countries to open their doors to Syrians escaping Assad. Bombing aint going to do nothing but worsen the crisis.

in the next few months.

What IS the US doing about the rebels driving the Kurds out of Syria by the tens of thousands?

What are they doing about the rebels driving Christians out of Syria by the thousands not to mention slaughtering them?

They are not leaving because of Assad, they are being forced out, brutally attacked, by our allies their. What should be done about that?

Or have you missed all the news lately about these attrocities, some even now being reported in the Corporate media?

by attacking Syria. I give it about 48 hours before the whole region goes up in flames, and maybe another 24 before the reprisal attacks spread globally.

No. Your "solution" only assures far greater death counts.

Regardless, with or without US intervention things are going to get very, very ugly.

"Nothing is off the table." Nothing.

Let one of his Generals take his place, for instance.

But of course they want regime change. Everyone knows that. Which is illegal and not their role by any means. Which is why they are denying it.

I could post a multitude of links- Assad out, regime remains.

There is a recent precedent for this.

I could post a link to that too but I'm sick of uninformed DU'ers pretending they have a clue.

The rebels wont be satisfied with another Alawite taking Assads place. They want them all gone (dead, evidently).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/syria-crisis-un-rights-idUSL6E8JFA3220120815

If there IS a successful plan that can greatly hamper Assad's air and missile power while keeping civilian casualties low (preferably ZERO), then someone should do it. If Assad is able to deploy less toys of death, then he won't be able to kill as many in as little time.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/06-7

Assad backers reportedly make up 43 percent of dead in Syria

BEIRUT — A new count of the dead in Syria by the group that’s considered the most authoritative tracker of violence there has concluded that more than 40 percent were government soldiers and pro-government militia members.

The new numbers from the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights provide a previously unseen view of the toll the civil war has taken on communities that have supported the government. They also cast doubt on the widely repeated assertion that the government of President Bashar Assad is responsible for an overwhelming majority of the deaths there.

According to the new statistics, which the Syrian Observatory passed to McClatchy by phone, at least 96,431 people have lost their lives in the more than two years of violence that’s wracked Syria.

Of those, Syrian soldiers and members of the government’s security forces account for 24,617, while members of pro-government militias make up 17,031. Taken together, those deaths account for 43.2 percent of the total recorded.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/03/192881/assad-backers-reportedly-make.html#.UipTbsbUmSr#storylink=cpy

And if it needs to be added ..... of course, one civilian death is too many.

are those who have made themselves believe that a few cruise missiles, apparently full of magic, will make international standards be restored; that unsecured chemical weapons will be fine; and if more people get hurt then it will be in the acceptable old-fashioned way.

I haven't seen what she claims. Not a lot and not a few.

On the contrary it's the recognition of the continued ugliness of the civil war that partially informs my and probably most of our opinions about the lack of effectiveness of U.S. intervention.

for her op.

but what really gets me is HER denial that she's pro-intervention when she says quite clearly she thinks there should have been an intervention immediately after the use of chemical weapons.

Assessing a situation doesn't mean supporting a particular action.

that's what you clearly state, kitty. that's not an assessment, kitty. You don't say why or make any assessment. You just say it should have been done.

Assessment, my ass.

do I find those trashing Obama/Kerry worst acknowledging how ugly things will be getting in Syria regardless of US intervention or no intervention.

as being in denial about the loss of civilian life and the brutality of the civil war-. That's what YOU claimed, kitty.

I find your denial that you're pro intervention less than honest and not so brave.

You state flat out that you were pro-intervention immediately after Ghouta. You are clearly supporting intervention.

the main idea behind the OP is to repeat, once again, the official narrative that the Syrian govt was responsible for the gas attack

Bang on my good man bang on.

why the hell add more burning bodies to the pile with strikes? If regime change is the goal they should say so.

and violence directed towards our own country. No wonder the whole world wants to stay out of it.

The only winner in this is MIC.

And as you should know if your were even a little informed, kitty, Assad's forces are hardly the only ones killing civilians.


And no, it's very unlikely that Assad can be deposed while keeping his regime intact and in control. If it gets to where Assad is deposed, that signifies that that the regime has been effectively destroyed.

Who knows what will follow? No one. It's possible a coalition will take over and it's possible that the factions will fight it out and it's possible that some factions will control some territory and others control other territories.

As for where you stand, it appears to me that you'll support the administration when and if it launches a strike. You spend enough time defending their rhetoric.

what is going to transpire. Just a lot of trashing Obama/Kerry and jabbering about PNAC and this was false flag or rebels blah blah blah.

And all you have to do is look at Assad's options to know he's going to end up dead in a few months but he's going to massacre a lot more people before that happens.

And anyone with a brain knows that innocents WILL be killed and maimed when Obama starts dropping the bombs. Either directly, or indirectly when the fear and demand for retaliation is ramped up by either side. How many of those deaths will be alright with you?

you made a claim and now you're using weasel words to back away from it. you made no claim about false flags in your op whatsofuckingever, kitty.

And no, kitty, I don't know that Assad will be dead in a few months and neither do YOU, kitty. He could end up dead or he could end up fleeing to Iraq or somewhere else. As for massacring a lot of people, you refuse to admit that that's happening on both sides.

Man, are YOU transparent, kitty.

Here, use this --

Be sure to post it far and wide to prove your contention.

... these fatalities will be blamed on our lack of intervention, and we will be demonized.

