I won't be at all surprised if there is a "new" horrific revelation before next week's vote

[cali]

in Congress. In fact, I expect it. Perhaps that speaks to my cynicism but it would fit with the rhetoric now being used to herd us into supporting attacks on Libya. The Administration is desperate to have the vote go their way.

"The Syrian people face Armageddon if we don't intervene militarily!"

[phleshdef]

1. You seem to insinuate that there aren't authentically horrible things to reveal.

I understand your opposition to military intervention, but lets not act like there isn't a genuine humanitarian crisis going on in Syria right now, there definitely is.

[Scuba]

5. Let's not act like the humanitarian crisis is the reason for our intervention.

That's total bullshit and everybody knows it.

[phleshdef]

7. I don't think its bullshit. And I've seen no actual proof that it isn't, just conjecture.

[Scuba]

9. There's eight million humanitarian crisis going on around the world, including a bunch here at home.

Why are they all being ignored, but this one in Syria is not?

[wandy]

16. You have a point there. I don't want to appear uncaring but.....

We have our own problems here at home.
If we continue to ignore our own problems, sooner or later we won't be much good for anyone else.

[phleshdef]

17. The logic behind your question would suggest that because we can't solve all problems...

....then its suspicious whenever we try to solve any of them.

And for the record, I believe we (we as in the civilized, wealthier western world) should be doing more for more of those other crisis that you speak of. We should've done something about Darfur, for example. And we were right to do what we did in Kosovo.

[Scuba]

21. Yes, I think this one in particular is very suspicious.

[joeybee12]

10. Lots of horrible things going on for a couple years now...

So why now?

[phleshdef]

25. Well a few things...

For one, I honestly believe this administration has been trying not to get involved. I think it doesn't want to. You will probably disagree with me on that, but that's what I believe.

For two, we and other countries HAVE been participating in non-military acts of international pressure placed on Syria. Its not like Obama just woke up a week or two ago and suddenly realized something bad has been going on there. Syria isn't a brand new issue, its just one with new developments.

For three, Russia has had Syria's back and Putin is a very tyrantee ass guy. I believe the Obama administration has been rightfully cautious about Russia. Putin is taking Russia backwards and continued inflamed hostilities with them could have really bad long term repercussions, lets face it.

I'd say all of the above is the best summation, in my opinion, as to "why not before now?". But the situation just hasn't gotten any better, the number of refugees that have fled Syria to other neighboring countries continues to climb and now there is reason to believe that Assad's regime is blatantly violating international laws. And honestly, seeing images of the aftermath of the initial military crackdown on peaceful protestors, I honestly think he had to have committed some kind of crime against humanity then. Either way, I think they've pushed far enough that the President has started to lose his reluctance to do something.

I'm still leaning against military action. But I do understand that the urge to do something for humanitarian reasons, given that it doesn't seem to be getting any better and the severity continues to escalate.

[cali]

8. I'm not caught up in what is or isn't the motivation behind an attack

Regardless, I believe it's a piss poor idea.

[Scuba]

11. I agree, but can't accept that suddenly out of nowhere empathy is driving our policy.

[KittyWampus]

43. so you are basically in denial. Assad will massacre more people/refugees will grow exponentially.

With or without US intervention.

[Scuba]

50. I'm not denying that. But you seem to be in denial about our track record of making things better.

[cali]

6. No. I'm not saying that there aren't authentically horrible things to reveal

just that what they choose to reveal is highly selective. You can bet they won't be revealing attacks by the rebels on Christian villages, for example.

[phleshdef]

14. I've seen news coverage on bad stuff people on the rebel side have done too. But heres the thing.

There is a portion of the opposition to Assad, the portion that were the peaceful protestors that started this whole thing. Assad declared civil war on them. He ordered the military to violently crack down on them. He forced them to take up what arms they could for self defense after the military started destroying entire city blocks, bombing hospitals and killing or arresting doctors for treating the wounded. There are definitely extremist elements that have latched onto the civil war, mainly because they've never seen a revolution that they didn't like, but I think judging the entirety of the rebellion based on those elements would be like judging all of Palestine based on the actions of terrorist elements that exist there. So yea, while there may be attacks by some rebel groups on Christian villages, eating hearts and executing people, those monsters are still an underpowered minority that don't have the capability to pull off the scale of destruction Assad's military can pull of.

And that leads my to my second point which is, out of all the players involved here, Assad's regime is the only player that is an actual government, has an actual military, has an arsenal worthy of warfare, etc. From an international law standpoint, its what the Assad regime does to innocent civilians that matters most in terms of international jurisdiction. So out of the groups involved, I can see why the spotlight would mostly on the Assad government.

