lol....more Russian sabre rattling. I don't think relations can get much worse. Then again, if we disrupt their arms sales revenue stream to Syria, that might bother them...or increase their volume...whatever...meaningless Russian prattle...

Intervention is a terrible idea. Doing nothing is also terrible, but not quite as bad. On balance I'd probably opt for some none-military intervention. I'd make assets available to the civilians/rebels/terrorist (call them what you will) such as gas masks and even field hospitals and/or hospital ships and an air medivac corridor.

I would not supply arms to either side or draw any red lines.

Yeah....give the peasants gas masks. "Hey...sorry your dictator is using poison gas on you....here's some gas masks...just sit still until the vapors disppate. What? Cruise missile strikes on their air bases and launch sites? Well sure we could...but, you know...we have these nice gas masks for you..."

Give me a fucking break. Assad is out of control. I don't give a fuck is we've just come off a bad war...*everybody* was on board for war when we knew (and everyone *did* know at one time...) that Hussein had *and used* WMD's against his own people...

...but...wahhhh...we're tired...so we'll just let this *human attrocity go on unchecked.

Evil wins when good men fail to act.

I guess there are no good men left in the world. It's a sad time in history. Adolf Hitler is rolling in his grave right now, wishing we would have been too tired for war way back when so he could commit his evils upon the world. You know...that genocide/poinson gas thing Hitler is so vilified for. We don't' hate Hitler because he went to war...we hate him because he killed his own people in gas chambers! For fucks sake...there is no moral difference in what Assad is doing!

Krellin - so killing 100,000 isn't evil enough only when someone uses chemical weapons to kill 1,500 or so more should the world act?

I've already acknowledged that doing nothing or only humanitarian assistance is terrible - but there are no wins here, only picking the least terible response. I'd sooner give possible life saving equipment you'd prefer almost definately killing people - they are both bad outcomes.

You're right that "Evil wins when good men fail to act." but how one acts is also important.

@Krellin,
"*everybody* was on board for war when we knew (and everyone *did* know at one time...) that Hussein had *and used* WMD's against his own people..."

Woah, woah, woah. I wasn't on board for Iraq. Or... wait, did you mean all of us or the international community?

Maniac...you *moron*...you think the killing has hit 100,000 and Assad will check a box and say mission accomplished? Or do you think it will go on...and then *the next* dictator will be emboldened to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

Get your head out of the narrow-minded tiny little bowl of sand you have it placed in. This doesn't stop in Syria...it destabilizes the region. Isreal has already launched attacks in to Syria...the only country with the good sense to do so...and from there is just goes all down hill.

What part of history...ANY history...are you completely oblivious of that you think this is contained and ends? Good...what the fuck do they teach you kids these days anyway?

Saying there is no win here is ridiculous. Thee is a lose...do nothing...and then there is a painful path to victory wherein you spill the blood of the guilty instead of the innocent!

Right now...by your standard...the evil wins, period.

---

Let's take this to the school yard setting...there is a bully on the playground. You know if you tell teh teacher about the bully, that it will cause a scene...it will mean more people embarassed...it will probably provoke the bully in to one last desparate act of bullying before he is yanked away and punished...so do you risk inspiring momentarily more bullying to eliminate the bully? Or do you sit back and cower....cower...that the root word of coward, by the way?

As odd as it is for me to agree with krellin on something...

I also find your statement a bit odd, Maniac.

Give them gas masks?

Isn't that a bit like seeing a person on fire on the side of the road and, instead of pouring water on them to put it out--or hell, even pissing the fire our Gulliver's Travel's style--you just kind of throw them a water bottle, drive on and shout back "HOPE THAT HELPS YA OUT, PAL! GOOD LUCK!"

I also find the Hussein comparison laughable--

Saddam didn't have a full-blown, protracted civil war going on in which he was not only killing his own people, but suspected of using chemical weapons against them as well.

(We'll just, you know, forget the whole "Genocide Against the Kurds" thing for a moment...everyone else seems to when they condemn the Iraq war wholesale...I maintain going in there, WMDs or not, WAS justified in that we took out a genocidal dictator...our staying close to 7 years? That I take issue with.)

Obiwan...no, Saddam Hussein attacked a neighboring nations, saying the land should be his. As a result, Shwartkopf kicked his ass back to Baghdad. He was then under UN Sanctions for the 10 years leading up to Gulf War II....10 years in which he *flagrantly* violated the UN sanctions, in particular refusing to allow weapons inspectors in the country....

...which time was used, according to a defected Iraqi General, by the way, to smuggle chemical weapons to...you guessed it...SYRIA...

Hussein killed his own people with chemical weapons. Hussein abused his own people, particularly women. Huseein defied the UN, attacked a neighboring country.

You idiot Liberals have such selective memory on the entire history of Gulf I and II...it would be laughable if it weren't so fucking sad.

As distasteful as I find the idea of another war, we're sort of painted ourselves into a corner on this one. You can't say, "this is a red line" then watch somebody cross it and say, "okay, so you crossed that your, but THIS is the real red line". Obama has put our international credibility on the line, and it's put up or shut up time.

