Tomahawk Missiles launched at Syria

[Pawz4me]

Even if planes and equipment were moved, the runways themselves would be damaged and would reduce their capacity for war.

 

At the most it would probably be a minor inconvenience. Looks like they have plenty of other air bases.

[Pam in CT]

Nikki Haley, whom I admire, made a powerful speech to the UN on Wednesday.  She held up pictures of the babies and said:

 

Yesterday morning, we awoke to pictures, to children foaming at the mouth, suffering convulsions, being carried in the arms of desperate parents. We saw rows of lifeless bodies. Some still in diapers. Some with the visible scars of a chemical weapons attack.

 

Look at those pictures. We cannot close our eyes to those pictures. We cannot close our minds of the responsibility to act. We don’t yet know everything about yesterday’s attack. But there are many things we do know.

 

I agree with her.

 

 

And part of the responsibility to act of which she correctly speaks, is to not-close-our-eyes to the big picture as well as the pictures of the babies.  Because what happened to the babies didn't happen out of nowhere; it happened in the context of a civil war that has been raging for six full years with no end in sight.  What happened to the babies has happened to other Syrian babies in years past.  What happened to the babies is precisely what Syrian refugees have been fleeing.

 

I agree with Haley that we cannot close our eyes to the pictures.  The pictures include the largest global refugee crisis since World War II, more than 65 million people displaced from their homes (11+ million from the Syrian conflict); of which more than 21 million living under UNHCR supports (5+ million from Syria).  People growing more desperate by the month... yet languishing for years.

 

I agree with Haley and many pp that we have a responsibility to act.  Also with the current POTUS, the prior POTUS, the current Secretary of State, the prior Secretary of State, pp and many members of today's Congress that how to act is neither self-evident nor simple.  "Fixing it" won't be short, or easy, or achievable on the cheap.

[mom2scouts]

That whole part of the world is a mess. It really depresses me when I think about how difficult it's going to be to change things. It leaves me conflicted that what's best people in the US may not be the most humanitarian choice. I don't think any of this is going to end soon or without lots more loss of life. *Sigh*

 

I read multiple news sources on a regular basis because there isn't a single one that I trust to give me the story without bias. What's propaganda? What's political and told just to make the President or Congress members or military leaders or whoever look bad?  Most of the time I'm happy I don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes.

 

 

[6packofun]

Yes, I do realize that. I am not anti-military. I am pro-human. My remark is about the awful irony of saying how horrible it is that babies and little children suffered and died as a result of this chemical attack, while babies, children, women and men are starving and drowning and dying in an attempt to flee the horrors there while "we" in the US have slammed shut the door on Syrians indefinately. (Or such is the intention.) So, do we only care about the publicized horror du jour, or do we think it is an atrocity that people are suffering and dying daily?

 

I think people care about the attacks that are CREATING refugees. And also, the refugees.  Not mutually exclusive for many, many compassionate Americans who just don't agree on policy.

 

I see the president's actions being called reactive, but when some seem to like the optics of helping refugees and getting them over the ocean to America AFTER they've already been bombed out of their homes and lost their families and then died trying to get anywhere in the area where they won't also be killed/injured/die of sickness/starvation, I see that activism and charity as somewhat reactive as well.  Waiting until refugees are *made* is probably not looked upon as very humanitarian by the very people we're talking about.

[Bluegoat]

I don't know what would be best to better things in Syria.  Nothing seems like it is positive.

 

Often, it does just seem the longer nothing is done, the worse things will be when someone acts.

 

Even taking in refugees is just a Band-Aid, really.

[Guest]

Avoid partisan politics if you'd like the discussion to stay open. Thanks.

 

SWB

[Mergath]

I think people care about the attacks that are CREATING refugees. And also, the refugees.  Not mutually exclusive for many, many compassionate Americans who just don't agree on policy.

