As a Democrat and a man of the left I am deeply conflicted about this situation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

There is a universal consensus that the use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons should be prohibited and those that use them should be punished severely. By using these weapons Bashar al-Assad has violated a universal norm and is challenging the world to punish him. It seems the world isn't to eager to punish him. I understand the desire to avoiding risking limb and treasure except when its your limb and treasure that is at stake.

I also see the right wing turning this situation into a political football with leaders and talking heads who would favor attacking Canada if a Republican proposed the attacking opposing the president in his request to use force in this situation. They see this situation as an opportunity to undermine the president, nothing more and nothing less.

I have my own moral compass. This is a difficult one.

[BainsBane]

1. I'm also conflicted

I see both sides of the argument. I understand and share the concerns of many of those who oppose intervention, but I also fear what Assad will do to his people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I see hawks becoming doves and doves becoming hawks

Nancy Pelosi is no more convincing as a warrior than Marco Rubio is convincing as a peacenik but my consciences isn't for sale and I am beholden to no one.

[BainsBane]

6. It's all about party politics to them.

The hypocrisy is obvious.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. On both sides./nt

[LibAsHell]

2. With all due respect, I don't see what the conflict is

Missiles and bombs on an already war-ravaged country, that will kill, though inadvertently, more civilians, and then hoping, wishing, and praying that these strikes give the FSA enough of an advantage to make huge gains on the Syrian army, not to mention overthrow Assad - that is absolutely crazy.

Frankly, the concept that we need to "punish" anyone for military aggression is not only self-righteous, it's completely laughable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Why is punishing an aggressor laughable?/nt

[MNBrewer]

10. Who is the aggressor here?

These people we call rebels are called "rebels" for a reason.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. That's a legitimate question

It also gives me a chance to elaborate. The reason aggressors, large and small , are punished is to deter others from emulating them.

That doesn't seem "laughable".

[MNBrewer]

16. Well, then,

Let's "punish" them all for their aggression. I'm sure our superior status as impartial judge/jury/executioner will carry the day.

It's not like we ever acted aggressively against another nation, right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I would oppose that.

But all evil doesn't disappear with precedent.

[MNBrewer]

21. I don't know this for sure, but I sure do expect it to occur once Assad is gone

GENOCIDE of the Alawites, and ETHNIC CLEANSING (at the least) of Christians and other minority groups in Syria.

What is our plan for when this likely scenario unfolds? Evil will not disappear in Syria when Assad is "punished" or certainly after his downfall.

[defacto7]

28. And THAT is exactly the point few want to listen to.

Americans have never seen the kind of genocide and ruthless uncivilized acts on US soil that the Middle East has seen. We have never experienced the sense depriving, massive death that has crossed Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc. etc. just since the turn of the 20th century... HERE on US soil. We had a civil war. It was horrible but there are no persons alive who experienced it and it pales in comparison. These people have had this around them and through them in this generation, the last generation, the one before that and on and on.

A punishment inflicted by the US is of no consequence to regimes fueled by war and centuries of death. It's senseless. Yes, there will be genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and murder, and rape, and torture, and... and...

[LibAsHell]

25. We invade countries and drop bombs from drones

We are in no position to be punishing anyone.

The whole concept of us having authority to punish is so arrogant it makes me cringe.

[Oakenshield]

30. Right there with you.

We're witnessing the narcissism of a sociopath. I'd level that accusation at both the present administration and the rest of the politicians who support the strike.

[Blue_Tires]

5. +1

All things being equal, I think the U.S. has a responsibility to intervene when some nutbar is slaughtering his defenseless citizens en masse...

BUT all things are not equal, our interventions of the past two decades (most of them conducted with knowingly false intelligence/uncertain objectives/ulterior motives) have generally hurt more than they have helped, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe Syria will be different...

[BainsBane]

7. That is probably my major concern

The US has become an expert at breaking things.

[MNBrewer]

8. Not that this will matter any, but

Using tear gas on the battlefield is classified as a war crime by the same agreements. We're allowed to use them ON OUR OWN PEOPLE, however.

These prohibitions on certain types of warfare are arbitrary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Respectfully, I would prefer other methods of crowd control/dispersal

But I would argue those using the tear gas aren't intending to kill the targets of it.

[MNBrewer]

14. Doesn't matter

It's a war crime IF used on the battlefield, yet we routinely use it to pacify our own citizens. See the arbitrary nature of this discussion?

[pnwmom]

18. Tear gas and sarin gas are not comparable. n/t

[MNBrewer]

20. SUre they are

They are both banned under the conventions against chemical weapons (on the battlefield).

Do some research, mom. You might learn something instead of just mouthing off your personal opinion on each and every little topic.

