The irony is we may be creating our next terrorist threat, where Assad is not one.

Yes, the justification for spying on all of us, that reason our Government has usurped our constitutional rights...TERRORISM...seems not to be the primary concern anymore.. I am so sick of this BS.

and not necessarily liked by most of the fighters and as a general of the rebel forces stated today, AQ is relegated to a small area in Syria ...

Assad says most rebels are Al Qaeda, we say we haven't armed the Syrian rebels 3 months after weapons were authorized because we can't figure out how to keep them out of AQ hands.

Does it comfort me that the other main backer of the rebels is Saudi Arabia where the majority of 9/11 hijackers are from?

General Dempsey knows more than the both of us and he doesn't want Assad overthrown in favor of AQ extremists.

I am pretty sure you are underestimating their numbers.

Moreover what do you expect the general of the Rebels to say? That AQ are a sizable contingent? Why would he say so when that would cut off his access to the US military?

Everything he says is calculated to elicit a certain response. I have the distinct presumption that anything he says is false until proven otherwise.

fighting in Syria now, including al Nusra (the largest and most militarily effective), The Islamic State of Iraq, and the Levant.

http://cir.ca/story/nusra-front-in-syria

those are the groups that will come into power -- that has been the problem since almost the beginning. I do not think another destabilized ME country run by Islamic extremists is what the US or world want or need. At this point, Assad on a short leash would be the best possible outcome of nothing but very bad possibilities.

I think that eventually the rebels will get an upper hand and topple the butcher, hopefully sooner rather than later ...

or Somalia first?

Evidently you didn't read my last paragraph at all. It's highly disrespectful and inconsiderate to say things like this carelessly.

that entire region of the world, if not the entire world security ...

This decision about a civil war in Syria, I believe is the most important decision that our politicians and military and the American people will be making in this still early part of the new millennium ...

There will probably be no good outcome from our intervention, but we cannot stand by when Assad is gassing innocent people. This is more than just a local civil war, it is a crime against mankind. Remember when Clinton got us involved in Bosnia, it was the same kind of situation.

Assad must be punished for what he did. This is not the first time that he has used gas on civilians, but I think it is the largest attack and the most well documented. If no one else will step up to the plate, then the US must show him that there are consequences for killing innocent people.

His military capabilities must be destroyed so that he cannot harm other countries in the region ...

and it doesn't involve us taking military action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#

But then we wouldnt get to kill anyone. What fun would that be?

But, maybe we wouldn't be killed in the bargain.

I think there are a number of motivations our own country has to take down the Syrian leadership including starting a war with Iran.

How come it isn't our business when each and every year over 40,000 Americans die from lack of access to medical care because they do not have health insurance? Are these Americans any less dead the Syrians that were gassed? Do you think their deaths were any less painful? Isn't is morally vacant that these lives are not being defended here at home?

Isn't it an atrocity when tens of thousands of America lives are lost each year, most of those lives being those of children? What could be more callous and weak? I think we need to look within our own hearts, and get our own country in order before we can get on any kind of moral high horse and start throwing "limited" bombs around in a country we have no business in.

I'm actually kind of baffled, to be perfectly honest.

However, since you decided to make some points, I'll respond. I never said we shouldn't be taking care of ourselves, but we don't have to have our house perfectly in order to care about truly horrendous things that happen elsewhere. We don't have to be angelic in order to be concerned about truly evil acts. There is nothing happening in this country that is remotely on the scale of what is happening in Syria.

"It's not any concern of mine" might indeed sound callous when said that way, however, the truth behind it can be accurate and appropriate to just such situations.

Before I can love, assist, heal, counsel, etc. an other successfully & meaningfully, I must love, assist, heal, counsel, etc. myself first. Sometimes we call those who try to do those things without first taking care of themselves, co-dependent. Their sense of self comes from meddling, fixing, focusing on others, at the expense of themselves and to no real value to the 'other'.

Our country has become that co-dependent who has no further business intervening in the sovereignty of another nation no matter what is going on there (civil war, genocides, etc.) We, as a nation, constantly pick and choose which 'genocide' to intervene in. Some are real, and obviously some are made up (Iraq's WMD mushroom cloud). How can you classify this particular gassing which may have killed several hundred or over a thousand and might have been done by Assad or the rebels as being more severe than Rwanda in the 1990's, Ethiopia in the 1970's, Guatemala in the 1980's, or the Kurds in Iraq in the later 1990's? Aren't they all equally atrocious and untenable?