If we do act, these fatalities will be blamed on our intervention, and we will be demonized.

The Syrian people will suffer and US will look bad no matter what.

The other countries who lack the will to do so (and don't think we should either)? The Syrian people? I believe that if we do not intervene, the only people who will "blame" the administration for any deaths that occur thereafter in Syria are the right wing hawks who have been itching for a war with Syria for months. In case you haven't noticed, most of the rest of the world thinks we should stay out of it. And here's one Syrian woman who clearly thinks U.S. intervention is a supremely bad idea:

On the other hand, if we do intervene, regardless of the outcome, it will be widely regarded in the MIddle East as yet another example of the U.S. trying to exert its will in countries where it has no business asserting anything.

And guess what, the rebels will be killing a bunch as well.

For that matter we'll be terminating a number of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And the Saudi's will be executing people in chop chop square, see:

The maids on Saudi Arabia's death row: Scores of foreign women facing execution for child abuse, witchcraft... and killing would-be rapists

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261655/Scores-maids-facing-death-penalty-Saudi-Arabia-crimes-child-murder-killing-employers.html#ixzz2e8qi7mZS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Then, in the meantime, 42,000 will die this year right here from lack of health care - let's fix the problems at home before we fix them over there, OK?


PS - who's gonna pay for your war?

And they will use chemical weapons again.

If two dogs are fighting, don't stick your hand in the middle.

You say:

"it should have happened immediately after the first large scale use of chemical weapons".

You can't get more pro intervention than that.

and are you waiting for the next "large scale slaughter" from the use of chemical weapons or from anything else? What about if its rebel forces that conduct the next "large scale slaughter'? Or use chemical weapons?

Your position is pro-intervention and your denials are lame.

r

bwahahahaha. Yeah, that's why you only accuse Assad's forces of slaughtering civilians, kitty.

Polls here seem to indicate a huge majority of us don't

That'll counteract the suffering.

Dead people can't be terrorized anymore, so it'd be like we're doing them a favor!

There's much more at stake than Syria. But Syria can certainly set it all off. One thing is certain: the more Syrians who flee or are killed, a vacuum is created that will be filled by outside forces that we don't like. Eventually they will make an agreement with Assad and we will have the worst-case scenario. Assad in power over an extremist Islamic state, something Syria has never been before. Still a Russian ally, still an Iranian ally.

Sounds great, right?

Take a deep breath, step back and have a very good look at what is going on in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Before and after US forced regime changes.

You might also want to refresh your memory of aftermaths of US sponsored regime changes in South America:
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/us-interventions-in-latin-american-021/

Some particulars:

Chile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

Argentina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/

El Salvador (have a REALLY good look at WHO trained and sponsored death squads, who paid for second junta, and a 'Salvadorian solution' in connection to Iraq)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+el+salvador+death+squads

problem solved.

Just lob a shit load to the people along with medication to help them fight the gas if that's even possible. It's a lot cheaper, and it doesn't kill innocent people in the fight for enemies. It may sound crazy, but why not give it a try before bombs. How can the UN say no.

about the Sarin. I want to know what that was exactly, and why the hell Napalm is legal to drop on a schoolyard full of children, if that's what it was.

But the doctor's account of treating the children's burns was horrifying. And the fact that the plane made two low passes over the school to release it just infuriates me. It was after the last big CW attack and it's technically not against international law, I guess. But it was a Syrian Army plane. What kind of evil can do that?

I still don't know what the answer is. I think this is the way President Obama has gotten us all talking about the problem seriously, and what the possible solutions may be.

The next thing they have to be straightforward about is what all the ramifications are. And we have to be grownups and not give knee jerk reactions. It's too easy to say they're trying to scare us. Or that there's some CT behind it all.

If we can think in terms of other nations' motives and payoffs, our interests, and who exactly could be put in danger short and long term, then we might get somewhere.

The stuff's a contact agent as much as something you inhale; a tiny droplet on exposed skin will kill someone just as certainly as breathing it in. You also can't just medicate away the effects, since most victims die or are irreperably injured almost immediately, to say nothing of one of the side effects of atropine and similar medications being, well, death, or a pretty good chance at lifelong complications that range from mild to utterly crippling.

Even the "antidotes" to modern chemical weapons are incredibly dangerous. There are reasons why most people react with such horror to their use.

There is no "just" solution - none, whatsoever, with even the tiniest possibility of success - to protecting a large civilian population against those sorts of weapons. There is nothing you can hand them that will make it easier to defend against nerve gas. At all.

Powerful proxies are already arming the government and the rebels. Blowing up the chemical weapon depots are dangerous. It's very unclear how the massacres to come can be stopped.

There's no way Assad is going to magically STOP bombing his own people just because we leave him alone. That doesn't need a crystal ball or anything but common sense.

Incidentally fwiw, I think shelling his own cities is just as big of a war crime as using chemical weapons.

I am very reluctantly coming around to the view that this dictator and his civilian-killing weapons need to go, and soon. I don't want Obama to break any laws, international or domestic, and I don't want us to proceed without a consensus of other nations. But we may as well start getting used to the fact that something similar to what Obama is asking for will have have to be done sometime soon. I no longer think we have a choice about stepping aside and letting this next disaster pass us by. The destruction Assad is inflicting is just too great.

If he can gas people and the stands by while he does it, he will do it again and other dictators will say if Assad can do it, so can we. If we don't take action now, we will have to sooner or later.