So I hear that we are divided here on DU about war with Syria

[tavalon]

Are we, really? I mean, I haven't seen a single post that is pro war with Syria. Am I just profoundly lucky at not finding them or is it just BS that we are divided on this issue? Anyone here want to tell me they are wanting the war and their reasons for wanting it?

[last1standing]

1. I've read a few posts that have been pro-war, but not many.

The main argument seems to be whether we should believe Obama's words or what some want to think is some grand secret plan to make the republicans in congress look bad.

[rug]

3. Follow the blue links for the Pro War Posts.

[last1standing]

6. Or look at post #2.

Do you oppose killing people on a hunch? If so your hair is on fire.

[rug]

7. An ironic use of hyperbole.

[JackRiddler]

85. Ha, doesn't exist (on ignore)

Whatever it is.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. A Sensible suggestion.

[JaneyVee]

108. I believe we need to intervene in Syria, just not sure about militarily.

[last1standing]

117. There are many ways we could intervene in Syria without sending troops or bombs.

Personally, I think that the rebels winning this civil war would be even worse than Assad staying in power so I'd rather not intervene at all. Once we do, we must, by logic, help the rebels, and one we do that we are partly responsible for the crimes they commit when in power.

However, if we do want to intervene, we could state to the UN that, without exception, we will place an embargo on any country caught selling chemical weapons to Assad or the rebels and we will back it up with force. That would be far more effective than intervening directly.

[JoePhilly]

2. The debate seems to be about how much of your hair to set on fire.

And if your answer is "not all of it" ... you are a warmonger.

We're fighting the great Hyperbole war of 2013.

[morningfog]

32. Real people will die if and when Obama bombs Syria. There is no hyperbole in that.

[mick063]

46. Tell the President to put away the blowtorch.

n/t

[sibelian]

89. No, Joe. YOU are, and about 3 other people.

The rest of us are pretty clear on the subject.

[Marr]

91. Urging people to be apathetic about war does not make you look mature. /nt

[Marrah_G]

4. We have at least one

Just search Sand_Wind.... been beating the drums of war since arriving.

Most of DU is anti-war. The folks who are for bombing Syria, from what I have seen, tend to be the people who would agree with anything the President does.

[L0oniX]

49. ^^^^this^^^^

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Exactomundo ^^^^----^^^^

[Scootaloo]

66. Well, you're half-right

Yes, thereare the swamp dwellers who are so busy swooning over the president that htey don't have time for all that leftist "critical thought" stuff.

But there's also the people who just happen to enjoy the thought of dead Arabs. There's slightly fewer of 'em, but they're there such as jessie04, who's expressed nothing but bglee when Arabs die (unless of course those Arabs happen to also be coptic Christians, then it's a tragedy)

[The Straight Story]

5. I favor limited strikes

Involving their radars, air defenses, and some planes. This won't help the rebels since they do not use planes and it will lower assad's defenses should he continue to use chemical weapons and other countries get involved.

Israel has struck Syria themselves without going to a full, boots on the ground, style war and without aiding the rebels.

I don't favor a war for regime change, taking sides, etc. Limited strikes will cost assad money (have to replace things) and if we can ever get the UN to move ahead on sanctions (russians....) we could pressure him by cutting off aid to replace those items hit.

[bowens43]

20. What you describe is war

[The Straight Story]

25. Then we and the UN are at war in the congo

Since they have sent limited troops there and aiding in the fighting. There are 17,000 troops there now (UN) and, as usual, China and Russia are not happy about it (most recently because of the use of drones for gathering intelligence).

I don't see a lot of people up in arms about the involvement there (where 5.4 million have died).

So call it a war if you like, but there are levels of involvement.

[jessie04]

47. + 1000

.

[liberal_at_heart]

65. and has our involvment in the Congo helped to stop the conflict there? How long has that

country been at war? We need to stop trying to solve everybody's problems by getting involved militarily.

[The Straight Story]

73. Not just with the military, and the UN has being doing what they can for 14 years

Only recently have they tried to step in with any real forces. Which is why I don't think the UN would be of any real use in Syria.

