Syria: This is not a revolution. Stop this nonsense.

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"][quote="Regulus"][quote="DGFone"]Also, Regulus: Chemical weapons have basically since WWI had such a horrible stigma placed with them, that their usage is almost akin to genocide. This is the weapons that even the Nazis didn't dare to use on external enemies out of fear of it being used on themselves.[/quote]

Don't you remember the gas chambers? Oh, and what about napalm? Is that not a chemical weapon?[/quote]

The Nazis weren't afraid of using poison gas on their own internal enemies. However even when they were being pounded to death on both sides, they refused to unleash their stocks of poison gas on the Western front and even the Russians, which they had ideological hate against, out of fear of international law and even chemical retribution. Try reading a little bit slower first.
[quote="Regulus"]
[quote="DGFone"]Genocide is one of those things that should the UN decide that Assad is committing, then there will be no debate about intervening or not. By international law, if you are a big player in the UN, and it recognized genocide, you have to do something about it.[/quote]

That's the problem. No one trusts our intelligence, and can you really blame them?[/quote]

Which is why we should let the UN researchers reach their own conclusion first. To make it clear: I am not behind Obama in this. I am against going in, invading, whatever. But I also think that Hassad is not the innocent little Oil Head of State that you guys make him out to be. He did loads of wrong, and he should be punished. By international laws, acts, and agreements if possible. But he is not innocent.

I am really dumbfounded here by how much people here are supporting Hassad for what seems to be the silliest of reasons: because for some reason, it's either support Obama, or support Hassad. Here's an idea: support neither. Not even the rebels (aka supporting Obama).

Remember that he still committed war crimes against his people, and his human rights record is very shaky. Did he commit the chemical attacks yet? I don't know. Woeler: Did the rebels commit the chemical attacks? I've read theories, but no solid proof. You yourself admitted that the UN has not yet reached a conclusion about who committed which attack, etc. Here's a surprising hint: Let them decide first before finger pointing.

Regulus: You clearly told me that you voted for Obama because he would get us out of all current wars and not create any new ones. I told you he's no different than any other politician. Looking at his gung-ho, un-informed plans and speeches for action, what can I say? I told you so.[/quote]
Obama is actually taking blame for backing out now, because everyone wants to hate him, especially you. The decision is going to congress now, and while Obama can override that decision, I don't think he will. Like Britain's prime minister said, he can plead his case, but he will respect the opinion of the majority in the end.

Say whatever you want about Obama, but you're only flaunting your ideological myopia. This isn't about the president at all. This whole issue, in itself, is a demonstration of our strength as a nation. We are indecisive because we actually have a voice--somthing the Syrians can only dream of. Unlike the oppressive dictator, we can debate and discuss issues at hand, and what we will do will reflect the voice of the majority.

Right now, we're weighing the consequences of both intervening, and not intervening. I've already explained why I wouldn't intervene, and I happen to agree with Woeler for the most part. A missile attack is only going to escalate the conflict further, and may possibly even start another war.

I am confident, however, that most Americans think the same way, and as such, I think our leaders will listen to us. We will not appear weak for our lack of commitment, but stronger for our ability to discuss political issues without throwing molotovs at each other, the moment we have clashing viewpoints.

tl;dr: This isn't about Obama vs. Hassad. This is about what's best for our country on an international scale, both short term and long term.

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"]
Obama is actually taking blame for backing out now, because everyone wants to hate him, especially you. The decision is going to congress now, and while Obama can override that decision, I don't think he will. [/quote]

This is exactly why he's taking blame from both sides. Remember that of many issues that Americans hate in politics, flip-flopping is one of the most hated.

So you have the people who want to invade. Only a few days ago, and even yesterday, Obama was basically swearing that drones flying in was only a matter of time. Now apparently we're waiting on that.

For the people who don't want to see America get involved in this (me included), Obama was almost single-handedly taking control of the nation and controlling it's decision. Frankly, he reminded me a lot of Bush Jr. just before Iraq. He probably reminded Woeler of that as well, otherwise he wouldn't have created such a biased first post.

Do I think it's a good thing that he chose to back down and let Congress decide (God forbid they actually listen to common sense though)? Yes I do. But he should have done that from the very beginning. Instead of saying "We're going in!.. Okay, never mind, I'm going to ask Congress first...", he should have said "Things in Syria are very murky right now, so we have to wait and learn more before deciding.".

What gets me the most is this: was it really that hard to go with the cautious stance right from the get-go, versus flip-flopping into it?

[Regulus]

When the lives of so many Americans are put on the line in preparation for war, whining about flop-flopping should be the very least of your worries.

[DGFone]

Except that it's the very flip-flopping about putting the lives of many Americans in the line. After all, imagine how it will feel like if you are a soldier and you Have to. Not. Maybe. Tell your family that you're going to war.

Yes, it's a small point to complain about, and I am very well about, (translation: I am glad that Obama has flipped this time), but it still would have been a lot better if he had taken this current stance right away instead of just now.

[Azdgari]

Lots of Americans die when we launch cruise missiles. True story. There are little men inside working the explosives... valiant.

So if we want to be more sure about who used the chemical weapons, what's the plan? The UN has bailed, showing its ineptitude per usual, not other country is concerned enough to make an investigation. Any ideas on that front? At this point the US and France appear to be the only ones concerned about the incredibly egregious international crime committed by 'someone' in Syria (hint: is it the rebels or the regime that failed to ratify chemical weapons treaties, admitted to developing a program and reopening it in 2012, has been deplored by human rights watch for torturing and killing dissidents, etc etc). And I'll admit the rebels are no saints, but I know where I think blame lies. I'd love to see the UN confirm those Sarin samples that we found, though.

[SlayerOfLight]

If this will turn out to be a full-blown war, I can't help but feel sorry for all the U.S soldiers that will sacrifice their lives for NOTHING.

That is, if the U.S isn't gonna launch missiles from a safe distance (killing innocent Syrians in the progress). Either way, innocent people will die.

[DGFone]

[quote="Nicholas"]
That is, if the U.S isn't gonna launch missiles from a safe distance (killing innocent Syrians in the progress). Either way, innocent people will die.[/quote]

As if they're not dying already, waiting for the UN, and the rest of the world, to decide as to what they are going to do.

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote="DGFone"][quote="Nicholas"]
That is, if the U.S isn't gonna launch missiles from a safe distance (killing innocent Syrians in the progress). Either way, innocent people will die.[/quote]

As if they're not dying already, waiting for the UN, and the rest of the world, to decide as to what they are going to do. [/quote]

Thanks for pointing out that which is even obvious to a three years old, but I'm talking about the fact that more Syrians would die if the U.S would attack then there are already dying right now. Cheers.

[Azdgari]

Is that based on some data that you could provide, Nicholas? Especially considering that cruise missile attacks would A) be limited and B) Exclusively target Assad regime targets. In other words... now = civilian targets. US attack = military targets. So if by 'Syrian' you mean 'Syrian civilians', then there's absolutely no question about which course of action is more humane.

[TheBlackCatCrossing]

[quote="DGFone"]I was going to write a wall of text critical of Woeler's above post, but all I can really say is this:

Oh jeez...[/quote]

That's because college kids think that they know everything when they take Poli Sci or Soc 101, doncha know?

In all seriousness, there is no point for the US to get involved. There is a recession going on, we have to fix ourselves up. They money used to fund the military is ridiculous when there are problems on the home front. This is a problem for Syria. Let THEM handle it.