The one thing I'd caution against is sending weapons into a conflict zone. If we've learned anything from past forays into the Middle East, you can't just lob a few missiles, hand out weapons, and accept a pinky-swear that people will do what you want with them. If we're going to engage in this, we've got to be prepared to really do this thing ourselves, including putting some boots on the ground if necessary. I think that's going to look really ugly, but we've put it out there and our bluff is being called. It's put up or shut up time.

As for staying 7 years....IT WASN'T LONG ENOUGH. You need to stay in place long enough for a generation to change, so that culture change is assured. As it is, we left early, and the country is right-now devolving back to chaos.

If you are going to fuck with a country, you had *better* be committed to fixing what you broke. We were morally right in breaking Iraq...Hussein had to go. We are criminally negligent for leaving before the country is truly stable and free.

And for the record, yes, I am a Liberal, and yes I am saying Obama royally screwed the pooch on this one. He engaged too late diplomatically, couched his early language far too carefully, made inadequate efforts to rally the international community, and then when he did decide to engage, he overpromised our unilateral commitment with a threat I don't think he had any intent of following through on, and now his own bluff has him painted into a corner where I don't see how we'll get out of this without another ground war. I don't know whether this situation was avoidable, but he sure blew a couple opportunities to find out. Let it never be said that my loyalty was offered blindly.

What is Russia going to do? Last time it was the recognition of Kosovo in what Russia likes to think of as it's backyard (the balkans) and in response the Russian army recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia;

What will this precedent set for international relations? And will they prove to be more than empty threats??

@Hecks, no ground war, well if Turkey is happy to send in ground troops while the US airforce/navy provide support (you know, missiles/aircraft carriers/drones in the air...) I don't see a massive commitment of troops to Syria, particularly not from the US.

Remember Libya?

@Orathic,
You talk about Libya like it's over. They're still waist-deep in violence and political chaos, half a step from all-out civil war. Libya's a perfect example of how *little* can be accomplished with air superiority alone.

To quote Libya's Prime Minister, Ali Zeidan, speaking yesterday, "You talk as if we received a full state. ... No police, no army, no institutions and no system. This is a legacy of 42 years of destruction. Do you think the problems go away just because we wipe the dust from our hands and recall the bombers? Do you think the Libyan people aren't asking where the hell America is now? Do you think our complete neglect of the problems that emerge in the aftermath of "regime change" is winning us hearts and minds in Libya? Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and if we aren't very careful Syria will be problems for US foreign policy for decades.

^^ (Sorry, I should have closed the marks on Zeidan's quote after "...42 years of destruction." Subsequent thoughts were mine.

@Krellin - first of all I think I'm older than you - I'm not saying wiser - but neither am I some kid.

My point which you seem to miss is that this isn't a choice between do X and the world is rosy and do Y and the world ends. The difference to your school bully analogy is that the school and teachers have authority and the power to punish or exclude the bully. The US/UK do not have any god given authority to dish out punishment. The bully could end up unleashing hell on the school or killing the whole class. Maybe talking to the bully and getting a lasting solution could be worth a shot.

Obi - Imagine if someone is shot would you (a) hand them a pea shooter to seek their revenge or (b) assist them with their wounds. Neither are good outcomes but its an odd world when we think only giving them a pea shooter or a knife or a gun or a missile are the only things to be considered.

"Krellin - first of all I think I'm older than you - I'm not saying wiser - but neither am I some kid."

Your naivete suggests otherwise...

It's the mind of a *child* that thinks..."Ewww....it's going to be hard...we just shouldn't do anything....well, we'll sit by the side and give them cookies and hope they just stop!!!"

I *never* said one solution in rosy. IN fact, I *get* that one solution is especialy ugly for the US...I have a brother in arms...and I'd hate to see him land in Syria...and yet that's why he chooses to wear the uniform.

Leadership and moral authority come with the **responsibility** to make the hard choices that will ultimately result in a greater good.

Unfortunately, the US no longer has any moral authority, and we haven't had a leader in at least 6 years.

Like I said...open a history book.

Oh....as for talking to a bully....god you are a dumbass. SERIOUSLY....mamby pampy fuctard liberal. Yeah...remember when Obama was elected...said he would talk to Iran and everything would be just rosy. Remember when by the mere smile and precense of The Obama world peace would descend? How's the talking working out for you fucktards? Because *all* Obama does is flap his jaws when he's not shooting hoops or playing golf..and the world is *far* more destabilized under his regime that it was when he found it.

THAT is what "talk" gets you.

Good lord....Hitler loved being talked to as well. "Errrr....yezzz...." he said, "surely I'll stop my army there...don't you worry about that...." Hitler said as he took the first part of Europe. "You just keep talking to me while I play my game..."

Find me *one* time when talk stopped a murderous dictator.

@krellin:

I meant more that comparing our invading Iraq to topple Saddam vs. our potentially intervening in Syria seems laughable in that you could debate the merits of the former (I'd again say that WMDs or no WMDs, I could care less, toppling a genocidal dictator is justification enough for me, however, we didn't need to stay as long as we did) but in the case of the latter...

