Can we PLEASE let this unfold before hitting the panic button?

[Drunken Irishman]

1) Just because Bush and Powell LIED does not mean Obama and Kerry are lying. The failure of Iraq also doesn't negate what is happening in Syria. I think even the most pacifist of posters here on DU would agree that something horrible is going down there and while there are varying opinions on the table, Syria is not Iraq. Iraq is not Syria. Assad is not Saddam, who, while awful, wasn't waging this massive of an assault on his own people (at least by the time we invaded). Our invasion, and subsequent occupation, of Iraq also wasn't a humanitarian effort. It was solely concocted over lies over WMD that clearly didn't exist. While Obama might speak of WMDs in Syria, it's mostly in response to what Assad could be using against his own people right now. In 2003, when Bush made his case for war, he only passingly mentioned what Saddam had done in the past to his people - not what he was doing at the moment. Most of the pre-war propaganda was over the perceived threat Iraq posed with those WMDs.

2) Obama has ruled out, from the start, ground troops. I would be very surprised if Obama ever sent troops into Syria because he realizes the mess it would create. Bush never ruled out ground troops during the lead up to the war with Iraq. It was always likely that he would send in troops and even threatened that type of force if Saddam didn't comply with the demands of the US. At no time in this debate has Obama ever said anything about forcing Assad to comply or risk an invasion. There will be no invasion. And if there is, then yes, I will join you in your righteous indignation. But right now? That isn't even on the table ... so, let's stop pretending it is.

3) Obama has been very consistent in his message with Syria - don't use chemical weapons on your people. This is a narrative advanced by the once DU hero François Hollande, who, I might remind you, is a Socialist. In fact, it's been a fairly commonsense theme among most world leaders. To be fair, the responses have varied and the debate should be lively - but let's not automatically clump Obama in with the neo-cons because he sees a serious assault and wants to do something about it.

And please, let's stop saying Obama is marching us off to war. I get being skeptical, and I support that skepticism. But when posters say we have no opinion unless we go enlist, or that Obama is lying like Bush did, I think that skepticism unjustly turns into hyperbole and that has no place in a legitimate debate.

[Just Saying]

1. Your post count indicates you aren't new here.

So you already know...

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

I agree with you though. There is a large contingency here whose jumping off point is anti-government and anti-Obama regardless of what's actually happening. The comparisons to Bush et al are bullshit. I find it funny that they call others "third way" when it seems like they hate all or most of our elected Democrats.

I trust Obama and Kerry to at least make intelligent, informed decisions that are based on facts. I don't believe they're framing evidence trying to get us into a war nor do I believe they have some ulterior motives to attack Syria.

I hope they won't attack because I don't think it will accomplish anything useful and that more civilians will die. But the chemical attacks are horrific. No good choices really.

[iamthebandfanman]

20. +1 n/t

[Maedhros]

22. Anti-government and anti-Obama?

WE'RE ANTI-WAR, DAMMIT!

Even when it's a Democrat instead of a Republican doing the killing.

[Andy823]

30. +1000 nt

[pnwmom]

37. +1.n/t

[MNBrewer]

47. But do you trust the "facts"?

Maybe you trust our "intelligence community" more than I do.

[uhnope]

49. panic and venting are mainly what these forums are for. nt

[Cryptoad]

59. I am so glad

we have a President like Obama, especially in a situation like this. He is smart, and deliberate. He knows we don't need to go to war with Syria nor be sucked into their civil war.... He knows that you can not turn your blind eye to the gassing of people and children. .. Assad will pay a price for his actions. then they can go back to their little civil war.

Thank you Mr President!

[treestar]

67. +1

It's astounding how much they hate the Democrats and still claim to be liberal.

[Dawgs]

69. Just laughed out loud at your ridiculous comment.

Claiming that Democrats are liberal might be the most astounding and ignorant thing I've read on DU in a really long time.

[karynnj]

90. + 10000

The anti-government group is huge and very vocal. I think in DU2, the split between GDP and GD meant that most of us who preferred GDP saw less of them than we do now.

For the last month or so, I honestly think a poll of who you respect more - Obama or Snowden - would favor Snowden. On Syria, I am shocked that Russian and Iranian sources are treated as truth -- and Obama administration sources as suspect. You would think they would at least give Obama equal credit.