Just hanging out and observing and passing resolutions does not stop fighting or reduce threats. Doing nothing won't help either.

[liberal_at_heart]

74. Limited strikes in Syria will do nothing. All Syria has to do is ask Russia for more weapons.

But it could make it worse, by igniting a regional civil war. We all know it is only a matter of time before that whole region goes up in smoke. Whether it is now or 100 years from now. They are ripe for a horrifying region wide masacre.

[morningfog]

34. Anything that harms Assad's military will help the rebels.

[eridani]

102. Why in fucking hell would we want to help Al Qaeda?

"Christians to Beirut; Alawites to the grave"

[CakeGrrl]

37. I agree with this. Limited strikes as the administration has indicated.

But apparently, if you aren't fully in lockstep with the "HELL NO!" contingent, that makes one a war-lover.

No nuance or discussion to be had here.

[HardTimes99]

54. Except Syria is fully entitled under international law to fire back, even preemptively, in

her own self defense, since Obama is violating international law by not going to the U.N.

[The Straight Story]

60. We went to the UN on this before, vetoed. So, what is anyone gonna do about the US? Nothing.

Syria gasses people and no one will do anything about that. If we do limited strikes on them no one will do anything about that either.

[Marrah_G]

58. what you are describing is an act of war

[jessie04]

8. I am against war...but I do support Obama's strikes on Assads military assets.

[bowens43]

22. You are NOT against war. You are in favor of it

[HardTimes99]

55. +1 - nt

[Marr]

92. +1

I'm so sick of the bullshit from the fucking sales team.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. The only divide I have seen

is the anti-war vs the "we have to stick by Obama no matter what" crowd. It is a sad day.

[jessie04]

13. How about the " Its wrong to chemically nuke innocent people" crowd ?

nt

[leftstreet]

16. Antiwar people agree n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

19. Yes, I guess that I have seen that pop up a few times too.

But that is not the one I have seen often.

Of course, we all think that is wrong----both sides in this debate. But it was also terrible what happened in so many countries over the years, where hundreds of thousands have died, but we did not chose, for humanitarian reasons, to step into those conflicts. It is a shame when even one innocent person dies unnecessarily at the hands of another....but we cannot just interject ourselves into every incident. The people who hate this country are trying to bankrupt us, and we cannot get sucked into it every time they do something horrible.

[jessie04]

21. I agree

but I do think several tomahawks at Assad's prize weapons delivery systems would send a message that we got a serious moral problem with his using those weapons and do it again and it may get worse.

There would be almost no collateral damage as tomahawks as seriously accurate.... unless you count Assads forces.

There would be no boots on the ground.

it wouldn't be any more of a "war" than Libya or Bosnia.

And blowback.... I don't think they are going to bomb our embassy there since we don't have one there.

My favorite one is " we don't want to upset iran or Hezbollah"...

------

By the way, thank you for not berating my opinion.

[NuclearDem]

24. Wow, this is so shortsighted and completely ignorant of ME geopolitics it's astounding.

[Scootaloo]

67. Par for the course with JihadWatch Jessie.

[Curmudgeoness]

28. From being on this planet for too many years,

and seeing too many of these situations where we are told that there will be no problem, I am skeptical. Hell, I am more than skeptical. I am almost certain that this will not shake out the way we are being told.

[Squinch]

30. But, but, we'll be greeted as liberators, and it won't cost a thing!!!

And I know this because I am the Queen of France.

Arise, varlet.

[jessie04]

31. I appreciate your response.

nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Wow...just wow

[Nevernose]

87. I had a close friend killed in Bosnia.

An American soldier. I had another friend who lost a leg. Landmines, both of them -- ironically yet another treaty the US refuses to he a part of.

So please, tell me and my friends' families how they weren't in wars. Explain it.

[morningfog]

35. Holy shit! When were chemical nukes used?

[L0oniX]

51. I think it may be worse to let our own war criminals off the hook. n/t

[MNBrewer]

116. As my dear grandmother used to say "Two wrongs don' t make a right"

[leftstreet]

15. +1 It's not even a rational divide

Antiwar vs Obama Loyalty


Makes absolutely no sense

[zipplewrath]

11. Wander over to the BOG.

I think you'll find what you're looking for there.

