Syria: What to do?

[tenni]

Well, we are reading about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Counter accusations of the use of chemical weapons by the "rebel freedom fighters" against the military. The UN is grappling with decisions on what to do. In the past, the UN has sanctioned the invasion of country's where crimes against humanity while ignoring others.

What do you think should be done?

[i_shoot_blanks]

If we're going to attack, ie cruise missiles, take out Assad

[fredtyg]

If we should be supporting anyone in this mess it should be Assad, as we have a common enemy. I do not propose taking a side, though. There's no good outcome no matter how we get involved.

I'm convinced the chemical weapons allegations- both earlier on and now- are a ruse by the rebels to get the west involved. A false flag operation, if you will. It would be foolish for Assad to use chemical weapons with the west biting at the bit to attack him. He'd have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Not so of the rebels, who would have everything to gain and nothing to lose by staging an incident.

We need to stay out, but it looks like the die is cast and those within the War Party will get their way.

Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/is-u-s-launching-a-war-in-syria-to-distract-from-spying-and-other-scandals.html) takes a good look at chemical weapons allegations.

Reason magazine (http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/27/8-reasons-not-to-go-to-war-in-syria) has 8 reasons not to get involved in Syria.

Pat Buchanan (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/patrick-j-buchanan/dont-be-cowards-or-murderers/) also thinks we should stay out.

There's many more good commentaries on why we shouldn't be involved. I've yet to see one good commentary to convince me we should get involved. The scary thing is the way most of the mainstream media is acting like a press release outlet for the War Party, with hardly any of them questioning the dubious statements and allegations being made over Syria.

[Annika L]

If our delegates from California and Arizona cannot agree on this topic, I despair of our nation reaching a resolution. Let us now hear from our esteemed delegate from New York....

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/patrick-j-buchanan/dont-be-cowards-or-murderers/)Tenni, I don't have a solid answer (and you'd be disappointed if I did)...but inconsistency in policy really angers and disgusts me. If we feel action X is the appropriate action to take in response to use of chemical weapons, and we can put forth a rationale for doing so, then we should be advocating that...but if we only think action X is appropriate for countries we don't like, then that is not policy; it is whim, and has no place in international politics.

[Dead Account]

I think the rebels who happen to be made up of al Qaeda fighters, possibly arranged the whole thing to draw the US and allies into it, and would've made us all look badly. The fact that we're giving them weapons is bad enough.

[elian]

Duude, like 10 months ago I was sitting in a restaurant having dinner and they were showing footage of people being shot point blank in the head there by whoever was in power (Assad I think, yes?) - I said to myself, "Oh God, just what we need a Civil War in the Middle East and ANOTHER conflict to deal with." It was sad to see it happen then, and the situation has not improved since.

.. based on anecdotal behavior, the "dude" can't give up control of "his" country so he's going to destroy anyone he can, throw a tantrum, take it out on his own people and generally make life miserable for everyone. Not saying the military is really any better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbBfxREg6fk

This is not within my sphere of influence, I cannot directly influence the outcome - therefore speculation is pointless..only to say that I have a very unhappy, visceral reaction to scenes of human subjugation. - "Weather the storm"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/27/syrian-rebels-also-fighting-al-qaeda-other-hard-li (only one story from one source..)

[darkeyes]

So far there is no certainty that Assad's lot wer responsible for any chemical attack.. much is assumption and none yet proven... why would he attack one of his own population areas? He is winning the war and there is some suspicion that rebels were in fact responsible..... did he need to use these shitty weapons? We do not know the truth of it and I doubt western governments know either..not for sure..... but we are being fed a truth by our governments.. I seem to remember being fed a truth by our governments back in 2003 and which proved bullshit... bit late after several hundreds of thousands of deaths for it being proven bullshit..I don't know the truth of it.. but do have sufficient suspicion that all is not as it seems or we are being told... is funny isn't it? Al Qaeda being supported by the US.. changed days... ne way,,

..liickle spanner in works... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/back-from-the-brink-david-cameron-forced-to-retreat-over-syria-8788612.html

Prob wont stop owt but it may give pause for further thought who knows??

..... will we never learn the futility and stupidity of war and of interfering militarily in other countries? Things are never quite as simple as they seem and are always much bloodier than expected... and they create much more resentment and loathing of the west.. yet another accusation of a Christian crusade and yet another accusation which may just have some fire in all that smoke..

[Hypersexual11]

Yesterday I sent an e-mail to both my Senators and the white house. I fully feel that the US policy of being world police is bullshit. 16 TRILLION dollar debt and about to be increased. What is happening in Greece and Italy will be happening here soon unless we get our own house in order. We hear about trouble in the middle east constantly but completely ignore Africa where there is an average of 23 wars going on at any time, some really horrible. But then, they have no oil. I know we all hate to see atrocities and feel if we can stop it, we should. Well folks, it's time to start worrying about the atrocities going on right here. If the people controlling us want our "support" they simply have to get some cameras and serious looking news anchors to start the propaganda machine and wa-la, off we go to "save the world" We are just a bunch of lemmings. Fuck the middle east, including Israel.

[void()]

In acting out of dissent, I engage the right to silence on this issue. Now, it is known I dissent. Nothing further be need known.

[fredtyg]

Duude, like 10 months ago I was sitting in a restaurant having dinner and they were showing footage of people being shot point blank in the head there by whoever was in power (Assad I think, yes?)

Look around and you'll find plenty of videos of executions done by the rebels.

[charlietx]

The problem is, their are "Boots On The Ground" already from Russa, China and who knows what other countrys are there! So if we, The USA, attack Syria, what kind of retalliation can we expect? I think we should stay out of it and let them make their own decesions and mistakes. After it is all over, over there, and their is a Regime in place, then we can decide if we will support them or not.

[jamieknyc]

No one except conspiracy theorists seriously believes false-flag stories. Assad has used chemical weapons before.

Obama bungled this matter with his usual incompetence. By declaring 'red lines' he dared Assad to call his bluff.

[fredtyg]

No one except conspiracy theorists seriously believes false-flag stories. Assad has used chemical weapons before.


When did he use them before? Other than the other phony allegations of very small use against the rebels earlier this year, no one has said he's used them before. You're the first person I've ever heard make that allegation.

If you think Assad is so stupid as to allow U.N. inspectors into the country, then launch a chemical attack a day or two later, you're pretty gullible.

[darkeyes]

U know what Jamie is like, fred.. pay no heed:).... Brylcream Boy Cameron told the British parliament today he doesn't know if it was Assad who dun the dirty deed.. but has made a judgement call... his Attorney General.. a politician of his own party says it is legal to attack Assad based on his judgement call,, well, I never did.. Gud grief.. I do despair at times:eek2:... however, lawyers all over the planet are saying quite the opposite... just shows.. depends wich lawyer ya wanna believe... on such things does international peace rest and is human life valued.. or not as the case me be...

