What if we don't do anything about Syria, and

[MineralMan]

Assad conducts another Sarin attack similar to the one he apparently ordered? What then?

I'm opposed to an attack by the US at this time, but I wonder how people will feel if a second gas attack occurs. I consider it a real possibility, and have some concerns about that eventuality.

Any thoughts?

[leftstreet]

1. Oh, so it's been proven Assad did this attack?

Guess I missed that

[MineralMan]

3. The evidence certainly points in that direction.

There have been several discussions here, and a lot of information elsewhere.

[leftstreet]

6. 'Points,' but hasn't been established. Okay n/t

[MineralMan]

18. I didn't say it had been established. I said "apparently,"

to make sure I didn't say that it had been established. Reading is good.

I also said I was opposed to an attack.

[leftstreet]

31. So your whole OP is just a 'what if'

Syrians are probably doing that, too

'what if that thing coming at me is apparently a bomb?'

[MineralMan]

39. It was clearly presented as a "what if" question.

Did you even bother to read it?

It was precisely a "what if" question, and by intent.

[leftstreet]

45. Okay. What if Assad didn't do it?

Does the US bomb the people who did?

Does Obama apologize to Assad?

[MineralMan]

47. You know, if you didn't even read the first two words

of the title of my post, which were "What if," I don't think I'm going to engage any further with you on this.

[avaistheone1]

79. +100 It hasn't even been established if Assad did it the first time.

k&r

[lumpy]

82. Lots of what ifs on your part also

[Little Star]

127. It looks as if they probably did the Damascus one but throughout...

this civil war there has been much information saying that the rebels have also used it. We never said a word about humanitarian worrying then.

When are we going to ever be concerned about when the USA & our allies using Depleted Uranium, White Phosphorus and Land Mines?

[KittyWampus]

4. Right, DU'ers aren't in denial. Thanks for proving part of the point of my OP.

[leftstreet]

9. So the House is in denial, too?

Why are so many no votes still being speculated on if the proof is conclusive?

[MineralMan]

14. Good question? Do you know the answer?

I don't.

[KittyWampus]

16. because regardless if Assad did it or not, they don't want bombing?

[leftstreet]

36. What other options did Obama put on the table?

[lumpy]

92. Do you have to have someone else answer your questions instead of doing research yourself?

[lumpy]

107. Perhaps because those in the House are only interested in the next campaign, they have a lot

of votes coming from the pro-chemical weapons people.

[leftstreet]

110. That is fucking offensive to DUers

pro-chemical weapons people

Are you fucking shitting me?

You're calling antiwar DUers and Americans pro-chemical weapons people ??


You need to rethink that

[lumpy]

118. Sorry, just being snarky like so many of your compatriots. I apologize I don't want to be offensive.

[jessie04]

144. kick

[Fantastic Anarchist]

48. I was thinking the same thing.

The evidence is murky, with all sides point to each other.

Truth is, we don't know who the fuck did it.

Obama said this:

"We now say with some confidence that at a small level Assad has used chemical weapons."

Some confidence? What the fuck?

[Sunlei]

153. what's the difference who did it?SOMEONE violated international humanitarian law.

What should be done about this so it doesn't happen again in Syria or in your neighborhood.

When all the gunrunner, war profiteers start selling millions of these weapons to everyone with cash?

My opinion is an International Tribunal with or without the US Gov. participation.

[KittyWampus]

2. We're going to have to send a lot of aid to neighboring countries, for one thing.

I don't know what the answer is, but I am waiting for DU'ers to start considering what should happen WHEN Assad gasses a huge number of civilians again.

It's a certainly a lot of them will say it's another false flag.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes. I put it a little more conditionally,

but it seems to be a valid question, I think. Should that occur, what will we be saying then?

[ocpagu]

5. First, you need to prove Assad conducted the first attack.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023608587

So far, no proofs... only the word of the US government which is not being taken very seriously by world leaders...

[KittyWampus]

10. See, how can DU'ers really be this unaware? Germany, France etc have in fact agreed w/intelligence

Today a string of countries accepted Assad as culprit.

I'd post links to all that but it's obvious a lot of DU'ers are in denial and refuse to read facts.

[leftstreet]

15. Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil disagree

oh and South Africa and Italy

[ocpagu]

29. Add Venezuela and Guyana among those who explicitly opposed. There are more. n/t

[lumpy]

102. So what. They have not been directly involved, with the exception of Russia and their involvment

is by sending war ships to the gulf and of course they are best buddies with Syria (money interests of course). Nice to have such good relations with one of the most bloodthirsty leaders in the world.

[SomethingFishy]

30. Oh yeah, we are as unaware as you are gullible

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=ZHzwo2p8

WASHINGTON (AP) - The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture - a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" - intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

How anyone can blindly trust their government after Iraq is beyond me.

[lumpy]

115. According to the article posted- the questions remaining are, who actually controls some of the

chemical weapons and doubts whether Assad himself ordered the strike. That would leave the only conclusion, that whoever wrote the article by asking these questions of Assads involvement has concluded that Assad's regime was responsible. Not a slam dunk ? Who are these multiple US officials who claim that ? Could it be officials who are not backing and attack ?
This happens to be 2013, different leadership, different problem- not Iraq, it's Syria.

[SomethingFishy]

121. There are lots of unanswered questions...

And since that article has been posted more questions have arisen. Like the huge possibility that The Free Syrian Army, who broke from Assad and stole some weapons, may have been the attackers.

