It bugs me we're doing nothing about Syria

[Jack_Dawson]

I get it. We can't invade every place (or bomb the compounds of) horrible people who are at the helm. But still...it's like watching someone get their ass kicked by a bully and just standing there. It troubles me. That is all.

Judge away.

[mwrguy]

1. We are doing something

Training moderate revolutionaries, for instance.

[geek tragedy]

2. I question the humanity of anyone who isn't disturbed and troubled by what's going on in Syria.,nt

[woo me with science]

8. Yet how notable that suffering people in areas profitable to the One Percent

always seem so much more troubling to neocons/neolibs than suffering people in other areas of the world.

And notable how many *more* people seem to end up suffering after a dose of US military "help."

[951-Riverside]

3. We've been giving Al Qaeda ...ooops I mean moderate rebels training and weapons for years in Syria

Don't worry they'll be just fine.

[img][/img]

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

7. just like "Charlie Wilson's War" worked great in Afghanistan

[littlemissmartypants]

4. Children

That haven't been to school in
1-2-3-4 years... World Heritage lost forever... yet can we really help when we Need so much help ourselves?

Love, Peace and Shelter. Lmsp

[ChisolmTrailDem]

5. Does Syria have any resources the U.S. Oligarchy may want? nt

[AndyTiedye]

6. Like what?

Send in thousands of troops so they can be shot at by both sides?

[Jack_Dawson]

14. So...turn the other cheek?

Seems more what Euros would do vs. what the U.S. would and should do. My $.02.

[Hekate]

9. How do you know "nothing" is being done? What would *you* do?

Just curious --those are my 2 questions.

[Jack_Dawson]

13. When Obama was telegraphing the missle launches I would have liked to follow through

But that's just me apparently. Me and Senator McCain...not someone I exactly seek out to stand side by side with. But still...I hate how impotent our President looks as tens of thousands of innocent children are killed, maimed, gassed, starved to death, you name it. If those were your kids or friends of your kids you'd be talking a somewhat different tack. And Yeah, maybe the FoxNews / Rand Paul line of isolationism is the order of the day.

Look I get there are no easy answers here. But just as...a man. I'd like to do a hell of a lot more than we've been doing. If we *are* doing much more, than my bad for not knowing this.

I also get there is a clearly defined rebel group to claim to. But maybe we pick one and just go.

I just know burying our heads in our hands and turning a blind eye to such cataclismic offenses is not for me.

[Hekate]

16. Based on experience, I think a LOT goes on via back-channels that we don't know about at the time

Remember the night SEAL Team 6 got bin Laden? That took a long time to set up, and then Boom!

I hope you got to listen to Obama's speech at West Point today. If not, go to White House.gov and do so. He said that military might is only one tool in the tool box, and just because you have a hammer it doesn't man that every problem is a nail.

Teddy Roosevelt said to talk softly, but carry a big stick. As a guy who rode up San Juan Hill with the Cavalry, I don't think he was afraid of armed conflict, but he was wise enough to realize it was not the only means of resolution. General Dwight Eisenhower fought across Europe but by the end of his presidency was warning us against the military-industrial complex here at home. Jack Kennedy came within a hair of nuking the USSR in a very public showdown (which I remember vividly, since I was a young teen at the time) – but they backed down and he did not do so.

We've had the misfortune to have some real *holes in the Oval Office, most notably George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bob Dylan's “Masters of War” often played in my head during those 8 years. They and the Neocons were – and are to this day – genuine warmongers. Their only tool is a hammer and every last problem is a nail.

Barack Obama is a negotiator and a planner. When he's not being continuously sabotaged by the GOP in Congress and Neocons elsewhere he is able to get a lot done without launching Shock'N'Awe and sending in 100,000 ill-equipped Marines the way Bush/Cheney did, not does he swagger around in a flight suit with socks in his codpiece.

Long answer, I know. But I don't think this guy ever takes a day off. He just needs to toot his own horn more – but again, that doesn't seem to be part of his nature.

[nationalize the fed]

10. Is there anything preventing you from suiting up and scooting over there?

Or you just want "authorities" here to take my tax dollars (actually my grandchildren's) and give them to "rebels" (which are Al Queda)?

By the way, don't feel too bad. There are doubtless hundreds of undercover operations going on right now that even "authorities" don't know about.

And if you really get to feeling down glance at this list every so often:

The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change&quot without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

1 Prior to Cold War
1.1 Russia

2 During the Cold War
2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s

3 Since the end of the Cold War
3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

Is there some reason you think the US has the right or duty to get involved in other countries matters?

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. Syria is a bloody mess and the impulse to want to do something is noble, but...

1. We are doing something. The US government is committed to forcing the Assad regime from power and is acting on both the diplomatic and the military fronts. It, along with Middle East allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, has been supplying "moderate rebels" withe means of waging war, and now Obama wants to ratchet up the proxy war a bit.

