Wait... Krellin, can you clarify? Are we talking about Bush 41 and the 1991 action or Bush 43 and the 2003 action?

I was preparing a huge rebuttal, until I realized I might be rebutting something you're not claiming.

@SocDis,
You're right. Iran could go from something small to something big. Let's reconsider our plan to use CIA operatives to overthrow the elected government and reinstate the shah before the students do something crazy, like invade the embassy and take a bunch of hostages. Wait, what? They already did? 34 years ago? Well, shit.

*YES*...But specifically, Bush #1 had huge credibility in the world. This was still in the afterglow of the Reagan Era, where the US - global perception - defeated communism and we tore down the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union fell apart, right? We were huge in teh world and had all the credibility you want *from the people you want it from*. Loved by 100% of the world? hell no...but if I'm loved by everyone, I'm doing something wrong...think about it.

Bush #2 AS WELL had global support for the war. We *did* build a multi-national coalition, despite the lies from the Left to the contrary. Democrats *did* believe Hussein had WMD's...so again, all the bullshit that the US hasn't had moral authority since Truman is asinine and denies reality.

Hell, even Bill Clinton was respected around the globe...I can admit that - he did some good...missed the ball on Bin Laden...but you can't be perfect.

Obama? He's a complete fuck up who has *destroyed* US credibility...which was already *severely* damaged around the globe because of the self-destruction caused BY the Democrats calling their own Leader a liar and a murderer!!!

@krellin ... George W. Bush had support going into the war but he didn't have it for long. Unlike his father, he wasn't able to get his allies to help in Iraq, and he certainly didn't come anywhere close to turning a profit to say the least. The fault goes equally on both sides. Both sides supported the war and now both sides are trying to isolate themselves from it and pin the other side to it. Iraq has been turned into nothing more than a political scheme. Obama is, on the other hand, exactly what you say he is.

Not entirely relevant to this specific discussion, but we've dealt with chemical weapons before. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/26/new-documents-proveussupportofiraqichemicalweaponsattacks.html

@hecks - i don't get your point - i'm just saying we want to avoid escalating things especially when iran will inevitably get involved. don't see what the us' horrible history has to do with that

@SocDis,
My point is that Iran already is really bad.

oh iran is really bad, but i meant by getting involved with syria too much they may cause MORE problems, and it can all escalate

@Krellin,
Bush 41's action in Iraq was reasonably well-supported internationally, true enough. But his actions in Panama wasn't so much, and the whole Iran-Contra thing that was coming out during 41's term did really taint international perception at the time. So... mixed bag, I think.

As to the 2002 invasion, most office-holding US Democrats supported it, fair enough. But to claim that there was broad-based international support doesn't quite hold water. A cursory search (yes, Wikipedia, last refuge of those without enough time to properly seek out more reliable sources at the moment, but I can later, if you want) lists the following:

Supporting 2002 invasion:
US, UK, Poland, Japan, Israel, Kuwait, Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, South Korea.

Publicly Opposing 2002 Invasion:
Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria, Leichtenstein, Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, France, Germany, Russia, Belarus, Finland, Vatican City, Canada, Mexico, Venzuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, the African Union (and each of its 52 member states), China, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, the Arab League (unanimously except for Kuwait), Bangaladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and New Zealand.

So to say, "Bush #2 AS WELL had global support for the war. We *did* build a multi-national coalition, despite the lies from the Left to the contrary" seems a rather iffy claim.

@SocDis,
Krellin would suggest that by refusing to engage Syria for fear of provoking Iran, you're seeking "a peace for our time". One so suggesting may have a point.

sometimes that kind of stuff does work, especially because a reaction would be defensive on their part... you have to pick your battles and this would just destabilize the region and provoke conflict we don't want.

What is Russia going to do? Destabilize the region? Send in troops (without UN sanction) to help Assad? Send him moar weapons, or just send in Russian forces to blow US/coalition planes out of the air??

What CAN russia do?

what are we going to do? the same as in libya where we killed tens of thousands of CIVILIANS with our bombs, aided racist killings by the rebels, and made the war much longer and unnecessary? where in at least places like sirte etc. we had huge areas supportive ofa leader but we had groups of people who went in said no, killed civilians, and forced a regime upon them? leave militias going around with guns for a year too? this is going to be great.

russia won't do anything. iran will see this as a practise run for them and depending how things go will start making noise.

RE: NATO bombs killing tens of thousands, source?

Re: letting their own militias sort themselves out.

Yeah, you're not at all at fault if you sell weapons to a government who kills people with them, but if you arm their rebel groups then you're suddenly responsible for making them use their weapons 'responsibly' ?