[stevenleser]

106. Not all BOGgers are pro-Striking Syria. nt

[zipplewrath]

114. No

But the question was about the existence of bombing supporters and that is a quick place to go find some.

[cthulu2016]

12. The pro-war posts tend to claim it isn't a "war"

[Warpy]

14. A few people are buying the fiction

that we'll lob a few rockets at known weapons depots and get rid of all that nasty old gas and nothing else that bad will happen.

I'd rather the country take the money it would have blown up in a futile effort to destroy weapons whose location isn't precisely known and spend it on aid for the millions of Syrian refugees ringing that country, most with nothing but the clothing on their backs when they fled.

[HardTimes99]

64. + Infinity! - nt

[defacto7]

88. Hear hear!

[JI7]

17. some people think if you don't believe OBama , Kerry etc want to kill kids and enjoy killing kids

you want to war.

the funniest is the al qaeda card being used though.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Lots of Pro War DUers...

but almost exclusively pro

[Tx4obama]

23. I am against Syria's ''civil war''. I support a U.S. 'intervention' with limited strikes...

A Syria intervention would be less than the Libya intervention - no one is calling for a no-fly-zone in Syria like there was in Libya.

[jessie04]

27. uh-oh

nucleardem might to say to you what he said to me...

Wow, this is so shortsighted and completely ignorant of ME geopolitics it's astounding.

[NuclearDem]

36. No, just to you.

Since you seem to think potentially pissing off Iran and Hezbollah isn't a good reason to avoid attacking Syria. Also, that ridiculous comment about blowback which seems to ignore the fact that we have embassies in Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey, all of which border Syria and have their share of extremists that would rally against another American military adventure in the region.

I'm pretty sure a lot of innocent people in Lebanon are concerned about getting Hezbollah riled and the potential for Iran to further their support, especially if they emerge as a possible agent for Iranian influence in Syria. The last time that group really got riled, Israel ended up leveling entire neighborhoods of Beirut.

So, yes, your comment was blatantly ignorant of how the ME works, and was riddled with the shortsightedness that brought about these kinds of situations in the first place.

[brisas2k]

38. Crazty or Crimianal?

If you are against the civil war in Syria, you should oppose the funneling of weapons by usa proxies into Syria. FYI, it has been going on since 2011.

[ZombieHorde]

26. I have seen two posters who seem to be pro war. nt

[jessie04]

41. Actually, I'm proud to say we have 5 pro-intervention posters.

and growing every few weeks. lol

[sibelian]

90. Could you build another website somewhere else, please?

You're wasting our time.

[jessie04]

99. Are these people "wasting your time" also ??

Pres.Obama
VP JOE BIDEN
SOS KERRY
MIN LEADER NANCY PELOSI
( FUTURE PRES.) HILARY CLINTON
CONG.DEBBIE-WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
HOWARD DEAN
SEN. DIANE FEINSTEIN
SEN. CARDEN
SEN MENENDEZ ( NJ)
SEN COONS
SEN. BOXER
SEN DICK DURBIN
SEN Jeanne Shaheen
SEN Tim Kaine



(next time be a little more condescending if you can)

[GeorgeGist]

100. Yes

[jessie04]

95. Make that 11 pro-interventional posters.

Lol

[KittyWampus]

29. Well, the divide is between those conspiracy theorists who keep dredging up crap to prove

it was a false flag attack or the rebels and those of us who are aware it was Assad.

There are those of us who as desperate to prove only a couple hundred civilians who died and those of us who realize it was at least around 1000.

The divide is between those of us trying to learn what is involved specifically in Syria and those who simply slap a label PNAC on it and think they know it all.

I could go on about the obvious divide.

But yeah, very few DU'ers want war in Syria.