[cali]

20. yes, that's how it started but how it started isn't how it is now. at all.

although assad may be the actual government, that isn't functionally true in large portions of Northern Syria which are governed by rebel forces. Also, it's simply not true that Assad's forces on the only ones capable of waging warfare. If that were true rebels wouldn't have captured wides swaths of territory and at least 5 military bases.


and would you please post links that substantiate this claim:

From an international law standpoint, its what the Assad regime does to innocent civilians that matters most in terms of international jurisdiction

[phleshdef]

31. I was very clear on "how it is now".

I'm not sure why you would say that when in the same post I pointed out that the protestors took up arms and extremist elements splintered into the fray. The "Syrian Free Army" or whatever they call themselves is fractured and has no central leadership. Its not a real army, its more like a riot born out of self defense or something. You don't really have this situation like with our civil war where its 2 clear armies fighting each other and that's why I said that from an international law standpoint, Assad's regime is the only clearly organized thing that you can put a finger on and aim at.

As far as being warfare equipped, I never said that the rebels weren't equipped enough to put up a significant fight, but they are not (unless we or someone else seriously hooks them up) equipped for the longer term warfare.

The report called for the U.N. Security Council to take "appropriate action" given the gravity of documented violations by all sides in a 17-month conflict that investigators said had become a civil war.

"We have identified both parties as guilty of war crimes and of course a greater number and of bigger variety from the government side," Karen AbuZayd, one of two commissioners aided by some 20 investigators, told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Paulo Pinheiro, the commissioner who led the probe, said Syria's army of 300,000 had targeted rebel-held areas of cities with heavy artillery and helicopters. It had "much more means to inflict war crimes, for example bombing civilian populations".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/syria-crisis-un-rights-idUSL6E8JFA3220120815

Assad has all the real air power and fire power and enough of it to exhaust the rebel's current resources, at least from everything I've read, that seems to be the case and the UN seems to concur.

[delrem]

23. You were offered a glass of kool-aid. Not the whole fucking jug!

[KittyWampus]

44. "they choose to reveal". Fact is, you just weren't paying attention. Like a lot of DU'ers.

[AverageJoe90]

24. Damn straight.

I'm not exactly gung-ho about this, either: partly because that many of the people fighting Assad aren't doing this out of altruism.....but merely because he's in their way of their hopes of dominating the Middle East.....I am, of course, referring to the Islamists and AQ types.

But to say there's no crisis, or that Obama isn't genuinely concerned about the situation, is quite absurd, at the very least.

[morningfog]

28. It's the timing, the spin and exploitation of the horrid things.

It is the politics of war. And it is always disgusting.

[phleshdef]

32. What do you mean the timing?

Do you think the Obama administration PLANNED to have a huge batch of sarin dropped on a civilian population in broad fucking daylight just so they'd have a war crimes excuse to pursue?

[morningfog]

33. The timing of new evidence that cali is predicting.

And, chemical weapons have been know to be used in this civil war for some time.

[phleshdef]

35. There wasn't a significant enough incident to make a real case until this major attack though.

[morningfog]

36. Even using the US numbers, which are at the high end, the chemical attacks

accounts for about 1.4% of the deaths in the civil war. If it hadn't been this attack, it would have been something else. The US is ready to go in and knock Assad out, we just finally got our in.

[Katashi_itto]

54. When it boils down to it. Who cares. If the Repukes hadn't been working at turn the U.S. into

into New Somalia West, I might be inclined.

But they haven't down anything to work at getting the U.S. back on it's feet. In fact just the opposite.

Syria could be skinning it's civilians and I'd have the same attitude.

If we "don't" have the money for our own social programs/infrastructure, ergo we don't have the money for any new wars.

Also from a personal note, noting the upstanding "care" I'd gotten from injuries I'd received from Desert Storm. I'd be loathe to see anymore combat vets created.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Perhaps Hill & Knowlton is busy at work on one...

How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf: http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

[DJ13]

3. "People will DIE..."

"if we dont bomb them first!"

[leftyohiolib]

4. if potus said the red line would be when pigs fly - there would be reports of pigs flying

[eissa]

12. It will involve babies somehow

Doesn't it always? I'm guessing pictures of Assad beheading babies while feasting on cute little puppies. That oughta do it.

[HardTimes99]

13. "Remember the Maine!" - nt

[sibelian]

15. There'll be a whole squirt of them, like someone sat on a toothpaste tube.

It's so idiotically predictable.

