As with Libya, there is a debate to be had about Syria, and not everyone who supports intervention in critical times is a RW tool of the MIC or a "warmonger."

a dystopia.

"If they go foward with the strike, I doubt anyone will be disappointed when Assad loses his ability to launch more chemical attacks."

and then it begins - then what? and...What if he doesn't lose his ability? What if it then brings other players into this - and then what? And that's only a very few of the many questions that emerge - it becomes a very difficult multi-variable problem.

and is it strike or strikes? and for how long? how long to wait in between? what if...what if....

Beyond my difficulty in trusting politicians, it is the complexity of what happens after strike or strikes that just becomes impossible to sort, and very few if any of the possible outcomes are good ones.

Its essentially: "any means justifies Assad losing his ability to launch more chemical attacks"

I would be disappointed if the Means to such Ends were nuclear or firebombing complete cities full of civilian populations.

The world is not black and white. We do not have a crystal ball. We do not know if the death we cause will or can balance out the deaths we stop. In Iraq, I do not think this was the case. The Ends did not justify the Means to those who lost their children, mothers or fathers in our strikes. The world was not a better place without Saddam, insofar as his removal took out a few hundred thousand innocent Iraqis.

How many dead Syrians will it take to remove Assad or dismantle his ability to launch gas attacks? Will that all balance out?

Special Report: We all thought Libya had moved on – it has, but into lawlessness and ruin.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

"Special Report: We all thought Libya had moved on – it has, but into lawlessness and ruin."

Did you see a country engaged in a civil war not falling into ruin?

Let's take the case of Saddam. Clinton took out his chemical weapons infrastructure. He had no capability to gas his own people again.

It was the lie about him acquiring WMD that Bush used to push the Iraq war. Members of Congress, whether they voted for the IWR or not, thought that such weapons in the hands of Saddam would be dangerous.

Feingold:

Assad?

Why would you vote for someone who you have such a low opinion of?

When did the proposed target of these missile strikes become the chemical weapons? I'll admit I've been busy lately so I may have missed it, but I thought the weapons themselves were ruled out because of the danger. Has anything changed in this regard?

Of course, attacking his artillery will also limit his ability to continue his war as well. I'll admit to being unsure how necessary artillery is to Assad's success in the field, but I doubt it would help him to lose it. This seems like a poor man's no fly zone.

"Libya is a fucking mess."

...ever seen a country that wasn't after months of civil war? That wasn't my point. I was speaking specifically about U.S. military action.

Let's take the case of Saddam. Clinton took out his chemical weapons infrastructure. He had no capability to gas his own people again.

It was the lie about him acquiring WMD that Bush used to push the Iraq war. Members of Congress, whether they voted for the IWR or not, thought that such weapons in the hands of Saddam would be dangerous.

Feingold:

Libya did have a vast stockpile of weapons, a lot of which have just disappeared, although some reappeared deployed against our consulate offices in Benghazi.

Libya is a prime example of how an allegedly humanitarian military intervention quickly spirals into taking sides and toppling regimes.

"Libya is a prime example of how an allegedly humanitarian military intervention quickly spirals into taking sides and toppling regimes."

Do you really believe that Libya wasn't going to fall, even after a lengthy civil war?

There are similarities, but in Libya the proximate event was not CW use, but imminent threat to a civilian population in Benghazi. Libyan tanks had already made one incursion into the city, and were poised to fire indiscriminately against the population.

In that case, the UN acted under its Responsibility to Protect (R2P) initiative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

Syria is more a case of enforcement of "international norms" than R2P. Military action is only one of the responses contemplated by the UN as appropriate.

And while "standing up" for these principles is important, military action is not always the best response. Especially when it's doubtful that a military response will achieve its objective(s) and when the repurcussions of a military response may lead to a graver humanitarian crisis.

Sometimes the "cure" CAN be worse than the disease, and discretion is the better part of valor.

I check back on occasion with some of the old sources and some new ones. Local news from a local perspective is most informative; a good share of it would be highly praised here if it occurred in SF or Portland.

The scope and scale of violence has gradually declined -it didn't just switch off when the world press left. The million refugees are home. They are rebuilding and training for the health system, infrastructure, a new judiciary, a new educational system. Most of the problems are legacy issues, like corruption, like old conflicts. They're working on it, often thoughtfully and in ways that wouldn't immediately occur to an American. The closer you look, the more remarkable it gets.

I know that that isn't the consensus on DU, and I don't really care. If people are interested in learning something, the chance is there for the effort. If not, if dismissing an entire people with the word "hellhole" keeps someone cautious about another intervention, then so be it.

...and the intervention was specifically to eliminate his ability to use military equipment too heavy for the rebel forces to counter, and let them topple him.

Is that the goal here? That will entail more than a single "send a message" missile strike. Is that what we're in for?

There is no guarantee that Congress will support this action. In fact, it looks unlikely.

It will likely happen only with UN support, and that too looks unlikely.