Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

Nothing.

I am observing the same crowd that protests the loudest about giving Assad the benefit of the doubt is the same one tripping over itself to lay blame for every possible wrong at American feet.

The following seems to he the mentality, and I cringe inside at the horror of it:

Did you know that Americans helped Saddam use chemical weapons against Iran? Evil!
Did you know that Americans ignored Saddam when he used chemical weapons against the Kurds? Evil!
Did you know that Americans removed Saddam from power? Evil!
Did you know that Americans are thinking of launching military actions against Syria? Evil!
Did you know that Assad's forces used chemical weapons against his own people? Prove it, there is no evidence to show it, propaganda!!!!

@enoch,

I think were we differ is the context from which we are looking at the conflict. You state a desire to see a political solution. Virtually every human on the planet would share that desire. You state a fear and desire to avoid military conflict, once again virtually all of us are agreed with you.

The trouble is I look at Syria, and the political solution was approached the most honestly, and productively while the opposition was mounting peaceful protests across the country. That effort towards a political resolution was ended alas by Assad's soldiers with military action. Pretty much exactly like his Father had before him. This time though it didn't end with a quick massacre pacifying the opposition but instead has escalated and progressed into the ongoing civil war.

From that context, I hear your call for a political resolution, and I feel it is at best wishful thinking and at worst cynical front to prevent any foreign protection of Assad's citizens from his armed forces. I hear your fears of military actions and the consequences they bring, but I see an existing and ongoing civil war already, and one which has in all probability seen the deployment of chemical weapons on civilian targets.

I can understand the fear of making things worse by getting involved, but just how many war crimes are you comfortable watching occur with NO reaction by the global community but talk? If we want to consider the expected actions of any world leader, from Obama through Putin through Assad, we can rest assured they will act in their own and/or their nations self interests. In Obama's case, he has an empowered public that can make his life difficult if he ignores them. That is not the position Assad is in. If Assad believes that chemical weapons will help him gain the edge in his conflict it is guaranteed he will use them. I deem it highly probable this recent attack was a test of what the world is willing to do in response, and if he doesn't think anyone will step up I fully expect him to continue.

@bcglorf
thanks for the thoughtful response my friend.

since i wrote my comment i have come across a few more pieces of information that implicate assads regime but not assad himself.it has become apparent that chemical weapons were used but still no conclusive evidence WHO authorized the use.

so right now,in regards to who is to blame for the usage of chemical weapons is still conjecture.

my friend,syria is an awful situation.
two millions people displaced and flooding into neighboring countries.innocent people are dying.the political situation is a hornets nest of privileged power,theocracy and religious dissidents.

but you skipped over (much like the obama administration is doing currently) my questions regarding diplomacy.
why are we not searching with vigor a multi-lateral diplomatic solution?
what would a limited strike on damascus actually produce besides continued violence in which the innocent will pay in blood and only succeed in prolonging a violent civil war?
already the civil war had been prolonged due to outside interference (many countries bear that shame,including the US).

now let us consider if we DO go in to "punish" assad.which i think is likely.
what are the possible consequences?
could it be possible that russia,china and iran react?
what then?

do you see where i am going with this?
a diplomatic resolution may take more time.it may take some..you know..talking and patience,but the final outcome will benefit those innocents both you and i (and pretty much the world) AND the political stability in that region and all outlying players.

while a military resolution will create more casualties and deaths,many of them innocent civilians,and may possibly create a conflaguration of a world powers conflict.where the innocent body bags will begin to be counted in the millions.

am i being overly-dramatic?
possibly.
my point is the diplomatic resolution keeps innocent death counts low while a military resolution will only raise the death count and create more refugees.

so maybe i was not clear in my commentary because i guess i appeared that i didnt want the united states to do anything.
this is untrue.
i was just pointing to the utter hypocrisy of the political rhetoric.
and whatever moral credit america once possessed,it was spent many years ago.

so the best route to take BEFORE there is even talks of military action is diplomacy.even our staunches allies have refused to engage militarily,and yet what are we seeing?obama traveling the political circles to promote the march to further violence.