[ZombieHorde]

2. I disagree. I think people should raise holy hell before the shit hits the fan.

We can't bring back the people we have murdered, and it is literally murder.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. As opposed to what continues to happen in Syria?

Are we just going to turn our backs to those being murdered right now? I mean...if we're against murder, we have to be against all murder.

[ZombieHorde]

4. The US murdered many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seems likely that we will murder innocent people in Syria. If someone is attacking me, I don't want to be saved by having my family taken out.

[iamthebandfanman]

21. Nah might as well wait around

for the gassing to happen.

much more pleasant way to die if you are going to die regardless eh ?

lying squirming on the ground gasping for air and choking on oxygen as your throat tightens and your lungs collapse... the whole while trying to reach parts of your body to wipe off whatever seems to be making you skin burn but ope you cant because your muscles are paralyzed.... nothing to do but enjoy your suffering and wait for death.

why would anyone want an alternative to that ?

[ZombieHorde]

24. Increasing civilian deaths, like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan,

isn't a very good alternative.

If someone is torturing me to death, that sucks, but I don't want my family murdered during my rescue.

[Hydra]

9. Since when have we been against murder?

And how will cruise missiles help this situation?

Hint: This is NOT a nail. Hammer is not appropriate tool.

[progressoid]

10. those being murdered right now?

Why weren't we against all the 100,000+ previous murders in this civil war?

[Squinch]

16. +1! What is the strategic or moral point of this arbitrary line in the sand?

[frylock]

29. the only reason they give a shit is because of obama's red line rhetoric

[dkf]

19. So WE should murder people instead?

See how messed up that is?

[Maedhros]

23. Have you been vehemently opposing the murder of innocents that has resulted from our drone wars?

If not, your moralizing is pretty damned hollow.

[frylock]

28. what other civil wars would you like to inject us into?

[awoke_in_2003]

54. some here might say "all of them". nt

[libdem4life]

83. Only the ones that create Fear and Loathing for The Empire.

The rest, not so much.

[carla]

45. When was the last time

you went out of your way to stop a murder? Thought so. I find your opinion drunk and silly.

[MNBrewer]

48. Whom will we bomb when the ethnic cleansing of Christians and Alawites begins?

[bobclark86]

51. You mean...

when the Sunnis start dishing out what they've been taking for decades?

[MNBrewer]

72. No, I don't mean that at all

The Sunnis and the Shia will both do the ethnic cleansing then turn on each other.

I take it you're enthused by the prospect of genocide of the Alawites?

[Hydra]

7. Silence is consent

As you say, now is not the time to be silent.

[Aerows]

17. Agreed, ZH.

Best comment I've seen on these shenanigans the entire MIC is trying to pull to profit off of another war. NO. NAY. No Fucking Way.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. Everything is always either too new to comment on, or too old to comment on.

Funny how that works ...

[BlueStreak]

11. +1

When it plays out, it is too late to do anything about it.

Funny how the authoritarians don't seem to respect what the UK did yesterday, which was to have a real open, balanced debate about it, as opposed to the one-sided demagoguery we are being force fed. Hell, our Congress hasn't even bothered to return to the Capitol.

[JNelson6563]

13. You misrepresent the point.

It's not a timeframe thing and it's not trying to stop comment.

I believe the OP here was requesting that the commentary be based on facts as they happen instead of supposition and speculation. I think there was a bit about maybe keeping the hyperbole down.

In other words, I believe Drunken Irishman was asking that we try to carry on the conversation like lucid, civilized adults.

Julie

[Jim Lane]

77. Not misrepresented at all.

You say it's not a timeframe thing. The OP said we should wait to get more information before reacting. That sounds like a timeframe thing to me.

This idea of waiting for complete information is simply unrealistic. We still don't have complete information on the invasion of Iraq.

Realistically speaking, our chance to influence events is now. If we wait until the military action starts, then (a) policymakers will be committed to their course of action and will be even less likely to pay attention to other points of view, and (b) if the contemplated military action really is as limited as some of its proponents suggest, then it will be over before opponents can do much of anything.