I understand, you are ready to go. You think there is enough intelligence to go out and drop some bombs. I believe dropping bombs is a last resort and I haven't seen even close to enough evidence to convince me we know exactly who did this and where their stockpile is.

[lumpy]

125. Sorry you don't believe that Assad might be responsible for gas attacks. I prefer to believe the

people who know a helluva' lotmore about that attack and are more concerned about Assads capabilities. Syria has admitted (2012) to having large stockpiles of chemical weapons and the ability to disperse them. They claimed that the reason is because they fear a chemical attack from Israel. I can suggest you go on the net and investigate Syria's chemical weapon capabilities.
Assad is famous for having one of the most repressive, wanton regimes against their own people
and it is not beyond reason that he wouldn't have done the deed.

No, I am not ready 'to go'. I would rather see other means of preventing Assad from using his store of chemical weapons, like most thinking people. You assume you know my mind.
I would like justice for those people who were killed by gassing, that's what's in my mind.

[SomethingFishy]

131. He may be, but he may not be... unless there is some classified evidence

which I assume Congress will be allowed to see, saying is was Assad for sure, then we don't know. How do you know the Free Syrian Army didn't do it just to blame Assad and get him deposed?


Oh and BTW, Did you want justice for the 100,000 killed with conventional weapons?

Where were you when Assad was killing with conventional weapons? Where were you when we were "accidentally" killing women and children in Pakistan with Drones?

Please don't use the "Justice" argument unless you mean Justice For ALL... it's hypocritical.

[lumpy]

136. Well where were you when Assad was torturing and killing? I am helpless to do much about killings

except abhor and mourn,and express my opinion, as you probably realize. I have to depend on our leadership just like most of us do. I do mean justice for all and I have every right to say it, and I will, in spite of your admonition I have lived long enough to know that mankind will continue to fight for this reason or that. The world has made a few strides in the right direction, very few.
Again where were you when Assad was killing and torturing his people? Rather a silly question, don't you think. Justice for All, even if it doesn't happen in my lifetime.

[ocpagu]

58. Shame on the European puppet governments then.

Obama said himself: "'We now say with some confidence that at a small level Assad has used chemical weapons."

Well... that says it all. Here's Obama being forced to admit his government didn't prove shit.

[lumpy]

90. Hell, the only proof they will accept would have to come from ???

[MineralMan]

12. Hmm...no, I don't have to prove anything.

Nor am I capable of doing so. Perhaps you should reread my post, noting the "apparently" in it. I made no claim at all. I posed a question.

[ocpagu]

22. I said "you" because in your question you asked "we"...

I was not talking especifically about you. It's the US government responsability to prove Assad used such weapons.

[HardTimes99]

26. Especially since there are fairly credible allegations that rebels used chem weapons provided

by Saudi Arabia and Quatar as recently as May of this year. Funny, no one talked about sending in cruise missiles then.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

51. Exactly.

It's like living in Bizarro World.

Obama said this:

"We now say with some confidence that at a small level Assad has used chemical weapons."

That really doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in me, especially if we're going to bomb people. It needs to be more than a "hunch," which is what "some confidence" means. It's a fucking hunch.

[BOG PERSON]

142. "some confidence, at a small level"

we can now say with the utmost confidence that the administration might be equivocating, a little bit

[Fantastic Anarchist]

143. LMAO!

[lumpy]

122. "FAIRLY credible allegations" doesn't cut it more than critizing others for using similar replies

and expressions.

[lumpy]

87. Other countries have concluded that it was Assad's party, like Germany, France for instance.

[tazkcmo]

112. Based on

information provided by the US.

[lumpy]

119. OK prove that it was just info provided bythe US. We don't know everything do we ?

[tazkcmo]

120. Prove it wasn't.

See? I can do that too!

[lumpy]

126. "Based on information provided by the US", your statement. A statement as though it be based

on fact should be able to be proved. So please if you stand by that statement prove it.

[ZombieHorde]

8. That would be terrible in my opinion.

However, bombing them won't stop their ability to use chemical weapons. Putin has said he will support the Syrian government. Our own bombs may kill additional innocent civilians.

The situation sucks, but violence isn't going to solve it.

[cali]

11. what if he doesn't. what if the rebels use sarin again?

I don't think it's a real possibility and in any case, the President is determined to launch a strike. That's the most likely thing, imo.

[MineralMan]

13. A question is not an answer.

But thanks for the reply, cali.

[cali]

37. I did more than ask a question, MM. but thanks for letting us know that only YOU

should be able to ask questions and that you don't need to deign to answer the questions posed to you.

good to know.

[MineralMan]

43. I started the OP with a question. I can do that.

You didn't respond with anything like an answer to my "what if" question, so I'm ignoring your response as unresponsive.

You post OPs all day long. I posted one today. You're free to ignore it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. What if we lob a few dozen hundred missiles and the slaughter continues?

What if we topple Assad and the rebels start an even bigger slaughter? How far are you willing to go?

[MineralMan]

23. See, the thing is that I would like to analyze a number of

possibilities. I posed one of them as a question for discussion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. It seems to me there will be slaughter, regardless.

The one variable to consider is Assad can be controlled by the Russians. They want him in power. The rebels are controlled by no one.

If you had a choice between slaughter until the war is won or slaughter until the war is won and then a round of vengeful bloodletting and ethnic cleansing I assume you would take the former as painful as it might be.

[idwiyo]

19. What if it wasn't Assad?

[MineralMan]

24. OK, what if it wasn't?

What do you say, then?