syria is no threat to the united states.
the humanitarian argument to fight violence with violence is a canard,its bullshit.
this has nothing to do with saving lives nor preventing further violence.

the international community needs to band together and put pressure to cease and desist.this is the moral path to take.
this is the path that will garner results quickly with far less bloodshed.


i fear this is not what is going to happen.
right now as i wrote this the obama administration is putting political pressure on all fronts.
i fear this is going to end badly.
i fear that this may domino and drag opposing nations to a conflict where the death toll will be catastrophic.

i hope i am wrong.

thanks for responding bc.i know we disagree politically on some issues and its always a pleasure discussing issues with you so i can see things from a different vantage point.

I like how the red line that was drawn by "the world" was the use of chemical weapons. Has the US forgotten about its use of Agent Orange in Vietnam?

If your country's record of war atrocities isn't squeaky clean, then I say noninterventionism.

@enoch,

If Israel is the only place you've seen evidence from then you are reading the wrong news sources. Al Jazeera's coverage and first whiff of the chemical weapon story originally came from reports by field medics in Syria observing huge numbers of dead in the area with no noticeable violent cause of death. Al Jazeera then reported on the UN inspection team set to go into the area to gather evidence of what happened, noting Assad's steadfast refusal to allow the team access to the area. When the team finally was granted much delayed access to the area they were shot at on the way by snipers within territory controlled by Assad. Now Putin is on television not to deny that chemical weapons were used, not even to deny there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they were used, but instead to make the sole denial that we lack evidence of who used the chemical weapons deployed against the civilians in a rebel stronghold. That is as much or more evidence than we had of the gassing of Iraqi Kurds or the Rwandan genocide while they were in progress. Sure, the world denied both of those as well until they were long over, but I resent that and want that willful contempt for civilian suffering to change.

As for your followup questions, I don't much care WHO goes in and punishes Assad's regime for it's crimes so long as it succeeds in discouraging him from continuing to do so. I'd support Putin sending in a limited strike against Assad's suspected chemical weapons supplies. I want to see ANYBODY step up and say using chemical weapons against civilians is sufficient crime to warrant a military response to ensure that dictators don't have more to gain than lose by doing so.

You seem to have a very perverted way of looking at things. You are so interested in America's past crimes of both action and inaction that you don't seem to actually give any though or consideration to what you'd actually WANT to see done. America supported Saddam while he waged a war with Iran that killed millions and saw extensive use of chemical weapons. America entirely ignored the genocide in Rwanda. You seem to share a contempt for those things with me. I at least assume so by you referencing the general idea behind them as a list of reasons America is no white knight or respectable global police force. If you agree those actions where horrifically wrong though, doesn't it follow that if you could turn back time, you'd be willing to advocate for American action in Rwanda? That you'd advocate for at the least American sanction on Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, if not outright military action to stop his excessive deployment of chemical weapons?

You can't have it both ways, if you decry American action and inaction in the past, that must amount to a call for taking a different and better course.

@bcglorf
there are a few things i dont understand about your position.i hope you can clear them up for me.

1.you state that there is conclusive evidence that it was the assad regime that executed the use of chemical weapons and that only russia and the syrian government are stating otherwise.
could you supply this evidence for us?
because as far as i can tell the only entity providing evidence is isreal and i have to admit being skeptical of their claims.they have been wrong before and often.

2.now lets address the hypothetical that it IS assads regime that is responsible for the chemical attacks.
how does this give the united states the right to unilaterally use military force?
where is the diplomatic option?
why are we not even attempting to bring the players on the ground in syria to the negotiating table?
sanctions?embargoes?
why are we jumping right over steps 3 and 4 and diving into bombings?
how is killing innocent civilians considered "humanitarian"?

3.if the reasoning that we are being given is that a syrian intervention is based on "humanitarian" grounds and that the assad regime has perpetrated "crimes against humanity" (which is possible).where is the united states deriving this moral authority?
when we consider that the united states itself used:phosphorous and depleted uranium in iraq,which IS indeed considered a war crime.
in fact the united states has pretty much broken international law in every conflict since 1950 in regards to war crimes.
so where is our supposed moral authority?