2. I would argue that what we are doing is only contributing to the killing. People who have been watching this unfold will tell you that the regime has strategically defeated the rebellion. It's been steadily consolidating its grip on the key central arc from Damascus to the coast and is now putting the squeeze on Aleppo. Our policy has been a cynical one of bleeding the regime enough to force it to the negotiating table where it is supposed to negotiate its own surrender. Now, that is even more of a fever dream than ever. So, to the degree that we support the continuing armed rebellion, we help more Syrians die for nothing.

3. And let's not even get into how this effort to overthrow Assad has unleashed the very Al Qaeda types we're supposed to fear the most. That's a whole other element of bad craziness that didn't have breathing room in Syria before.

4. The impulse to want to do something is noble, but let's first not make things worse. Maybe we should limit ourselves to sending humanitarian assistance and urging the parties involved to reach negotiated settlements. You already see that happening bit by bit, with limited cease fires and agreements in different areas of the country.

[JayhawkSD]

12. What would you have us do, and why do you think we should do it?

Which side should we support? The side that is trying to "overthrow the evil dictator Assad?" Or the side that is supported by 55% of the population and is trying to prevent the Christian population from being slaughtered? Those are two different sides. The first is the rebels, and the second is the government headed by Assad. So which one should we support?

Obama, of course, wants to support the rebels. He wants to support the side that will slaughter the Christian population if it wins. Or force them to become Muslims.

In either case, supporting the rebels or the government, why do you think it is our role to do anything?

We made the grand move to overthrow the dictator in Libya, we sided with the rebels. Look how that worked out for them. The country is wracked with war and killing, with no government and no law. We did them a big favor.

[Jack_Dawson]

15. I would support the starving kids first and work back from there.

Guess I'm something of a bleeding heart.

[TheKentuckian]

17. What do you want to do that helps the starving kids? Bomb them to full?

In reality, we are presently contributing mightily to the empty bellies and suffering by propping up these "moderates" (Al Queda) in a proxy pissing contest with Russia.

[JayhawkSD]

20. Why aren't you worrying about the starving kids...

...on the South Side of Los Angeles? Or in urban Detroit? Or in the back hills of the coal fields of Appalacia?

Why are the people of Syria our responsibility, when the jobless, and the homess, and the veterans without health care, and the starving in this nation, OUR OWN PEOPLE, do not draw your sympathy? Why do you want to spend money on Syrian children when we cannot even take care of our own?

[Savannahmann]

18. I saw someone ask you what you planned to do.

I further saw your answer, a vague feed the children and work up from there.

OK, let's get started trying to figure out how to do that. The inspectors who are overseeing the removal of chemical weapons have been fired on several times by the "rebels" which are really Al Queda aligned terrorist types. Now, here is something I haven't figured out, but perhaps you can help me with. We are bombing wedding parties from drones in an effort to kill Al Queda members. We have troops in Afghanistan, and Iraq trying to track down Al Queda. We have troops all over Africa searching for Al Queda. But in Syria, we think we can get Al Queda to accept our people as advisers and trainers? I've heard of inconsistent foreign policy before, but that one takes the cake.

But let's pretend that somehow that would work out and our people wouldn't be executed on the spot. Let's even pretend that the military people who have lost friends and mates fighting Al Queda in Afghanistan etc wouldn't object to helping AQ in Syria. So what does that leave? Oh yes, Russia.

Russia has a naval base in Syria. It's not much of a Naval base by American standards. Pretty small and almost makeshift if you will. However, the Russians don't have any other foreign naval bases. They don't have any other bases in the Mediterranean area. Now, the Russians won't listen to us about the Ukraine, and won't do what we want there. So what makes us think we won't have to trade shots with Russian naval vessels that would understandably defend their base? We sink a couple of their ships in the Med. Their submarines fire on our Carriers in the Pacific. We fire on Russian Submarines in the Atlantic. There is a word for that kind of thing, what is it again? Oh yes I remember what it's called now, it's called a war.

So your plan is to risk war with Russia, and lets be honest, they're not afraid of us despite the hype at the time the Syria interventionists were on their soap box. Assist AQ in their war against Assad, and somehow make sure that the missiles and that sort of thing won't be used against our own troops later, and just pretend that everything is going to turn out well because at the same time we're helping the AQ rebels in Syria, we're bombing them in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The message will be that we love the idea of AQ in Syria, but we don't like them anywhere else. Then after we help them overthrow Assad, and somehow avoid war with the Russians, we can bomb the former allies in Syria with our drones.

[RandiFan1290]

19. Don't worry

The 'Project' will play out and you will get your wish.

"He gassed his own peeepole!!"