Syria Crisis.

[JesusFightClub]

In my mind, something along the lines of a limited bombing campaign such as what happened with the Kosovo conflict would be a middle ground. Obviously the Syrian conflict is it's own beast so the approach would have to be altered to fit the Syrian context, but there was a reason the Kosovar civilian deaths were low and there hasn't been a resurgence of violence in the last 12 years.

This was not a "boots on the ground campaign" so the risks to life and limb were minimal for NATO and the amount of troops needed much different than an Iraq/Afghanistan scenario. The limited bombing campaign stopped the violence and the peacekeepers who came in afterwards helped them remain stable while they sorted out what kind of society they were wanting to build.

Unfortunately, what worked in 1998 won't work now and never had a hope of working in the Middle East. The post 9-11 US has forgotten how to do "limited campaigns" if it ever really knew, and Syria is so far different from Kosovo there are barely any points of comparison.

[Cran]

I'm firmly gainst any intervention, and I'm glad Germany won't join in. Surprising how anti-militaristic we've become in a matter of decades.

First I honestly do not remember who called the USA to police the world. What criteria will be used in the future? Today it's poison gas, yesterday it was the Taliban, and what will it be tomorrow? Not agreeing with the US?

Military intervention has great potential to escalate the conflict. Yes, no doubt, the civilians in Syria suffer terribly! But they will suffer terribly in any war, no matter who fights it, and intervention will prolong the conflict, possibly draw even more countries in and increase suffering. And speaking of suffering, does the government of a country have the right to put its own citizens in harms way, having them killed and maimed for reasons that sound noble, but maybe really aren't? How many soldiers have died in Afghanistan by now, and is that justified?

Intervention did change nothing for the better in the recent past, on the contrary. Iraq? Human rights as non-existent as ever, the rights of women and religious minorities have dwindled into nothing. Afghanistan? When the troops leave, just as before, with just as many radical Muslim brotherhoods as before. Countries and infrastructure destroyed where it was present, mistrust between the population, civilians and soldiers killed. Great success.... You can't just go anywhere, strike down anyone perceived as an opponent, an then leave, without thinking about the long-term consequences! A war is, in my eyes, only justified if there's a good chance the outcome will change life in the country invaded for the better.

Unfortunately, I think it's too late for Obama to turn back now, he's already pronounced a too harsh judgement on Syria to be able to turn back without looking like an utter inconsequential, Pharisaic fool. Who ever gave this guy the Nobel Peace Prize? The US is in a perpetual state of war.

The whole issue seems dreadfully under-reported to me, nobody is freaking out about the possibility there might be another war. Iraq was big news, but Syria, it's like: "Oh, and the US might invade there with some other allies. We won't be taking part, don't worry your heads about it. And on to the election in fall...". We've gotten too used to proceedings in this style, I fear.

[Burris]

We and our dirty, bloody hands are just sick of being put in a part of the world that has never and will never welcome our presence, especially when it's obvious that our reasons for intervening aren't for peace keeping purposes.

Please tell me you didn't believe you'd be greeted as liberators in Afghanistan or Iraq, because specialists in those areas pretty much warned not only the US government but anyone with a working radio that the opposite would happen.

I doubt civilians being hit with Sarin would be sad to see US troops - except they know as well as I do that the US is a nation that plunders its targets under the guise of reorganizing the area government. (Pfft - at least NATO, as an entity, is a lot more direct in putting the boot down without pretence.)

War and violence have existed in that part of the world since the beginning of time, and will continue regardless of what America does.

So do what a lot of your people have done in the face of new atrocities – atrocities that don’t involve your having to protect an oil supply by trying to install a US-friendly puppet government: Do nothing.

Just don’t pretend you’re doing that nothing out of concern for the people being killed: `America has done too much already, and the people don’t like us anyway, so why bother. I mean, gee golly, we were just trying to do our best. Maybe those being killed would be better off if we stayed away.`

So yes, it's time to learn our lesson and butt out.

This will never bite you in the ass. Not ever.

We don't need to keep getting our hands bloody and dirty in places that resent us. If you find that funny, then oh well, laugh your ass off.

What I find funny is that you think you can escape the violence of your ancestors simply by disclaiming responsibility, even while acting like you're doing the affected areas a favour for having failed to act in yet another war where your armaments and technology are being used not merely accidentally against civilians, but to target them specifically.

[2xx1xy1JD]

it's an enormous pity that peace keepers aren't an option.

that something - short of strikes - aren't being proposed.

is there nothing between "do nothing" vs "war baby war"?

