read the Monroe Doctrine? It has been for more than 150 years now. The precedent has been pretty well set. Since 1776, we have invaded 70 countries. Besides, it's not like France and the UK could step in to help... oh, wait. They did in Libya and likely will again. We're not alone.

#6 We can't find the money for Meals-on-Wheels and Head Start. We're BROKE, according to all the politicians who are also cheering for the New War.
--HAHAHAHAHA! Like Republicans would let us fund that anyway... BTW, we already bought the missiles. No hazard pay for troops, no fancy sealed caskets for dead Americans, no tanks, machine gun bullets... just some cruise missiles sitting on a boat which are going to go to waste anyway.

#7 After ALL the LIES , destruction, and Hundred of THOUSANDS of unnecessary Dead Children WE have caused in the Middle East, we have absolutely NO Moral High Ground for deciding to kill more, however "limited".
--President Obama used sarin gas on Tea Baggers and then lied about it? Damn, I'm not paying attention for a little while, and something like that happens...

#8 Joe Lieberman, Karl Rove, Dan Senor, Elliott Abrams, and Dick Cheney are FOR it.
-- Sarah Palin and Rand Paul are against it. Those seem a pretty good reason to tell them to get bent.

#9"Because we say so, or we'll BOMB you" is NOT good Foreign Policy.
--"Because the Geneva Convention says so" seems better. Which, coincidentally, is the argument, despite your strawman ... again.

#10 Anything we do the "punish" Assad or weaken him WILL help Al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim factions in Syria.
--Repeat

#10a The USA has a TERRIBLE record Failure & Blowback from Military Interventions in the Middle East over the last 60 years.
-- Again, pretty much a repeat. Also, EVERYONE does.

I personally don't like the idea of launching missiles at Syria (let alone sending troops), but just a few thoughts.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. I oppose what I have heard so far from TPTB, but

are you saying you are in favor of leaving these chemicals into whosever hands they may fall into?

Serious question, bvar.

[pasto76]

22. if you had ever seen war, you wouldnt call cruise missile strikes 'war'

someday folks like you will get it; calling this shit a 'war' is an insult to the millions of soldiers who have rotated through iraq and afghanistan. It is degrading. Cruise missiles dont keep us from home, cruise missiles havent sent our suicide rates skyrocketing. The divorce rate through the roof. Domestic violence is in the stratosphere. Nobody is going to get pulled from their civilian life and lose their business, job or place in school.

WAR does that. Not a few ships firing missiles.

maybe you dont like the idea of doing anything in syria and thats OK. but jesus H christ the absolute -HYSTERIA- from folks like you is really really getting old. It would be nice if you all could actually respect what many of us have been through - for whatever reason - and not minimize our sacrifices and experiences by calling missile strikes a war. were the monica missiles 'war'? Hell no

[djean111]

26. To the people in Syria - getting killed with a missile is war.

Are you saying that if Russia lobbed a few missiles into America, it would not be war?
Do you really think we would just send in a few missiles, kill some people, and everyone else would just sit and watch?
You think Assad won't strike back at something?

[bbgrunt]

23. thank you. nt

[Little Star]

25. k&r

[SummerSnow]

27. best post I read all week. k&r

[indepat]

28. The ten reasons are so crystal-clear that all men of good faith surely understand and there are so

many more reasons. But notwithstanding, TPTB will do what they want to do and will probably cut the social safety net to pay for this March to Folly, as the late Barbara Tuchman would conclude and likely expand her book to include.

[Daniel537]

29. Did you lift #10 straight from Infowars? n/t