We do not take care of our own. We allow the sick to go unhealed. We allow the poor to go unfed. We incarcerate millions for petty & minor drug offenses. We do not educate our youth without them incurring massive debt before they truly even enter adult life. We borrow billions for war and then give the bill to those the least capable of paying it off - i.e. we take from the social good to pay for the sickeningly wealthy and military industrial corporations.

We still believe that we can just go in and make it all better whether with boots on the ground or 'punishing' missile strikes. Did we in Korea? Did we in Vietnam? How about Iraq & Afghanistan? Did we in Libya or Egypt or even Bosnia? No, not really, not in any significantly positive ways. We do need to stop messing with other countries and fix our own. It is not my concern, not directly. Can I and my country support the ICC? Yes. Can I and my country support the UN? Yes. Can I and my country support the Arab League? Yes. Can I and my country support humanitarian aid that is given directly to the people? Yes. And it is not directly our concern too.

There are probably 120,000 dead in Syria once the counts are fully updated. The gassing is just a small portion of that. There have been almost nonstop slaughters of civilians, indiscriminate bombings, etc. That is a huge humanitarian disaster and it ranks up among the worst we have seen in many years.

I said I was stating my own view. I'm not bound by this country's decisions to completely ignore any number of atrocities that have occurred over the years. Yes, they are all our concern. Any major crimes against humanity, particularly committed by a government that does not care about the interests of their own people, are worthy of our concern.

I simply offered an alternate take on what you were commenting on.

Yes, in this civil war there are about that many dead, but not all are by the 'governments' hand. There are despicable factions involved on both the government and the rebel sides.

While it is a humanitarian disaster, it is still not the worst. Quantitatively aside, it isn't about the numbers that make it necessary or unnecessary to intervene. It needs to be about who is, why they are doing so, and what the hoped for outcome is.

The administration and the congress are not actually looking at the full humanitarian crisis, they are using a single instance of chemical weapons use to rally support for an invasion. Why? Cui bono? How will this help? Will it cause greater harm? All of these questions are being asked here by those who definitely are against this action. None of these questions seem to be on the minds of the media pundits, the House & Senate, and the President and his team.

How the rest of the world intervenes and whether it does any good is the question.

Sometimes I want to throw my hands up in the air about the people in the Middle East, why the hell can't they just get along? So I can understand the feeling.

At times I think we should do something to get rid of North Korea, too. But what would work? That's more the problem.

Enabling our nation to take military action, especially unilateral military action, across the globe when we haven't been directly attacked is a dangerous pattern, to say the least. Intervention of any kind: that's what the UN is for, and that's why we need to follow their lead.

Not wanting to solve problems using violence is not "weak." It's smarter, more ethical, and, in the long run, more productive than beating our chests and charging into the fray, bombs and bullets flying.

NOBODY has said, "Eh, to Hell with them." That's an outright falsehood, and a truly offensive way to characterize those who don't want to fucking kill more people.

Plenty of people have said, "Let them sort it out." Plenty of people have said nothing, not any evidence, not any scale of atrocity, would convince them to want to be involved in this. I'm sure that there are plenty on this board that, even with an overwhelming UN vote to send troops into Syria for the purpose of establishing a peacekeeping mission, would still oppose it.

that have not happened? 'I'm sure that there are plenty on this board...' is speculation based on your venomous views of others. It is nothing more. What do you think that sort of rhetorical attacks on vague others for future sins against your opinion adds to this discussion?

I'm bothered by the horrific footage of the gas attack. On a humanitarian level, I wish there was something we could do to intervene.

My opposition to intervening, however, is based on what you also say about unintended consequences (strikes could be the equivalent of whacking a hornets' nest) combined with no convincing evidence (yet) that Assad is responsible for the attacks (he's certainly capable, though) along with the fact that America is currently collapsing within because we're told we have no money for anything.

... who and how this one deadly attack out of the thousands of deadly attacks in Syria over that last two years was committed? Great. Share it with the world, because you are the only one who does.

Upon completion of that, please outline exactly the course of action a intervention by our military that will accomplish something positive and not kill a bunch more innocents.