JD - agree with the importance of history to what people are willing to do. Add Cambodia to that list too, please.)

Peacekeepers are only an option where there is some sort of peace to keep. If there is a peace agreement, peacekeepers can be useful for policing a demilitarized zone.

They can't do anything where there is an active conflict. That was the problem in Rwanda - it was a UN peacekeeping mission with no mandate to do anything, no means to do anything and ultimately no ability to prevent approximately 800,000 people being slaughtered in 100 days.

[Burris]

Unfortunately, what worked in 1998 won't work now and never had a hope of working in the Middle East. The post 9-11 US has forgotten how to do "limited campaigns" if it ever really knew, and Syria is so far different from Kosovo there are barely any points of comparison.

JFC is completely correct. I mean, much as I would love to see NATO bitch-slap the responsible parties for this, that's not realistic:

*** The NATO bombings of Kosovo took place, first of all, in a different era: Russia opposed these actions, but Russia was in the same boat as everyone in former Yugoslavia: Flat-ass broke. Moreover, the end product of aggression in Kosovo brought about a Russian-led embassy to Belgrade where they convinced Serb leadership to let the fucking war end, finally, by accepting NATO agreements.

*** There are more countries now, and stronger, in a position to ally with Syria.

*** NATO targeted established Serb military strongholds that were being used as starting points for attacks against targets in Kosovo. The gas attack in Syria had an entirely different character - although it isn't clear to me where or how the factions there are operating. (I don't know enough about Syrian politics to even guess - and scary enough, I doubt most US policy-makers know much more than I do.)

*** Many Kosovar were happy to see NATO - which is something I doubt will ever be true for the US in Syria.

*** The US was well-liked in 1998. Now - not so much.

God love Serbia, but violated so many different parts of the Geneva Convention one would need a forklift - perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but apt - to lift all the potential indictments. I mean, it was painfully obvious who the major aggressors were.

For people who still think another NATO-type strike would work, keep in mind what else happened the last time: Serb forces made revenge attacks against civilians.

I can understand the people who think staying the hell out of Syria is a good idea. (Although...well. there should be things never allowed to happen again if the international community can prevent them - and gassing people is one of those things.)

And come on: Don't play the fool as to how these people acquired various arms and other equipment.

They got it from you, US - you. And watching people all over the place claim it's strictly a Syrian problem is maddening.

[BravaAmica]

Me too. This is looking like a classic setup for a world war. My whole problem with intervention is that we can't and won't spend money to provide healthcare and basic needs for our own people, but we are willing to go overseas drop bombs, kill people, and provide basic needs for other countries? HELL NO!!! :angry-screaming: It's time we take care of our own first.

THANK YOU!!!!

[Arete]

Syria is a Russian client state, and their weapons purchases tend to favor Russian products. Here is a hint: The SCUD missiles that Syria favors are NOT US made. Guess who makes them? It also routinely buys from China. No one used to care what weapons the Bashir dynasty was buying, because they always said it was to protect Syria against ISR. Regardless of the fact they are getting their weapons from Russia and China, the Russians and Chinese do not have a gun to Bashir's head forcing him to use them on his people.

Look up the Hama Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre perpetuated by Big Daddy Bashir. I know it's a standard to blame the US for everything, but the Bashir Dynasty actually grew its own Islamic Fundamentalists without any help from Iraq, AFG, the Taliban or the US.

The Bashir's are Alawites, meaning they are a small Muslim derived minority that are considered heretical by both Shi'ites and Sunnis. They have the problem all minorities do that take charge of majorities outside the democratic process, they rule by terror and have done so for over 3 decades. The Bashirs have murdered Druze, Christian, and Shi'ite leaders in Syria for 30 years. They aren't going to blink at a little poison gas.

So the choice comes down to Bashirs or Islamic Fundamentalists.

Oh, and all these arguments about the US being no damn good, except when in was loved back in 1998 with the Kosovo bombings? Because I was not a child in 1998, I can tell you that the US was most certainly not loved in 1998, and the same conspiracy theorists of we were interfering in Serbian sovereignty, hands off the Balkans, they have discovered oil and that is why they are in it, murderers of Serbian babies, the US staged Kosovo massacres using dolls so they could go in and control the Balkans, and on and on and on and on. Demonstrations in European capitals and a few US cities.