[jamieknyc]

Bashar Assad, unlike his father, *is* stupid, but he also believes that Obama is an incompetent weakling and that he can play chicken with him.

[darkeyes]

Possibly Jamie... but in this world there are quite a few equally stupid Heads of State or Government kicking around.. and one has had the shock of his life over the last day or two culminating in this...http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog. For once parliament was less stupid than the executive.. will it last? Lets hope so... sneaky getts governments... but for now the US seems to b on it's tod..

[elian]

Look around and you'll find plenty of videos of executions done by the rebels.

Well, it's WAR - that's how war works you see - that's why I think that the appropriate response isn't ALWAYS "more war".

al Qaeda wanted to draw the US into a long, expensive conflict to try to bankrupt us, I think they've succeeded phenomenally well on that point.

Yes, in a way this reminds me of Rwanda, although not exactly the same.

Does the West feel some guilt for not acting fast enough in the holocaust?

At one time Muslims were writing poems while our ancestors were still wiping their butts with tree bark, but a "dark" time happened for Middle Eastern folks (Mid-East folks talk about the "Crusades" as if it happened yesterday) and now Islam has yet to go through a reformation the way that Christianity has, for some reason Western countries seem to want to have a hand in helping them along.

To the women trying to learn to read we are heroes, to moderate Muslims who really do believe in the peace of God we are friends, to religious extremists who already believe their own country is too liberal and may have other ulterior motives we are infidels - it really depends on whose version of "truth" you want to believe.

Doesn't Israel have a formidable intelligence and military? Since they are so fond of fighting, why not allow them to settle this dispute? You don't know how many times I get so sick of hearing, "Israel called off peace talks because of Palestinian bombings" followed by "Peace talks resume..", followed by "Palestine calls off peace talks because of Israeli bombings" - you know - they have been fighting so long they can see no other way.

You can listen to all the "talking points" you want over the weekend, Assad is an asshole who doesn't want to give up his power, plain and simple.

"In an interview he stated that he saw democracy in Syria as 'a tool to a better life' but then argued that it would take time for democracy to come about and that it could not be rushed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad (nods head) - apparently things haven't changed that much since he took power in 2000. All of the folks who had hoped he would be more democratic apparently were disappointed.

What we need is for the Irish to gather up a few hundred thousand barrels of Guinness, go over there on a diplomatic mission and sort it all out. I mean, somehow the Protestants and Catholics learned to get along, didn't they?

[darkeyes]

Well, it's WAR - that's how war works you see - that's why I think that the appropriate response isn't ALWAYS "more war".

al Qaeda wanted to draw the US into a long, expensive conflict to try to bankrupt us, I think they've succeeded phenomenally well on that point......


What we need is for the Irish to gather up a few hundred thousand barrels of Guinness, go over there on a diplomatic mission and sort it all out. I mean, somehow the Protestants and Catholics learned to get along, didn't they?
I wish u had said it is never an appropriate response, Elian.. for it isn't... it is the lazy man's response.. the macho man's response.. the dimwit's... easier to shoot and slaughter rather than talk, solve and heal...

..and the US and al Quaeda on the same side... never expected that so quickly didya? And now u have the French maybe.. and not a brain between them...

.. and in the north of Ireland.. they have learned to not blow hell out of each other so much... don't delude yourself that they live together.. but not blowing hell out of each other so much??? Now that is real progress compared to what was.. but a long way to go yet... but not quite so far as Syria methinks..

[jamieknyc]

This is really the fault of Obama's incompetence. Obama was stupid enough to commit himself to a 'red line' without thinking that a dictator with his back against the wall might take the risk that Obama was too weak to carry out his threats. All of this is really about proving that leftists have balls too.

[olmizzou42]

Don't get me started on my own generations fiasco, Vietnam! I'll stay more recent.
Let's see...the US attacked the nation of Afghanistan even though the 9/11 attackers were Saudis just because the Bush crew thought, without solid evidence, that Osama might be hiding in that country. Then, when that didn't work, they turned it into "bringing democracy to the Afghan people." Result, lots of dead and wounded, Dick Cheney's puppet, Howdy Doody Karsai installed and an ongoing conflict.
Then, based on false evidence, we attacked Iraq. Again lots more innocent dead and wounded civilians along with soldiers. Oh yeah, we captured and hanged Bush's daddy's mortal enemy Hussein. Result, a destabalized nation with terrorism that would never have happened with Hussein alive still happening. And now, Iran, who was scared shitless of Hussein, has stepped up.
Yes, the use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians is terrible no matter who did it. But, they are Syrians, within Syria's borders and it is none of the US's or any of its allies business other than to try diplomatically and with humanitarian aid to try to resolve the situation.
Killing people to stop people from killing people does not work. Never has and never will...unless you kill them all!

[jamieknyc]

Doesn't Israel have a formidable intelligence and military? Since they are so fond of fighting, why not allow them to settle this dispute? You don't know how many times I get so sick of hearing, "Israel called off peace talks because of Palestinian bombings" followed by "Peace talks resume..", followed by "Palestine calls off peace talks because of Israeli bombings" - you know - they have been fighting so long they can see no other way.


Why should Israel get involved in cleaning up Obama's mess? The regime in Syria has only been in power as long as it has because certain elements in American politics see propping up Assad as a low-cost way of putting American Jews in their place.

[elian]

Well for a start, they were the ones who came up with the "evidence" right? Frankly, I am sure the rest of world will continue to fight but I think 12 years of psychic, mental, physical and spiritual war is enough. "Yee-Haww, don't mess with Tex'as" seems to have lost its shimmer.

[elian]

I wish u had said it is never an appropriate response, Elian..

Sometimes it is appropriate to fight, but there are different ways of fighting. Personally, I would try to avoid a conflict as much as possible but none of us operate in a vacuum. I don't disagree that the cost is high Fran.

[elian]

Oh yeah, we captured and hanged Bush's daddy's mortal enemy Hussein.

When Bush "Jr" ran for election I said to myself rather cynically, "He's just running to show up his dad" - as it turns out I guess I was right. Ya' know I wish I wasn't such a smartass sometimes..

[tenni]

I see that the issue seems to be complex and many do not see it as their "job" to deal with the use of chemical weapons against your own people. Discussions about not letting genocides /holocausts and this generally held belief that chemical /biological weapons are the worst and should not be used seems to be fake platitudes? The world is helpless.