[idwiyo]

49. Exactly the same thing I am saying now: absolutely no foreign military involvement in a civil war.

Full internationally enforced blockade of Syrian borders.
Refugees are allowed out of the country.
Humanitarian aid, and only fully independent humanitarian orgs like MSF allowed in.

That's it. Nothing else in, nothing else out.

Their country, their war, their business.

[whatchamacallit]

20. Ask yourself

You state you're opposed to the attacks, so how will you feel?

[MineralMan]

28. Another question to answer my question?

No, thanks. Start your own thread.

[whatchamacallit]

42. Wtf... You admit you're in the group the question is directed at

why can't you answer for yourself? Weird.

[MineralMan]

46. I don't have an answer, and was hoping for a discussion to help

me form one. So far, no discussion, so no luck. That's interesting in its own right, though.

[whatchamacallit]

50. Ok, I'll take a stab at your (mostly pointless) hypothetical

I'd feel bad, but no more bad than I'd feel if we attacked Syria on bogus pretenses and ended up killing a buncha people unnecessarily.

[MineralMan]

52. Thanks. An answer, at last.

That's what I was asking for in the first place. Thanks for your answer.

[whatchamacallit]

54. You're welcome!

[reformist2]

21. How about we take our case to the UN????

This is so crazy, that our Nobel-Peace-Prize winning Prez isn't even talking about this course.

[KittyWampus]

25. See- Many DU'ers are in denial and refuse to acknowledge the possibility. Even if you say FINE-

no intervention. What do we do if/when it happens again?

[idwiyo]

94. Nothing beyond humanitarian aid. Their country, their war, their business.

Other than above, I'd like to send to Hague UK and any other arseholes involved in selling/supplying both Assad and 'rebels' with weapons/tech/ingredients. And those who allowed it to be sold. Yesterday please.

[lumpy]

130. I don't think Putin would like being sent to the Hague.

[idwiyo]

137. I am sure he wouldn't. But the girl can dream... :)

[polichick]

27. The decision is not between bombing and doing nothing.

[MineralMan]

32. Well, right now, it seems to be the case.

So far, a lot of words have been written in the assumption that bombing is the choice. That's the question I'm posing, anyhow.

[PDJane]

33. How can the US be a credible leader on this when the US has used chemical weapons itself?

I agree that there should be some retaliation for this, but not from the US; the credibility of the US is in question here.

[libdem4life]

176. That's an inconvenient question. We do because we can. The justifications are convenient.

Thus, our non-friends don't because they can't ... as opposed to our real friends who dutifully hold our coats while we go out to battle. Also, we have determined ourselves to be the wise, elder sages of the globe who knows and sees all. Not.

[Cleita]

34. Sure dropping a bomb on top of another violent act I don't believe will help.

Also listening to the Arab reporters on Al Jazeera, they seem to think a military attack by any western powers will only inspire Assad to repeat the chemical attack on those Syrians he thinks are his enemies.

[polly7]

35. Your whole thread is based on the assumption that Assad ordered the gas attack.

Let's see the proof.

[Skidmore]

101. Could it just be possible that this erstwhile

Western educated opthamologist is not calling tbe shots but that th e Syrian generals. a few of whom are his uncles, are making those decisions. That has crossed my mind more than once. Dictatorships tend to be family businesses.

[lumpy]

134. Ohhhhh Good Grief......

[polly7]

135. Wedgie? nt.

[bigtree]

38. more concerned that we can't predict the consequences of OUR OWN actions

. . . and that's an even more certain risk to innocent Syrians as anything else.

Another attack would almost certainly spur the Security Council (and Congress) into support for some kind of military action.

My concern is that the government hasn't given nearly as much of an investment in other options as they have in selling military strikes; which, are a nebulous set of targets and a bevy of contradictory anticipated results on the prospect of military action altering Syria's chemical weapon capability or the probability of their use in the future.

[CTyankee]

40. interesting question, My guess is that Assad does it again and more of our allies

sign on with us for some sort of unified action against him.

Awful as that is, it would politically benefit the President. It would be a kind of "I told you so.

[MineralMan]

61. Thanks. That seems like a reasonable answer.

Perhaps a repeat instance would alter some people's opinions on what an appropriate action would be.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

41. Take it to the UN --

Make the case for an intervention. That simple.

Perhaps if that had been done after the first reported use of a chemical weapon in Syria we may have had more traction for a strike this go around.

[sendero]

53. Still none of our business..

... when he lobs a chemical rocket onto our soil, yes then we should act.

Sane people don't start a war over what someone MIGHT do, we tried that in 2003 and not only did it not work out for us it DID NOT WORK OUT FOR IRAQ EITHER.

[MineralMan]

55. OK. That is an answer. Thank you.

Seriously.

[bobGandolf]

56. Lot more nonsensical bickering

The OP looked interesting, so I figured I'd read it and the replies. I was taken aback over how many posts were just useless bickering. I'm hoping it is just the hot topic regarding Syria.

[1awake]

57. Maybe this makes me a terrible person

But even if it is proved Assad did it, and even if he then did it a second time... I would STILL be against the US using military action outside of the UN. Even the articles covering the use of gas weapons state the same thing. Why can the US make its own rules but we bitch and moan, and try to bomb others for making their own?

I know it's not that simple... anyway, that's how I feel in a nut shell.

[MineralMan]

59. Thanks for your direct answer.

I appreciate your answering the question. That's what I was hoping people would do.