Just in case you want me to state my position, I was against the Kosovo intervention, the Iraqi Intervention, and am definitely against a Syrian intervention. I'm sure some of my Greek ancestors have done some pretty atrocious things in Balkan wars, but don't worry, my ass will get bitten for this eventually.

[Arete]

And they`ll do a lot of that killing with weapons you paid for.

I think you need to recheck your facts, Burris. Syria has always done its weapon's deals with the USSR/Russia.

[theologygeek]

Even if you never go anywhere near Syria, your hands are dirty. However your government is using this news, you and your parents are still partially responsible. .

There's a funny thing about convictions. Sometimes the behavior of the convicted person is similar to extreme fundamentalism. As a matter of fact, the extreme behavior just recently reared it's ugly head in the latest abortion thread. In a thread about gay rights, someone was told they should move from their state. Extreme behavior: Expecting everyone else to have the same conviction as you. Blaming people who didn't fight tooth and nail to correct the injustice. Trying to make them think they are scum if they didn't fight as hard as you. Example: You can shove that iphone up your ass because you are part of the reason for the unemployment rate, seeing how Apple outsources 100% of it's manufacturing to China. You. Are. Scum.

I believe that God places different convictions on people because there are many things in this world that need correcting. I also believe that it's a sign of open mindedness, impartiality, and not to mention very much okay if others don't have the same convictions that I have. It's irrational to blame the people of a country for all the injustices of their government. It's rational to understand that while people may feel terrible about what is happening, it is not possible to fight for every single injustice. There are too many for one person to take on.

[OkToBeTakei]

I think you need to recheck your facts, Burris. Syria has always done its weapon's deals with the USSR/Russia.

The rebels are armed by quite a few different countries.

[Arete]

The rebels are armed by quite a few different countries.

Yeah, the US is not the monopoly provider to the rebels either. The US, France, Britain, and Iran (which is probably selling on both sides of the fence) are all supplying logistical support or weapons to Bashir's enemies. The same principle stands, whoever sold them their guns is not compelling them to use them. I think both the rebels and the Bashirs suck, but I am not going to get all lofty in my judgments that how dare people want to get rid of a dynastic dictatorship by using weapons, even if those people are Islamic fundamentalists. Just like I am pretty happy my illustrious :roll: ancestors decided to take British help for all it was worth and kick out Muslim Turkish government. It is pretty safe to say the majority of them were not choir boys, and they took to weapons like fish to water.

All snark aside, I wish I had an answer or an idea of how both Bashir and the Islamic fundamentalists could lose, and a representative democracy could immediately be put in place, but my mind is not capable of thinking that far outside the box. Sometimes all the choices available stink.

[Burris]

Syria is a Russian client state, and their weapons purchases tend to favor Russian products. Here is a hint: The SCUD missiles that Syria favors are NOT US made. Guess who makes them? It also routinely buys from China. No one used to care what weapons the Bashir dynasty was buying, because they always said it was to protect Syria against ISR. Regardless of the fact they are getting their weapons from Russia and China, the Russians and Chinese do not have a gun to Bashir's head forcing him to use them on his people.

True; no one is forcing the Syrian government to target its own people.

As of July 23, 2013, however, the President of the United States is permitting the arming of Syrian rebels - and and so the Obama administration made good on that agreement. (The US is not alone in arming the rebels, mind you.)

Past presidents did likewise in arming Iraq and in arming the Mujahideen (who would become the Taliban). And there are others.

I have to be at least a little simplistic when discussing the issue for the sake of time and because there are plenty of regional experts on Middle-Eastern affairs around who could make this point far better than I ever could.

I’ll still do my best:

The US has been muddying the waters of Mid-Eastern politics for so long it’s laughable to encounter someone(s) arguing that America has done enough - enough good for all those thankless ingrates who gave US envoys such a chilly welcome.

The cultural chauvinism that occurs in so many comments about this issue, around the web and sometimes even here, is baffling: It’s as if people have forgotten the US is already involved with Mid-East affairs and has been for a long time now. (Some commenters obviously believe the withdrawal of US aid in any form is necessary so that people in the Mid-East can ‘learn to solve their own conflicts’ rather than waiting for a morally superior agent to help them.)

That China and Russia are supplying new arms in these conflicts does not change the fact here: The United States armed a whole lot of its own future enemies. In so doing, it left stockpiles for malignant governments to use against their own citizens.

