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

[DGFone]

Except that a very quick Google search reveals that the rest of the Western World is just as divided about Syria as Americans are?

France wants to go in. Britain will not go in, which was decided by a very narrow vote. America still hasn't decided. Haven't read about Germany yet.

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.

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.

[Regulus]

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.

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

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.

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

[Azdgari]

Alright, let's have a productive discussion of alternatives. Do we allow chemical weapons use against civilians? What do we think the consequences of that will be, in terms of short term (civilian lives) and long term (creating a precedent that use of chemical weapons will not have consequences)?

Hi Regulus and DG, by the way! I hope you've been well?

[Baya]

I love this comic.

[SlayerOfLight]

And in response Nicholas, yes, the rebellion does have troubling ties to Al-Nasru. But those are still pocketed and certainly not dominant--classifying the entire rebellion as "bloodthirsty jihadists" is inaccurate and unbecoming.

Those rebels are not even true Syrians, but religious extremists that only want to get rid of Assad because he's too secular. They're even willing to commit genocide themselves, as they've already done alot. But even despite that, only Assad gets blamed by the (forgive me) stupid U.S. A missile attack on Syria by the U.S would mean that alot more innocent lives are lost, so don't try to tell me that the reason the U.S is about to start a war is because they're ''concerned'' about the civilians. It's probably their oil addiction again.

[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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

[Regulus]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.