Basically every government which uses violence to suppress it's population, is the responsibility of the ones who are arming them. The biggest arms dealers in the world are the five permanent security council members (along with Germany, and Israel - Ukraine, Turkey, Italy and Spain... hmm, you can't really call these places 'the west' - this is the international community - at least when it comes to arms )

You're responsible. Whether you use your own military or give/sell weapons to people who will use them, you're still responsible. (as a nation, or an international community)

sorry meant to say where we added to the tens of thousands we've killed in iraq, afghanistan etc. but we did kill over a thousand, and we caused the death of tens of thousands by supporting the rebels, when the war was almost over, and basically enabled ethnic cleansing, and lots of war crimes. oops.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/15/global-justice-nato-libya
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20125536/signs-of-ex-rebel-atrocities-in-libya-grow/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/13247-report-exposes-more-war-crimes-by-obama-backed-libyan-rebels

i would find more but i think this will do for now, but you know, let's support bad people that do bad things, because well, ya know, it's um, democratic? and we really hate dictatorships and support popular protests, like in bahrain

Oh you funny Americans , have you no other problems (your economics is down , your export/import business is negative) as looking for the next defeat in Syria , btw could anybody tell me which war had the USA won?

Let me see, 'Mission Acomplished' In Iraq (Bush II)
Pushed Iraqis out of Kuwait (Bush I)
Panama (1989, also Bush I)
Afghanistan (1979-89 Soviet invasion) ~ helped create the Taliban which effectively broke the Soviet Union.
Dominican Republic (1965, Lyndon Johnson)
Puerto Rico (1950s) ~ defeated independence movement

Ok my dear Bush friend, now I understand you, you believe that Bush is the victim of 9/11, sorry for disturbing and thanks for YOUR explanations. Remarkable that you didn't tell me about WW I and WW II.

@Gerry: I never said anything about victims, and i'm only really counting the 'modern' US as a super-power wars which are post WW II. (because there is really very little point comparing Apples with Ancient Greek victories...)

I've about had it with "doesn't America have enough problems."

Every country has fucking problems and debt, not every country has a brutal civil war raging unchecked and ignored by capable outsiders for two years.

If it were our responsibility to deal with the rest of the world's problems as well as ours, we'd have one country and it'd be called Earth. As nice as it sounds, that's not how it is.

Given that the americans manufactured the poison gas for Saddam to use on the Kurds, I find their mock outrage to be laughable.

It's never going to be that way if you keep saying "that's not how it is."

We live in a democracy, for Christ's sake. If we want it, it happens.

Lol... you really think MY vote is ever gonna count? Sure, maybe in my district election. The majority of the nation has been robbed of what it wants plenty of times in the name of the very few.

For years and years America and the CIA blamed Iran for the chemical attacks against the Kurds - the story only changed when sad dam became the bigger threat. Things like this and the dodgy dozier live long in the memory and make people distrust 'intelligence'. For completeness I actually think Assad is behind recent attacks, but I'd like more proof if we are to commit assets to trying to sort out the mess.

I take democracy to mean something a little more comprehensive than just voting, you apparently do not. That's too bad.

And for the record I actually don't think Assad is behind the attacks myself, though I don't know. But since people are once again willing to talk about Syria, after two years of murder, it's a window of opportunity that oughtn't be missed.

"The majority of the nation has been robbed of what it wants plenty of times in the name of the very few."


And this causes you to... what? Sit down and take it? How depressing.

"And this causes you to... what? Sit down and take it?"

I've been to protests. I've signed petitions. Most people in this country hit the like button on Facebook and think they make a difference. Of course it's not like the White House petitions do shit anyway. But I'm 17; what can I do? Overthrow the government? If an independent Bernie Sanders type ran for Congress around here, I'd vote for him or her. I'd vote for a third party for the White House. But what all does that do?

People pay taxes and our "representative" government uses them (along with what the governments evidently think is play money) on war in Syria? The United Nations hasn't even finished an investigation, Thucy. It's hardly started one. How can you call for a war in Syria when they haven't even indirectly provoked us? How can you call for the beginnings of another potential world war the way countries like the UK and Russia are talking? And how can you call for a war when the last war we were in cost us somewhere around $2,000,000,000,000 (that's a lot of zeroes) and didn't even get a new representative government in place? And how can you call for us to assist the rebels when they are tightly connected to the group we are fighting to the death in Afghanistan?

I've got plenty of morals that I follow, and I've got plenty that I like to push on other people because I think they're right, but refusing to intervene isn't doing nothing. It's saying that we're responsible for ourselves, and if we have the spare resources to assist elsewhere, we can. But we don't. If you want to get people together to pay for it, go for it. Get a hundred million supporters to quadruple their tax contributions toward the war. Start selling war bonds. Whatever. Get those hundred million to pay off the $17 trillion debt while you're at it, okay?

I'm usually a hell of a crazy idealist. On the inside, I'm a romantic. But all anti-war notions aside, there is no realistic way we can AFFORD this war. If you have some way to cover the cost and guarantee that a) Assad attacked the rebels, b) chemical weapons were used, c) the rebels aren't working with terrorists, d) we can install a representative government, e) the Syrian civil war will end, and f) we won't face massive casualties in the process, then by all means speak now or forever hold your peace.

"I was preparing a huge rebuttal, until I realized I might be rebutting something you're not claiming. " Hecks lol