The best part about this Syria issue is how it reveals how all members of DU are bloodthirsty ghouls

[el_bryanto]

Either they support bombing a bunch of innocents or they are ok with Assad gassing a bunch of innocents.

Isn't that nice?

Bryant

[Cali_Democrat]

1. It's probably best to just stay out of another country's civil war. n/t

[JRLeft]

14. ^This we aren't the world's police. I feel bad for the people but we will only make it worse.

[mythology]

2. Insulting is the new reasoned debate

On both sides.

It's unfortunate, but it's easy to make a caricature out of somebody's argument if you are certain that you can't be wrong and that the opposing view must be immoral.

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. the ones that want to see a stop to children and babies being gassed in their beds...

are the bloodthirsty ones?

[JDPriestly]

26. Do you really think that bombing some random sites in Syria will stop children and

babies from being gassed in their beds?

How would that work?

If you could bomb Assad's air capacity or the sites where he keeps the chemical weapons, maybe. But the result could go either way. Things could get a lot worse.

Look at the situations in Egypt and Iraq -- in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Hard to claim that we have really helped protect the people in those countries. At least I really don't see it.

And the rebels are fanatic Muslims. They may include members of Al Qaeda. I hate to see children and women suffer. But their suffering is not our fault, and I am unconvinced that there is anything within our power that we could do that would really help them in the long run. Bombing? How is that even relevant?

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. So no holocausts have ever been thwarted? Is that what you are saying?

You can just turn a blind eye then....okay...good to know...

Just gasing children in their beds....no skin off your nose...but "I" am the bloodthirsty one?

[HangOnKids]

30. Howz about we take that money from the military action

and feed starving kids in America?

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. and just look the other way when other countries poison theirs!

sounds like a great plan hope you can stomach the outcome!

[HangOnKids]

35. Why not take care of America?

War is expensive.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. and just "let God sort em out" right?

I imagine the Jews in Germany would not have appreciated such a stance....lord knows we had hungry people in those days too.

[HangOnKids]

38. Jesus

See ya.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. Yeah..exactly..see ya!

[Bluenorthwest]

48. The treatment of the Jews had zero impact on our WW2 policy and we did nothing to help them

until it was all over. We refused to so much as bomb the railroads that took them to the camps and we knew which ones to bomb. We did not do so.
Also, facts being so fun, you should know that when we liberated the camps, the gay prisoners were still held prisoner and were forced to serve the terms of their sentence.
Your knowledge of history is weak.

[JDPriestly]

41. You are avoiding my question. I did not ask to turn a blind eye.

I said that bombing might worsen the situation. It will not necessarily save lives. In fact it could cost some.

We need to use our clout to get Russia to pressure Assad.

But frankly we surmise and conclude that Assad must have used the weapons. But I don't know that we have proof that he did. And I don't know that we have proof that he is continuing to use them.

The strongest evidence that Assad is using the weapons is his silence. But it is hard to say thanks to the situation with the US corporate media whether the silence if on Assad's part or on the part of our own media.

We have to watch the situation carefully.

No one seems to think about this, but the entire situation could simply be a way to try to draw us into a wider war. We have to make it clear to our government that we are not willing to fight a wider war. We are suffering from the government cutbacks in our own country. The last thing we need is for our government to borrow more money to resupply munitions and equipment used in actions in Syria. We just don't need it. We aren't even fully out of Afghanistan and Pakistan yet.

No troops on the ground????

You wanna' bet?

This is just the shock and awe step. If we bomb Syria we will end up going in.

[HangOnKids]

29. What about tossing babies from incubators?

Did you forget that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. No but that was not Barack Obama either....

[HangOnKids]

34. Oh sorry, I guess that makes all the bullshit equal

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Uh bullshit like "I am going to get Osama Bin Laden" and DOES?

like changing the face of American Healthcare for the first time in 50 yrs? That bullshit?

