Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(29,137 posts)
Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:06 PM Sep 2013

I admit to being "on the fence" about the proposed strike on Syria -- until I read this [View all]

in Common Dreams.

The statistic that really got my attention was this:

Out of the 100,000 already killed in Syria by conventional weapons, a hefty 43% were ASSAD's people.

For some reason, I'd had the idea that the deaths there were something of a genocide

being perpetrated by Assad. This convinced me that the conflict truly IS a Civil War.

The use of chemical weapons is, of course, heinous, but to my understanding, we're not even sure if those weren't dispersed

by one of the very numerous factions of the rebel groups.

Aside from humanitarian relief, I think we need to stay the hell out of this.


25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Its a blood letting and those participating with the rebels... Historic NY Sep 2013 #1
Yes, I'm hearing that too. n/t whathehell Sep 2013 #5
Under normal circumstances I'd say the idea that the Rebels Nevernose Sep 2013 #2
+1 snagglepuss Sep 2013 #4
I agree. liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #6
Yep.. whathehell Sep 2013 #11
I think it's safe to say we have no idea who used the chemical weapons. reformist2 Sep 2013 #3
Then please describe to me how rebels could have carried out such an attack. Barack_America Sep 2013 #8
No. Our leaders need to show it was Assad. The world is unconvinced. reformist2 Sep 2013 #10
Saudis MNBrewer Sep 2013 #18
+1 to every post on this thread. We have no business taking sides in a civil war. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2013 #7
agreed ... x1000 nt littlewolf Sep 2013 #16
And we all know that bombs are so much more humane than chemical weapons. GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #9
Humanitarian relief, for sure. tavalon Sep 2013 #12
I also have felt "uncertain" but have come to much the same conclusion as you have... jimlup Sep 2013 #13
Do you think Kerry is being honest, though? MNBrewer Sep 2013 #19
Yes mostly his dishonesty is... jimlup Sep 2013 #23
concealing the truth. Lying. Being "least untruthful".... MNBrewer Sep 2013 #24
Right...I don't know that Kerry is lying either whathehell Sep 2013 #25
TBH, I read that myself, and.....While I remain skeptical....my position has not changed. eom AverageJoe90 Sep 2013 #14
Actually, it's a genocide on both sides. There are no good guys in this. Cleita Sep 2013 #15
NO GOOD GUYS !!!! agree littlewolf Sep 2013 #17
Since we are part of the problem, we are going to have to be part of fixing it. Cleita Sep 2013 #20
It's not a "genocide" on both sides MNBrewer Sep 2013 #21
There is also the UN, and The Hague as well ... 99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I admit to being "on...