Also, please tell us what domestic programs we should cut to pay for this adventure into ANOTHER ENDLESS WAR in the Middle East. Food and medical care for the poor and aged? Education? Infrastructure? Daycare? Fill us in, Mr (or Ms) Humanitarian.

Of course, that didn't get in the way of attacking me.

The entirety of the Syrian Civil War is the issue here. The gas attack is just an exclamation point on it. I'm making the argument that we have to care about it, nothing more than that.

... precisely what is your point? Shitty things happen all over the world to people who don't deserve it, including right here in our own country, every day. "Caring about" doesn't mean squat without being willing to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I also noticed you didn't answer a single question I asked, not one. So it's safe to assume that really all you are looking for, is to lay a guilt trip on those who don't happen to agree with you. I got it.

I'll pass.

in that way. You are saying 'to hell with them' to North Korea, Somalia, Uganda, Congo, Mayanmar, and many other places filled with abuses of human rights. You have selected one drama to take up and use, a situation to exploit for your own indulgence. Crude shit you are peddling here.
A vile outlook on the world. Bomb the shit out of Syrians to help Syrians? Calloused shit you'd not say about your own nation or city.

and you are being selectively outraged over a position that 98% of all the countries in the world have signed on to enforce ...

But we let that one slide during the 80's because Saddam was our evil rotten bastard fighting against those other evil rotten bastards, the Iranians.

and that is definitely one we should have addressed at that time and we did nothing .....

I for one, do not want to be witness to anymore horrendous decisions .... and do nothing again ...

What's your answer? Got a plan for putting a stop to the carnage? Because a cruise missile strike doesn't seem like it'd solve the problem, and going all the way to a full-scale invasion would be a cure that's worse than the disease.

If you've got an actual solution, I'm all ears...

Degradation of his air capabilities will sufficiently undermine the butcher of Damascus ability to replenish his military supplies and wage war on his own people ...

The destruction of air capabilities is well within our missile and air capabilities to accomplish that mission with minimal to no civilian casualty unless of course he has constructed refugee cities on his runways ...

If we do what we and NATO did in Libya: airstrikes, take out the air force, and give the rebels enough help to win the war, then you have the problem of replacing one evil murderous butcher with another.

The Libyan rebels were relatively chill compared to the Syrian rebels. And the Libyan rebels were far from saints. The Syrian rebels have been seen sawing people heads off, eating people's hearts, they're accused of using their own chem weapons, and various groups of them have ties to Al Qaeda.

These kinds of interventions have a way of biting us in the ass - blowback. We overthrew Mossadegh in Iran, replaced him with the Shah, who butchered so many of his own people he got overthrown, so now we've got to deal with Islamist radicals in charge there. We gave weapons to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including one enterprising individual: Osama Bin Laden.

One thing that Obama got right in handling this conflict - holding off on giving too much assistance to the rebels. His goal is not to overthrow Assad - that's just replacing one butcher with another. His goal, though I don't agree with it, is to give Assad a public spanking. Which means the whole airstrike thing is essentially geopolitical theater. And it's theater that causes mass casualties and escalates tensions in a region where everyone's already lost their minds and gone into mass murderous rage.

rebel forces to gain the upper hand in conflict. ... and supplying rebels ...

Now, your fear about overthrowing one dictator with another is a real one, however the use of gas will be eliminated ...

And I do not believe your assessment of it being a public spanking, I think it will go far beyond that ....

The Syrians already know this is coming, so they're going to be stashing their chemweapons all over the country. Finding them will be like finding a needle in a haystack.

And then, blowing them up will do what? Very possibly release the agents, causing all sorts of death.

Airstrikes and cruise missiles are a pretty poor way of stopping chemical weapons.

chemical weapons .... I was more referring to different leadership in Syria ....

It's completely off the table at the UN - the Security Council won't endorse force to deal with the chemical weapon attacks. They certainly won't approve of anything that could result in regime change, such as overthrowing Assad. Russia and China won't have it at all.

We'd have to do it unilaterally, and there's so little support that even Britain's Parliament backed out. We're for the most part on our own

And once we do this, then we have to figure out how to ensure that the guy replacing Assad isn't as bad or worse. There's no good solution to that problem, and everyone's fed up with the "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard" technique of propping up puppet dictators.