Passing Lilyledbetter....that bullshit? etc etc etc.

You need to understand that Obama does MOST of what he says he will do....just because your pet issue doesn't turn out like you expect doesn't mean that everything is bullshit....

You think we would have been better off under a Romney Administration? hahahahahaha. Thank GOD Obama won that election.

[BlueStreak]

4. Let's hear your solution that results in less carnage

You talk big for a person who doesn't offer any solution.

If there is not a clearly better solution, then we have no business getting into the middle of that.

[pipi_k]

12. I think the point

of the OP is that no matter which side a person takes in this, someone will come along to call that person a bloodthirsty ghoul.

[BlueStreak]

17. Not much of a point

Lobbing Cruise missiles indiscriminately (which is the only way missiles can be fired into a population center from long distance) into a populated area for the purpose of making good on some reckless talk from the POTUS is not a very good idea. It deserves to be criticized. I have not seen any posts that were remotely like "bloodthirsty ghoul." Vigorous criticism of the policy does not necessarily equate to over-the-top rhetoric. Indeed, most of the discussion I have seen on this subject is not over-the-top.

So what is the point of the OP? The the OP can't cope with an open discussion of important issues? If that is the case, then the OPer would probably be happier at Needlepoint.org.

It is not a deadly sin to be apathetic. But if a person is only happy with a Kum-Ba-Yah experience, they really shouldn't hang out here. And they most certainly shouldn't cry when issues are discussed passionately and vigorously. That's what this site does.

[pipi_k]

18. The point is...

that there are times when there are no hard and fast concrete answers.

Both options could have horrible consequences.

But people are so invested in their own opinions that they often can't see what the consequences of the actions they support could be.

I don't have a dog in this fight.

I can see bad things happening from either action/inaction.


PS...and the rest of it...someone who supports the bombing will call someone who doesn't a bloodthirsty ghoul for wanting to see more suffering. Likewise, someone who doesn't support the bombing will call someone who does support it a bloodthirsty ghoul.

[BlueStreak]

19. yeah, except that doesn't actually happen

Maybe you can find a post or two that had such inflammatory rhetoric, but to characterize that as if that were normal or even slightly common is really disingenuous.

[pipi_k]

25. It's not the posts

on an individual basis.

It's the general attitude.

Most of it could be directed toward RW warmongers. They are bloodthirsty ghouls, people claim, because they're itching for a war.

Well, what are DUers supposed to infer from that? If DUers support bombing, then they must also be bloodthirsty ghouls.

The point here is that no matter what side of this issue anybody is on, there will always be accusations from the other side.

And really, this is not the only issue that has DUers lobbing accusations against each other. Each side thinks it's right. Each side is always so positive it has the moral high road.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. People have different views, the only DUers who seem ghoulish to me are the ones enjoying

the subject matter and filling threads of the most serious sort, about death and war and choices we must make with emoticons indicating they think it is all very funny and all about bickering among DUers. That is ghoulish. It just is. People should be deeply ashamed of exploiting this issue for personal agenda or for shouting about dead children then posting an 'rofl' emoticon as well. Chilling disconnect.

[pipi_k]

61. Like I said...

It's not really about individual posts, but about general attitudes expressed by some no matter which side they're on

It's always the other guys who are wrong/bad/bloodthirsty ghouls

[JDPriestly]

33. Right on this point.

I can see bad things happening from either action/inaction.

If we don't intervene at this point, whoever is using the chemical weapons will continue to kill and maim people.

If we do intervene, we may make a government possible that would be even more cruel for the Syrians than Assad's.

And the list of these if we dos and if we don'ts goes on and on.

So, I think we should wait. If it becomes clear that we can really help the Syrian people in some meaningful way, we should do what it takes.

But if it remains as confused as it is now, we should not act.

Either way, we could have serious regrets in the future -- whether we choose the path of action or inaction. But acting requires using our resources and actively taking responsibility for a situation that neither we citizens nor our government can fully or do fully understand. So we should wait.