[jessie04]

33. I'm with you.

nt

[brisas2k]

42. Poor Carla del Ponte

The divide takes place because some people inside and outside of usa want to forget that UN Investigator, Carla Del Ponte stated it categorically in May 2013. "Rebels are using chemicals against civilians".

anything added is just BS to justify imperial war of agression.

And not, it is not tin foil hat. Empires did exist in the past (remember where and why your american founders came from), they do exist in the present, and most likely will continue to exist.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

70. Actually, no she didn't...

She said there were "strong, concrete SUSPICIONS" the opposition used chemical weapons. She also didn't rule out that it was the government forces...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

[SomethingFishy]

44. Funny.. the White House said today that there is no solid evidence

that it was Assad. Even though you and a few others have been telling anyone who dared question the "intelligence" what fools they are, the White House came out today and admitted they were all correct.

You are right there is a divide. Only it's more like a divide between the people who have had enough and do not blindly accept everything the White House says as absolute fact, and those who simply slap an Obama label on it and think that it can't possibly be wrong.

[Initech]

39. The MIC can't have any new wars until they pay for the previous ones.

[treestar]

40. No one is pro war but

there are some self appointed people who will label you that if you push back against their illogical proclamations. Or even think it happened, or that Assad is guilty, or that the US maybe should do something about it.

[Earth_First]

43. Well so long as we are calling it a "limited incursion"

against "strategic interests" with attempts to minimize "collateral damage" in an effort to "cope with protracted contingencies" sure, I guess it isn't a "war" so they say...

[NuclearDem]

45. Sort of like how JFK's response to Cuba was a "quarantine."

[L0oniX]

48. The ranks of DU will soon thin as the war pigs leave for the front lines.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I have not seen one volunteering

[L0oniX]

53. Exactly! n/t

[jessie04]

59. You know it goes ways.

Since you are soooo against intervention, maybe you should go to Damasus, strap yourself up a chemical missile and declare yourself Human Shield .

You do that I will respect you forever

[L0oniX]

61. Put the crack pipe down before it's too late.

[NuclearDem]

77. .

[backscatter712]

98. +1,000,000! n/t

[L0oniX]

56. DU burp.

[reformist2]

57. Ouch!

[The Straight Story]

76. Awww, ain't that cute (and helpful to the discussion)

I am guessing you will be running for president to make the decisions you think are right?

Many people cannot sign up or join, but they live in this country and pay the salaries of our employees and have every right, as you do, to give their input. I am for fighting fires in the forests out west but am not able to be there on the front lines to help battle them - by your attempted reasoning I should not have an opinion to increase funding to add more firefighters (they are putting their life at risk using their chosen profession).

I won't feel bad for having empathy for others and wanting to do something about their senseless slaughter. I know some don't care about the whole thing and firmly believe assad owns those people and can murder/rape/torture/gas them all he wants - his people, his choice. I know that some prefer that the 1% in a country owns the 99% and we should not, in anyway, do anything to step on those rights they have. If the people don't want gassed they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and move. Don't like it, leave.

Oh, and speaking of our troops, of whom my son is one - I don't want to give the green light across the globe to people to go ahead and use chemical weapons. If we ignore it here our troops the world over will be targets of such in the future because folks will know we won't do anything about their use. Many countries have them but avoid using them for fear of retribution. Remove that and why should they care? Can't aim a rocket very well? No problem, gas fills up a bigger area so you don't need to hit your mark. Makes it easier.

[ocpagu]

82. So you support bombing them because you feel empathy for others? Ok. n/t

[L0oniX]

112. Obviously his empathy is not so much for the needy right here in the USA. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

115. Not true

He's needy.

[NuclearDem]

84. You know, that was almost a reasonable response.

Right up until the point where you accuse people not wanting to intervene of being totally cool with Assad's war crimes and mistreatment of his people.

If we choose intervene in Syria, and it backfires (which it will), it's going to end up getting many more thousands killed.

The chemical weapons won't be secured. In fact, there's a good chance they'll end up in the hands of whatever group finally forces out the Alawites.

We shouldn't be militarily involved in Syria because these situations are exactly what happen when we do so. And given the groups and countries fighting over Syria, that's not a situation we want to be involved in.