 

I see the president's actions being called reactive, but when some seem to like the optics of helping refugees and getting them over the ocean to America AFTER they've already been bombed out of their homes and lost their families and then died trying to get anywhere in the area where they won't also be killed/injured/die of sickness/starvation, I see that activism and charity as somewhat reactive as well.  Waiting until refugees are *made* is probably not looked upon as very humanitarian by the very people we're talking about.

 

Have you read anything about the Syrian civil war? It's not nearly as simple as just taking out Assad and everything will be flowers and unicorn farts. Getting the refugees the heck out is pretty much the only thing we can do that won't leave crazy religious extremists in power or end in another Iraq.

[MercyA]

All a show except 9 civilians, including 4 children, were killed.

 

That is horrible.  :(

Edited April 7, 2017 by MercyA

[Paige]

I realize that chemical weapons are awful, scary, dangerous, and indiscriminate. What I don't understand is why we are so much angrier about killing kids with chemical weapons vs killing them with bombs or even slow starvation. Why is one tolerated and let to go on for years and the other is over the line? 

 

 

[Lanny]

I realize that chemical weapons are awful, scary, dangerous, and indiscriminate. What I don't understand is why we are so much angrier about killing kids with chemical weapons vs killing them with bombs or even slow starvation. Why is one tolerated and let to go on for years and the other is over the line? 

 

Chemical Weapons are banned by international laws and agreements.

 

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

 

http://www.cwc.gov/

[Mergath]

Chemical Weapons are banned by international laws and agreements.

 

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

 

http://www.cwc.gov/

 

Killing your own innocent people with barrel bombs is a no-no according to international law as well. The only difference is that chemical attacks look worse on the evening news. People here just shrug when the news shows a smoking pile of rubble, but dead children still have the potential to make people mad, so the government has to make a big show of doing something to try to fix the poll numbers. Even if it's not actually going to help the people being killed by said bombs.

 

[Murphy101]

What, exactly, did it intend to do?

The intent was very clear. To prevent the use of that airbase for chemical warfare. And it fulfilled that purpose. That airbase is no longer usable. Yes, they might use another airbase or Russia might do it for them. But our response was proportionate. Use an airbase to inflict chemical warfare, and we will bomb that base.

 

I might have many qualms with how Syria has been dealt with in the past and in the future, but this particuliarly action was overdue, proportionate, and strategic.

[Murphy101]

Exactly this. Where is the outrage when refugee babies are washing up on the shore, where Children of God( his words) are slaughtered by us in Mosul, where moms and kids, and orphans are outright banned from entrance here.

I have no idea how to fix it, but the stink of hypocrisy should make us all retch.

It is not hypocrisy to know that war in general sucks and there is always collateral damage.

 

Would you rather there be no line that can't be crossed?

 

We can argue about where that line should be in war, bc all war is awful, but personally I'm glad to see there is any line that we (the states) will not tolerate being crossed. I was starting to think there wasn't given how much we have been seeing in what seems disinterest from the sidelines.

[Reefgazer]

I don't understand how getting refugees out is going to prevent religious crazies from retaining power.  If anything, I would think their core group of supporters would remain and solidify their power.  Not being snarky...I really don't see this connection, though.

Have you read anything about the Syrian civil war? It's not nearly as simple as just taking out Assad and everything will be flowers and unicorn farts. Getting the refugees the heck out is pretty much the only thing we can do that won't leave crazy religious extremists in power or end in another Iraq.

 

[Mergath]

I don't understand how getting refugees out is going to prevent religious crazies from retaining power.  If anything, I would think their core group of supporters would remain and solidify their power.  Not being snarky...I really don't see this connection, though.

 

It's not. It's going to keep innocent people from continuing to be slaughtered.

 

ETA: I reread what I said and I phrased it badly. Taking out Assad will leave crazies in power; all we can do is get people out.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Mergath

[Paige]

Chemical Weapons are banned by international laws and agreements.

 

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

 

http://www.cwc.gov/

 

I know that, but saying it's because they are banned is sort of circular reason. Chemical weapons are so much worse because we've codified in international law that they are so much worse.