We should be vigilant. But we should wait. The situation may take care of itself. If Assad is using the weapons, he knows he is being blamed and watched and any mis-step will be punished. If it is actually the rebels who somehow figured out how to use the weapons and found the weapons or were given the weapons, then we won't be embroiled with a bunch of ruthless killers. In fact either way, if we don't take direct action at this time, we will not be embroiled with ruthless killers.

Let's don't make the same mistakes twice.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. and who told you this was the plan?

"indiscriminate bombing"

Who has said that?

[BlueStreak]

53. Bombing is indiscriminate, by definition.

"Surgical bomb strikes" is like "clean coal". Neither one occurs in this universe.

And the administration has made it very clear that their response includes indiscriminate bombing. OK, you got me. They left out the word "indiscriminate". But that doesn't make it so. That is just water-boarding the English language..

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. Uh no it is not....our bombs are coordinated by computer and spies on the ground....

hardly "indiscriminate"

[BlueStreak]

56. OK. Your comment speaks for itself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Yes it does...it says I know what indiscriminate means and doesn't mean.

[leftstreet]

5. I've never seen a DUer 'support gassing a bunch of innocents'

Now I HAVE seen sporadic support for bombing said innocents

[Liberal In Texas]

6. So when did you stop

beating your wife?

Being against the former, doesn't mean being for the later.

[Silent3]

10. +1 n/t

[pipi_k]

13. Yep n/t

[Electric Monk]

21. Interesting. I see that Commie Pinko Dirtbag was PPR on Dec 31, 1969, no reason given.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=123097

I wonder what that was all about?

[bluedigger]

8. So which kind of bloodthirsty ghoul are you?

[SunSeeker]

23. LOL

[treestar]

9. People could argue about the action we take

being effective or not, but it would not be a "bombing of the innocents." Supposedly it's a bombing of the guilty.

I agree the gassing is getting a big pass. Or, many assertions against any involvement are made without a concomitant admission that the considerations for doing nothing trump that gassing having happened.

[awoke_in_2003]

20. Because we have such a great track record...

of just bombing the guilty.

[treestar]

47. Each situation is unique

Would it be OK if some other country took this on? Since the US is so terrible, suppose some other country did it, than would that be OK?

[awoke_in_2003]

50. Other countries getting involved...

is not going to affect the economy the way it would if we get involved, like a bunch of ignorant-of-history jackasses, in another country's civil war.

[MFM008]

11. please

there is strategic bombing that can be done. They can hit military/munitions. We worry about pinpoint strikes when Assad gasses and kills with impunity?

[GeorgeGist]

15. Critical Thinking 101

FAIL.

[1-Old-Man]

16. Did Syria bomb us when we allowed dozens of our own children to be shot down?

We have an on-going massacre of children taking place in this country right now. Would it be right for another country to bomb our critical infrastructure to make it stop?

[BlueStreak]

24. What if the Ivory Coast didn't like the Zimmerman verdict

and invaded Florida because of their outrage at our inhumanity.

Yes, that's a stretch to compare events in the US with the misery that has been ongoing in the Syrian civil war. But there comes a point when we have to ask, "Who died and left the US in charge of policing the whole world?" That isn't where I want to see our dwindling resources spent.

And as far as I can tell, most of the world doesn't appreciate our assuming this is our role and our right. There are times where the world has collectively called for nations to come together to help. This isn't one of them.

It is tragic. But no good can come from Obama acting like Cowboy Bush. There must be other actions we could take that would result in a net reduction in suffering.

One thing this illustrates is just how dysfunctional the US Security Council has become, with Russia and China now automatically opposing everything, just as Republicans in Congress oppose everything that Obama does. Maybe we have to take a harder look at why that is, and whether the UN is a useful organization in the 21st Century. Maybe we will have to consider the "nuclear option" for the Security Council in order to change the dynamic that exists.

