I admit to being "on the fence" about the proposed strike on Syria -- until I read this

[whathehell]

in Common Dreams.

The statistic that really got my attention was this:

Out of the 100,000 already killed in Syria by conventional weapons, a hefty 43% were ASSAD's people.

For some reason, I'd had the idea that the deaths there were something of a genocide

being perpetrated by Assad. This convinced me that the conflict truly IS a Civil War.

The use of chemical weapons is, of course, heinous, but to my understanding, we're not even sure if those weren't dispersed

by one of the very numerous factions of the rebel groups.

Aside from humanitarian relief, I think we need to stay the hell out of this.


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

[Historic NY]

1. Its a blood letting and those participating with the rebels...

aren't all from Syria either.

[whathehell]

5. Yes, I'm hearing that too. n/t

[Nevernose]

2. Under normal circumstances I'd say the idea that the Rebels

Released the gas on their own, either accidentally or on purpose, was a ludicrous conspiracy theory. However, the fact that so many of the rebels are now made up of Al Qaeda, foreign jihadis, and other "professional" terrorists leaves that door wide open.

The "freedom fighters" in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, kill their own civilians all the time to make some kind of point, and often (these days, usually) by strapping explosives to a small child.

I don't know what happened two weeks ago with any kind of certainty and I doubt anyone else does, either.

I would have no problems dropping food, clothing, medicine, etc daily, by the ton, in civilian areas. But taking a military side in this conflict is just dumb.

[snagglepuss]

4. +1

[liberal_at_heart]

6. I agree.

[whathehell]

11. Yep..

Although what "normal circumstances" in a middle east dictatorship like Syria are, I doubt either of us know.

That being the case, yes, we should stay out of it, militarily at least, while providing all the humanitarian aid possible.

[reformist2]

3. I think it's safe to say we have no idea who used the chemical weapons.

...blaming Assad is just too easy, too convenient, for people with long-term plans for the Middle East...

[Barack_America]

8. Then please describe to me how rebels could have carried out such an attack.

Which involved military grade rockets, coordinated launches across numerous areas simultaneously, and the very delicate mixing of sarin gas.

Do the rebels have a highly sophisticated and well-armed military they've been keeping under wraps until this attack?

FYI
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/rockets-in-syrian-attack-carried-large-payload-of-gas-experts-say.html?_r=0

[reformist2]

10. No. Our leaders need to show it was Assad. The world is unconvinced.

[MNBrewer]

18. Saudis

[nomorenomore08]

7. +1 to every post on this thread. We have no business taking sides in a civil war. n/t

[littlewolf]

16. agreed ... x1000 nt

[GeorgeGist]

9. And we all know that bombs are so much more humane than chemical weapons.

As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.

John Kerry, Secretary of State, United States of America.

[tavalon]

12. Humanitarian relief, for sure.

Bring in the UN and the ICC, for good measure. Justice with a side of caring.

[jimlup]

13. I also have felt "uncertain" but have come to much the same conclusion as you have...

I don't buy the Kerry is lying to us line.

But given that all of the propaganda coming from the administration is correct - I can't see how we can support this. If it happens it probably will be relatively controlled but we really don't know that. It could start a rather unexpected fire in the ME. I assume they've gamed that out but what are the probabilities? I'm nervous that's for sure.

[MNBrewer]

19. Do you think Kerry is being honest, though?

[jimlup]

23. Yes mostly his dishonesty is...

about his feelings versus his political alignment. If you listen skeptically you hear his voice quiver at key moments. That's an indication of someone who is not at all comfortable with what he is saying. But I don't think he is lying. I think he finds it difficult to be supporting violence at this level. But he's sufficiently endoctrinated and a "team player" so he's doing his job as he sees it.

[MNBrewer]

24. concealing the truth. Lying. Being "least untruthful"....

terms of art.

[whathehell]

25. Right...I don't know that Kerry is lying either

Maybe he just got bad intel, or maybe he really believes in his position..Who knows?

In the end, I'm not sure it matters much (I've come to be distrustful of MOST politicians,

even many supposed "democrats". I could probably count on one hand those I do trust).

I have this awful feeling that "we the people" really do not know WHAT is happening.

I feel terrible about all the casualties, the deaths of children, etc., but it does seem more like

a "civil war" than a genocidal massacre by one evil doer.

If we can't even figure out who all the players are, it seems dangerous and unwise to take sides,

at least at this point in time.

[AverageJoe90]

14. TBH, I read that myself, and.....While I remain skeptical....my position has not changed. eom

[Cleita]

15. Actually, it's a genocide on both sides. There are no good guys in this.

Each side has committed atrocities and frankly I don't think they know what they are fighting for. What started as an Arab spring type of peaceful protests deteriorated into this. I believe the original protesters are either dead or in refugee camps. But we and our allies and Russia and her allies keep giving weapons to the opposite sides. We are very much at fault here as is Russia.

[littlewolf]

17. NO GOOD GUYS !!!! agree

we need to stay the h@ll out of this ....

[Cleita]

20. Since we are part of the problem, we are going to have to be part of fixing it.

I'm against all military solutions, but I think we should explore other things like disarmament and targeted embargoes as well as lots of humanitarian aid.

[MNBrewer]

21. It's not a "genocide" on both sides

Simply killing large numbers of people is not a genocide. Our Civil War wasn't a genocide, for example.

The Alawites aren't trying to slaughter all the Sunnis in Syria, nor are the Christians or the Kurds. Some of the rebel factions DO have a genocide of the Alawites and an ethnic cleansing of the Christians and other religious minorities from Syria in mind. The Assad regime aligned Alawites are rightly fearful that they will be slaughtered if Assad falls.

[99th_Monkey]

22. There is also the UN, and The Hague as well ...

as avenues for "dealing with Assad", doing investigations, and sorting out what
really happened, and meting out justice through international agencies designed
for that very thing. The US struts around meting out "justice" unilaterally like
the int'l bully that it is. Enough.