 

Dead is dead. I would even propose that death in 10seconds from chemical weapons is more humane than slow starvation. 

 

I'm all for ending the tragedy in Syria, and I have no solutions. I don't know what will be more helpful to the Syrian people- getting rid of Assad by intervening, or leaving him in power and preventing someone worse. I saw what happened in Iraq when Saddam, who was evil but kept ethnic violence in check, was removed. Did we help the Iraqis by removing him? I don't know.

 

I just think it is odd how the method of killing seems to make people so much angrier. It's not even that the numbers increased dramatically.

 

Perhaps it is because we, Americans and others who live in relative safety fear chemical weapons. We feel somewhat immune from bombs, starvation, and death squads, but we fear that chemical weapons could hurt us. There's no defense. Or is it the environmental impact and that it kills animals and poisons the land? 

[Carol in Cal.]

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/04/breaking-news-russian-warship-heading-u-s-navy-destroyers-launched-syrian-attack/

[Guest]

Why does there always have to be bad guys?? Don't kill people. Easy. But there are always bad guys. It is depressing.

[Murphy101]

I refuse to debate that it is somehow more humane to directly use poison to murder children than for people to suffer the secondary affect of war that is possible starvation.

 

Just no.

 

Dead is not just dead.

 

Dead of old age is not dead of rape and torture.

Dead in famine areas is not dead in gas chambers.

Dead soldier in combat is not dead civilian by genocide.

 

To suggest "dead is dead" is to imply or outright state that murderous atrocities and other war crimes done "right" somehow make them not only acceptable, but merciful acts.

 

I categorically call BS on that stance.

 

All is NOT fair game in love and war.

[Guest]

Death by a bomb is the same as death by gas. Seeing your child dismembered by shrapnel is the same as seeing them choke on their own vomit by chemicals. Seeing your child drown while escaping a horror filled home is no better than seeing them beheaded. Watching your family member starve to death is just as painful as seeing them buried in rubble. Horror is horror.

You know what she meant about dead being dead. We're not comparing death by old age to death by bombs. To hint at that is really silly.

So what's you're solution? Just to remove everyone who wants to leave and hope nothing pops up anywhere else? Ignore what going on for another six years? Snipe Assad and hope for the best? A controlled takeover and government structure managed and funded by some other country to keep the peace until the economy rebounds and the country is fully rebuilt? Something else?

 

Not being snarky, I'm genuinely asking. If ignoring it fixed nothing, and targeted bombing fixed nothing, what's the solution that stops the current crisis and prevents more refugees from being created?

[Twolittleboys]

It's not. It's going to keep innocent people from continuing to be slaughtered.

 

ETA: I reread what I said and I phrased it badly. Taking out Assad will leave crazies in power; all we can do is get people out.

I have to admit that I don't know as much about the situation in Syria as I should (really need to read up on it) and I do agree that helping refugees is a major concern. I am just not sure if "getting people out" is a valid long-term strategy. Eventually, the region needs to be stabilized, doesn't it?

 

And from a pragmatic point of view (and I really don't like it either) there is a limit to how many refugees can be absorbed by other countries. Aside of everything else, I would imagine that being a refugee isn't great even under the best of circumstances (i.e. getting a chance in a new country). Of course it is better than being bombed/killed but I do feel that it would be better if the region could be stabilized (even if it may not be perfect).

[goldberry]

Reading more about the history of chemical weapons in Syria, it appears that there have been several cases since 2012-13, but for the most part they were attributed to the opposition, Kurdish army, or ISIS. I get that it is different when the government in charge of protecting the people is the one using the chemical weapons.  But just wondering if it will really stop anything in that case.  So we bomb when the Syrian army is responsible, but these other people are doing it and ... what?  We just have no way of stopping them?  Are there any options? 

 

Just clarifying, I'm wondering why ANYONE who used chemical weapons would not be responded to at the same level.