It's a fair answer, and you've offered supporting information. Thanks again.

[0rganism]

60. What if we throw a bunch of cruise missiles at Syria and

Assad conducts another Sarin attack similar to the one he apparently ordered? What then?

Do we escalate?

[MineralMan]

63. That's really a different question. Mine assumes no action on our part

for the first attack. Yours assumes the opposite. It doesn't really provide an answer to my question, though.

[0rganism]

76. It's what your initial question led me to think

In that sense, it's an answer to your question, which I think you'll agree is fairly open-ended.

Action or inaction, either way, nothing necessarily prevents Assad from doing the same damn thing again, and if we did respond by lobbing missiles at Syria, he could even find a way to blame it on the USA.

I'm just not seeing an up-side to this situation. Either way.

[MineralMan]

78. Well, it's already started on a distinct down note, for sure.

It all leads to my belief that we err whenever we meddle in Middle Eastern affairs. I've seen no occasions where that is not true.

[0rganism]

83. the Middle East is where diplomacy goes to die

I don't think I've seen us involved in a genuine positive development there since President Carter helped Begin and Sadat make peace back in 1979, 35 years ago.

[MineralMan]

85. So it has seemed to me for as long as I can remember.

Carter talked to people. He didn't threaten them. Carter's a good guy. I shook his hand on a plane once. In fact, he walked down the aisle, and shook hands with everyone on the plane. You gotta love the guy.

[polly7]

62. What if it were the same rebels who've been proven to

have tortured, killed, raped, beheaded, cannibalized their victims and stated flat-out ethnic cleansing is just one of their goals ..... and the U.S. bombing allows them to gain control of Syria? What then? Would it be alright with you that millions of people who don't want this in Syria are now under their mercy? Think ... Libya and how horrible it is there now.

[MineralMan]

65. Another question as an answer.

I'm sorry, but I can't help.

[polly7]

67. My apologies. nt.

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[MineralMan]

70. Also not responsive.

See ya.

[99th_Monkey]

64. The UN and The Hague -- these are the avenues for action under Int'l Law.

On Edit: another even better form of action is providing real humanitarian relief to victims,
through the proper channels i.e. red cross, UN, etc.

[MineralMan]

68. So, if there were another attack, you'd say

taking it to the UN would be appropriate? Thanks.

[99th_Monkey]

71. I'd say do that, AND the Hague AND real humanitarian relief to victims as possible, yes.

[MineralMan]

72. Makes sense.

I'm not much in favor of the US acting unilaterally as the Middle East police force, frankly, either.

[Skidmore]

66. I think Westerners greatly underestimate

the thinking and actions of the peoples of the ME, both in matters of aggression and peace. Especially in the US, there is very little understanding of the notion of public face/etiquette vs private behavior. We tend to shoot our mouths off for the short game. Peoples who have been invaded and annexed by empires over millennia understand the long game better.

I have no doubt we will see further aggression and continue to think we can micromanage war or peace in the region. I also know we will see handwringing and lamentations on all sides of the political spectrum here in its wake. Some of the loudest critics we have on our side will be out front with many words and few solutions. My fervent hope is that we take the time to understand these much older cultures, respect these peoples, and stop trying to mold them to e just like us.

[MineralMan]

69. Yes. I've said that the West doesn't understand the ME

a number of times here on DU. My own personal preference would be that we had never meddled in affairs in that region in the first place. That's an opinion I've held since the late 1950s, and still hold it. Thanks.

[Thinkingabout]

73. I would think those opposed to a strike would have to back track rapidly.

[MineralMan]

77. Perhaps. I'm not sure that would happen, though.

For some, perhaps, but not for all. I think seeking a global consensus of some kind should still be the correct course for the U.S.

[CincyDem]

74. What if, instead...

...he marches 1,500 Syrian citizens out into the courtyard and shoots them.

Is he better or worse because of the how?

This outrage over how the last 1,500 were killed is nuts. Are these last 1,500 some more important than the first 1,500 who were killed by somehow more acceptable means.

I don't know if it was Assad or rebels but the time to express outrage was at the first lives. 100,000 we are already complicit.

[polly7]

128. ........

The Assad regime is surely brutal, but make no mistake: this is a civil war, not a one-sided slaughter. Earlier this summer, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimated that 43 percent of the 100,000 Syrians thought to have died in this conflict were fighting for Assad, surpassing estimates for both noncombatants and anti-regime forces.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/06-7

[Warpy]

75. Then perhaps the Arab League will act

Nobody elected us the world's policeman and it's damned sure nobody is contributing to help us with the massive cost.

We don't understand those people and anything we do is going to be hamfisted and make things worse. See: Iraq.

We need to pick our fights a lot more carefully. This isn't one of them.

[MineralMan]

80. That, I think, would be an excellent outcome.

And I agree with you that we err in thinking we are the planet's police force. Thanks for your answer.

[Skidmore]

84. The Arab League can tell us how high to jump as

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

long as we choose to go hat in hand to that region seeking oil. We and they have tolerated much destructive instability in the interests of keeping coffers full and macines humming. We are unable to just pull the plug on fossil fuels and their transport without creating a huge financial hit to the world and to ourselves.

[Warpy]

88. That would help. Perhaps China will sell us the technology

they've been investing in while we've been fighting stupid war after stupid war over oil.

[Jackpine Radical]

81. A couple of thoughts--

We are not omniscient. There is a possibility that more will die if we do nothing. However, there is also a possibility that our doing "something" will lead us into an even deeper quagmire, opening something very ugly in the Middle East.