[darkeyes]

I see that the issue seems to be complex and many do not see it as their "job" to deal with the use of chemical weapons against your own people. Discussions about not letting genocides /holocausts and this generally held belief that chemical /biological weapons are the worst and should not be used seems to be fake platitudes? The world is helpless.
Not so.. me point is and always has been that there are other ways of dealing with disputes between nations ( or more accurately, the governments of nations) than war... there are other ways of dealing with governments who treat their people as so much shit.. the trouble with military intervention is that it is unpredictable in its effect, is a very blunt instrument, invariably costs far more lives, of combatant and non combatant than any other way of settling disputes and often, too often, sows the seeds of future conflict.... it is a nice macho way, a brutal way to try and resolve disputes, and as often as not does nothing of the kind.. and if it does resolve a dispute, it is invariably not a resolution that anyone hoped for in the beginning, and such is the bitterness created, and the hatred, that it is just as likely to store up further conflict in years to come so it begs the question.. did it in fact resolve anything? Look back on the history of Syria.. of Iraq... of Afghanistan.... travel back in their historical timelines going back centuries and it can be seen that one conflict and its aftermath after another led to the next... 'twas ere thus..

There is no substitute for talking, and resolving a dispute peacefully... a certain amount of arm twisting and pressure may be required but that is always preferable to a shooting war... it is give and take... and invariably a great deal less costly in human life, human injury and cost the the environment.. and invariably it is likely to be a resolution which lasts longer than any peace forced after a military conflict... the world is not helpless... but it may be once the shooting starts...

[elian]

Chemical weapons are the worst? What is so special about chemical weapons as opposed to jet fighters, drones, guns, bombs, missles, rocket launchers and radical ideas? Is it that they kill "innocent" people? All weapons kill, and they often kill innocent people.

Even when they don't physically harm the body, they still effect the spirit and mind. The violence of war affects whole societies for generations - as the current situation demonstrates. The thing that I've been told is different about the Middle East, the thing that makes memory so long - is that the past is tied to the land, and the land that is in dispute is such a small area. It is unlike the United States where you might have an opportunity to physically escape the memories of the past.

Sometimes fighting is necessary, but war is never something to be proud of, it means all other options have failed, or perhaps as Fran says, people are too lazy, too stubborn or too blind to their own suffering to prefer peace.

I used to want to be a minister so that I could eliminate suffering in the world, I now recognize that it is an impossible task. For one thing, I can only control my own actions, not the actions of others. Also, as sad as it seems, some people EXPECT suffering, it is a catalyst for change in the world.

Is it right? No. I don't think it is right of anyone like Assad to use chemical weapons; but I must work within my own sphere of influence in the world, using my own talents and beliefs to the best of my ability. I preach love within, instead of calling for action without.

Sadly, what I preach seems 50 worlds removed from what the average person feels in that situation..

http://www.bisexual.com/forum/entry.php?2647-On-Being-Civil

[fredtyg]

Chemical weapons are the worst? What is so special about chemical weapons as opposed to jet fighters, drones, guns, bombs, missles, rocket launchers and radical ideas? Is it that they kill "innocent" people? All weapons kill, and they often kill innocent people.


Of the supposed 100k plus people that have been killed in Syria, only a minute fraction were killed by chemicals. The biggest killer on any battlefield is always artillery, conventional or otherwise. If you want something to worry and get upset about, turn your attention to nuclear weapons. They could level all of Damascus as opposed to just killing a relative handful of people.

Of course, you're still assuming Assad was the one who used chemical weapons, which would make no sense at all. Not saying there's not a small chance of him totally blowing it and doing something outrageously stupid, but the rebels are the ones with the motivation to use them.

[fredtyg]

19084

[mas8092]

If we should be supporting anyone in this mess it should be Assad, as we have a common enemy. I do not propose taking a side, though. There's no good outcome no matter how we get involved.

I'm convinced the chemical weapons allegations- both earlier on and now- are a ruse by the rebels to get the west involved. A false flag operation, if you will. It would be foolish for Assad to use chemical weapons with the west biting at the bit to attack him. He'd have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Not so of the rebels, who would have everything to gain and nothing to lose by staging an incident.

We need to stay out, but it looks like the die is cast and those within the War Party will get their way.

Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/is-u-s-launching-a-war-in-syria-to-distract-from-spying-and-other-scandals.html) takes a good look at chemical weapons allegations.

Reason magazine (http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/27/8-reasons-not-to-go-to-war-in-syria) has 8 reasons not to get involved in Syria.

Pat Buchanan (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/patrick-j-buchanan/dont-be-cowards-or-murderers/) also thinks we should stay out.

There's many more good commentaries on why we shouldn't be involved. I've yet to see one good commentary to convince me we should get involved. The scary thing is the way most of the mainstream media is acting like a press release outlet for the War Party, with hardly any of them questioning the dubious statements and allegations being made over Syria.

I concur. It's like watching the two teams you hate in sports play. Who cares?

[elian]

Of course, you're still assuming Assad was the one who used chemical weapons, which would make no sense at all. Not saying there's not a small chance of him totally blowing it and doing something outrageously stupid, but the rebels are the ones with the motivation to use them.

The truth is, I don't know who used them. The truth is, it's a half a world away from where I live. The truth is, this is one of a million things that affect our world every day. What about radiation leaking into the Sea from Japan? Forget nuclear weapons, how do you protect against a complex severe weather pattern that generates F5 storms, earthquake, fire, flood and tsunamis? Can you? Or do you face surrender and understand that it is not always a failure to acknowledge things beyond your control.

I'm sorry fred, I just don't like the guy - I have heard men like him speak before .. when he says the word "we" he really means "I" and it is arrogant to make an entire nation full of people suffer for your own ego -of course it's not just Assad who is doing that either.

There is tragedy, pain and suffering on a global scale that goes on every day; how much of it would you like me to be responsible for? tenni, did you expect any other answer?

Don't mistake my words for not caring, I care deeply about a lot of things - but there is a limit to my ability as a human being to comprehend the movement of the entire world on a global and universal scale.

I know in my heart that more war is not the way to peace, but how can I convince all of you of that? How can I convince all of the people that are fighting? How can I convince battle buddies that their comrades lives were not lost in vain? It's terrible not just because of the bloodshed and the expense but also because it consumes people.

While we're at it, how do you define "peace" ? I'm sure if you asked Assad and then asked the rebels, there would be at least two different definitions.

