• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should the US attack Syria?

fuzzybabybunny

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
I think we should, but it has everything to do with keeping in accord with the ban on chemical weapons.

The world agreed not to use chemical weapons. Any nation that does should be punished. Assad's regime did, so we need to punish them for their use of chemical weapons.

If we don't punish, then there is no enforcement, and this agreement adopted by many nations might as well not exist.

I don't want an invasion.
I don't want any boots down on the ground.
I just want this one action, and that's it.
Syria can then continue to fight its own war by itself.

Of course, there are other ways of punishing that don't include sending cruise missiles, so I'm open to alternatives.
 
Why do we need to again be the world's policeman? 😕

Has the world determined that an attack should be made?

An attack against a sovereign country is not to be taken lightly.

What happens if another attack happens?
Rebels do an attack, how do they get punished?
 
Absolutely not. It won't help anyone, we won't gain anything, it will be another fifty billion pissed down a hole. The rest of the world is going to have to do their own killing, we need to get out of the business.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Why do we need to again be the world's policeman? 😕

Has the world determined that an attack should be made?

An attack against a sovereign country is not to be taken lightly.

What happens if another attack happens?
Rebels do an attack, how do they get punished?
Click to expand...

The flip side is this - if there are ZERO consequences, what's stopping nations from going back to using chemical weapons in the future?

Please answer the above.

I'm not asking the US to be the policeman and go on patrol around the world and fight inside all these different countries. All I'm saying is that there needs to be a punishing response to this transgression of established convention. This punishment can take all of 2 hours and that would be it.
 
Greenman said:
Absolutely not. It won't help anyone, we won't gain anything, it will be another fifty billion pissed down a hole. The rest of the world is going to have to do their own killing, we need to get out of the business.
Click to expand...

How is launching cruise missiles in a single act and then leaving Syria to deal with its own problems going to cost 50 billion?
 
This is a faailure of how the UN is set up with veto power for five nations.

I'd like the UN to decide, if the general assembly could bote on the issue.

Since that's not the case, I reluctantly lean towards the US taking action. It has all kinds of problems, but those weapons should not be allowed.

We could, though, at least set a precedent of the UN inspectors playing a key role.
 
fuzzybabybunny said:
The flip side is this - if there are ZERO consequences, what's stopping nations from going back to using chemical weapons in the future?
-snip-
Click to expand...

We aren't the world's 'Punisher' that does out planetary justice (according to our own definition).

We're not even sure who used it and for what purpose. Personally, I don't buy that killing someone (like AQ attacking your country) with gas is somehow so morally reprehensible while blowing their face off with an RPG is perfectly cool.

I also think that accepting this use automatically translates into unfettered chem weapon usage is faulty. The use of chem weapons by a sovereign state has been a very infrequent occurrence. I don't expect this incident to change that. Nor do I expect a retaliation upon Syria would prevent those few occurrences we have seen (e.g., Saddam and the Kurds). Heinous dictators do reprehensible things under duress of saving their own azzes. An attack on Syria won't change that.

When/if they're used again we are free to make our judgement and act accordingly.

And this smacks of a 'zero tolerance policy' and I don't support those.

Finally, the unintended consequences of an action here may be worse than the killing of a couple hundred people by chem weapons.

Judgement is what is called for, not blind obedience to the strict letter of the law (assuming there is actually one).

Fer
 
fuzzybabybunny said:
The UN can't and won't with Russia's veto power.
Click to expand...

So that cycles back to my first two statements.

Why should we again do the heavy lifting.
If the US will not lay out the evidence; how can any pressure be placed on Russia.

Note at this point; all we have is Obama's statement that Assad government is responsible. They have not laid out any documentation. they are operating in the same mode that Bush was criticized for; "Trust in Me"
 
Last edited:
EagleKeeper said:
So that cycles back to my first two statements.

Why should we again do the heavy lifting.
If the US will not lay out the evidence; how can any pressure be placed on Russia.

Note at this point; all we have is Obama's statement that Assad government is responsible. They have not laid out any documentation. they are operating in the same mode that Bush was criticized for; "Trust in Me"
Click to expand...

Here's the report, but no specific citations of sources.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/syria-chemical-weapons-assessment-document-96088.html

The UN Weapons Inspectors will only determine if chemical weapons were used, not who used them.

I wasn't aware that the proper investigative procedures were done to ascertain that chemical weapons were used by Assad.

I have little doubt that chemical weapons *were* used due to all the evidence from local hospitals, etc, but the question of who used them is more murky.

So I change my vote to *not* going forward with an attack until all the evidence has been gathered and there is proof that Assad did these things.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that even if there was proof, Russia would still block any actions just because Assad is their ally. And China too since they're allies with Russia.

Due to this screwed up arrangement, I don't see *anyone* doing any heavy lifting because there won't be any agreement to do any lifting, period.
 
Fern said:
We aren't the world's 'Punisher' that does out planetary justice (according to our own definition).

We're not even sure who used it and for what purpose. Personally, I don't buy that killing someone (like AQ attacking your country) with gas is somehow so morally reprehensible while blowing their face off with an RPG is perfectly cool.

I also think that accepting this use automatically translates into unfettered chem weapon usage is faulty. The use of chem weapons by a sovereign state has been a very infrequent occurrence. I don't expect this incident to change that. Nor do I expect a retaliation upon Syria would prevent those few occurrences we have seen (e.g., Saddam and the Kurds). Heinous dictators do reprehensible things under duress of saving their own azzes. An attack on Syria won't change that.

When/if they're used again we are free to make our judgement and act accordingly.

And this smacks of a 'zero tolerance policy' and I don't support those.