It's naive to think that just because some of the modern weapons received by both the Syrian government and the rebels were manufactured by China or Russia that the US now has sufficient moral high grounds to claim, 'Well, we didn't create this miss. No need for us to step in and correct it.' And that, frankly, is the sense I get from reading some of the responses to news articles on this subject: Commenters believe this is a matter internal to Syria, and that to interfere is merely another example of the US trying to `police the world.`

Look up the Hama Massacre perpetuated by Big Daddy Bashir. I know it's a standard to blame the US for everything, but the Bashir Dynasty actually grew its own Islamic Fundamentalists without any help from Iraq, AFG, the Taliban or the US.

Bashir is bad news, and I’m not blaming the US for everything that happened or will happen in that region.

But US foreign policy in those areas has always been intrusive.

There is that subsection of individuals - average posters on news sites, for example - who claim the US should stay well clear of Middle Eastern affairs because the Mid-East should learn to take care of its own problems; because the Mid-East obviously is too savage for such efforts as peacekeeping and humanitarian aid to work in any meaningful way; because civilians liberated briefly from the Taliban or from Hussein weren’t dutifully grateful.

The Bashir's are Alawites, meaning they are a small Muslim derived minority that are considered heretical by both Shi'ites and Sunnis. They have the problem all minorities do that take charge of majorities outside the democratic process, they rule by terror and have done so for over 3 decades. The Bashirs have murdered Druze, Christian, and Shi'ite leaders in Syria for 30 years. They aren't going to blink at a little poison gas.

So the choice comes down to Bashirs or Islamic Fundamentalists.

I expect you know a lot more about Syrian politics than I do - and I don’t envy the choice Syria seems to have: Bashir, or fundamentalists.

Oh, and all these arguments about the US being no damn good, except when in was loved back in 1998 with the Kosovo bombings?

If you’re addressing my argument, that is not what I said. Not even remotely.

Because I was not a child in 1998, I can tell you that the US was most certainly not loved in 1998, and the same conspiracy theorists of we were interfering in Serbian sovereignty, hands off the Balkans, they have discovered oil and that is why they are in it, murderers of Serbian babies, the US staged Kosovo massacres using dolls so they could go in and control the Balkans, and on and on and on and on.

Those particular arguments are not ones you’ll hear from me - ever. Serbia is a great country, but ‘history’ as it is taught to children in the Republika Srpska is not exactly...accurate. The government has cut out all kinds of inconvenient facts, such as that Serbs were the primary aggressors - particularly in the Bosnian war (if one wants to count the several different wars that went on in that region individually rather than collectively).

Likewise in Kosovo, the ongoing irredentist effort to collect more territory or at least to entrench Serb interests was a major factor in the conflict.

Yeah - the conspiracy theories: I know them. Such ideas were printed and broadcast as truth by government-controlled media throughout Serbia since well before the wars began; since the disintegration and the unemployment and the inflation and the fear.

`It is back - fascist Ustaša that had helped the Nazis during WW2 - to complete the slaughter, and they will not stop until no Serb is left alive: They’ll come for your families at night, tear suckling children from the arms of their mothers and smash them on the ground. They’ll kill the weakest first. They’ll turn the ancient kingdom of Serbia into a smoking wasteland.’

I’m sure the Serb government presence in Kosovo fought back against NATO bombings with the same kinds of lies and propaganda and conspiracy theories it used to mobilize the JNA (among others).

But the people of Kosovo who were targeted by Serbs - I can’t imagine they were anything but happy to see NATO. But NATO acted collaboratively. The United States was merely one part of the whole.

Another difference between certain recent US ventures and the bombing of Kosovo is this: NATO had a military goal and a political goal, accomplishing both.

Just in case you want me to state my position, I was against the Kosovo intervention

I supported the intervention in Kosovo – from an armchair far away, thankfully. Bloody military efforts at territorial expansion might still be going on today were it not for NATO – and my biggest complaint is that, during the Bosnian War, all those international organizations created to ensure this shit never happened again were so busy trying to build a strategy that they allowed terrible horrors to continue unstopped for nearly half a year – and that’s just one of the instances where they might have been able to help people if only the needed materials and the political will had been there.

I opposed the War in Iraq. I never saw a damned thing among materials available to the public showing that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or much else beyond some older conventional stuff. And unlike the NATO strikes, which were designed to have a beginning, a middle, and an end, the War in Iraq had only one of those things.

…the Iraqi Intervention, and am definitely against a Syrian intervention. I'm sure some of my Greek ancestors have done some pretty atrocious things in Balkan wars, but don't worry, my ass will get bitten for this eventually.

Problem is, these are the sorts of things the children don’t forget – whichever version of history they were taught. And then war again.