The truth is that there are no good options. We can provide humanitarian aid, help build refugee camps, fund Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. We can also impose economic sanctions, and push to freeze international assets for Assad's regime to push them to stop the chem attacks, and I think that's the best we can do.

"The truth is that there are no good options. We can provide humanitarian aid, help build refugee camps, fund Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. We can also impose economic sanctions, and push to freeze international assets for Assad's regime to push them to stop the chem attacks, and I think that's the best we can do."

Or are you just making shit up? Anyone who makes a post that has "facts" about things that have not happened yet, it just wasting space on this board.

It's not any concern of mine - I'm trying to understand why people such as Nancy Pelosi - are saying that it is a National Security measure/interest.

They are saying it - without giving us very specific "They are doing this and if they are successful there is a 100% chance they will then do this to us."

That's what a lot of us want to know - what are the specifics? At this point - the world knows that the leadership of a sovereign nation deliberately did physical and fatal harm to his own people . . . we know that. To the extent, number, deaths, etc. etc. - that's still gray.

But I can't connect the dots on he did that - and it's a national security interest.

We can't have any secrets here.

If Fed Gov knows something - it needs to be stated clearly to the American people.

North Korea is a hell hole, where people are killed and imprisoned every day. Should we intervene there, and free the people using our military might? There are atrocities going on in Africa in several places, with civil wars. Should we intervene there? We have enough problems of our own to concentrate on than to play the world's policeman. It is not being callous, it is recognizing the reality of the situation.

Brutality in the Sudan is endless, that brutality includes EVERY element seen in Syria, including the use of chemical weapons, crude ones, but chemical weapons just the same. And more people have died in the Sudan ethnic cleansing.

I have no love for dictators. All of them should be jailed for life. But, when does responsibility for the actions of dictators end? Should the USA bare the responsibly alone? The United Nations was supposed to end human deprivation around the world, but that body often acts as a clumsy enabler of some bad people.

5.4 million dead there so far. Im sure lobbing some bombs over there would really help the situation.

Plenty of reason for a humanitarian intervention, but noooo.....

And just a few million dead children. But thats mostly due to a lack of food and basic healthcare soo.... nothing to see there.

adding: http://news.msn.com/world/when-we-rape-we-feel-free-congo-soldiers-shocking-stories

Again, explain how a fireworks show done with cruise missiles is going to solve this problem?

Nobody's come up with a battle plan with a reasonable chance of implementation and success that removes chemical weapons from Syria.

It's a kabuki show, guaranteed to cause lots of casualties. It's a crock of shit, just like all the other wars the US has been in for the past half century.

Or did we stop caring about people who can't defend themselves?

We have already pledged to NEVER attack any country for any reason other than immediate self defense. We agreed to that provision of the U.N. Charter, and we use it to compel other countries to curtail wars. It applies to us as well. Attacking Syria is a war crime, a crime against humanity. That's not a philosophical statement-- it is a simple truth, derived from our own ratification of the U.N. Charter.

This is the basis for American exceptionalism-- laws apply to others, but not to us.

We've committed many atrocities that are equally wrong and illegal and that have a much more direct impact on us.

We actually know the names of most of our own homegrown war criminals.

No one has admitted to using the gas in Syria.

I'm not sure the OP makes any sense. Sure, it hits all the talking points, but it isn't convincing.

"Ah, to hell with them." You just lost all credibility, there, partner.

Assad was responsible for launching those chemical weapons of the Syrians, then let's take those claims to a War Crimes Tribunal. Make the case, and then have the international community take action together. There are ways to box in Assad without adding one more fire to the larger ME.

Really, what is the United States government plan for Syria?

Since they think they do not have obligations under the international treaties they signed regarding legitimacy of wars, and that acting as rogue state in this particualr subject is a better option, what exactly do they intend to do that the United Nations couldn't do better?

They'll send missiles to strategic points, causing destruction and death. And then what? How adding damage and blood will help Syrians? What's the following step? If they intend to overthrow Assad, who is supported by a large share of Syrians, it will turn into a bloodshed. And if they don't intend to overthrow Assad, there's no humanitarian point in playing chess here, it's just appeasing MIC.

So, I do understand people saying "stay at home and forget about it". If your idea of helping is striking Syria, really, you should just do nothing at all.