Edited April 7, 2017 by goldberry

[Guest]

Straight dope? Obama wouldn't do anything about Syria, remember the red line? New admin, new foreign policy, new advisors.

 

There are no good options. There are some that may be slightly more effective and save more lives in the long run, like dropping the atomic bombs in WW2. But also like that decision, there are ramifications and real lives at stake even in the 'best' and 'most feasible' answers.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[goldberry]

Straight dope? Obama wouldn't do anything about Syria, remember the red line? New admin, new foreign policy, new advisors.

 

That is not accurate.  A deal was made with Russia for Syria to surrender their chemical weapons and "supposedly" that was done.  I thought he should have done more... BUT it's easy to see why that decision was made, given that there are no good roads going forward, and all choices were among bad roads.  

 

We saw what happened in Iraq when we removed Sadam Hussein. We saw what happened with the Egyptian Spring.  Directly removing or attacking al-Assad would most likely continue to destabilize the region unless we were full on committed to just making certain "the right person" ended up ruling. That's some dicey ground.

[Guest]

The deal was not enforced and despite assurances from Kerry that 100% of weapons were surrendered there was obvious contradiction to that on the ground even in the weeks following the declaration. It would be too political to get into the various specific failures in this particular foreign policy, but it's fair to say that trying a different approach is both the prerogative of this administration and a necessity, given what happened with the previous one. The current team decided swift action made the most sense.

 

What they do from here is up in the air, but there was absolutely bipartisan support for the current bombing. Here is one sampling:

https://mobile.twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/850194075961573376

[Guest]

I'd contend Iraq was stable and functional until the premature pullback of troops. That's an argument for a different forum but not everyone sees Iraq as some sort of open and shut failure by any stretch.

 

Whether a solution like that makes sense in Syria remains to be seen. Doing nothing until whoever is weakest loses the will to fight and the population is completely decimated, however, is also not tenable.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Daria]

The intent was very clear. To prevent the use of that airbase for chemical warfare. And it fulfilled that purpose. That airbase is no longer usable. Yes, they might use another airbase or Russia might do it for them. But our response was proportionate. Use an airbase to inflict chemical warfare, and we will bomb that base.

 

I might have many qualms with how Syria has been dealt with in the past and in the future, but this particuliarly action was overdue, proportionate, and strategic.

 

The reports I'm seeing say they avoided the runways, which would have been the most effective way to prevent the use of that airbase for chemical warfare.

[Guest]

It's always like that. The attention grabbing tragic headline always inspires more emotion than our every day mundane tragedies. But people who died in a chemical attack still deserve to be mourned, and people who have died fleeing Syria also deserve to be mourned. :( I hate that we as a country are so unwilling to bring people here, but the fact is, we can't relocate an entire country. No matter how many we take in (and we should take some in) there will always be more in need. Something else needs to be done to alleviate the situation over there. I'm not at all convinced this is the answer, but it does feel like we have to do something, more than humanitarian aid, something to send a message to Assad that he can't go on like this.

I'm not necessarily opposed to air strikes, because I have no idea what would help in Syria.

I am utterly horrified by the mixed signals this sends. Two months ago we were trying to ban Syrian refugees. Last week we were saying the US doesn't consider removal of Assad a priority. Assad is the very same man today as he was ten days ago, just with one more chemical attack under his belt. The people killed in the chemical attack are from the very same banned population. The region is still as complicated as ever and can't be fixed with toughness. These air strikes will have consequences, both with US foreign policy in Syria and also our relations with Russia, the rest of Europe, and the rest of the Middle East.

I see it the same as Amira says here. Honestly, it seems like some people in the government have never before seen a picture of Syrian babies dying because their families are attempting to flee exactly this horror. It's not that I think the solution is to let every fleeing Syrian just resettle in the US or another first world nation. But hell, we can take some of them! *So this is what I find infuriating. The crisis in Syria didn't just turn up yesterday, for God's sake. But some people behave as if they had no idea there were babies dying a week ago and suddenly got a conscience about it.

