My question, as I’ve thought about it over the last few days, should probably be, Why does everyone (the leaders who do the “realpolitik,” as you say) require a UN resolution in order to take action, rather than just taking unilateral action?

“Because it’s not our territory” doesn’t really make sense to me as an answer, because, even if the UN Security Council passed a resolution, it still wouldn’t be their territory.

(I’d love to ask those who actually make the decisions.)

Here is Cockburn on the truthers. You can decide for yourself what he thinks of them (Hint: he thinks they are idiots, as I do): http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/09/09/the-9-11-conspiracy-nuts/

Regarding the RT article, which was a minor support of my argument anyway, here are about a gajillion other articles stating the exact same thing:
https://www.google.com/search?ix=seb&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=libyan+fighters+to+syria

Anything else? All of the current arguments for the Democrats’ bloodlust have been demolished by those who are paying attention. Those of you who ask for more war have no merit in the eyes of us who are sick of war neverending. Give it up.

I moved to San Francisco because I thought there were serious antiwar people here. Now I see it’s mostly just a bunch of posers who are happy to bomb people for their own good.  Shame on you.

Alexander Cockburn demolishes the media’s lies for war with Syria:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/10/or-your-lying-eyes-truth-and-fiction-in-the-news-business/ 

The real story on Syria:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_orfcGnaseE&feature=player_embedded 

Documentation of explicit intent by the US prior to media blitz to go to war with Syria, and demolition of the exaggerated death numbers, same as in Libya.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA05Ak03.html 

Doctors without borders quit Libya over torture: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57366772/aid-group-quits-libyan-prisons-over-torture/

Proof of Libyan “freedom fighters” (mercenaries used by the US and NATO) going to sow discord in Syria:
http://rt.com/news/libya-syria-fighters-smuggled-475/

Proof that the Libyan freedom fighters are al-Qaeda linked:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Proof that the Arab countries are more scared of the US than their own crappy leaders: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/arab-countries-see-israeli-occupation-and-us-interference-as-greatest-threats-to-peace-in-middle-east-not-iran.html

If they give you another one, do get back to us and let us know.

A better argument for not taking action against Syria might be, “We’re not getting involved because we have absolutely no national interest in Syria.” Or, in the case of the United States, “We’re not getting involved because we just got out of one war and are still heavily involved in another.”

It’s not that I don’t like GyroMagician’s argument, but I don’t think it’s serious, because it’s just wordplay. Exactly like your statements, as clever as they may be.

While there is some value in international condemnation, in “calling out” Syria for its actions, ultimately what France and the UK are doing is playing with words and producing a lot of hot air.

To use a (bad) example, in 2003 the US essentially said, “We don’t care what you think, we’re going to war against Iraq.” Why won’t the UK or France do that, if they’re so damned concerned?

Assad loyalists walk around Homs plainclothed, point guns at people and say “Where are the fucking journalists at?” They then look at a map, and use a $5 cell/radio to relay coordinates to the artillery.

When journalists said that they saw “radar lock” on their phones, exactly how were they seeing this?

I think that as a foreign reporter in Syria you are likely being watched as best the security services are able. But I have to admit some skepticism towards the kind of technological sophistication being claimed. I’d bet it was either 1) indiscriminate shelling of the area, or 2) shelling of an area where informants indicated foreigners had been seen, or 3) shelling of an area  recognizable from foreign news reporting.

Of course, unsophisticated attacks are no more and no less horrible than sophisticated ones.

I really would like a serious answer to my question. Why is everybody, including France and the UK, waiting on a UN resolution before taking any military action, all the while wringing their hands? Who cares if Syria is French or British territory? Is someone going to declare war on France for declaring and enforcing a “no fly zone” over Syria? Do you think Israel’s going to ask for a UN resolution before bombing Iran?

Listen, Teapot has a point about the place of messy decisions in desperate situations. Ask the guys who defended Sarajevo during its siege–but especially those who were already active before and at the start of the siege–about the ultimate value of “messy action NOW” versus “no action until complexities on the ground are all well-understood and addressed.”

Syrians are being slaughtered because their government doesn’t care about complexities, manners, diplomacy, morals etc. etc. That doesn’t mean that two wrongs make a right. It means that whoever is going to make the Syrian government stop its campaign of murder, must be nimble/agile enough in its strategy to make effective counter-moves based on the realities of enemy action, rather than on preconceived ideas about how responses should be mustered in hypothetical situations.

“There are no military targets here. There is the Free Syrian Army. Heavily outnumbered and out-gunned.”