[JNelson6563]

78. Well the one thing we know for sure

speculating, bitching and making declarations about how things ought to be here on DU will most certainly make a difference on how this all turns out.

Have at it. And just ignore posts asking for level headed, grown-up discussion! Those are really just code words to stay silent!1!

Oy.

Julie

[Jim Lane]

79. We know that what's said on DU has very little influence.

That applies whether it's speculating or a level-headed, grown-up discussion.

As for "code words" involved, my interpretation of the OP is that it does ask us to stay silent, at least until some unspecified level of information is available.

I've seen a fair amount of intelligent discussion on both sides just in this thread. Anyone who considers it premature to discuss the subject can just post something about Snowden or Manning.

[Arkana]

6. No--that's not fun.

It's more fun to call Obama a warmonger and compare him to Bush and say he's just like Nixon and Kissinger and BLARGHAHGHGRRHGHAH.

[Doctor_J]

8. Yeah, let's wait until a few hundred thousand are dead before protesting

very bad idea. Maybe we should also wait until Obama signs off on the KeystoneXL to complain about that

[IdaBriggs]

12. NO! NO, DAMMIT! NO!

We must *ALL* panic and gnash our teeth and FREAK OUT because politicians (especially Democrats) aren't to be trusted!!!

Didn't you get the memo?





(Seriously, a nice post with good points - this is my kick and I recommend it.)

[JohnnyLib2]

15. Kick, rec., agree

[dkf]

18. That's exactly opposite. Outrage NOW to prevent catastrophe later.

What's the point of getting mad after the fact? Can't do crap.

[Ocelot]

25. Unfortunately there's a precedent for Obama lying to the American people:

"If you look at the reports, even the disclosures that Mr. Snowden’s put forward, all the stories that have been written, what you’re not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and, you know, listening in on people’s phone calls or inappropriately reading people’s e-mails. What you’re hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now part of the reason they’re not abused is because they’re — these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law and would be against the orders of the FISC."

There you have it. A lie, and not a small-scale one.

He also hasn't been consistent with diplomacy, so that also makes me doubt his intentions very much. Yes I believe he's trying to rush us into another war...and if he does so we might as well kiss the White House and any hope of controlling Congress goodbye in 2014/2016.

[Stellar]

26. What the f**k is wrong with Obama....

he's, he's leading from behind. He's jumping the gun. He's doing everything wrong that FOX/Repubs say he doing wrong...right? Hell no, at least not yet. Some people need to chill the f*** out and wait and see what may or may not happen....geeezzzz!

[mindwalker_i]

27. Gimme that damn button!

But no, now IS the time to make a lot of noise, before we're stuck in a quagmire and no quantity of noise will make one fucking bit of difference.

[NorthCarolina]

46. In reality "no quantity of noise" will make a

fucking bit of difference period. There will be intervention in Syria...THAT you can bank on. It matters not one iota what a majority of the people want, only what TPTB want. There's a lot of money to be made in war with Syria, in fact war with anyone, and so the cycle will continue.

[mindwalker_i]

64. Sadly, you're right

If nothing else, the millitary contractors want it to happen so they can make more weapons and get more tax dollars.

[JHB]

32. "Unfold" would include letting UN inspectors make a report before any action...

...and creating an international consensus for any action.

Because no matter how you regard Obama, the actions of Darth, Dubya, and "Good Soldier" Powell destroyed the "trust us, we have intelligence on this" option.

[FiveGoodMen]

33. The four-stage strategy

Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.

Bernard Woolley: What's that?

Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.

Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.

Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751831/quotes

[iandhr]

34. Glad to know someone here is still talking sense.

[Hissyspit]

36. Yes, wait until after it happens before discussing what might happen.

Makes perfect sense.

[Phlem]

43. +++++++++++

NO sh!t.

-p

[Hissyspit]

35. I remember joining DU because it was one of the few places

I could find where I wasn't being told, subtly or blatantly, to "wait for this to unfold" and "quit saying" this might happen.

[lumpy]

38. A good post and I see you are not "new" here,not that has anything to do with any thing.

I go along with what you have to say. The administration will make the decision what to do about the situation, hopefully the right one. We can speculate and make our thoughts known but ultimately what will be will be.