[L0oniX]

111. My priorities are for those that need help in the US. Your familiy is involved with the military.

Mine are with Meals on Wheels and feeding the homeless.

Oh and ...maybe you could also run for POTUS since you seem to know who really did the gassing. Some of us are not that sure.

[Bobbie Jo]

110. So when are the

Armchair Activists taking to the streets?

Big words from those running their proverbial mouths from the comfort of their kitchen tables.

Hit the damn streets already.

[L0oniX]

113. Yeah ...I would like to see that just like I did over Vietnam and Kent State and with Cindy Sheehan.

Does it seem that there are more wanting to go to war than protest in the streets? On the other hand maybe we need to get (afford) smaller internet blogging devices so we can be in the streets protesting while typing one blog sites.

[joshcryer]

63. Less than 10% are for any military action in Syria.

[jazzimov]

68. Not War, but a response.

I don't care what others say, it is NOT war. It doesn't necessarily have to be a military response, but I think that would be best.

I wish people would stop calling it "war", and call it what it is. This is NOT Iraq. This is not even Libya.

[tavalon]

71. How about this for a response?

Freeze the assets of all parties involved and then provide humanitarian aid to the 1/3 of Syrians who have been run out of their homes. Have the UN run the program. Get the International Criminal Court involved. Bomb no one, no how, no way. For once.

So you are legitimately for bombing a whole country for the crimes of a few? I know we're supposed to think of the children, but bombing them isn't really thinking much of them, is it?

[NuclearDem]

75. If you decide to drop bombs on another country, especially that country's armed forces

It's a war.

Just because we have advanced long-range technology to do what 100 years ago we would have needed boots on the ground to do doesn't make it any less so.

[ocpagu]

83. The definition for this "response" under International Law and the UN Charter...

... is war crime.

So yes, it's war.

[davidpdx]

69. I'm not so sure it's as clear cut as people make it out to be

Personally I don't want to see an attack. I do believe chemical weapons were used and I lean toward Assad being the cause. Congress will vote down the use of force so it will be a moot point. Obama has said he won't attack if that happens. Unlike others I believe him.

The question is what will the world do if the above does happen. My guess is nothing.

[Aerows]

72. The only people that support the war talk only support it because Obama says so

The second he says no, the support will evaporate and it will be "Obama never supported war in Syria, and I didn't either."

Everybody else will just say Hallelujah, another costly crisis averted, now lets talk about health care, jobs, and reining in the NSA again.

[brooklynite]

78. The problem is that you've been looking for "pro-war" postings...

...those of us who feel that a limited military response may be necessary, and that the President's judgement on the issue can be relied on are definitely not "pro-war"...since nobody is proposing a war.

[NuclearDem]

79. If you're in favor of committing acts of war, then you're pro-war

You just don't happen to be pro-expensive war.

[Aerows]

80. Face it

The second Obama decided not to intervene, you would be among the most suddenly anti-war zealots on DU. "He withstood the call for war, and didn't cave, he asked Congress, it was multi-dimensional! Our President stands for peace!"

I understand your lust to support him in everything he does ... but not everyone shares that lust if it is contrary to their values. A war of choice based upon questionable intelligence is contrary to my values.

[tavalon]

81. So, since this is a 2+ year conflagration in Syria,

is it the use of Sarin gas that finally pushed it into needing a response, whatever that response may be? Because, if so, we've likely used Sarin gas too, we've definitely used Phosphorus and well, there's that little Napalm incident. So, basically, I'm saying that if this is purely about that, the UN had better handle it, because our hands are too bloody.

[LostOne4Ever]

86. Define pro war

The truth is that some feel that military strikes in and of themselves are not war. Some disagree with that.

The "anti-war "side is going to try and make the pro-war side sound like unthinking zombies who follow Obama no matter what, and the "pro-war" side is going to paint the anti-war side as hair on fire conspiracy theorist who don't give a damn about the syrian people.

Your best bet is to simply ask each side why they support the war or oppose it and get the answer from the horses mouth.