Also, there is no assurance that doing "something" will make things any better.

My instincts suggest that the danger of an expanded engagement with, say, Iran weighs more than the likelihood of a humanitarian outcome.

Ultimately, it comes down to the Serenity Prayer and "the wisdom to know the difference."

[MineralMan]

86. All true. We often make mistakes when we

act quickly. Thanks for your response.

[Javaman]

89. What if we wait and see what the UN inspectors find?

I know, crazy!

[JHB]

91. What if we DO do something and he conducts another one anyway?

Wouldn't we be obligated to respond with an even more powerful attack, lest our "sending a message" look like a "paper tiger"?

...and we'd get dragged further and further...

[kentuck]

93. I think there is more of a likelihood of chemical attack...

if we bomb him?

Assad knows that if he there were to be another chemical attack, his ass would be grass. The threat of attack has served a similar purpose, without the bombs and destruction, in my opinion. He has dodged a bullet simply because the Congress and the people of the America are burnt out and tired of war at this time. But they would have little patience for any more games from Mr Assad.

[MineralMan]

98. That's possible, too, of course.

I have no way to predict what someone like Assad might or might not do. I simply don't know enough to make any predictions.

There is, apparently, a single paragraph report saying that he has already made another attack. Without confirmation, though, I have no idea if that is true or not. If he did that, I'm afraid opinion would not go his way, though.

Cali just posted that report. It's high up in GD right now.

[idwiyo]

99. What if it were rebels? Than what?

[kentuck]

114. If they were "our " rebels...?

Where would they get the gas?

[idwiyo]

117. Saudi Arabia, Government stockpiles, anyone who will sell them chemicals (see UK for example).

[Art_from_Ark]

173. Sarin gas manufacture isn't the exclusive domain of governments

Asahara Shoko, the Japanese cult leader who was responsible for the Tokyo subway sarin gas attacks back in 1995, manufactured his own sarin gas at his compound in Kamikuishiki.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. What if he doubles down when we attack? What then?

Here is what I think: only an idiot allows his actions to be dictated by the actions of an insane enemy. I really don't approve of a world in which any nutjob government can order us to war by gassing a few people they would have otherwise shot, hanged, flayed alive, beheaded, stoned or stabbed to death.

[The Link]

96. Spot on.

[MineralMan]

105. There are many what ifs. I posed one.

Some have answered. Most have not. Most have simply posed another one.

[Bluenorthwest]

111. Because they are all forms of the same question, man. A question to which there is no answer

Because what he does is not caused by what we do. So we can not do X which = he no longer uses chemical weapons. X= No X.
Then again, the big attack came one year after Obama made the 'red line' which could be called goading Assad to gas people, or even daring him to do so. What if he had not made such an ego drenched comment? Would Assad still have used gas? Or did he do it because he was dared to do it?

[Redford]

97. I'm having a hard time rationalizing why chem weapons are BAD but

drones, bombs, and bullets are okay weapons. How many children have been killed by the US using those things? We are no better than Assad - but then again i think this is a total black op with the Saudi's pulling the strings.

[MineralMan]

103. Yeah. All weapons are bad.

However, chemical weapons have been condemned for a very long time. Read some accounts of WWI gassings to help you understand the reasoning for that.

[Bluenorthwest]

150. WW1? Why go back that far? Look at Saddam's use of poison gas on civilian and military

people during and supported by the Reagan administration, Rumsfeld went to shake his hand directly after the largest attack. This action is not mentioned, much less condemned. Ask Obama about Reagan, he lavishes praise on him, he has never once mentioned the horrific chemical weapons use by Iraq which Reagan supported. Not once has Reagan's sanguine response to massive use of chemical weapons warranted a mention from Obama. I guess some gas users get impunity, others get condemned. I guess Ronnie is golden good anyway, Obama said he was better than Clinton, this President who at the very least turned a blind eye to the largest gas attacks of our time. Hard to buy Obama as a man who thinks much about chemical weapons use, since Reagan is seen as favorable to him and since historic gassing of thousands never rated so much as a mention.

[MineralMan]

156. I went back to WWI because it was that war that

led to a worldwide ban on the use of chemical weapons. It seemed to me that going back to the origins of the thing was worthwhile.

[treestar]

139. The UN could perhaps explain

Why they are worse, and why there is a convention signed by all but 5 countries against them, yet no such thing for drones, bombs and bullets.

[madinmaryland]

100. What if we bomb, bomb, bomb Syria and then a few months later Assad

gasses his people again. Then what?

[MineralMan]

108. Yes. That's another question, but it's not

responsive to my question, which was posted to get people's ideas about that particular possibility. You didn't answer my question, so I'm not going to answer yours.

[madinmaryland]

116. I'm sorry I have to actually explain my post to you, but the point is that no matter what happens,

nothing positive will happen.

[L0oniX]

104. Let me know when a large majority of the international community of nations wants to do something.

[MineralMan]

109. I won't have to let you know. It will be in the news.

I'm asking a question about the distinct possibility that we might act before that happens.

[snappyturtle]

106. It's a given....by whom???? That will provide the final nail in

the coffin to attack. TPTB WANT WAR! imho

[former9thward]

113. No intervention in Middle East civil wars.

There are no good guys. They all hate us despite what they conveniently may say to visitors like McCain. They know the right things to say to the right people at the right time for PR consumption in the U.S.