[Phlem]

39. Hey everybody

Let's sit around and see if that nuke actually kills us before we hit the panic button. It could be fake.



-p

[OnyxCollie]

40. If the concern is over chemical weapons,

Obama could start with prosecuting the Bush administration for using white phosphorus in Fallujah.

[SunSeeker]

41. Thank you for the thoughtful post.

I realize the daily deaths in this ongoing civil war is numbing, but the horrific, torturous deaths of over 400 innocent children, all in one chemical attack, is hard to ignore. As are the over one thousand adult civilian deaths--the gas shells purposely hit residential neighborhoods.

Just because Bush and Reagan ignored that sort of horror doesn't mean Obama should.

Obama is not suggesting putting boots on the ground but doing a "limited strike," presumably on Assad's rocket launching installations.

It's looking more and more like no one else will do something. The Russians and China are with Assad. The middles east neighbors are paralyzed. UK, Germany won't act. The UN won't act (because of Russia and China's veto). So that only leaves us. If we don't act, a horrific attack on sleeping families goes unpunished. Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

I'm conflicted too. I don't want more bloodshed or another entanglement. The rebels are murderous religious nutbags who themselves have committed atrocities. But nothing like this. This shocks the conscience.

We shouldn't be the world's policeman, and we can't punish every atrocity. Sometimes the perpetrators are too difficult to discern or there is no obvious target to hit (such as in a bloody civil war where there's hand to hand combat). But here there is something we can do and the target is obvious. Lobbing a few missiles at some Assad military rocket installations seems the least bad of a set bad options.

[davidpdx]

86. I agree

It seems like the options are all pretty bad.

Since Carter has been so vocal against taking any action in Syria I think he should be sent over as an envoy to broker a deal. We tell the Russians and the Chinese they either get Assad on board or we'll go in without them if they refuse to come to the table.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Was Kerry right the last time he pushed for war?

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

[awoke_in_2003]

56. I see a petard. nt

[carla]

44. No.

That is my answer to your apologia for war. You are wrong.

[KT2000]

50. good post

Agree and appreciate your reasoning.
I haven't found much else to agree with on DU lately and came to the conclusion that cynicism and distrust have replaced decent discussions of this issue.

Genocide has to be stopped by someone, otherwise, the only other solution is when every civilian is dead. To stand against that cannot be wrong. We may disagree about methods but that is not even part of the conversation here.

[David__77]

52. Nope. Now is the time for the shitstorm.

We need to support Obama by helping him not make a terrible mistake.

[DinahMoeHum]

53. DI, Obama should do what he did regarding Libya. . .

. . .that is, do what you can without putting our troops on the ground.

It worked then, why not again?

[Lonr]

55. Hell no!!!

The U.S. is NOT the world's police and we have no business getting involved in another country's civil war, PERIOD!!!

[TBF]

57. If we say nothing then after the fact your retort will be -

"no one said anything before we went in".

We understand this game ... we've played it many times.

[sulphurdunn]

58. Your OP is a red herring.

The President has absolutely no legal authority to decided he will unilaterally attack a sovereign nation for any reason short of an immanent threat to the US. The merits or lack thereof of attacking Syria are irrelevant. This country was once a constitutional republic. You need to remember that.

[Lonr]

60. Are you aware

that part of the rebel force in Syria is Al-Qaeda, and that we are supplying them with arms?

[DallasNE]

61. In Iraq We Knew Saddam Had No WMD Before The Invasion Even Started

That was the findings of the UN inspectors prior to the invasion so the best (on the ground) and latest data said no WMD. Bush decided to completely discount the work of the UN inspectors. So why did he bother to get the UN resolution on WMD inspectors if he had no intention of paying attention to what the were reporting. The only thing I can think of is to get the use of force resolution should Saddam not let the inspectors have full access. But that is a different war that the one Bush fought, making the war Bush fought illegal in my mind. As for the current situation, here is what I posted on a Thingprogress article.