“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.”
― Edward Everett Hale

I am not necessarily against people protecting their own home and their way of life but it does break my heart to see what we have done to this world, it could be different, but it is not. Corrupt hearts will never be at peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXMel6AYFR0 (sighs)

If there is light in the soul there will be beauty in the person.
If there is beauty in the person there will be harmony in the home.
If there is harmony in the home there will be honor in the nation.
If there is honor in the nation there will be peace in the world.

[Ziggy74]

Meddling has never done us any good. It does make a good argument for reducing Presidiential power. Honestly, I don't even think we need to have a President. What the hell do they really do?

[Annika L]

Meddling has never done us any good. It does make a good argument for reducing Presidiential power. Honestly, I don't even think we need to have a President. What the hell do they really do?

Preside.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

The US needs to stay out of it, and let them take care of their Own damn problems. We have enough on our plate with the war we've Got. Until it pertains directly to Us, then stay out of it.
Just my humble opinion..
Cat

[void()]

No one except conspiracy theorists seriously believes false-flag stories.

History is written by conspirators. This is factually proven out in that ideas, shared by two or more people; like an independent America, are conspiracies by technical definition. You are a lawyer, you know other lawyers. Together you lawyers practice the idea of law. That is a conspiracy, technically and literally defined.

So yeah, guess that makes nearly everyone whom thinks "gee, you know it may be something to figure Joe and John Doe agreed to pick up gum off sidewalks", a person having a theory about conspiracies. Anyone reading a historical text book is a conspiracy theorist, actually. We theorize about what people did to attain present results in the past.

I figure you had to learn history in order to practice law. I dub thee a conspiracy theorist. Welcome aboard, remember rule one, poo happens. :) Maybe some day we can all figure out why but mainly we just accept rule one and muddle on as best we can until then.

So, now that you've fallen from that high horse, feel negative about calling yourself a conspiracy theorist? Hope not. No real point to using that as a derogatory term when reality is a conspiracy theory in the works. Of course, I often wonder about using the word erudite (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/erudite) as an insult too. *shrugs*

[void()]

This is really the fault of Obama's incompetence. Obama was stupid enough to commit himself to a 'red line' without thinking that a dictator with his back against the wall might take the risk that Obama was too weak to carry out his threats. All of this is really about proving that leftists have balls too.

Somewhat agree with you on this. Obama did draw a line in the sand publically, and is now trying to weasel out by suggesting it was humanity as a collective that drew the line. Yes, we did. But we collectively are not POTUS, he is at present and when POTUS says such things, such things rightly ought to be accountable. Meaning, we should hold him to the line he drew.

And now here we are facing WWIII ang arguing over a POTUS' bluff being called. This is not about some little dictator gasing his people. It's about a big old tired grizzly bear poking a hornet nest to trick his belly by running from the hornets. He's tricking his belly because he done ate up all the food in this forest, so he got to do something even if it is run himself to death. That big old bear, we'll call him America.

[elian]

Well therein lies the paradox. I think the American people are tired of issues overseas and feel we really should focus on domestic issues. The politicians on the other hand are tired of playing games with domestic issues and perhaps favor a distraction overseas. Then you add the political situation and powers in the Middle East and it becomes lots of fun. If Israel doesn't want a conflict, why are they displaying their military power? (just sayin')

In the balance we have people who have gone through real physical torment and opportunists who will do anything to promote their cause.. for those of us who understand the cost it's not a very nice game to play no matter whose side you're on.

[tenni]

"This is not about some little dictator gasing his people."

Oh, yes it is about gassing people!!!
It is about all is fair in war or it is not.

The UN is fudging. Britain is denying any responsibility to find a solution on the use of gas on civilians. Canada is fudging and doesn't have the military equipment to invade a country. France is considering doing something militarily and kind of threatening. The US is fudging but still contemplating whether they want to be so obvious about wantiing to controll the world.

If the US people don't want to be looked at as the person in the room who has the might to do something, then force your governnment to reduce your weapons and military to a "normal" size compared to the rest of the world. Work within the UN and do whatever you can within a global democracy as incompetent as it might be. Despite pleas of wanting your government to stay out, the US people as a society really wants to control the world or you would not have such a monstrous military complex.

It is about any country gassing its people or other people as a weapon. Is this now an acceptable military action...next the use of the nuclear bomb to stop your rebels or neighbours from shitting on your lawn...figuratively? What will the world really do if Pakistan, Israel etc. uses a nuclear bomb?

[fredtyg]

Timeline of the Syrian false flag: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/anthony-gucciardi/timeline-of-the-syrian-false-flag/

[darkeyes]

"This is not about some little dictator gasing his people."

Oh, yes it is about gassing people!!!
It is about all is fair in war or it is not.

The UN is fudging. Britain is denying any responsibility to find a solution on the use of gas on civilians. Canada is fudging and doesn't have the military equipment to invade a country. France is considering doing something militarily and kind of threatening. The US is fudging but still contemplating whether they want to be so obvious about wantiing to controll the world.

If the US people don't want to be looked at as the person in the room who has the might to do something, then force your governnment to reduce your weapons and military to a "normal" size compared to the rest of the world. Work within the UN and do whatever you can within a global democracy as incompetent as it might be. Despite pleas of wanting your government to stay out, the US people as a society really wants to control the world or you would not have such a monstrous military complex.

It is about any country gassing its people or other people as a weapon. Is this now an acceptable military action...next the use of the nuclear bomb to stop your rebels or neighbours from shitting on your lawn...figuratively? What will the world really do if Pakistan, Israel etc. uses a nuclear bomb?
The quote talks of some tinpot dictator gassing his people... the jury is still out about just who was responsible for the chemical attack ...

..and Britain doesn't deny any such responsibility as u infer for it at all... we know how the government thinks.. they would bomb the poop out of Syria as soon as scratch an itch.. they have been stopped by parliament.. and have been told find another way... some 2/3 of the British people concur with the decision of parliament because they are all too aware that once bombing starts the people who will suffer most are the ordinary Syrian people and the likelihood is that far more lives will be lost, and far more injuries sustained if the west does decide to bomb and the cost to the world and the environment will be far greater than if left alone and they are tired of fighting wars which they see as increasing the instability of the world and making it a far more dangerous place in which to live..........

..of course we cannot leave alone and have to find a solution and to apportion responsibility for who dun the dirty deed... as well as try and resolve the issue of the civil war itself.. but it can be done I am convinced without added military conflict and intervention by the west...why the US and the British (still even now even after whatever has happened at home) and other western governments are interested in doing Assad is that they always need a scapegoat.. a whipping boy.. he is not a nice man and his government is not nice.. but then the west and other power blocs have always supported not nice men and discarded them when they have ceased to be of use..... from what I can see the west supports largely not nice men now who oppose Assad.. no one side is innocent.