 

I don't have a clue what the Us or others should/can do that doesn't cause as many problems as it solves. I have struggled philosophically with this question for years and years because I believe two disparate things: 1) how do we have any right to try and force democracy on another soveriegn nation; and 2) how can we fail to act to protect people from human rights abuses, even if it is ocurring in another country? Clearly, there is no simple answer and it is exactly the reason that multiple administrations have been criticized for either acting (i.e., Iraq) or not acting (i.e. Syria). I honestly have no idea what should be done. But my heart didn't just start hurting over it yesterday and that's what seems so absurd about the missle launch. "You can't fry people with chemicals or we'll drop bombs on you and burn you to death." That seems bizarre to me.

 

*PS. i'm not yelling at you, Mimm, though I quoted you. I know you said similar things in your post.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Quill

[Wheres Toto]

If they couldn't hit the weapons/chemicals, and avoided the runways what was the goal here?

The intent was very clear. To prevent the use of that airbase for chemical warfare. And it fulfilled that purpose. That airbase is no longer usable. 

 

I'm not so sure about the bolded.  The US intentionally avoided bombing the chemical weapons, for obvious reasons.  Reports are that most of the planes flew away before the attack.  And runways can be repaired quickly.

[Guest]

My understanding was that runways were avoided so they could get aid in and people out as needed at a later date. Destroying caches of weapons and the storage facilities or manufacturing plants is helpful without crippling the ability to get people in and out.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[goldberry]

What they do from here is up in the air, but there was absolutely bipartisan support for the current bombing. Here is one sampling:

https://mobile.twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/850194075961573376

 

 

I never said there wasn't.  I'm not opposed to it myself.  This is a complex situation and from here time will tell how it plays out.

[goldberry]

I'd contend Iraq was stable and functional until the premature pullback of troops.

 

Trump supported that action.  If he felt differently after seeing the results, he probably wasn't the only one. 

 

“What you have to do is get out of Iraq.†In an interview with CNN in March 2007, Trump elaborated: â€œYou know how they get out? They get out. That’s how they get out. Declare victory and leave.†His assessment at the time was clearly that the costs of maintaining a continued U.S. presence far exceeded any possible gains. To Trump’s mind, the pathologies of Iraq’s internal divisions were largely immune from American treatment. “[T]his country is just going to get further bogged down,†Trump said. “They’re in a civil war over there. There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war.â€

Edited April 7, 2017 by goldberry

[Daria]

If they couldn't hit the weapons/chemicals, and avoided the runways what was the goal here?

 

To distract us from . . . 

 

Oh, sorry can't finish that sentence because it would be political.

[Guest]

Trump supported that action. If he felt differently after seeing the results, he probably wasn't the only one.

 

“What you have to do is get out of Iraq.†In an interview with CNN in March 2007, Trump elaborated: “You know how they get out? They get out. That’s how they get out. Declare victory and leave.†His assessment at the time was clearly that the costs of maintaining a continued U.S. presence far exceeded any possible gains. To Trump’s mind, the pathologies of Iraq’s internal divisions were largely immune from American treatment. “[T]his country is just going to get further bogged down,†Trump said. “They’re in a civil war over there. There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war.â€

So? What is your point? I think he's wrong - but things look very different from on the inside of government than the outside, as every president discovers. Edited April 7, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[MercyA]

It is not hypocrisy to know that war in general sucks and there is always collateral damage.

 

This always seems to me to be a dehumanizing phrase. I mean, I know it is a technical military term, but in my experience using terms like this is often a way of distracting people from what is actually happening. I'm not accusing you of this, just musing. Words do matter. Those lives matter.

Edited April 7, 2017 by MercyA

[goldberry]

 - but things look very different from on the inside of government than the outside, as every president discovers.

 

Indeed.  As well as looking different before and afterwards.  That is exactly the point.