This is a tough, tough choice. Military action could cause Assad to start handing out those chemical shells like candy to any would be terrorist. But he could do that without American military action too. Yet, securing and destroying those chemical weapons has to be the goal. Could the mission of the UN team on the ground include slapping a lock on the facility as was done with the Iraq nuclear facility following Desert Storm. Russia may not veto such a move. Too much war talk and not enough thinking outside the box. Keep the war ships in the eastern Mediterranean in case of widespread chemical attacks from Assad but no good can come from a bombing campaign right now.

[lamp_shade]

62. You have my vote, Irish Guy.

[Brigid]

63. For me, this isn't about skepticism.

It's about me having an extreme case of war weariness. Enough!

[Summer Hathaway]

65. Mail Delivery Failure

The message you sent contained the following text:

"Skepticism unjustly turns into hyperbole and that has no place in a legitimate debate."

The site you are attempting to reach is not interested in 'legitimate debate', and has blocked such messages from being delivered.

We suggest that you check the site address again. It is probable that in trying to reach those who are interested in reasoned thinking, you included "DemocraticUnderground" as a recipient by mistake.

[damnedifIknow]

66. What attracts humans to death and destruction?

What is it about us that instead of working together we try and destroy each other? At some point we are going to need each other and maybe then we will wake the hell up.

[treestar]

68. Apparently not. Refusing to hit the panic button immediately

makes a person a warmonger.

[Dawgs]

70. No thanks. I will never shut up if it comes to stopping any act of war. n/t

[mountain grammy]

71. You're right, and you make a legitimate argument.

We don't need more hyperbole right now. I am against any kind of American military action in Syria. I have sent letters and called the White House, both my Senators and my Representative.

I think extreme international pressure on Syria and her allies is in order. Boycott the goddam Russian Olympics, freeze bank accounts, send in humanitarian aid, whatever free, civilized countries can do to bring this behavior into line.

Assad and the Syrian people must know, without a doubt, that the whole world is watching and the whole world cares how this ends. We must give them hope, but we can't intervene with military strikes. We have to find a better way right now!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

73. Pipelines

in a word

I wonder if Halliburton is on there?

[jimlup]

74. I agree that we should sit tight

but I am concerned about what appears to be a willingness to ignore international law and use the war powers act cynically. Not that either are a precedent but I'm disappointed to see these safety measure barriers against the use of military power fail yet again and so easily. (apparently)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

75. Don't hit the panic button?

Seems to me that'd be excellent advice if you'd directed it at the White House.

But the rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington’s rush to war when there is no evidence. A foolish Obama was pushed far out on the limb by an incompetent and untrustworthy National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the pack of neoconservatives that support her, and the British Parliament cut the limb off.

What kind of fool would put himself in that vulnerable position?

Now Obama stands alone, isolated, trying to back away from his threat to attack without authorization from anyone--not from the UN, not from NATO, not from Congress who he ignored--a sovereign country. Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime. Washington has until now got away with its war crimes by cloaking them in UN or NATO approval. Despite these “approvals,” they remain war crimes.

Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36036.htm

[polichick]

88. Spot on. (And posting opinions is hardly "panic")

[HooptieWagon]

76. Yea, sit tight while POTUS goes off on a military adventure.

Are you basing your argument on how well it worked out in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[choie]

80. So you want us to get upset AFTER

we start bombing Syria - that will be productive. NOW is the time to start protesting and making our voices heard, not after we start killing people..

[bemildred]

81. No, and insulting us won't change our minds either. nt

[SidDithers]

82. DU rec...

but that's not the DU way. Here at Neo-DU, posters must run around with their hair on fire, being absolutely outraged at things that might happen.

Sid

[Proud Liberal Dem]

84. Well said DI!

N/T

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. ODSers are out of control! Worse than the Teabaggers!!

[davidpdx]

87. Let's see....

Panic Button...check



Hair on fire....check



Shit hit the fan...check

[karynnj]

89. A thoughtful, sane post!

Nice to see your user name he

[hamsterjill]

91. No. I don't care how it unfolds. I am still against it.

We need to get our own house in order before we go after someone else's house.

We have problems in this country that need our attention and resources. Just once in my lifetime, I'd like to see the United States of America make the United States of America the priority!

[Jamaal510]

92. Panicking about events that haven't yet fully unfolded is serious business.