It seems nations and their rulers always need an enemy.. right now it is Assad... next year someone else.. and they will always dig up reasons why they should be bombed invaded or ostracised... and we are led into yet another conflict where our young men and women sacrifice their lives, and the young men women and children on the other side sacrifice theirs in the name of cause, nation and/or religion.. when the reality is that they are sacrificed for those who really run whichever society we live in.. we are cannon fodder still... that is our place in life but is one I have always refused to accept...and it is about time that people got up off their arse, in every country and said enough... find another way.. talk ffs and sort it.. use your fucking noggins and resolve whatever crisis exists.. religion, cause or nation is not worth a single life, a single scratch on any human being, a single bomb or a single penny spent in conflict... it can be sorted without conflict...

[rickoyler1969]

FROM A FORMER NAVY SEAL SEND A TEAM IN TO KILL THE MAN IN CHARGE ! ! !

[darkeyes]

FROM A FORMER NAVY SEAL SEND A TEAM IN TO KILL THE MAN IN CHARGE ! ! !Be careful of what u ask for....u just never know what u will get whether or not successful.. of course the US respects international law doesn't it? When it suits...

[sxyblueyes]

FROM A FORMER NAVY SEAL SEND A TEAM IN TO KILL THE MAN IN CHARGE ! ! !

I don't doubt that we can do that, but it is probably better to let these people shoot, blow up and gas each other until they get tired of it.
Civilian casualties suck, but this is none of our business. There is no good outcome. Our credibility is not on the line. The jackass president ran his mouth without the support of the people, and his term is just a blip in history. It is the will of the American people that must be respected by those abroad. Let our jackass president twist in the wind.

[tenni]

"It is the will of the American people that must be respected by those abroad."

Every country's will should be respected...as long as it is about internal issues that do not impact another society. If it impacts another country, then no the will of any country should be tempered.

Then again, why do people whine about holocausts and genocides? There must be more to it all?

[elian]

If the US people don't want to be looked at as the person in the room who has the might to do something, then force your governnment to reduce your weapons and military to a "normal" size compared to the rest of the world. Work within the UN and do whatever you can within a global democracy as incompetent as it might be. Despite pleas of wanting your government to stay out, the US people as a society really wants to control the world or you would not have such a monstrous military complex.



The "average" US citizen is too busy working so they can afford the latest gadgets and/or medications to stay alive. There aren't too many blue collar workers that come home, open a nice cold beer and sit down on the couch to watch "C-SPAN" (our congressional broadcast channel) for a few hours every night. They are too busy watching other people make fools of themselves on TV. Go to bed, get up the next day, go to work and repeat - We deal with big nameless entities here such as "they" - as in "they are the ones to blame" .. seems a lot of that lately.

This is a very simplistic analysis. As one person I simply cannot comprehend all of the variables in the world that drive all of these decisions, so if you want a simple solution I think you are going to be looking for a long time. I have heard both major arguments for and against military action played as sound bites on our major media and I agree with both of them.

Scientific studies now seem to prove that there is a true difference in the way conservative and liberal folks are neurologically wired. This is actually a benefit to our species as a whole as the tension between the two ways of thinking provides a catalyst to keep humanity moving - if we all agreed on every single thing we would stagnate and die.

Believe me, if enough of you other folks say "No, don't act" - I wish we wouldn't - then let's see what happens..

[elian]

"It is the will of the American people that must be respected by those abroad."

Every country's will should be respected...as long as it is about internal issues that do not impact another society. If it impacts another country, then no the will of any country should be tempered.

Then again, why do people whine about holocausts and genocides? There must be more to it all?

Yes, such as human morals and ethics. "Ethical" questions are not always black and white, especially with something like a war that comes at great cost.

I think the world is haunted by what they saw in the German concentration camps. For a long time no country wanted to act AGAINST Germany..they would make a lot of statements and blow a lot of hot air..

The spectre of not acting quickly enough haunts people, whether the current action is justified or not.

I find it interesting to note that a group of rebels destroyed an ancient Christian shrine and another group has purposefully ceeded from the pro-al qaeda faction now..

[darkeyes]

Believe me, if enough of you other folks say "No, don't act" - I wish we wouldn't - then let's see what happens..
Few are saying don't act.. many are saying don't act militarily... not acting, and not acting militarily are not the same thing at all..:)

[elian]

I wouldn't be opposed to trying something other than "blowing shit up" .. it's not my decision alone to make.

[void()]

If the US people don't want to be looked at as the person in the room who has the might to do something, then force your governnment to reduce your weapons and military to a "normal" size compared to the rest of the world. Work within the UN and do whatever you can within a global democracy as incompetent as it might be. Despite pleas of wanting your government to stay out, the US people as a society really wants to control the world or you would not have such a monstrous military complex.

Not disagreeing with about the American military being over sized.

But not all Americans believe in the might equals right doctrine. Simply 'because you can' does not
imply you 'need to do' so.

And I take your point that we each as individual citizens ought to be better informed, more active and responsible
politically. Sure, we ought to have been. We were not though for a plethora of reasons least of which being money
creeping into politics and planting seeds of corruption long before many of us were born.

Sorry, I was not here in 1932 to help fight against the government mandating all citizens turn in their
gold for fiat currency. I came along four decades later. Was not here to fight in the Whiskey Rebellion
either, unfortunately. So, yes I understand taking responsibility. I genuinely do.

No, I'm not responsible for what happened before I lived, or what goes on behind closed doors
out of sight in regards to politics and such. I don't think anyone ought to try to force accountability
for that on another, nor should they try degrading others by citing it as lack of responsibility. And yes,
that's what I percieve you to be writing, in error or correctly, it's what I percieve.

I'm not saying you need to excuse me because some things were, are and will remain out of my
control. But you might consider refining your expectations a bit. :) I'm just some broke down
foolish country boy, lucky enough to manage scribbling a few words.

If anyone uses a nuclear weapon now, i have no idea how anyone would respond. I consider the
radition from the Japanese reactor flooding the Pacific and think of a bomb going off, figure by the end of year
some of us ought to be glow worms. :) All the more glow if we fire blind ICBMs at the neutron reactor near Damascus
in Syria! YAY!!!!

"No problem Huston, we have M.A.D on schedule." :D :)) :)


N.B. I have figured it out. We need M.A.D and nuclear destruction to create the appropriate nest
for Cthulu. *sits nodding sagely* Cthulu has won. All hail our new overlord, Cthulu. We are now specks of chaos.
I ought to have known the church of subgenius had a hand in it. *makes the sign of five* "Hail Eris, holy mother of Cthulu."