[whatchamacallit]

18. It wouldn't be unprecedented

Fear is their go-to tool for shaping public opinion.

[Marr]

19. My money's on fear. Something along the lines of "Assad is giving WMD to Al Qaeda".

Doesn't have to make sense.

[AverageJoe90]

26. Though I gotta wonder if he MIGHT just do something like that.

Sounds strange, I know, but the thing is, the AQ guys *don't* HATE Assad. He is merely in their way, and in fact, if there's people they DO hate, that would be Israel and the U.S.

Perhaps if al-Assad were to sign a truce with Al-Qaeda, and try to convince them that they're better off with him, by pointing out that they share the same enemy, and that Obama would dispose of them as well once we were done with him.....well, let's just say they might indeed do a complete 180, just as they did in Afghanistan in the years before 9/11. Only this time, they'd have backing from a former enemy......it's not inevitable, but certainly not nearly as far-fetched as many might think; "the enemy of my worst enemy can be my ally", as it were.....

[1-Old-Man]

22. I actually regret to say I think you're right.

Call it cynicism I guess, or maybe call it that thing that W. screwed up about fool me twice.

[mindwalker_i]

27. Syria is keeping boxes in its garage

and a girlfriend.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. If it's revelation about the USA though, the traitor will be hunted.

CHECKS & BALANCES .

[Thinkingabout]

30. Why is there an effort to make such an effort throw out information not relatedto the actual subject

It is much easier to stick to the real story here than to throw several subjects into stirring up details not related. It is like what if we cut your fingers off, what will happen?

[City Lights]

34. Wouldn't surprise me either. nt

[ProSense]

37. Are you planning on dismissing the UN report when it comes out? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

38. Are you?

What if it doesn't substantiate US claims?

[ProSense]

40. No. You?

"What if it doesn't substantiate US claims?"

What if it does?

[whatchamacallit]

41. I'll feel better about the veracity of the claims if there's independent corroboration

That doesn't mean I'll suddenly view a military intervention as a good idea.

[Generic Brad]

39. I've seen this charade played out many times in my life

And every time we were duped into supporting an act of aggression that masked this nation's true intentions. It feels to me like we are getting played again.

[michigandem58]

42. Insulating yourself against further developments, I see

Maybe we can work on a "US is bribing the UN" theory in case they roll on you as well.

[cali]

51. No. I'm capable of learning from the past.

I haven't been in the camp denying that the Assad regime perpetrated Ghouta. I'm convinced to a reasonable degree that he did. I still oppose U.S. military strikes. I am unconvinced by the arguments that "if we don't bomb them it sends a green light to others that they can use chemical weapons with impunity". I am unconvinced that bombing Syria will save the lives of civilians

[michigandem58]

52. A reasonable position

Air strikes would damage the ability to deliver the chemical weapons as well as demonstrate there is a price to be paid.

[rusty fender]

45. It won't be a "mushroom cloud"

but it will involve a vegetable metaphor.

What is not as bad as a mushroom cloud, but still pretty bad?

A cauliflower haboob?

[jsr]

46. NSA reveals secret superquantum bionuclear chemical WMD invented by Syria-Iran evil axis

[MineralMan]

47. Well, you're prolific in your suppositions, anyhow.

[GeorgeGist]

48. US Selling Cluster Bombs Worth $641 million to Saudi Arabia

[woo me with science]

49. K&R

[fredamae]

53. First of all

and totally imho-I don't Trust MSM with Any of the revelations--they've been busted too many times showing footage of say-OWS "riots" in WI Winter when the background had Palm Trees! We simply don't know if what we're seeing is current and even In Syria! Remember, they've got miles and miles of footage of all sorts of stuff we've Never seen over the years.

Then, for me-the 800# Gorilla: If it's this Bad and if it's Such a humanitarian crises-Where ARE the other allies?

Intentional confusion? There are so many conflicting reports. We don't even know Which source if Any are trustworthy.

Why does the US believe We are the ONLY "enforcers" of International laws when we certainly are Not?

Why the "bribery" from other nations offering to pay for the US strikes?

This whole thing doesn't pass Any "smell test" and the math does Not add up....It just doesn't "feel right"---and there are a LOT of issues, Here at home that We (but not "they&quot are being distracted from.
VRA
SocSec
TPP
Keystone
Global Warming
Fracking
Fukushima Disaster
Sequester
Tax Reform
Womens Health Care/Rights
Minority/LGBT Rights
Energy
Privatization
Education
Unions
Wages
Crooked Lawmakers/Both sides

ETC, ETC, ETC