[woo me with science]

22. Nobody here is defending gas attacks.

Quite a few people here are defending missile attacks.

[NuclearDem]

36. Bloodthirsty ghoul? Hey, watch your tone smooth-skin.

[KittyWampus]

43. The OP is like a Rorschach Test

[florida08]

44. nothing like being between a rock and a hard place

Imagine how POTUS must feel. I say we drop sleeping gas on them at least once a week. Know what you call a dog with no legs?
Stay.

[A HERETIC I AM]

45. Sure is tough to be a Liberal sometimes.

I asked a fellow DU'er once if they favored seeing more Semi-Trailers on trains because it meant less pollution.

The answer?

"Yes, of course. That's good for the environment."

I told him "You realize that every single trailer on a piggyback rail car you see means a truck driver is out of work moving that trailer, right?

"Oh, well I don't support things that take away jobs."


Tough to be a Liberal, no doubt.

FWIW, I'm not a blood thirsty ghoul, but the time to intervene was 14 months ago. Having said that, we ought to do SOMETHING, just not sure what.

I vote for the Looney Tunes approach and drop a piano or a safe on Assad's head.

[whatchamacallit]

46. Right... cuz the way to show your opposition to killing is to do some more

Brilliant!

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. ...

So where you place yourself?

[alittlelark]

52. Perhaps nuanced discussions are lost on those

with black and white thinking.

[gopiscrap]

55. Not me, I want to stay the fuck out of there

[longship]

57. Isn't it better to not paint people with a broad paintbrush?

Getting Democrats to agree on an issue is like herding cats. It is one of greatest strengths. Alas, it is probably our greatest weakness. It's why a party which has been in the minority for many decades has such a disproportional hold on our country's political discourse.

The GOP mantra for quite some time has been ideological purity -- since the radical Christians began taking over the delegations beginning in the late 70's. Some of us here saw it happening. We could hardly believe that a huge national party would sit back and let that happen. We were convinced that it would be the ruin of the GOP.

Apparently we were wrong only in the length of time or would take for that to happen. I say apparently because the outcome is still uncertain. But it certainly seems that the GOP has truly painted themselves into a corner. This week's GOP snubbing of Martin Luther King Jr's "I have a dream" 50th anniversary is going to have political repercussions far, far greater than any perception that President Obama may, or may not, attack Syria.

I suggest we wait to see if President Obama actually does attack Syria before we begin discussions about whether we should throw him under the bus.

Ideological purity is killing the GOP. I would hope that Democrats could have rational discussions without doing what the GOP is doing.

Nota bene: I have purposely not taken a public opinion on Syria. It's not that I don't have one. It's just that I would prefer not to enter into the utterly ridiculous chair throwing around here on the topic.

All this because President Obama may attack Syria. Then again, he may not. Regardless, there are too damned many silly people who know what he's going to do and are willing to be jerks about it here.

It get's fucking tiring. Stop throwing chairs. Learn politeness. Disagree with passion but always with respect. To do otherwise is to act like a fucking Republican.

Sorry about the rant. There's just too damned many DUers who I have long respected who I have seen acting like fucking jerks.

Wish my post was more coherent. But I think calling DUers blood-thirsty ghouls is not very constructive if one wants to have a reasoned discussion.

Some people like to throw chairs, apparently.

[JEB]

58. Low Hanging 'war crimes' Fruit: Assad v. Cheney

"Either it's worth taking a side in the Syrian civil war, or it isn't. Either it's worth the blood and treasure to end the conflict and hold the war criminals to account, or it isn't. Bombing a country to prove a point about observing internationally sanctioned methods of killing seems unjustifiable. If the United States is less intent on saving lives in Syria than on proving to the United Nations how much we care about observing international war crimes law, we would do better to begin by delivering Dick Cheney to the Hague, instead."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10220

[polichick]

59. Yeah, because those are the only two positions. Too funny!