Finally, the unintended consequences of an action here may be worse than the killing of a couple hundred people by chem weapons.

Judgement is what is called for, not blind obedience to the strict letter of the law (assuming there is actually one).

Fer
Click to expand...

Killing someone with an RPG has FAR less collateral damage than with chemical weapons. They're not even on the same level. That is the very reason chemical weapons are outlawed and why this is more or less the only thing that countries worldwide have agreed on. Chemical weapons are simply too indiscriminate in killing EVERYTHING. Chemical weapons are basically a blanket tool of terror. If there was a weapon capable of releasing clouds of radioactivity into the air to be blown wherever it pleases, would you think that is the same as using an RPG to kill a group of soldiers in a truck?

A punishment will change that. If there is a precedent of someone being severely punished for their use of chemical weapons, you can bet that future regimes, already under duress, will think twice before using chemical weapons because then they would be *guaranteeing* the wrath of some first world outside force to slam them for doing it. But we need to put that guarantee into action.

This isn't a case of a hungry man stealing bread for his family. This is a case of outright blind killing of hundreds by some organization. You still don't think that obedience to international accords is called for?
 
The syrian govt seems rather pleased with how things are developing.

A Syrian state-run newspaper on Sunday called President Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Syria "the start of the historic American retreat."
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...strike-marks-retreat-syrian-state-media-says/

Maybe Syria's taunting and Israel's displeasure might be enough to convince congress to approve some kind of involvement. From the same site, quoting kerry:

We now have samples back from first responders in East Damascus," Kerry said. "Those samples of hair and blood have been tested and they have reported positive for signatures of Sarin. So, we are now getting a stronger case each day. The credibility of the United States is on the line here and I believe that Congress will do the right thing.
Click to expand...
 
Is there proof that it was Assad's gov't that used the chemical weapons, rather than a desperation move by the rebels to pull the US in to support them?
 
DrPizza said:
Is there proof that it was Assad's gov't that used the chemical weapons, rather than a desperation move by the rebels to pull the US in to support them?
Click to expand...

this ^^

The document says trust; we have the evidence; intelligence intercepts and satellite images.

Yet those intercepts are not being released nor the images.

The information is electronic, not HUMIT.

The document lays out a coincidental timeline based on intelligence; let the US people determine the same. Because the info is electronic - what capabilities can be exposed? we are tapping landlines? we can decipher radio communication? we can capture text messages? Or our satellites are strong enough to read lips inside buildings.
 
Iraq is sliding back into tribalism after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of American dead. Afghanistan never emerged from it. It looks like those missions of Team America World Police are ending in failure. If a populace can't change governments on its own it doesn't seem to work for us to do it for them.

It's good that Obama has given the decision to congress instead of deciding unilaterally, but I'm far from convinced that they should say yes to air strikes.
 
DrPizza said:
Is there proof that it was Assad's gov't that used the chemical weapons, rather than a desperation move by the rebels to pull the US in to support them?
Click to expand...

Bush and Rumsfeld say yes. Er, Obama and Kerry I mean.

It may be entirely as stated, but the pattern of how "truth" is being distributed is eerily familiar. A year ago I would still be skeptical, but now? Recent outright deceptions and painfully obvious lies prevents any trust based on "we know".

Imagine we attack Assad and aid the rebels to find later we were played. There isn't a hole deep enough to crawl into to hide our shame.

For my part there is no reason to believe any of this.
 
DrPizza said:
Is there proof that it was Assad's gov't that used the chemical weapons, rather than a desperation move by the rebels to pull the US in to support them?
Click to expand...

They say there is, from captures of communications.

Imagine how we'd prove guilt in the old days before all the tech. No wonder wars could be started by England forging documents to imp;licate someone.

For what it's worth I trust Obama and Kerry a hell of a lot more than Bush, Cheney, and Rice not to just fabricate and distort.

Not that that trust goes beyond a point. Consider the killing of Al-Awaki's(sp?) kid.
 
The world court should be investigating and planning charges against Assad. It's a very good and useful court the US should support.
 
It is actually silly to put the red line on chemical weapons when conventional weapons have become so much powerful over the years.

The official death toll by the use of chemical weapons is ~1500.

Total number of people killed is over 100,000.

I don't understand why the US is so eager to get into war, when no matter the side it picks.. it going to be a lose-lose situation.
 
busydude said:
It is actually silly to put the red line on chemical weapons when conventional weapons have become so much powerful over the years.

The official death toll by the use of chemical weapons is ~1500.

Total number of people killed is over 100,000.

I don't understand why the US is so eager to get into war, when no matter the side it picks.. it going to be a lose-lose situation.
Click to expand...

Comparing the number of casualties is senseless, given there has been a ban on the use of chemical weapons and other WMD.

Your argument is like saying the added concern about nuclear weapons should be lifted, because they haven't killed anyone in decades.

How many people WOULD be killed by chemical, biological and nerve gas weapons if their use was not banned? They're used for mass slaughter, not just military targets also.

It's very nice to see - in this time of tea party insanisty - that long-settled issues from minorities having the right to vote to the use of WMD are being questioned.
 
I do not keep up with politics as I should, but my wife and I were talking about this a bit (she keeps up better than I do). Maybe you guys would enlighten me a bit.

First off, why in the would are we going into a situation where we're not even sure who the enemy is? Last I heard that depended on what country you asked.

Second, why are we going into a situation that seems to have so little to do with us?

And, are we still riding on the fact that we didn't do enough to prevent the twin towers bombing?

And to answer fuzzybabybunny's question, the information I have seen shows no good reason for us to enter this situation right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top