Well, if Assad really is gassing his people, it'd seem cowardly and hypocritical for a West which likes to flaunt the terms "inalienable rights" and "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness/Protection of Property" so much NOT to intervene when those rights are being crushed (and crushed in a worse way than when Locke OR Jefferson wrote those words.)

In Iraq, you could argue it wasn't immediate and pressing (AGAIN, I would disagree insofar as I think we should have toppled Saddam, so don't pounce on me here) but for the International Community to view THIS as anything BUT immediate and pressing is...well, laughable.

From an international perspective, many see the Iraq War as we Yankees being Teddy Roosevelt-style Cowboys and/or World Police.

I don't think they can make that argument with Syria, intervention is clearly warranted, even outspoken critics such as the French couldn't (or shouldn't) argue that this would be analogous to the Iraq War. Russia's doing so because...well, they have ulterior motives, it's safe to say, for wanting Assad (and that oil) to stay in place.

"As for staying 7 years....IT WASN'T LONG ENOUGH. You need to stay in place long enough for a generation to change, so that culture change is assured. As it is, we left early, and the country is right-now devolving back to chaos."

1. If you want to do that...go right ahead.

2. Ask the British how well that went with their stint in the Middle East...they were there for "a generation"...and my, how things have changed from those days, thank goodness the Middle East is no longer a violent place built on centuries-old religious grudges and a stampede for oil...

@Krellin,
I hope you're not blaming the erosion of US moral authority on Barack Obama. I think he's made a real disaster of this situation, but the last US President who could with a straight face claim any kind of moral authority in foreign policy was... what, Truman? Ike? Maaaaybe Kennedy?

And while I'd again like to preface this by saying that, at the moment, I'm FOR intervention...

May I ask the warhawks here--

As we already have Republicans screaming about the debt, and we're still dealing with the cost of the LAST Middle Eastern war we fought, both financially and politically...

Who's paying for it?

It's cold to put money before human lives, but that being said, the sad reality is we do that on a regular basis...

Even if we can claim a moral high ground and a right to intervene (and I think we can), do we have the economic stomach or stability to handle another war?

That's no slight question...jobs are already hard to come by, what if this makes the economy worse?

What's more, I must ask--if the debt is really the nation-crushing terror the GOP says it is...well, won't fighting a war raise MORE debt?

And +1 hecks.

I agree 100%, Kennedy's pretty much the last Presidential high point for us...

The conservatives here can shout "Reagan" all they want, but the Democrats and international community at large doesn't hold the rosy view of Reagan they have.

Obama's staff (in matters like this I blame the staff more than the man alone, whereas in a case like backing the Trayvon Martin case, THAT was what I'd call all-Obama blunder, it was his idea to sound off on that, it was a bad idea, and he paid for it politically, big-time, Syria was more of a team failure, I think) has bobbled the ball...

But it's not like Bush or even Clinton beforehand was scoring touchdowns left and right beforehand, to extend the metaphor.

"@Hecks
I hope you're not blaming the erosion of US moral authority on Barack Obama. I think he's made a real disaster of this situation, but the last US President who could with a straight face claim any kind of moral authority in foreign policy was... what, Truman? Ike? Maaaaybe Kennedy? "

Oh please...the *world* was behind Bush, *including* all the top Democrats, until the war being a political football....and then we lost our moral authority in the world **specifically because** our own government was eating itself from the inside out. When the fucking Democrats go on TV and call Bush and idiot and a murderer, *of course* we lost moral authority!! I blame that *squarely* on the Democrats.

As for Obama....good lord, he even embarrasses the pussies, he such a fuck coward. "Lead from behind"....what a fucking jackass. Let's out Diplomats be killed and does **nothing** about it....Obama is, without a doubt, the *worst* President in my 44 years.

"It's cold to put money before human lives, but that being said, the sad reality is we do that on a regular basis..."

So stop, then. Objective number one should be to stop the violence, objective number five or six or so should be to do it cheaply.

@Krellin,
"Oh please...the *world* was behind Bush, *including* all the top Democrats, until the war being a political football....and then we lost our moral authority in the world **specifically because** our own government was eating itself from the inside out. When the fucking Democrats go on TV and call Bush and idiot and a murderer, *of course* we lost moral authority!! I blame that *squarely* on the Democrats."

The US's ability to claim moral authority, at least in the Middle East, was in serious by 1979, if not by 1967. I think it's more than a tad glib to claim that as a twenty-first century phenomenon.

^^ "... serious *jeopardy* by 1979..."
I can't type for shit today.

Hecks - you are simply *wrong* on that. Not sure if you remember the first Gulf War, but *the region* wanted Hussein gone, and they were unable to do it on their own. We were popular (as popular as we can bem, at any rate) in the Middle East at the time. Citizens *cheered* US soldiers....talk to an Iraqi War vet...this idiocy from the Left taht the US is hated is just bullshit...doesn't match up to reality on the ground.