That Assad is a bad person!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

OK, so now what?

What are you proposing be done about it?

How long will it take?

How much will it cost?

How many troops will be involved?

How do you know when you've succeeded?

What if you don't succeed?

How will you even know if you've succeeded or not?

What if there is retaliation by Assad?

What if the Iranians retaliate on his behalf?

What if Russian forces get involved accidentally or otherwise?

What if a civil war against a dictator who never expressed expansionist tendencies becomes a regional conflict?

What if you accidentally kill civilians?

What if it tips the scales in the jihadists' favor?


Too many people are running around acting as war will be cheap, easy and expedient.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. .

I propose we do what Pres. Obama decides to do about it.

It will only take a few days.

It doesn't really cost anything since the Military has it's appropriations already and this just allocates funds differently than it would have otherwise been spent.

No boots on the grounds means no troops, depending on how you define the word "troops".

You have succeeded when the objectives laid out by The President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been achieved.

If at first you don't succeed, try try again.

We have satellites that can take pictures of the damage.

The Iranians didn't do anything when Israel attacked Syria last year. There is no reason to assume they want to get into a war with anyone, much less the U.S..

Russia won't get directly involved either.

There is no reason to assume this becomes a regional conflict.

If you accidentally kill civilians then they will be dead. What if we do nothing and more chemical attacks are launched that kills thousands of civilians?

If the jihads take over then they will follow the same path as The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Grow up and govern or fail and be rejected and removed .


To many people are generalizing and not looking at what is actually going on.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. And if your happy declarations prove false?

[el_bryanto]

4. Isn't than an all purpose argument that suggests we shouldn't do anything ever.

"I'm going to the Village Inn for some pancakes."

"What if the restaurant catches fire and you burn to death?"

"Oh it's a big place and I'll be sure to sit away from the kitchen. Plus I know they have a pretty good fire extinguisher system, and the fire station is only a few blocks away."

"And if your happy declarations prove false?"

"You're right. I'd better not go."

Fits almost any scenario.

Bryant

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Do something is good.

Doing something that leads to an even worse situation *cough*Libya*cough* isn't.

Doing something sold as cheap, easy and expedient when the reality could be a hair's width from catastrophe isn't right.

Obama was elected -- in part -- to replace a man who thought he could rollover Saddam in a 3 week war. He was right*, to a degree; but he gravely underestimated Al Qaeda's willingness to rush into the vacuum. Hence we spent nearly a decade fighting an enemy that hadn't been present before we went in. The war made the situation worse and destabilized the region.

In fact, the jihadist Assad is fighting today are the jihadists he helped feed into Iraq against the US. Bush thought this was a war in Iraq; he created a regional mess.

Anyone who is telling you this war will be contained and cheap is lying.




* -- No, I'm not saying he was right about the intel or motivation; just the fact that it was a 3 week war against Saddam's regime.

[el_bryanto]

9. Lying is pretty strong language

While I didn't find it convincing, I think Motown Johnny did make some relevant points and I don't think he was lying.

Again I don't support Obamas plan to bomb Syria, with or without congressional approval (although I approve of him seeking congressional approval).

[Bluenorthwest]

10. How's mendacious, deceptive war mongering?

Anyone who tells you any war is going to be cheap and easy rather than costly and deadly is lying. War involves strong language. 'We want to bomb, but careful with the strong language!'. How preening and petulant is that?

[el_bryanto]

13. It depends on what your goal is I suppose

If your goal is to make yourself feel better by opposing war on a message board as forcefully as possible than by all means call people who disagree with you liars and warmongers and worse.

If your goal is purity of opinion at DU, than again bullying anybody who disagrees with you is a good strategy - make DU so unpleasant for those who disagree with you that they go elsewhere or just keep their mouths shut.

If your goal is to persuade people than calling them lying warmongers may not be an effective tactic.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

16. What was your goal with the Parable of the Pancakes? Absurdits performance art?

I commented on the verbiage used, not upon the poster. You are getting all personal with me, as if you have some standing to preach and assume. Territorial bullshit. Climb off your high horse and stop claiming that going to war is the same as going to breakfast.

[el_bryanto]

21. I apologize for having offended.

The pancake parable was in response to the statement "And if your happy declarations prove false?" My view is that Motown Johnny answered Nuclear Unicorn's questions; he made some good points but on the whole was unconvincing.

Nuclear Unicorn's response was entirely "And if your happy declarations prove false?" which, the parable of the pancakes illustrates, is a argument against doing anything. Ever.

I haven't claimed that going to war is the same as going to breakfast - I have claimed that the argument "And if your happy declarations prove false?" argues against take action no matter how momentous (invading Syria) or minor (having breakfast).

I apologize for not making my point clear.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

23. So let's reverse your theor and see what it looks like. Is allowing your child to play in the

backyard also reason to allow them to do anything, say hopscotch on the freeway, because the yard is safe and we always assume that if one thing is safe all things are safe? The actual nature of the activity has no bearing on the level of planning, no bearing on the choice to take part or not? If one is going to play chess, one might as well jump out of an airplane?
Do you really consider the peril of eating a peach in the same way you'd consider the dangers of driving your car 120 MPH in an urban highway? The nature of the action is moot to you?
You are saying war=eating breakfast, you are saying both have similar risk levels. It is patently absurd.

[el_bryanto]

25. I am not saying that war is the same as eating breakfast

At this point if you don't understand my point it's because you don't want to.

Bryant

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. I think ther have been enough ill-conceived wars in human history

Anyone who repeats those mistakes could have only done so by willfully blinding themselves. Refusing to look at the work schedule is not an excuse for showing up late to one's shift.