[Guest]

Indeed. As well as looking different before and afterwards. That is exactly the point.

Ah, gotcha.

[goldberry]

This always seems to me to be a dehumanizing phrase. I mean, I know it is a technical military term, but in my experience using terms like this is often a way of distracting people from what is actually happening. I'm not accusing you of this, just musing. Words do matter. Those lives matter.

 

I wish I could find it, but during Obama there was an article that said many were proposing the U.S. soften its position on what was acceptable "collateral damage" and what was not.  I was so disturbed by that.  Honestly that is something I am afraid of in our current environment.  The suggestions to just "bomb the sh*t out of ISIS" were ignoring the very real reasons why we didn't already do that.

 

Some actions may be necessary, but becoming the thing you hate is a very real danger and must be guarded against.  

[Lanny]

There was an agreement signed, in 2013, that the Russians would destroy the Chemical Weapons in Syria, or, remove them from Syria.  Apparently, that did not happen. Either the Syrians deceived the Russians, or the Russians were complicit and helped Syria keep at least some of their Chemical Weapons. Or, the Russians are very stupid, which is probably not the case.  This morning, in the U.N. Security Council, Bolivia tried to get the meeting to be behind closed doors, so they could protect Russia from the public condemnation the U.S. directed at them. There is plenty of blame to go around here....   How they will put Syria back together is an interesting question. Like Iraq and Libya and some other countries in that region. The world is a very dangerous place... Syria is a small country and there are U.S. fighter aircraft flying around, in close proximity to Russian fighter aircraft. Let us hope there are no incidents or accidents involving both parties... They are not on the radio with F.A.A. Controllers as they fly around there.

[Guest]

This always seems to me to be a dehumanizing phrase. I mean, I know it is a technical military term, but in my experience using terms like this is often a way of distracting people from what is actually happening. I'm not accusing you of this, just musing. Words do matter. Those lives matter.

I agree, x 100. I think the words we choose are very significant. And yes, I think the term "collateral damage" is clearly meant to whitewash deaths. What would happen if they said, "Four babies were incinerated when a Tomahawk missile happened to explode near them while our government was 'sending a message' about human rights"? One wonders.

[Murphy101]

Death by a bomb is the same as death by gas. Seeing your child dismembered by shrapnel is the same as seeing them choke on their own vomit by chemicals. Seeing your child drown while escaping a horror filled home is no better than seeing them beheaded. Watching your family member starve to death is just as painful as seeing them buried in rubble. Horror is horror.

You know what she meant about dead being dead. We're not comparing death by old age to death by bombs. To hint at that is really silly.

I'm not so sure about the bolded. The US intentionally avoided bombing the chemical weapons, for obvious reasons. Reports are that most of the planes flew away before the attack. And runways can be repaired quickly.

 

Well *I* think the reasoning is obvious but since death is death, I guess some would think it's not only not obvious but heck, it might have been kinder and quicker way to end all this conflict. --- full on snark bc I agree with you.

 

This always seems to me to be a dehumanizing phrase. I mean, I know it is a technical military term, but in my experience using terms like this is often a way of distracting people from what is actually happening. I'm not accusing you of this, just musing. Words do matter. Those lives matter.

Oh geez. It is not dehumanizing. It's a fact that war kills. We can try to minimize that, but here will always be some that can't be avoided - that's what collateral damage means.

 

The difference here is I and I hope many others care about collateral damage being minimized bc we do not think all death is death. Assad thinks all death is death and any level of collateral damage is acceptable in his winner take all stakes.

 

Eta fat fingers on iPhone while rocking a baby to sleep. Too tired to edit.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Murphy101

[Mimm]

I see it the same as Amira says here. Honestly, it seems like some people in the government have never before seen a picture of Syrian babies dying because their families are attempting to flee exactly this horror. It's not that I think the solution is to let every fleeing Syrian just resettle in the US or another first world nation. But hell, we can take some of them! *So this is what I find infuriating. The crisis in Syria didn't just turn up yesterday, for God's sake. But some people behave as if they had no idea there were babies dying a week ago and suddenly got a conscience about it.