How come we ignore the continuing genocidal civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa which are killing hundreds of thousands not hundreds?

[Rex]

123. That is a great question.

'What then' indeed. I have to admit to you that I have no idea.

[Comrade Grumpy]

124. If that were to happen, that would probably strengthen the case at the UN.

Which is the only legal venue for authorizing the use of military force against a sovereign nation. I think I've seen some hints that even Russia might be open to something at the Security Council. If the council is confident that Assad is responsible for that first (major) attack and if the council is confident he is responsible for a hypothetical second attack, even the Russians and Chinese might come around.

Meanwhile, probably as many people have been killed in Syria since the gas attack as were killed in it.

If the US wants to go to war in Syria, do it through the UN.

[Vincardog]

129. I believe the UN not the USA is tasked with policing the anti-chemical warfare treaties and laws.

If there is another of the ALLEGED attacks it will still be the UN's responsibility.

[ehcross]

132. If we don´t do anything about Syria - EHC

Syria is considered one of the most dangerous countries in the middle east, perhaps as dangerous as Iran.
Since Iran is not being blamed for any attack (at least at this moment) , and Syria is highly suspicious, it seems to me the logical path to go to Iran is through Syria first. And Syria would probably be an easier job.

[cleanhippie]

133. You make the assumption that Assad did it to begin with, and that another will be on his order too.

I am not arguing that he did or did not do this, but no one, and I mean no one knows who actually did it. And until that evidence is presented, verified, and verified again, openly, we should do absolutely nothing.

[sibelian]

138. That would be sad.

What if "he" (or "they" or "it" or whoever it is we're pretending to have emotions about) did it again and everyone still did nothing? That would be terrible. Terribly sad. And then what if he did it AGAIN and we STILL did nothing. Awful. And what if he did it AGAIN after THAT and we STILL did nothing???? Gosh. It gets worse and worse.

Wait a minute. What if we attacked now and it made things WORSE? What if Syrians got pissed off with the USA and it radicalised them and made them even nastier? Ooooo. That would be even more sad. They might do more gas attacks. And gas is no-fair cheating where the other guy doesn't get to shoot back. Also, dead kids look creeeeeepy.

What if we attacked them and they ATTACKED BACK? ARRRGH! That's horrible! Lots of dead people and misery and peopole being all out of sorts and off balance and properly tipped over and confused and unhappy with their ot! No fun for anyone. And then what if we attacked them AGAIN... and... THEY STILL ATTACKED BACK!!! Help! Maybe that woul dbe a wwrar crime. Woudl they be legal combatants? Maybe they would be freedom fighters. Would they be terrorists?

ALL OF THIS IS HORRIBLE.

WAIT. WAIT WAIT WAIT.

What if we attacked now and it all.... GOT BETTER? YAY! That would be great! That's fantastic! We'd have MADE it better! It could be all like: "OMG OMG OMG we've pissed off the AMERICANS. The CREDIBLE people. My heavens, all this time we've been thinking all about oruselves all along and we've been making the lovely Americans all angry and disturbing them emotionally. That's awful, really awful, the poor guys muist be feeling terrible. You know what, let's just stop. Yeah, I know you killed my mom and I killed your cousin and he killed your hamster but Jesus, we've been pissing off the Americans, you know that's a really big fucking deal. I'm so glad they sent us this message by blowing my legs off. I feel so differently about this whole situation. I've changed my religion and everything. LET'S JUST CALL IT QUITS. SHAKE HANDS, BUDDY."

THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

Waaaaait a second.

What if we DON'T attack now... and it runs its course in some way or another and ends by itself. One or other side gives up and lets the other have their way. "Oh, have what you want, then! Freaks." Or, you know, I suppose we could do some kind of lame intervention thing with diplomats, hyuck. Some other dumb shit. Woah, I feel really inspired. NOT.

Hmmmm. That's just really unsatisfying. We don't seem to be ... involved.

Let's go for the attacking-and-it all-gets-better story! That feels great!

[treestar]

140. So many dodges of the question!

But of course the answer it that it will be Obama's fault.

[MineralMan]

145. Some answers, though. I thanked those posters.

I hoped for discussion, but it was not to be.

[jessie04]

146. Who cares about those kids ?...None of our business.

sarcasm

[Precisely]

141. Not bombing is not the same as "don't do anything"

[1StrongBlackMan]

147. I have asked that same questions …

Several times over the past couple of days and have gotten similar non-answers. So I will answer for them:

Question: What if we don’t do anything about Syria, and Assad conducts another Sarin attack similar to the one he apparently ordered? What then?

Answer: Since we weren’t directly affected, we will rush right on past it to our next position of outraged certainty.

Note: for many, it will be expressions of outrage that anyone could have allowed a chemical weapons attack to occur, and go unpunished?

[MineralMan]

157. So it seems. That is sad, I think.

[1StrongBlackMan]

172. So true ...

I am developing a thought that I I would love to test academically ... We know of studies showing that fear/anxiety activates the fight/flight response in humans. Studies have, also, shown that response to fear/anxiety is a fairly good predictor of political orientation (or was it, political orientation is a pretty good predictor of one's response to fear/anxiety?) ... from those studies, we know that (self-described) liberals respond differently than conservatives.

I'd love to test whether within the Liberal cohort, there are measurable distinctions in response, i.e., thought beyond the immediate step, that your question exposes.