[elian]

Well that's the thing about MAD - nobody wants to push the button (the big red one) - and that's how it should be. MAD policy -is- the reason our military is so large. I think you are right though, in the 1960's everyone was so worried about being nuked - you can disarm a nuke - how do you stop the weather - or disasters such as the flow of radiation leaking into the sea?

Oh, a giant ICE WALL - why didn't I think of that - oh, what's that you say - you need tons of plumbing to keep it cool? - well forgive me for sounding stupid, but what happens if there is another earthquake?

For something like Fukushima it seems pretty obvious that scientific folks from all over the world who are not as prone to speculation as politicians could say - "Let us help you, Japan" and there stands a chance that we could co-operate and do something positive.

The Syrian conflict is a little different, because there is such an undercurrent of politics, scarce resources, ideology, ethics involved. It's a highly disputed area of the world to start with, then you throw more fuel onto the fire. I am glad we have such smart people to help us decide so that we don't have to do it alone.

[void()]

The Syrian conflict is a little different, because there is such an undercurrent of politics, scarce resources, ideology, ethics involved. It's a highly disputed area of the world to start with, then you throw more fuel onto the fire. I am glad we have such smart people to help us decide so that we don't have to do it alone.


I fink u freeky and I like you a lot:bounce: :tongue::wiggle2::love1::bounce:

On a serious note, I do comprehend that Syria is a difficult issue, as is Fukushima.
I honestly, think I recall something to the effect of pouring a lot of baking soda on
a reactor getting ready to melt down. Laugh if you will but the logic behind it was
that baking soda being alkali would 'base out' the radiation. Not sure if I recall correctly
or not, or if such would be apt to work. Still, I suppose any chance at helping deter melt
down would be better than no chance.

But like yourself, I am happy to defer to the smarties, whom often "know better for your
own good". Sometimes though, it is difficult to see they do. Maybe they ought to at least
act like they do?

Not that having a night of heated romping with you wouldn't be a serious issue. I
seriously probably need that in a few days. Still easing back to full speed after that
wretched seasonal crud, another day or so and I ought to be doing all better.

[elian]

So I was listening to a radio program to-day about this very topic and basically because the President said, "We'll retaliate if you use chemical weapons" we have to go over there and set off some fireworks or something to prove a point. Apparently they believe that Assad was trying "just" to gas the extremists, but I guess the devastation was much more than his regime anticipated and we have to act to save face with other countries..otherwise North Korea and the like will start waving around their nukes demanding more concession money.

Hmm...

[1funguy]

Syria is a serious issue. I have a different take than most, like it or not here it is: We live in a global society weather we like it or not. Just look at the range of countries within this thread. That being said what is needed is a global solution. As of this date Russia, China, and the EU have said it is against Syria using chemical weapons. Russia, China are allies with Syria. China gets oil from them about 60%. Russia has thirty thousand of their citizens in Syria. All principally from Southern Russia. There is a lot a stake for Putin in this as he is worried about demonstrations during the Olympics next year as 2014 Olympics are in guess where??? ........Southern Russia. So he needs to save face for future peace. Our President is a community organizer so let him organize a coalition of leaders from the allied countries of Syria to solve this situation. Cool heads must prevail as more bombing to solve this is surely not way. My two cents anyway.

[void()]

Thought this (http://tinyurl.com/mmd69rl) warranted plugging in here. Out of ten listed, seems America had something to do with nine. I also recall
meeting a Native American chief at a pow wow whom told about how the white man gave natives blankets that had
been used in wrapping dead victims of chicken pox. This all really makes me grimace to realize I have deep
Anglo-Saxon roots.

How hypocritical of us to bother "policing" others for doing the same as us? That's fairly rhetorical as I think
it is vastly hypocritical. I do not think anyone could arguably justify ... then again, I'm sure some foolish
gung-ho zealot may try. "When we do it, it's different ..."

No, people are people no matter who they are. If people do foul shit, they need to be held to account and the
world as such is right to seek justice. Foul shit is foul shit no matter who does it, shit is shit, simple as that.
We need a global based meritocratic, republic that uses a resource based economy. This would mean no
one owned anything but everyone owned everything.

Imagine if you park your car, leave the key in. Neighbor sees parked car and uses it to go to town, leaves key in.
In town the theater owner borrows the car and takes free movie reels to the orphanage, on the way she charges
it using the electric road. The nurse at the orphanage takes the car back to the shop, gets medicine for his
ailing lover. Nobody owns the car, all have access to it when it is not in use by another.

We're all people, all the same basic human model. We have all the same basic needs. Let's provide for that
base line freely to all. Let us share all the Earth, she shares us all. We are but her stewards. So far we have
all done a shit job of it. Let's try doing better, simply because it's all we have.

No, we won't see that happen. I'm foolish to even dare to dream it. We're better suited to just go
fuck ourselves, kill the hell out of one another. After all, that is drama and drama sells.

[tenni]

Interesting perspective ifunguy. Today, the Canadian media was reporting on PM Harper's approach to the Syrian situation. The Canadian government is taking the position of giving money to organizations working with the Syrian refugees in the neigbhouring countries for such things as health etc. I think today the announcement was to give 35 million on top of what has been given to deal with the Syrian refugees. If thee is further bombing by the US, it will create more refugee issues for the neigbhouring countries.

[elian]

How hypocritical of us to bother "policing" others

It isn't so much "policing" as we made a threat to Assad, and now we have to make good on that threat, even if it is just a token - otherwise the rest of the world will view the US as weak and exploitable. The theory is that if we appear strong enough the threat of violence is enough of a deterrent to prevent a much more involved conflict. This strategy has worked in the past, therefore it must also work now right? (What could possibly go wrong..)

If you don't think it is painful for citizens to see the United States perceived throughout the world as a bully, guess again. It is easy to lose faith in the goodness of humanity - on the one hand you have talk of humanitarian aide on the other hand you have people who thrive on chaos that want to blow shit up, on the third hand you have the people who stand to profit, on the fourth hand you have the people who don't care as long as it's not their ass on the front line, on the fifth hand you have the prejudiced people who actually want others to die and on the sixth hand there are people who will kill to protect peace on the seventh hand you have people who preach "love" and admonishment. Then there's the other folks I'm corresponding with who think I'm a sick, sinful individual who is in league with the devil because I want to give equal rights to LGBT.

I will say it again, for the 150th time - all I have ever really wanted to do, since the day I was born is to share love and be loved in return - why is that so hard? I'm not kidding when I say that forgiveness is important at this time in our history - there are massive debts that none of us have owned up to (or let go of) - very deep hurts - throughout the world.