Not to take sides, but that makes a HUGE difference, in that she has just stated there were armed opposition forces there in the form of the Free Syrian Army. What she meant by ‘no military targets’ make no sense in that context.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/marie-colvin-war-reporter-killed-syria-guest-anderson-161524606.html

We are being encouraged to intervene, part of the grand strategy with the final target Iran. It’s not our fight, for once can we (the US) stay out and just stop killing people? If you feel really strongly about it you can catch the next flight and joint the opposition forces, but please don’t use our dollars and blood to get involved in another quagmire.

Acting on the intelligence so received is another matter entirely, and may (don’t laugh) even be the exclusive (please, I asked you not to laugh) provenance of another state department with more public oversight.

(Not to mention your understandable desire to leave aside the part that totally demolishes your argument.)

Yeah, I do get that… but at what point is enough enough?

Well, from your tone and passion, I’d guess that you believe enough is enough when you decide.

That wasn’t the question. Yeah, so Syria isn’t French or British territory. The question was, since both the French and the UK both strongly condemn Syria’s mass killing of its own civilians, what’s keeping them from taking military action? For example, doing what they did in Libya?

After the news came out of the deaths of the deaths of the two journalists, and to this day, multiple French leaders have explicitly called what’s going on in Syria a “massacre.” Leaders in the UK have also condemned Syria. Last time I checked, both the UK and France had armies and air forces. What, exactly, is preventing those two countries from unilaterally taking action?

I don’t remember the UK asking anyone’s permission before “liberating” those poor beleaguered Falkland Islanders from Argentina in 1982.

Please point to where I was callous. I clearly stated that any strikes should be targeted and tactical and any civilian casualties in Damascus would be unfortunate. I just don’t think we should keep on having a calm discussion about it instead of doing something. That’s what Assad wants and that’s what will allow his calculated genocide to continue.

I don’t give a f what the fence-sitters who don’t trust the opposition think. Their inaction and distrust leads to boosted confidence for Assad. What’s not to trust anyway? The opposition is merely asking for what are considered universal human rights and anyone who distrusts them needs to ask themselves who is being unreasonable in this situation – the man who is ordering the wholesale killing of anyone who opposes him, or the unarmed people who are being shot at, starved, denied medical care and restricted from seeking refuge in Turkey.

I oppose Assad as much as you and have been paying attention to Syria for years.  I’ve even spent time there.  But I cannot begin to tell you how wrong, and how callous you sound here.

I don’t think you quite understand the complexities of the situation on the ground, nor do you seem to understand that, between the Assad supporters (whom I have no sympathy for either) and the opposition is a lot of people who don’t trust the opposition at all, don’t want Western intervention, etc.  Those English signs you see are a minority.

I want democracy and freedom for the Syrian people, but neither I nor they want what you’re calling for.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-12/syria-death-toll-raised-to-5-000-by-un-rights-head-as-council-asked-to-act.html
Dec 12: UN says civilian death toll in Syria is more than 5000. This is before the major assault in Homs.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/syria-bombardment-civilian-areas-escalates-homs-2012-02-14
As of Feb 15 Amnesty international was estimating the number of civilians killed in Homs at 377, including 29 children.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/resources-and-graphs/
This chart is one of the sources used to create the stats in the Wikipedia article you linked. It clearly shows that during Obama’s time in office the civilian death toll as a result of drone strikes is 282. The number of children killed was 63.

Those drone figures are over 3 years, while Assad’s orders (which are to directly attack civilians) have taken a comparative number of civilians’ lives in the course of 20 days. I want to stress that I do not endorse Obama’s over-use of drones but the two issues are not comparable. Not even close.

I’m glad you’ve been watching this and following it closely. I have too. I know people in Homs, and their fate keeps me awake at night.

Removing Assad and his cronies from power would be splendid. Bumping them off would be nice too. I took issue with your rhetoric: “Bomb the Shit out of Damascus” — that would be killing lots of Syrian civilians in retaliation for the deaths of lots of Syrian civilians.

I’m at a loss to explain why you are on the one hand arguing so adamantly for the civilians (in italics, no less!) of Homs, but dismissing those of Damascus as unfortunate collateral damage.

Is it because those killed in Damascus are more likely to be Assad “supporters”? Because 99% of those so-called supporters were never given a choice in the matter (or rather, the choice given was: “Support Assad, or disappear”)

Incidentally, I can assure you “most of the world” has not been “looking at the superbowl”.