 

I don't have a clue what the Us or others should/can do that doesn't cause as many problems as it solves. I have struggled philosophically with this question for years and years because I believe two disparate things: 1) how do we have any right to try and force democracy on another soveriegn nation; and 2) how can we fail to act to protect people from human rights abuses, even if it is ocurring in another country? Clearly, there is no simple answer and it is exactly the reason that multiple administrations have been criticized for either acting (i.e., Iraq) or not acting (i.e. Syria). I honestly have no idea what should be done. But my heart didn't just start hurting over it yesterday and that's what seems so absurd about the missle launch. "You can't fry people with chemicals or we'll drop bombs on you and burn you to death." That seems bizarre to me.

 

*PS. i'm not yelling at you, Mimm, though I quoted you. I know you said similar things in your post.

 

I agree with you, especially the bolded. I have long felt like we need to stop being the world's police, going into other countries and telling them what to do. But turning our backs on suffering people is wrong. But it's unrealistic to simply take every lost, desperate, suffering person, in every single country, and welcome them in. We could take more, yes, but we can't take them all and there will always be many more.

[Paige]

Well *I* think the reasoning is obvious but since death is death, I guess some would think it's not only not obvious but heck, it might have been kinder and quicker way to end all this conflict. --- full on snark bc I agree with you.

 

Oh geez. It is not dehumanizing. It's a fact that war kills. We can try to minimize that, but here will always be some that can't be avoided - that's what collateral damage means.

 

The difference here is I and I hope many others care about collateral damage being minimized bc we do not think all death is death. Assad thinks all death is death and any level of collateral damage is acceptable in his winner take all stakes.

 

Eta fat fingers on iPhone while rocking a baby to sleep. Too tired to edit.

 

Of course I care about collateral damage being minimized and I don't think chemical weapons should be used. I feel you are misinterpreting my sentiments.

 

I think chemical weapons are tools of war. Bombs are tools of war. Soldiers with guns and orders to terrorize the populace are tools of war. Starvation is often a deliberate tool of war and not an unintended consequence. They are all tactics and they are all brutal and terrible. I'm not comparing death from old age, disease, and other natural causes to death from war and brutality. I'm comparing brutal unjust painful deaths, to brutal, unjust, painful deaths.

 

I care about suffering people and people in war zones. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't have bombed the factory or whatever it is we bombed. I don't have enough information to make that call. Like most people, I hope that what we have done will help and not hurt the situation.

 

My point and question, however, was more philosophical than practical. Human behavior and reactions interest me. What it is about chemical weapons that horrifies us while we are content to let Assad use the other tactics without response? I don't understand. It may be obvious and self evident to you, but it's not to me. The conditions in Aleppo were horrific. Children and innocent civilians were dying every day, but governments were content to express vague disgust and wring their hands for months, or was it years? Assad uses chemical bombs on one area and we won't tolerate it. Why the difference? I'm not advocating looking the other way, but questioning why we didn't care earlier. 

[MercyA]

Oh geez. It is not dehumanizing. It's a fact that war kills. We can try to minimize that, but here will always be some that can't be avoided - that's what collateral damage means.

 

I think we'll just have to disagree on the bolded. To me it seems little different than intentionally using the phrase "termination of pregnancy" when discussing abortion. It's a technical term, but that doesn't mean it's never used to obscure what is actually being done.

 

(Just to be clear--I think this is a valuable conversation and I don't want to derail it. If anyone wants to discuss abortion further please start a new thread or PM me.)

[unsinkable]

Of course I care about collateral damage being minimized and I don't think chemical weapons should be used. I feel you are misinterpreting my sentiments.