[pnwmom]

24. Their physical effects are not comparable. Tear gas isn't designed to kill. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

9. I honestly can't blame you.

Personally, I despise the Assad regime, especially because of their use of WMDs. But, although there are definitely some decent organizations fighting al-Assad....there are, sadly, also Islamists who are trying to take advantage of the situation, especially the Nusra group and AQ.....whom, by the way, may very well be being armed by the BushCo factions of the CIA, amongst others.....

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. People who aren't troubled, who find this situation easy to navigate, well, hats off to 'em

I think this is a very difficult situation with many bad options. I don't find the choices near as clear cut as some people. I applaud them for their certitude - it's much needed. I don't have that kind of easy algorithm myself - the calculations, moral and otherwise, seem much more complicated to me.

[pnwmom]

17. I'm hoping that the UN report might make the right course clearer.

Or that the UN itself will take some action, including negotiations.

[liberal_at_heart]

22. Why are chemical weapons the line in the sand? Why is it okay from countries including our own

to kill using guns and bombs but somehow chemical weapons are the red line? And I will oppose the president anytime his policies do not match my values I don't care if the republicans are for or against what he is doing. I'm not going to support a war just because some republicans are against it. I have my own moral compass as well. Neither the democrats or republicans get to tell me what to support or oppose. I make that decision for myself.

[d_r]

23. I'm with you

we are boxed in and there isn't a good option that I can see.

When I said "we" I mean "USA" not parties.

I agree that we shouldn't be the world's police force, but here we are.

I don't think that we should be so arrogant to think that we can scold another country, but we have been doing that for decades.

It is easy for me to see philosophical clarity. But I don't see any good real world options.

[Warpy]

26. There are other avenues and other people

Toppling Assad would leave us with another fanatical Islamic state, something that would be horrible for everyone, especially the Syrians.

Sending more bombs and rockets to people already sick of burying their families and of the stench of death is not going to make us new friends. In addition, it is simply not going to work.

Pressuring the Arab League might do more good. It's in their backyard, it's their problem.

I will believe the world is serious about stopping chemical warfare when the US and other powers destroy their own stock of the stuff.

I don't buy this sudden outrage. This is just the PNAC seeing an opening. Those old bastards are all still alive and pulling their strings even if they did try to hide that website.

[MindMover]

27. Send in a Neville ..... peace in our time ....

[dkf]

29. It shouldn't be hard for you to see this belongs in the realm of the UN.

This is for the world and the signatories to enforce. We cannot be judge jury and executioner especially after we lied about evidence the last time.

The world deserves more of a judgment than our word.

[potone]

31. I just don't see what good it willl do.

Assad will not be the one who is punished; it will be the Syrians who are killed if we start bombing. And if our goal isn't to remove Assad, then it seems like a pointless display of force to me, and one that is likely to make matters worse. This is not a fight of good guys against bad guys, the rebel forces are not all on the same page, and some of them are very brutal and fanatical. I think that our track record in the Mideast is so poor that we should stay out of this unless we can play some constructive role in getting negotiations started, which so far we have not been able to do. This is a problem for the UN and the Arab League; it is not our responsibility to get involved militarily in such a complex situation.

[BootinUp]

32. Glad you posted your thoughts

Basically there seems to be a big disconnect on what Obama wants to do and what DU thinks will happen. Stay tuned and take care.

[Marr]

33. I'm not conflicted at all.

The people of the US have very recently been bald faced lied into a tragic, costly invasion in a country neighboring this proposed target. Even if their story is 100% accurate, they've earned the strongest form of skepticism-- and their actual case has been quite weak. Couple that with the fact that their proposed action seems nonsensical and meaningless, and I don't see why anyone would get behind it.

As to the legal obligation, there isn't one. This gas was allegedly released in a civil war, not a war between nations.

[Dems to Win]

34. Rep. Barbara Lee is voting No

Congresswoman Barbara Lee is our nation's wisest, most prophetic voice on issues of war and peace. She is the only leader to have been correct in her votes AGAINST unlimited authorization to retaliate for 9/11 (Afghanistan), AGAINST the Patriot Act, and AGAINST the Iraq War. Her statements at the time of these votes were tragically prophetic.

For anyone on the fence, not knowing which is the correct position on the Syria question, I recommend listening to Barbara Lee.



Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, also has made up her mind to oppose an attack. “We must respond to the heinous use of chemical weapons, but the danger of a military strike and its unintended consequences, including the possibility of further loss of life and the danger of escalated violence in the region, demand that we work with the international community and consider all the alternatives,” she said Tuesday.

http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2013/09/03/where-they-stand-on-the-syria-resolution/