4.if we dismiss the questionable intelligence in regards to chemical weapons in syria AND we ignore the utter hypocrisy in using banned weaponry and we focus on JUST the crimes against humanity defense for intervention.that somehow the united states is doing all this for "humanitarian" reasons.
then we must ask the question:
"if the united states is such a beacon of moral purity and is the defender of the weak and helpless that it will strike at any sovereign nation that dares to kill its own citizens.why is it that the united states turned a blind eye in other countries that perpetrated almost mass genocide against its own people"?

what makes syria more special than the millions of human beings who were allowed to be murdered and slaughtered by its own government while the united states sat back and did nothing,and many times supplied the very weaponry USED to murder those people?

the hypocrisy is staggering.

the implication is that the united states is NOT interested in a stable syria but exactly the opposite.
maybe this thought is troubling for americans but i submit that if that is the case then they have not been paying attention.

*edit-as for your "iraq is the way it is due to saddam hussein" assertion.
really?reeeaaaally?
you do realize the united states armed saddam.we didnt pull the trigger when he went after the iranians and the kurds but we supplied the gun.
you do realize that we never left iraq after the first gulf war.
are you aware that even as reprehensible and venal saddam was,iraq had running water,hospitals,schools.even with the continued bombings and sanctions iraq had a functioning government?

are we to believe ,by your assertion,that iraq is in the state it is right now due to saddam hussein and america bears ZERO responsibility?
we have occupied iraq for TEN YEARS.saddam was executed 7 yrs ago.
the united states has failed on an epic scale in regards to iraq.

remember that whole "we will be greeted as liberators"
"the oil we confiscate will pay for the war"
maybe i am reading your commentary wrong but i cant wrap my head around your assertion.
it just does not hold up under the simplest of scrutiny.

Assad wrote them? He works for the Guardian? For RT? For several independent news magazines? Thats news to me! Alright! Youre right! Yep.

It doesnt matter what Assad did, and what he didnt. You dont know anything about it. You marking him as the one who used chemical weapons, without any proof, is gambling at best and only shows you are following an agenda.

No, we should use political matters. We shouldnt have interfered in the first place, because THAT IS WHAT MADE IT WORSE!!!!!!!!!!
Assad has often offered many things to the rebels - they were never accepted, because they knew they had a powerful ally from the beginning.
Assad != his father. Youre assuming too much. And right now I notice that there is no point in continuing talking to you, if all you do is spewing typical propaganda without proof.

You do recall that those "reports" calling this a CIA induced uprising were written by Assad? Are you aware that the ONLY ones claiming uncertainty who was behind the attack are Assad and the Russians? Assad being the one who actively blocked the UN from investigating the site he claimed would prove his innocence?

You are advocating we do nothing as a dictator uses chemical weapons against his own people. How is it humanly possible to have any more certainty than we already do about what is happening within a war zone? This isn't the first time Assad's family annihilated a people. His father put down a rebellion in his time by taking an entire city and simply turning it into a parking lot and mass grave of the residents. Assad has been deliberately targeting civilians and unarmed protesters from the very beginning. This latest attack isn't some lonely isolated charge, it's the icing on a very horrific cake of war crimes.

None of that is to say anything positive about the rebel forces, disparate and varied as they are. Yes, they include people I would declare our allies in the region who from the start were protesting and advocating for a Syria free of dictatorship and the Assad crime family. Unfortunately, the rebels most effective/powerful fighting forces largely seem to be jihadi fighters back by Saudi money, or even worse, Al Qaida and like minded foreigners coming over from Iraq to take on a hated Shia led military in Assads forces. Al Qaida sees a chance to win hearts and minds among Syria rebels, and we play right into that by doing nothing.

More over, with all that Assad is doing, you need to stop and think before apologizing for him. You need to at least admit that when advocating that we do nothing you are up front and honest with the horrific crimes you are demanding we ignore.

I'm with @blankfist on this one, just like I explained in this discussion.