Thus is my general sentiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvFouNTbwvM

Now, having said that, I do recognize a few things:

A) There are truly evil people in the world who really don't give a shit about peace
B) Those people would not hesitate to exploit the situation to their advantage at every turn regardless of cost
C) You all need to look closely at your own history before you blame us for all of this shit
D) As sad as it is, human beings can only do the best they can do right now, today (we aren't gods)
E) At the end of the day a soldier on the ground is only trying to do the best they can by others

Where are the Islamists who believe the peace of God should be upon all people? I know they're out there somewhere - I wish they would speak up louder.

Sadly, I just got a sick feeling in my stomach knowing the twisted ones will think "the peace of God" is the same thing as militant suppression.

[tenni]

Where are the Christian (leaders) who believe in peace?

" now we have to make good on that threat, even if it is just a token - otherwise the rest of the world will view the US as weak and exploitable."

From my perspective the above belief does not make sense at all. How has the US been used unethically? How has it been used for Syria to present itself in a position of advantage? (the entire issue of using chemicals to kill your own people is to see your people as an enemy but I don't understand how such behaviour it done to exploit another country?)

How can the US be exploitable if it works with the UN and other nations? It did not. It made this statement unilaterally. It presented itself as a global police. If it works and reacts on its own it has set itself up as judge and jury and not just police. The world did not state what should happen if a country does X. The US had no right to make such a threat on its own if it is not trying to exploit other countries. It finds itself basically isolated with its position of needing to attack. It is wrong for the world governments to ignore the use of chemicals but we have no idea what to do either.

I think that it is sad, tragic and regretable that the world can not come together but I don't think that it can not do this because of one group's religion. To bring religion in to this discussion is to be xenophobic imo.

If the US attacks Syria without UN or other world bodies supporting it, the US will be seen as an invader..again. The US is not a victim here.

[elian]

Oh please forgive me master for ever doubting you. You words are so wise that they could never be wrong and the situation could never be more complicated than any of us know.

Now that we have solved the problem of world peace, maybe we can learn how to travel back in time?

How dare you accuse me of dragging anything into this conflict. My words are exactly as I mean them - if enough people stand up for peace it would make a difference - it would have to be every person in the world - are you ready to make that commitment? - how about your neighbors?

I am not opposed to peace, but I do get tired of being taken advantage of.

[darkeyes]

Oh please forgive me master for ever doubting you. You words are so wise that they could never be wrong and the situation could never be more complicated than any of us know.

Now that we have solved the problem of world peace, maybe we can learn how to travel back in time?

How dare you accuse me of dragging anything into this conflict. My words are exactly as I mean them - if enough people stand up for peace it would make a difference - it would have to be every person in the world - are you ready to make that commitment? - how about your neighbors?

I am not opposed to peace, but I do get tired of being taken advantage of.
It would not have to be every person in the world at all.. enough.. what that means no one knows, but if enough said they had had enough and refused to go to war or support it.. then it wouldn't happen... but it would be a lot less than every person on the planet...

..and as u know, Elian, neither am I opposed to peace.. in fact, in part support it because I fucking get pissed off by being taken advantage of and lied to... I support it more because war is morally wrong and socially and environmentally destructive... some peeps care about such things; some don't give a shit ;some r too defeatist to think peace can b achieved; others see a chance at making a buck; and some just see it as a nice way to gain and hold power... the cause matters not a bugger...

[elian]

Yes, well I never said I agreed with the theory above, but that was one of the arguments that was being made to justify "intervention" .. it has more to do with saving face than anything to do with Syria.

[void()]

Now, having said that, I do recognize a few things:

A) There are truly evil people in the world who really don't give a shit about peace
B) Those people would not hesitate to exploit the situation to their advantage at every turn regardless of cost
C) You all need to look closely at your own history before you blame us for all of this shit
D) As sad as it is, human beings can only do the best they can do right now, today (we aren't gods)
E) At the end of the day a soldier on the ground is only trying to do the best they can by others



I agree with your A. There are truly evil people. In my humble opinion humanity at large is
served by admitting this and accepting justice is in putting these evil ones down, period.
Put them down in open public forum, let teenagers watch with parental consent. This would
be a service of justice. "See what is done with evil? Care to be evil, now?" Set the example
boldly, clearly.

At the same time though, I realize the conundrum in who would determine who is evil, and
how. Jury by peers may not exactly be approriate but at present it seems all we have to use.
This of course, would be a tedium for our wisest folks to dispute and resolve. I'm sure there
are ethical and moral standards used in deeming one evil. Kind of appreciate the axiom,
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

You're correct in point B. The evil ones do not care about cost.

Not exactly following point C. I was posting a link to an article what describes atrocities
that either America had hand in, or could have taken to task to stop. I thought it hypocritical
we, who by this article's subject matter obviously bear sin, would cast aspersions on others.
So, I am looking at my own history, a history as an American citizen. I see what America has
done, what it does. I am not really blaming anyone. I'm just pointing out that it is what it is.

Yes, I'm seeking to engage readers in thinking. That's normally what conversation in public
forums is about an exchange of ideas, thoughts. Maybe others think similarly as I, maybe not.
I can only post discussion and ask.

I agree with point D. We aren't gods, yet. Note I state yet. I feel we can get there. I feel we
ought to be closer along torward that aim than we presently are. Unfortunate it seems we aren't.

Point E? Yes, you're right. They also do the best they can by themselves, i.e., they need to
look themselves in the eyes in the mirror of the morning.

[void()]

I think that it is sad, tragic and regretable that the world can not come together but I don't think that it can not do this because of one group's religion. To bring religion in to this discussion is to be xenophobic imo.

If the US attacks Syria without UN or other world bodies supporting it, the US will be seen as an invader..again. The US is not a victim here.

I think one, elian was pointing out exactly the xenophobia already resplendent in what is ongoing presently, caused
in no small part by religion/s. He is not saying any one religion is at fault more or less than another, rather all of them
seem to have had a hand in fouling everything up. If anything he seems to be desiring religion left out.

Two, he's not saying the U.S. is a victim. He's just speculating on how the U.S. policy seems geared to save face
only at present. Frankly, our POTUS got egg on his face and has been found lacking in his zealousness to "do
something". I think it was a foolish and futile wasted effort to distract Americans from many problems at home.
80-90% of Americans do not support doing anything regarding Syria. But yet the "leadership (such as it is)" seems
hell bent upon creating WWIII out of it.

[elian]

What I WANT, is for all of the MODERATE religious people to STAND UP and drive out the fanatics - and I really don't care what particular ideology any one of them ascribes to. When moderate Christian unites with moderate Jew,. moderate Muslim, moderate Humanist and moderate Atheist - then we have a chance. As long as we allow ourselves to be bullied people are just going to walk all over us.