[GeorgeGist]

148. Israel and SA can deal with it.

[Cleita]

151. We have to do something and it has to be something with real teeth in it

but it doesn't have to be military. Why is only the military option being explored? Obama needs to get away from those war hawks and the MIC to come up with non-military solutions and there are many being floated out there by real experts. He needs to start listening.

[leveymg]

152. I think a faction of the Syrian military is operating on its own. Attacking Assad will just make

them even more autonomous. Do you want more or less killing on all sides?

[Sunlei]

154. agree w/ mineralman. If this chemical becomes commonplace, the next firework

could be full of poison or the next can of food one opens in their house.

[madrchsod]

155. the majority of the people in the usa don`t care now

another attack won`t change their opinion.

[TheKentuckian]

158. Then we still do not attack. If he does it yet again, then we still don't attack.

Why? Because attacking and especially regime change will make matters worse not better.

Syria can become a sterile patch of dirt before I support being suckered into yet another "you broke, you buy it" when we refuse to keep up our own bridges, feed our poor, house our homeless, educate or children, or care for our seniors or the steady stream of veterans we create and damage for a lifetime over our resource wars.

I'm also less concerned about the chemical weapons ban than you are, I'm confident that much of our "conventional" arsenal is as capable or more so of cause mass death and even defects as toxins. We also dance around on the head of a pen with what is and what isn't a substance just as bad or worse that didn't make the list.

I also believe that since we use highly questionable weapons ourselves pretty consistently, refuse to join the world in banning land mines and other reckless anti-personnel weaponry, and sure as hell refuse to hold to account our own war criminals, and given our almost wholly failed efforts in the region that we have essentially negative standing to act as policeman here without pretty much unanimous international support and will make matter worse on ourselves and in the region by jumping in.

Actually, we need to be cozying up the Assad and making it clear that if he stops the chemical attacks and works to control any loose weapons that we will join Russia in propping him up. We might even offer to exchange the chemicals for more acceptable modern munitions.
What our goal should be is stability and following that, secular governance. Assad was put in place for such conditions and it is dubious that the opposition forces can offer such no matter how well propped up.

Russia (and China) are protecting their economic and geopolitical interests, we need to be partnering to make sure those interests are looked after in exchange for their help in securing those chemical weapons and tugging the leash of Assad if they are our actual concern and not a pretext.

[MineralMan]

159. Thanks for your response to the question.

Your answer is the best presented and thought out in the entire thread. It represents what discussion on DU should be like.

I salute you!

[TheKentuckian]

174. Glad to participate.

[backscatter712]

171. THIS EXACTLY!

We can argue about whether it was Assad or the rebels using chem weapons. My bet is that both sides have used them.

But the question is whether our interventions will make things worse or better. And the history of these sorts of military interventions suggests that they make things worse.

We can start with the cruise missiles and the air strikes, which will kill thousands. Maybe if targeted correctly, they'll kill soldiers. If not, we'll accidently blow up a preschool or something. But even the soldiers don't want to be there. At best, we kill a bunch of people, and for what? We're probably not going to be able to eliminate Assad's or the rebel's chemical weapons capabilities. We'll probably escalate the war and increase the numbers killed. And it very well may escalate into a regional conflict rather than a civil war. Either way, chances are good that in the process of "saving lives", we could kill thousands, or tens of thousands, or more.

So what's the point? Sure, we can remove one murdering dictatorial SOB from power, but then what? Replace him with another one? The rebels are no better.

This is the Syrians' fight, and not ours. We can't intervene in a way that will make things better for the Syrian people. Going to war will guarantee that thousands more will die, and it will lay the groundwork for the next war a decade or two in the future.

If we absolutely had to use violent methods, and I'm thinking we don't. But if we did, I'd suggest assassination. Rather than going to war and killing thousands, mostly civilians, and soldiers that are as powerless as everyone else, go after the decision-makers. Whack Assad. Put some arsenic in his falafel. Scratch that. Put some sarin in his falafel - let the punishment fit the crime. And while we're at it, whack the leadership of the extremist loonies on the other side - all the Islamists, Al Qaeda allies, and war criminals on the rebel side. A sniper's bullet, some polonium in the soup, something targeted to kill the bastards that give the orders. Out of all the violent methods, assassination targeted at decision-makers is the least immoral.

[LWolf]

160. What if...

We can create infinite hypothetical situations that could lead to more war.

What if we focused on non-military responses and interventions, instead?

Here's what I consider a real possibility:

For the rest of my lifetime, some humans are going to be committing atrocities upon others, individually, in smaller groups, nationally, and globally. "Getting Bin Laden/Assad/Saddam/" etc. doesn't stop that, or even slow it down.

The real solution is not going to come militarily. Killing begets killing. War begets war. Atrocity begets atrocity. And I consider bombs an atrocity.

The real solution to human violence will come, not through punishment, revenge, and violence, but through peaceful means.

[MineralMan]

161. I completely agree that peaceful solutions are the ultimate answer.

The problem arises when individuals who gain power abuse that power and cause extreme suffering for the very people they are supposed to govern. That's something that has occurred many times in human history. When it does, it raises a question about the responsibility of everyone to stop that from happening.

It is a valid question and one that gets asked every time a tyrant causes people to suffer and die. I don't have an answer for it, though. I'm just one guy, and lack any power that would let me end such practices.

It's a dilemma.

[LWolf]

162. I'm thinking that

whatever is on the table, whatever is on the front page, whatever is kept at the forefront of the collective mind...that's what gets done.

