TheDirtyNacho: UrukHaiGuyz: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: Shut up Kerry. I don't care. You assholes who voted for Iraq before you were against it have no credibility in this department. I don't care of Assad kills every last rebel with awful biological weapons. I don't want our country involved in this one. No more. Enough.


*scoff* "Our Country".   Petty tribalism like that holds humanity back more than anything else.    Humans are humans.  Something should be done.

And yet we want to build a massive wall to keep our southern neighbors out. While they struggle with drug cartels and poverty. Got it.


Unfortunately if it cant be bombed or cruise missile'd, this government doesn't have the balls or tenacity to tackle it.

Balls and tenacity aren't factors. If it doesn't serve the interests of the banks and major industries that own Washington, our government could give a f*ck about human suffering.


The same is true about the population at large.  After all, we vote them in and "the government" is composed of everyday people.  Tribalism is a feature of the current stage of human development.  If "they" aren't part of our tribe, fark 'em.

Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.

Because this doesn't end well without intervention I'm willing to listen to different types of intervention strategies.

Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

sign_of_Zeta: ninotchka: Because after 10 years of this crap it is only getting worse. The more we get involved from Carter until Obama we just get into a bigger mess. Until we clone Genghis Khan to straighten things out we are wasting money and our own men's lives.

My husband served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He survived both. (Came close to losing him in Iraq) Time to either fight a real war or just leave it alone.

Again sorry I am so bitter.

You have a right to feel that way.  Your family made sacrifices I can't even imagine.  At the same time, seeing children struggling to breathe after a chemical attack and knowing countless more died is something that we, as not just Americans, but citizens of the world, cannot let occur if we want to live in a just world.  If we are fine talking about Human Rights while completely ignoring others basic right to live, we may as well just give up.

And you're correct, we have screwed up so many times.  Getting involved in places we never should have while ignoring places we shouldn't have.  I am sure we will continue to fail in many situations.  However, we can't stop trying.

Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Sargun: sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.

Pretty much.  It's absolutely disgusting how people think that it's okay to let human beings be murdered indiscriminately by their own government with weapons so cruel they've been banned for over a hundred years by international agreement, as long as it isn't  my government that's doing it.  What the fark is wrong with people?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.

mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.

If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

Sargun: sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.

Pretty much.  It's absolutely disgusting how people think that it's okay to let human beings be murdered indiscriminately by their own government with weapons so cruel they've been banned for over a hundred years by international agreement, as long as it isn't  my government that's doing it.  What the fark is wrong with people?

Aarontology: We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.

Magorn: So those of you who want us to do nothing are basically okay with giving world leaders carte blanche for war crimes and genocide?

I'm the last person who wants us to go to war to support the rebels who want to overthrow Assad, the bulk of the rebel forces are the exactl same people who were shooting at US troops in Iraq while calling themselves Al-qaeda in Iraq. (Militant Syrian Salafist extremists-backed by Saudi cash)  but, doing this to civillians is not okay either.  It wasn't okay in Germany in the 40's nor Bosnia or Rawanda in the 90's or the Sudan in the 2000's.  There has to be a line over which no leader or ruler cannot cross without major consquences and Syria is over that line.

My solution?  Remove his stockpiles of chemical weapons and ability to deliver them.   A combined Tomahwak /Drone/B-2 raid on all his known chemical weapons stockpiles and airfields is perfectly appropriate and extremely low risk response by the US.   If we also struck his major artillery  stockpiles, Assad would lose the capability of waging offense war and force the civil to a negotiated end