 

I think chemical weapons are tools of war. Bombs are tools of war. Soldiers with guns and orders to terrorize the populace are tools of war. Starvation is often a deliberate tool of war and not an unintended consequence. They are all tactics and they are all brutal and terrible. I'm not comparing death from old age, disease, and other natural causes to death from war and brutality. I'm comparing brutal unjust painful deaths, to brutal, unjust, painful deaths.

 

I care about suffering people and people in war zones. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't have bombed the factory or whatever it is we bombed. I don't have enough information to make that call. Like most people, I hope that what we have done will help and not hurt the situation.

 

My point and question, however, was more philosophical than practical. Human behavior and reactions interest me. What it is about chemical weapons that horrifies us while we are content to let Assad use the other tactics without response? I don't understand. It may be obvious and self evident to you, but it's not to me. The conditions in Aleppo were horrific. Children and innocent civilians were dying every day, but governments were content to express vague disgust and wring their hands for months, or was it years? Assad uses chemical bombs on one area and we won't tolerate it. Why the difference? I'm not advocating looking the other way, but questioning why we didn't care earlier.

We've been using our military in and/or for Syria since 2013. We've also been bringing in Syrian refugees, which stopped (supposedly temporarily) in late January.

 

This wasn't the FIRST time we intervened.

[Ausmumof3]

I refuse to debate that it is somehow more humane to directly use poison to murder children than for people to suffer the secondary affect of war that is possible starvation.

 

Just no.

 

Dead is not just dead.

 

Dead of old age is not dead of rape and torture.

Dead in famine areas is not dead in gas chambers.

Dead soldier in combat is not dead civilian by genocide.

 

To suggest "dead is dead" is to imply or outright state that murderous atrocities and other war crimes done "right" somehow make them not only acceptable, but merciful acts.

 

I categorically call BS on that stance.

 

All is NOT fair game in love and war.

I haven't read the whole thread but the other thing is I think is a bomb can be directed at destroying military infrastructure. Yes there will be human deaths as well. a chemical weapons attack has no purpose other than the destruction of human life.

[Ausmumof3]

I'd contend Iraq was stable and functional until the premature pullback of troops. That's an argument for a different forum but not everyone sees Iraq as some sort of open and shut failure by any stretch.

 

Whether a solution like that makes sense in Syria remains to be seen. Doing nothing until whoever is weakest loses the will to fight and the population is completely decimated, however, is also not tenable.

I think you are missing the key factor here which is Russia. Assad was basically a dead man walking until Russia intervened. He would have been removed if it weren't for Putin. Assad is their red line. They may tolerate his removal only if a similarly pro Russian replacement can be found. Unless US has the stomach for a head to head conflict with Russia all you can do is try to make sure Assad plays by the rules.

 

There were Russians at the base. Presumably they knew about the chemical weapons. Although they completely deny that the chemical attack was carried out by Assad and blame it on rebel groups.

[Guest]

I think you are missing the key factor here which is Russia. Assad was basically a dead man walking until Russia intervened. He would have been removed if it weren't for Putin. Assad is their red line. They may tolerate his removal only if a similarly pro Russian replacement can be found. Unless US has the stomach for a head to head conflict with Russia all you can do is try to make sure Assad plays by the rules.

 

There were Russians at the base. Presumably they knew about the chemical weapons. Although they completely deny that the chemical attack was carried out by Assad and blame it on rebel groups.

Not missing it at all. I's be in favor of deposing Putin if it was possible to do without a massive kerfuffle. Russia has suffered greatly under him and his actions in Crimea, the Middle East, and in emboldening other dictators should not go unaddressed. Unfortunately that is very tough since he tends to use indirect methods to assert power.

[Ausmumof3]

Not missing it at all. I's be in favor of deposing Putin if it was possible to do without a massive kerfuffle. Russia has suffered greatly under him and his actions in Crimea, the Middle East, and in emboldening other dictators should not go unaddressed. Unfortunately that is very tough since he tends to use indirect methods to assert power.

unquestionably he's a "bad guy" but how on earth would you go about deposing him?