I oppose it for several reasons. I believe violence only begets more violence and because of that we should try and exhaust all peaceful solutions first. I feel that given our history if we do get involved we will only making things worse there and become the scapegoat of both sides for everything that goes wrong there. I fear we may replace a great evil with an even more horrible one. I fear we will stain our hands in blood either for the wrong reasons or in vain. I worry that our involvement may lead to the war expanding pulling the whole region into war causing more death and pain than we will stop. I am also worried how we are going to finance this and what programs will get cuts to make room for it.

That said, and as I said above take this with a grain of salt as I am antiwar, I think the reasons for some wanting a military strike is that they feel that we made a pact to not allow any country to use Chemical weapons and if we don't follow through it will be like giving every would be dictator in the world a pass to use their in their conflict and possibly one day on us. That Assad is a HORRIBLE dictator who has now gassed his own people and that we owe it to the victims and to humanity to stop this man and his regime.

There are undoubtedly other reason for both sides but these are my reasons against war and what I understand the main reasons for those who supported military strikes. Either way, we need to remember that we all support our various position because we want what is best for ourselves and humanity as a whole.

It is by dehumanizing the other side that tragedies like the one that is happening in syria occur.

[durablend]

104. Quite simple actually

If another country were to lob a bunch of rockets at something (one or more) things important to THIS country, would you consider it war? If you do and still say a "limited strike" on Syria isn't a war, you're a hypocrite.

[Safetykitten]

93. Well, not actually, there are the usual suspects worried more about how this makes Obama look...

than anything else. So everyone is against it, but the way it's handled by President Obama as:

Chess Game

He's smarter than you...

He meant to do that.

He meant to do that but did not to fake you out which he did, and so he's smarter than you.

You know...the usual stuff.

[Hekate]

96. What you have is an army of DUers screaming that anyone who doesn't think Obama is a bloodsucking...

... tool of the MIC is not just mistaken, but that person is also a bloodsucking tool of the MIC.

It makes for real intelligent and enlightening discourse.

In case I haven't made it clear yet, here are my authoritarian bloodsucking tool bona fides:

I said I wouldn't come to a conclusion about Snowden until there was a lot more information about his motives and the effects of his actions, and although I speculated and ruminated on his psychology, I waited until quite recently before concluding this: Snowden apparently planned all along to do the spy nasty for Russia, and he did so, and he is causing actual harm to this country in unnecessary ways. Some of what he revealed we already knew. Some of what he revealed we needed to know. And some (maybe even a lot) of what he continues to reveal is on the order of unmasking Valerie Plame: vengeful and murderous.

I also have hesitated to jump on any of the Syria bandwagons, likewise waiting for better information, or better-informed commentary. I have concluded that better-informed commentary is not to be had here. The whole prospect is making me sick and I am routinely turning off the TV. I voted for this president because I trusted his character, an observation I have made numerous times before, and which is entirely different from hero-worship. He has a job to do, and while our input is important, that job can't be done by committee, especially a committee of several million. I have no idea how this is going to turn out, and am sorry we have come to this pass... Maybe we should be sending supplies to the 2+ million Syrians already in refugee camps -- that's 1/10 of Syria's population, and it looks like more are trying to get out.

[liberal_at_heart]

97. and those of us who don't want military strikes have been accused of not caring about

children being gassed. I agree about the humanitarian aid. Instead of focusing on punishing Assad we should be helping the people.

[jessie04]

118. Show us ONE post that said that.

nt

[RandiFan1290]

101. No divide

Just the usual publicon trolls

[Democracyinkind]

103. Apparently, it all hinges on the definition of "war"

Orwell rolling in his grave. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT NEWSPEAK IS ABOUT. Sorry for shouting - I just can't believe we've arrived...

[Buns_of_Fire]

105. "War" is being redefined all the time.

Be it an "insurgency," a "police action," a "punitive strike," or whatever, the definition is usually supplied by those who instigate it (or wish to instigate it) -- but you can bet it will seldom be called a "war."

[Democracyinkind]

107. I agree.

And Orwell pointed out the consequences of that... And here we are.