Many of MTJ's counterpoints are wrong. Consider his point about all military items already having been appropriated. This is plainly wrong as fuel and munitions spent must be replenished, troops get combat pay, etc. That said the reality is there will be additional costs. Notice also he said try, try again meaning he is willing to continue to incur additional costs without declared end. A terrorist attack in response will surely be expensive.

Now, if someone like me, whose only introduction to the military is I first started dating my husband when he was in the army, can see through such a poorly thought-out response what else might we find as we sift deeper?

We are being lied to.

[el_bryanto]

17. One point of contention

MTJ is talking about the plan being proposed which is a bombing mission - within that context MTJ may be right. If we don't put boots on the ground the cost should be high in absolute dollars but not much in the context of how much we spend on the military.

That said, the try try again comment is very troubling. And I think MTJ believes that this course of action is likely to stop Assad from using his weapons of mass destruction. It's possible, but I don't think it's very likely (which is why I oppose bombing Syria).

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

22. In war one has to plan for the worst case scenario, Iraq was done on the 'assume all things go

perfectly' theory. It was going to last a few days or weeks, we'd be greeted as liberators, establish democracy, accept payment for our expenses from the oil money and be back home for the NFL season.
Did it work that way? No. Anyone who encourages war based on 'it's a breeze' thinking and who refuses to consider the less than perfect possible outcomes is not being honest at all. It is not responsible to play with lives according to Pollyanna hopefulness.

[ellisonz]

43. Libya got worse after international intervention?

[joshcryer]

11. Basically.

Same poster believes the Iraq War was a "legal resumption of hostilities."

Anything to win an argument on the internet, I swear.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. You continue to peddle a deliberate mischaracterization of what I said

You can only do so by truncating my posts to 4 word snippets and ignoring where I expounded upon my answer. You are beyond dishonest in pursuit of your pet war.

[joshcryer]

37. the link speaks for itself

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Please feel free to quote EVERY one of my posts from that thread AT LENGTH.

You can even quote the ones that were locked.

Please.

[joshcryer]

41. I highly encourage anyone to read that thread.

It is very illuminating especially the backpeddling over what you literally said. That it was a "legal resumption of hostilities." Literally, you said it. Not me.

The jury results, btw, on that dishonest smear to leveled at me, tell the whole story, as the jury agreed with me that I was characterizing your position correctly.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Of course 'going to get pancakes' usually works without tragedy, but bombing human beings never

does. Bombing is war, war is dangerous and costly, going to pancakes is breakfast, which is usually not bloody, almost never fatal and as meals goes, fairly cheap.
Got a list of wars that went all smooth and cheap and without corpses? Because each day, millions of people go out to eat breakfast without so much as a shot being fired.

[HardTimes99]

5. Say hello to World War III. Yipes! - nt

[wandy]

26. That has a familiar ring to it....

It will only take six weeks I doubt it will last six months.
The oil will pay for it.
We will be greeted with candy and flowers.
And George Bush declared mission accomplished on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.



And Donald Rumsfeld was right...
You don't know what you don't know.

[LibAsHell]

27. "If at first you don't succeed, try try again."

Wow. It's amazing that you thought it a good idea to post that when it comes to launching cruise missiles and dropping bombs.

[Scuba]

2. You're obviously anti-business.

Think of the poor Raytheon investors, for god's sake!

[HardTimes99]

6. What's with all the questions, Commie? If you don't like America, why

don't you just leave?

for the tonally-impaired

[eridani]

7. And not only that, he's the only person who lives in Syria! n/t

[Uben]

18. I haven't taken a side on this issue....

...but while you're throwing out "what ifs", what if he gasses another ten thousand innocents? 50,000? Where's the line?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Gasses or "simply" kills? Honest question but I assume you se where it leads.

[Uben]

24. Does it really matter how they die?

I don't want a war. But, can we sit by and watch another slaughter?

Personally, I suppose my "best case scenario" would be a surgical air strike to kill Assad, take out as many armaments as possible. He has to go, and who else is gonna do it? Who else CAN do it?

I was always one to trust our leaders because they have the intelligence, but after the GWB total fuck-up in Iraq, I'm not so sure.

I'd be all for letting them kill each other if we were talking just about armed militants, but this bastard is killing innocent men women and children! There has to be "a red line" if we are to remain civilized. If we have definitive evidence, undisputable, he was responsible, aren't we morally obligated to kill the bastard? And where the fuck is the rest of the civilized world?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. If the means of killing is immaterial then what is the threashold for civilians casualties

before the US intervenes militarily?

[geek tragedy]

20. Answer: do nothing. nt

[Uben]

28. And when he hits Israel with gas?

Still do nothing?

[geek tragedy]

29. Israel has bombers, no? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I hate hyperbole but that would be WW lll

The Star of David would be waving over Damascus by next Sunday.

[CanonRay]

31. That Dick Cheney is a bad person too

and I don't see us gassing him.

[JaneyVee]

32. By claiming that the opposition are all jihadists one must believe Assad is doing

The right thing by killing them all.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. All? No. But predominating.

I liken the civil war to watching a murder and a rapist knife fighting each other. I see no obligation on my part to pick a side and I'm actually kind of content to watch them mutilate each other.

If it's really civilians you're concerned about then please have the courage to petition for a major commitment of ground forces to engage in a two-front war with an anti-insurgency campaign. Anything less is just bloviating.

[treestar]

38. Yes he is

So he should get a pass on that and go on his merry way because of the above issues?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Yes. Because the pro-war faction isn't willing to do anything substantitive

and if the pro-war faction were willing to do something substantive they could never make the sale so they are reduced to lying just to get a war they aren't taking seriously.

[rug]

42. The State Department has a new press secretary.