[Arete]

The US, like the British and French before them, has definitely had its hands in many pots in the Middle East. The US has certainly caused its own blowback (Get USSR invasion force out of AFG, good in principle. Arm the people who would later become the nucleus of the Taliban, bad in consequence). Support Sadaam over Ayatollahs, then in 2 decades make Sadaam public enemy #1 (criminally idiotic).

However, in this particular case, the US actions in Iraq and AFG have nothing to do with the price of bananas in Damascus (in terms of whether or not to intervene). Intervention in Syria from a US policy perspective is standing in front of 2 doors, one labeled "Damned If You Do", the other labeled "Damned If You Don't", with different players screaming "C'mon, c'mon, choose!" The Bashirs are good old fashion Arab Fascists. At the opposite end of the ring are people who at least at the top levels are taking orders from Islamic fundamentalists. My instincts and upbringing tell me that all fascists must die, but I don't see a good peaceful outcome resulting from the fall of Bashir. No. Good. Choices. To. Make.

[theologygeek]

AreteJo, I am really enjoying reading all your posts in this thread and on this subject. Suffice to say, I agree with you 100%.

[JesusFightClub]

Oh, and all these arguments about the US being no damn good, except when in was loved back in 1998 with the Kosovo bombings? Because I was not a child in 1998, I can tell you that the US was most certainly not loved in 1998, and the same conspiracy theorists of we were interfering in Serbian sovereignty, hands off the Balkans, they have discovered oil and that is why they are in it, murderers of Serbian babies, the US staged Kosovo massacres using dolls so they could go in and control the Balkans, and on and on and on and on. Demonstrations in European capitals and a few US cities.

Just in case you want me to state my position, I was against the Kosovo intervention, the Iraqi Intervention, and am definitely against a Syrian intervention. I'm sure some of my Greek ancestors have done some pretty atrocious things in Balkan wars, but don't worry, my ass will get bitten for this eventually.

I was opposed to the Kosovo intervention way back in the day (I was a university student at the time) and marched against it etc. However, the view of the US between now and again has differed dramatically. I'm really sorry but it has.

[jaelh]

Me too. This is looking like a classic setup for a world war. My whole problem with intervention is that we can't and won't spend money to provide healthcare and basic needs for our own people, but we are willing to go overseas drop bombs, kill people, and provide basic needs for other countries? HELL NO!!! :angry-screaming: It's time we take care of our own first.

Rosy, so it's not that Syrians would die and suffer if you went to war (or would continue to die and suffer without said intervention), but rather that American's need healthcare, that should stop the US going to war?

Dude. Your priorities are

All

Messed

Up.

(and what Burris said. All of it).

JD - agree on Rwanda and peacekeepers; Rwanda was a disaster. peacekeepers isn't the right word. Using very technical language here, I'll go with something-that's-not-all-out-war. Then again, this isn't a genocide. Which I think changes the moral imperative somewhat.

AreteJo - the intervention in the Balkans wasn't just the US. I think that matters a very great deal. AU has an election next weekend, and the likely to be new conservative government is making noises about joining you on this escapade. Is France still in? But I think that's it, no?

I'm also a bit surprised that you put Kosovo onto the list with Iraq (first or second Iraq?) and Syria. One of those conflicts was not like the others.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

The mainstream media in my area has been portraying the rebels as the "good guys" and Assad as the "bad guy". From what I have gleaned from different people/places on the internet - the story is not as clear.

The Japanese news has been far less "cheerleading" of any one side than has the US news, which from the beginning was pretty clearly on the rebels' side and still seems to be (even while starting to put caveats of "but the rebels might have Al-Qaeda affiliation" onto the reports). Some news programs I listen on Japanese radio have covered the Syria situation from quite some time ago and mainly at the time they were discussing how among the "Arab Spring" places, Syria is definitely not so clear cut a case of "despotic government, people rising up." Apparently Assad still has quite a bit of local support, and plenty of people in the country resent what they see as the rebels' wanting to push a hardline religious agenda or just disrupting what had been a stable situation, even if not wonderful. So the coverage there is more "it's a civil war type situation, both sides have their supporters, the situation is very muddy and the US is covering it one-sidedly."

Monday that same show is going to have another special on it, could be interesting.

FWIW that same show has also pointed out the oddity of insisting on saying 「事実上ã®ã‚¯ãƒ¼ãƒ‡ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€("EFFECTIVELY a coup") instead of just "coup" when talking about the Egypt situation, and why that might be.