So, while it's not an immediate answer to each individual crisis, the conversation should be focused on those peaceful solutions, FIRST, and all the time.

Keep that collective mind focused on those peaceful solutions, and I think we'd begin moving forward to a more peaceful world.

Keeping it focused on fear, anger, and hate; keeping it focused on punishment and revenge...prevents us from ever reaching an ultimate answer.

For the immediate situation, I stand here:

1. We are not the global police, judge, jury, or executioner. We should not be acting unilaterally.

2. We SHOULD be supporting whatever conclusions the UN comes to, and actions they initiate.

3. We SHOULD be a voice in the UN for peaceful, non-violent responses FIRST.

[MineralMan]

164. I don't disagree with you.

The only time I think that immediate actions are needed is in cases where there is an imminent threat of some mass atrocity that is almost certain to occur.

In the late 1930s, Germany began sweeping up nations and peoples in its quest to impose their rule throughout Europe. We watched this happen. Attempts were made to appease the German leadership by England and others. Those attempts failed, and Germany's policies of elimination of Jews and other groups were allowed to grow and succeed. Finally, the US joined the war against Germany, but only when we were forced to by attacks on England and the Pearl Harbor attack.

Since then, there have been many atrocities around the world, in various nations and regions. Most of those we ignored, allowing them to run their course, despite condemnation by the UN. Why we ignored them has much to do with economics, sadly. We have normally maintained a hands-off policy when such things occur. We condemn them and the UN condemns them, but they continue, for lack of any real way to make them stop, short of warfare.

Some will point to atrocities cause by the United States, and there have been some of those as well. It appears to be the nature of governments that they act in ways that defy reason.

Even when the UN does call for action, the reality is that most nations have no capability or desire to interfere. The U.S. does. Russia does. A few other nations can bring some forces to bear, but most of the world cannot do anything. The UN, itself, has no military forces it can bring to bear on problems, so it has often fallen to the U.S. to be the enforcer. For that, we get no thanks from most of the rest of the world.

The UN should be a global body, with some actual authority. It is not, though. In fact, the way it is set up, most emergent situations are handled by the Security Council. In that body, a single nation can veto any action, so major nations who are in contention with each other in some way often cancel out any possible action.

As I said, it is a dilemma. In the Middle East, for example, the proper methods for handling tyrants should be administered by neighboring countries, not by the global community, in my opinion. However, that never seems to happen.

I have no good answers.

[David__77]

163. The US should not intervene, period.

Now, that is my position. But the chances of bloodshed are reduced if the US will apply pressure on the insurgents to sit for peace talks unconditionally. The government has agreed to do it. Work with Russia to get these parties together.

[MineralMan]

165. That is an excellent suggestion. It sometimes works.

In the Middle East, however, there are longstanding rivalries between superpower nations that limit the possibilities. Those, of course, have to do with the economics of petroleum, primarily. Cooperation in the region among nations located away from the region has long been very difficult.

But, you're right. That is what should happen.

[David__77]

166. Otherwise, it the 80s Afghanistan thing, redux.

Except of course that Syria is not occupied by a superpower, and the Syrian government actually has greater public support than did the Afghan one back then. But the principle is the same: a developing country treated as a plaything for superpowers, one supporting a secular force, one supporting rather extreme Islamist forces.

[MineralMan]

167. Yup. The Middle East has been a place for surrogate conflict

for the U.S. and Russia. China is a wildcard in the game.

[David__77]

169. China just wants out of the spotlight.

This is all good for them in that it prevents the "pivot to Asia" some were talking about. However, China is against the Syrian insurgency, especially as it sees it as a threat to its security in Xinjiang/"East Turkmenistan." Supposedly, some Chinese citizens are among the jihadists in Syria.

[Coyotl]

168. What if we do something about Syria, and the consequence is catastrophe for the whole world?

What has been done already, the saber-rattling and secret activities has driven the price of crude to a new high and may collapse the global economy. Doing anything, except backing off, will only make the oil price situation worse and have negative consequences for the whole world.

It is time to take this matter to the Un and to stop the Saudis from playing war games for oil profits.

[MineralMan]

170. That's really a different discussion, I think.

My focus is small, and it is on the people in Syria, not global issues.

Your question is a larger one, with far more variables. My answer to that is that a plan should be made by all major nations to withdraw completely from the region and stop all armament sales to the region. Applying pure economic sanctions would be the control method for rogue nations in that situation.

That has always been my opinion about the Middle East, starting in the late 1950s, when I could first articulate it. We should not be using the Middle East as a surrogate for our own conflicts. Period.

[stevenleser]

175. We should do what we should have done from the beginning. Tell the world this is Russia's guy and

if any of the worlds larger military powers are going to intervene to stop that country's trampling on international law, it should be them. Or, the Security Council needs to step up and take action, but of course that would require Russia and China's vote. If they vote against it, we should make sure they pay a publicity price in terms of world opinion for that vote.

[abelenkpe]

177. We aren't the only country

If other countries support a military strike on Syria to stop Assad then they can step up and do it. Why are we the only ones expected to police the world? Why should only the US bear the blame for ongoing civil war in Syria if they choose not strike? This is the worlds problem. Not ours.
Russia has stated that they will support Assad. We risk a larger war if we act alone.

If the house does not approve this strike and the administration goes ahead alone do you think republicans won't use that in an attempt to impeach the president or further undermine his presidency? Or that they'd feel remorse about ongoing suffering in Syria? Do they feel remorse starving social programs here or hurting their own citizens to score points against the administration?