Edit:

By the way, in this particular case I'm quite surprised by the clear line that the German government seems to be following. No military action without a clear UN mandate, and preferrably no military action at all. Instead, they urge the Russians and the Chinese to help them drag Assad in front of the ICC in Den Haag.

Follow the proper channels, otherwise you'll just breed contempt for the law. Or I should say more contempt for the law than you already breed by selectively enforcing it in the first place (WP in Gaza, WP in Fallujah, mustard/nerve gas vs Iran, DU rounds all over the world).

So I'm voting diplomatic solutions, even though embargos are NOT an option for me.

Edit #2: Well, seems like Germany has folded already. Didn't take long...

I actually do support a limited engagement in Syria, supporting neither side but removing (explosively) the chemical weapon stores as well as their delivery systems.

Tactically, the only way to "safely" destroy chem weapon stockpiles is to bunker bust the facilities and follow it up with a massive incendiary strike.

The reason for doing this is complicated but not without purpose. A decisive strike will keep other authoritarian regimes with chem weapons from getting a green light on using them. In my opinion, if we do nothing, or not enough, the next gas attack on citizens will involve 10's of thousands of people and the horror will be palpable.

if someone uses chemical weapons in an urban environment that is certainly something to bitch about. The same way people should bitch about a number of other conflicts worldwide. It is called bringing attention to something that is obviously fucked up.

Ideally politicians should both sound smart and not talk bullshit. The fact that it is Ron Paul, someone videosift (me included) has a thing for deserves taking his response seriously and analyzing it critically.
That is also called debate and not just bitching.

i like ron paul.
we dated for a bit because we had so much in common in regards to civil liberties and a non-intervention foreign policy.
i had to dump him due to his free-market corporation obsession.
it had just turned creepy...
he still calls on my birthday though,very sweet.

the american people are against any military action.up to 80% of the population kind of against,but what have we learned over the past 10 yrs?
the american government ignores the population and relies on bobbleheads like blitzer and this other cunt to promote the propaganda.

"so let me just say,that after being briefed the gas attacks took place"
ok..im listening,please continue.
"and that the assad administration is responsible"
the assad situation is responsible?
really? are you sure? because as far as i can tell there is not one shred of evidence.
well,thats not quite true.isreali intelligence says the assad regime is responsible.
and if the isreali intelligence says its assad then it MUST be true right? they wouldnt,,you know..lie.

whoa whoa whoa mr quigley.
am i correct in assuming that your entire argument is basically "trust us"?

you sir,are a whore who would sell his integrity to the highest bidder.you have lost any right to speak on this situation or for any of your constituents to show you any form of respect.
i revoke your right to participate in human affairs and i bid you good day.

i said good day!

and look at our little slut blitzer trying to snipe from the bleachers.
oh blitz...
you sold your soul a looong time ago.
nobody listens to you anymore.
they are just transfixed by the beard.

to imply that military force is a righteous and just course of action due to 100,000 people dying ignores the fact that america has used chemical weapons.

so when THEY use chemical weapons it is a crime against humanity but when WE use them it is justified?
nice logic captain propaganda.

and if we are to take your argument to have any validity.then i am forced to ask this question:
"if the united states has the right to invade another country for crimes against humanity.that the invasion is for humanitarian reasons (as if bombing and killing is humanitarian),then explain to me why so many countries were NEVER invaded by the united states,even when THEIR crimes against humanity were far more egregious?"
see:rwanda
see:east timor
the list is NOT short.

cant answer?
then i submit that your argument is no argument at all.
because if you were a true journalist you would have asked "where is the diplomatic solution?"
"why are we we going in to drop a limited sorte of bombs?"
"in what reality could that produce positive results for the region?"
"where is the international political pressure to bring these factions to the negotiation table?"
"where is the evidence that assad's regime is responsible?"
"why is the obama administration ignoring the military commanders advice of non-intervention?"

i could do this all day.

there is a bright spot in this otherwise dreary and dystopian picture.
the american people are not as politically gullible as they were 10 yrs ago.
we SEE whats going on.
the world SEES whats going on.

welcome citizen to the united states of empire.
please have a seat.
be quiet and obey.
your government is in control.