Bombing is really going to help Syria, how?

That's really my main question at this point too.

Supposedly it's no boots on the ground, and no action to topple the leader, and they can't bomb any weapons stockpiles because that will obviously just release more poison, so... the plan is to perhaps attack troops who were involved in the operation? It just seems very much a case of shooting up the barn door after the horse has got out, and I don't see how this saves anyone, it's purely a punishment action, in which case I really do think it should go through the UN if it has to happen - particularly now that even the UK isn't going along (which I was happy to hear, BTW).

I can see how Obama wants to save face - he should never have said "red line" to begin with, IMHO.

[tigerchild]

Oh, I think pretty much the US and most of Europe has bloody, complacent-in-murder hands when it comes to the Middle East and Africa.

Put the blame on the US all you like, but Europeans are no angels either. We've all been doing the colonialism/backwater deals to make $$ with whoever serves our interests in the moment for a long time.

It's kind of irritating that ANYONE in a western nation could think that their hands are not drenched in the blood and tears of many innocent people, when it comes to this area.

But yes, we're going to fuck this up no matter what. Just like all of Europe and the US has fucked up every other single paternalistic intervention-for-your-own-good-really-it-is endeavor they've taken on, ever.

[theologygeek]

It's kind of irritating that ANYONE in a western nation could think that their hands are not drenched in the blood and tears of many innocent people, when it comes to this area.

How do you figure that blood is on the hands of the American people?

[Stephanie66]

How do you figure that blood is on the hands of the American people?

From what I am seeing, there is plenty of blood on Assad's hands and none on the US.

My fiance, daughter and I are all military vets. My son is considering joining with my encouragement. I am all for US involvement if it means we can get rid of Assad.

Neville Chamberlain didn't want to knock out Hitler, either. (And isn't Assad's wife British?) I see Assad as a mini-Hitler. Someone has to step in, and it might as well be the US. We have the capacity and technology to do it without boots on the ground.

[jaelh]

How do you figure that blood is on the hands of the American people?

Really?

We elect these governments that go to war.

We choose them; we produce them.

We produce the weapons

We raise the soldiers.

We do not refuse to go to war; we do not overthrow the governments that send us there.

And if we don't directly contribute to the making of weapons and warfare

We derive enormous economic benefit from their existence.

Moreover,

We live comfortable lives and

We will not give up our air-conditioning, our cars or our ridiculous, resource intensive houses.

There is blood on all our hands. Directly or indirectly.

YOU individually may have stood with a million others protesting the war.

But as a whole, as a people - we are all complicit.

It's not a choice, it's the accident of our birth.

That doesn't mean we don't bear (at least some) responsibility..

[Burris]

How do you figure that blood is on the hands of the American people?

You're asking that with a straight face?

[jaelh]

From what I am seeing, there is plenty of blood on Assad's hands and none on the US.

My fiance, daughter and I are all military vets. My son is considering joining with my encouragement. I am all for US involvement if it means we can get rid of Assad.

Neville Chamberlain didn't want to knock out Hitler, either. (And isn't Assad's wife British?) I see Assad as a mini-Hitler. Someone has to step in, and it might as well be the US. We have the capacity and technology to do it without boots on the ground.

What? Assad is a mini-Hitler?

Assad invaded Lebanon... when?

He's committing genocide against... who?

And really, the British stuff?

Please. Still?

The British were involved in WWII long before they were bombed; long before the US decided to act to protect it's own interests after its territory was bombed.

Come on, you can do better than that, surely.

[Stephanie66]

Assad is responsible for gassing children of the wrong religion. That's genocide, is it not?

My daughter could get called back in, so I actually have skin in this game. And although I was against the war in Iraq, that doesn't mean I am always against war. Sometimes, it has to happen.

War is never the answer is ridiculous, which is why I brought up WWII. If we had just left Hitler alone, it certainly would have been a different world today.

[latraviata]

What? Assad is a mini-Hitler?

Assad invaded Lebanon... when?

He's committing genocide against... who?

And really, the British stuff?

Please. Still?

The British were involved in WWII long before they were bombed; long before the US decided to act to protect it's own interests after its territory was bombed.

Come on, you can do better than that, surely.

Yes Stephanie66 and the Muslim Brotherhood are little angels, aren't they?? Bomb all the islamic dictators and regimes and you will get Islamic fundamentalists in return. The premise of bringing peace and democracy in these countries is quite naive and rather ignorant and I express myself mildly.