One report of intelligence gathered seemed to indicate that Assad thought that his weapons were going to target the extremist faction of rebels, subsequent intelligence reveals that the regime panicked when the devastation their weapons caused was much more extreme than they anticipated. So, if that is true - there is no prolonged military action, there is a slap on the wrist - because after all - they were trying to gas "only the bad guys" - too bad chemical weapons don't work that way..

I'm not trying to justify anything, just saying for those of you thinking the intervention won't accomplish anything, you are probably right - but it's not designed to, really. That alone I find disgusting after imagining a sea of writhing people inhaling neurotoxin but as I said back at the very beginning of my comments on this thread "more war" is not always the answer.

Of course I could be totally wrong. ..and we'll see what the congress comes up with; I am just as weary of violence as anyone else, I'm not endorsing anything about this plan - I'm just speculating on one likely outcome.

"Through violence you may murder a liar but you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that."

http://vimeo.com/11154217

[fredtyg]

Elain wrote "You all need to look closely at your own history before you blame us for all of this shit".

The U.S. is the most warmongering nation in the world. Even North Korea only attacked one country (although it could be pointed out that was instigated by both sides).

[elian]

Elain wrote "You all need to look closely at your own history before you blame us for all of this shit".

The U.S. is the most warmongering nation in the world. Even North Korea only attacked one country (although it could be pointed out that was instigated by both sides).

There are many nations who have "intervened" in Middle East history and the residents there have a very long memory. The US is only the new kid on the block; and our consumerist lifestyle offends the ultra-conservative ..

What we ALL need to understand is that as long as there are corrupt world governments that will gladly steal the resources of their own people hand over fist all the while saying, “Oh, woe is me, all of our problems are the fault of someone else” and as long as there are fanatical demagogues who lust for power and greed that can convince people that religion is about justifying hatred, sooner or later we will ALL suffer.

If you don't believe in aggression against others then at least stand up for yourself.

For over 600 years the Abrahamic religions have tried the "My God is better than your God" line (or more aptly put, "The way I worship is the 'true' way") - it isn't working. It's the SAME God.

God is not an accountant of sin - God is love, the ultimate force of bestowal - if you aspire to please God, be more loving.

Now - who wants to charter a plane to fly above Syria displaying that banner? Who wants to take bets as to how long it will fly before it is shot down?

This morning I heard someone on the radio postulate the idea that Assad should stand trial at Nuremberg..

[zenn7]

So..It seems a given..in the middle east in general that the region doesn't want the west there at all...Jihad...infidels to be driven out...well why aren't all those rich countries from Saudi Arabia to Iran handling this situation in their backyard on there own?Perhaps its time for the Arab League to grow up and not outsource this to the evil west....

[12voltman59]

This seems to me to be one of those situations---"Damned if you do and damned if you don't."


One thing for sure--no matter how much we have spent or might spend when it comes to military operations---the most fiscally conservative political figure----when it comes to undertaking such operations----they offer a blank check---but try to spend anything on "social programs" that do things like feed poor kids and it's "Are you crazy?? Do you think we are made of money? The answer is No--now go away and don't dare ask again! Too bad about those kids that go hungry but that's life."

[elian]

Yes voltman, I have noticed that before..

[elian]

So after all this fuss, looks like we get to play "good cop, bad cop" with Russia .. interesting - I hope it actually works and they surrender the weapons..hmm..

[fredtyg]

So after all this fuss, looks like we get to play "good cop, bad cop" with Russia .. interesting - I hope it actually works and they surrender the weapons..hmm..

Reason magazine takes a look at the two alternatives: A military strike vs. the chemical weapons agreement:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/11/why-an-imperfect-chemical-weapons-deal-w

[tenni]

from the Globe and Mail Opinion article today.

"But Mr. Obama doesn’t really mean what he says. So why should anybody take him seriously? In fact, there are no consequences, and everything he and his comically inept sidekick John Kerry have said about human rights and justice and the “moral obscenity” of chemical weapons is just a bunch of hot air. His message to rogue states like Iran is: You can get away with anything. His message to greater powers such as China is that he’s incapable of strategic thinking. And his message to allies such as Israel is that they can’t rely on him to have their back.Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. He looks like he’s way over his head. Now he’s let himself get rolled by the biggest bully on the block. In the immortal words (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/were-not-talking-about-war-kerry-outlines-unbelievably-small-strike-on-syria/article14184543/) of Mr. Kerry, he looks “unbelievably small.” And that’s not good."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/barack-obama-98-pound-weakling/article14315072/

[void()]

from the Globe and Mail Opinion article today.

"But Mr. Obama doesn’t really mean what he says. So why should anybody take him seriously? In fact, there are no consequences, and everything he and his comically inept sidekick John Kerry have said about human rights and justice and the “moral obscenity” of chemical weapons is just a bunch of hot air. His message to rogue states like Iran is: You can get away with anything. His message to greater powers such as China is that he’s incapable of strategic thinking. And his message to allies such as Israel is that they can’t rely on him to have their back.Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. He looks like he’s way over his head. Now he’s let himself get rolled by the biggest bully on the block. In the immortal words (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/were-not-talking-about-war-kerry-outlines-unbelievably-small-strike-on-syria/article14184543/) of Mr. Kerry, he looks “unbelievably small.” And that’s not good."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/barack-obama-98-pound-weakling/article14315072/

Tenni, I am wanting to address an idea here. This is not meant as an attack on you personally.

Simply put, who cares? First of all it is a missive positing opinion. Last time I checked, everyone has
an opinion on most everything.

Second, an appeal to authority such as a media article really is not much basis for an argument, or debate.

Third, there comes a point when media is irrelevant and useless. Opinions are usually double that.

Ultimately does it matter what happens in Syria in regards to say Detroit being bankrupt? Does it matter
to children dying of hunger in our own streets?

And yes, I understand a butterfly flapping its wings in China causes a tornado in Hati. Still, where is the
sound relevance here anymore?

All that is happening now is folks kicking a dead horse. At the end of the day, the horse will still be dead.
So why not merely amble by without a need to kick the carcass?

The only point of relevance I can see would be an effort to continue setting barbed hooks to snare up others.
I know you're too intelligent to troll so openly, don't I? Maybe I don't.

And that's the idea I see at work here, obvious trolling for the sake of ... entertainment, trolling's sake,
frontal lobotomies? This is the idea I hopefully addressed without attacking personally. And it is not only
tenni whom does it, nor am I sure those doing it realize it is what they do at the time.

"We're just discussing current affairs ..."

Sure, until someone puts out an eye.