• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US suspects Syria used chemical weapons [W:284]

Collateral damage is not evil; it serves good.

It is manslaughter. Why do Statists always want to sanitize reality?

Only via a reduction of the event to a rather childish perspective can someone fail to understand the greater implications.

It is never childish to care for the loss of innocent lives.

Such a position is like considering writing to be evil because it destroys the pencil.

And now innocent lives are reduced to a pencil. I guess whatever makes supporting the State easier.
 
Collateral damage is not evil; it serves good. Only via a reduction of the event to a rather childish perspective can someone fail to understand the greater implications. Such a position is like considering writing to be evil because it destroys the pencil.

If the pencil were a human being, then yes.
 
Of course Syria has chemical weapons....

You're missing the point. I'm not asking for links. I'm asking couldn't we have done the same with Iraq?
 
Who care HOW they kill people? Our pathetic president tells the world it's OK to kill as many as they want as long as it's not done with chemicals. What a tragedy Obammy is.
 
Who care HOW they kill people? Our pathetic president tells the world it's OK to kill as many as they want as long as it's not done with chemicals. What a tragedy Obammy is.

Where were you under Bush? :roll:
 
Who care HOW they kill people? Our pathetic president tells the world it's OK to kill as many as they want as long as it's not done with chemicals. What a tragedy Obammy is.

Couldn't agree more.
 
That the Assad regime is brutal is not a surprise. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the U.S. should intervene in Syria's civil war. Unless there is a compelling national interest, the U.S. should refrain from getting involved.

First, the anti-Assad elements have not offered any credible indications that they would initiate a tolerant political system, much less be able to maintain stability. Second, they have offered no credible assurances that they would embrace policies more compatible with U.S. interests (reduced cooperation with Iran, ending assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas, concluding peace with Israel, etc.).

Right now, one is witnessing a conflict in which the Sunni majority is seeking to topple the Alawite minority's hold on power. One cannot automatically draw the conclusion that a "democratic" revolution is underway. Indeed, some of the elements involved with the anti-Assad forces would argue against the idea of a democratic nature. Like most ethnic conflicts, the tactics employed by both sides are brutal, there's little inhibition about respecting the welfare of civilians, and the result is high casualties. Like most ethnic conflicts, there's also a zero-sum mentality held by both parties, neither of which is seriously interested in compromising on a peaceful path forward. Each side believes there is no mutually beneficial solution and that one can only gain at the expense of another. Each wants a total victory.

The experience in Libya and difficulties in Afghanistan and Iraq both argue for caution. Unpopular as it might be, unless there is a strong U.S. interest involved--and at present there isn't--the U.S. should refrain from getting embroiled in Syria's civil war. It should provide humanitarian aid and help Turkey deal with the refugee issue. If Syria begins to use chemical weapons against civilians as opposed to combatants, then an air strike against Syria's known chemical weapons facilities might make sense to take those weapons off the table. At this time, the limited evidence available does not reveal that the chemical weapons were deployed against civilians.

hi don ,

syria is already a national interest according to US government

the maps and the types of administration of the many countries including Turkey located in ME should change according to the great middle east project which was organized and planned to control the middle east and asia


so US government'S main interest has been to manipulate the political arena in the middle eastern countries in order to change their socio politic structure since 9 / 11

so the arabian spring is the fruit of this process
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal attacks, baiting and flaming or else. Stick to the topic or else.
 
Heya JH. :2wave: Do you think it is possible that the Rebels may have got a small quantity of chemical weapons thru their rebellion while killing and taking out Assads Troops? Considering these Chemical Weapons are stored and located in many places throughout Syria?

Is it possible that Assads officers may have used some but was not given an Order by Assad? What about those that were being overran by Al Nusra and the FSA and were fighting a stand your ground situation.....fight or die?

Anything is possible, but the burden of proof is on Asad since they're his weapons, and BHO is the one who announced a "red line."

Greetings, MMC.:2wave:
 
It's easy to be brave with other peoples lives.

I was always amused hearing people talk about how "cowardly" the enemy was for using IED's. I wonder how many of them would have went up against a 15 deep convoy of uparmored trucks carrying 50 cals, grenade launchers, and other automatic weapons -- armed with nothing but their Soviet era rifles.

No, we were "bravely" patrolling the streets with the comfort of our total air superiority. Our advantage is/was overwhelming in every way, to the point where it's silly to even try to make a comparison. So excuse me when I laugh at people who talk about how brave soldiers are for going to Iraq or Afghanistan, and how cowardly the enemy is. I see things clearly, free from the chains of bull**** propaganda. I have no vested interest either way, I'm not Muslim and I have no kind of ties to anywhere in that region. I'm just not a total brainwashed tool like some of the people who actually believe that they were "fighting for freedom."

My cowardice reference was not about the enemy. I respect fighting men (and women), even the enemy.:cool:
 
Like how we helped the Afghans in the 80s who later turned against us?

That would not have happened had we not abandoned Afghanistan. We didn't need to do much, but a little engagement would have precluded a large problem. Like now.:cool:
 
You're missing the point. I'm not asking for links. I'm asking couldn't we have done the same with Iraq?

What? Draw a "red line", then when it's crossed, wuss out and do nothing? We could have but didn't....
 
Who care HOW they kill people? Our pathetic president tells the world it's OK to kill as many as they want as long as it's not done with chemicals. What a tragedy Obammy is.

How's that any different than previous? Do we run around trying to right all the world's problems? Because we seem to have left out the continent of Africa if so. The real lesson here, what Obama is pushing and what Bush pushed and what those before him pushes is that it is OK to kill as many people as you want, so long as you do not conflict with US interest.
 
It is manslaughter. Why do Statists always want to sanitize reality?

Manslaughter is purely accidental. Collateral damage is a calculation that more are helped than harmed.
 
Last edited:
Yep, and your "concern" keeps causing us to go bankrupt and causes us to get attacked by terrorists. "Thanks" for your "concern."

It must be difficult to live in such fear. Are you really that afraid?:cool:
 
Anything is possible, but the burden of proof is on Asad since they're his weapons, and BHO is the one who announced a "red line."

Greetings, MMC.:2wave:

I would agree the Burden of Proof is on us to prove that Assad gave such an Order.....but one thing is for sure. We shouldn't trust anything the Syrian Rebels has coming out of their mouths. These guys are so Desperate they would sell one of their own family members out to get their way.
 
Just another in the long line of America is to blame posters...Nothing new there for sure....

Yeah, I can remember back to Eisenhower and JFK during the heighth of the cold war. Some were saying, "Only if we destroyed all our nuclear weapons, the USSR and us would be friends, it is the threat of us attacking the USSR that keeps us from being friends." Yeah, right, we all would be speaking Russian today if we had done that.
 
Yeah, I can remember back to Eisenhower and JFK during the heighth of the cold war. Some were saying, "Only if we destroyed all our nuclear weapons, the USSR and us would be friends, it is the threat of us attacking the USSR that keeps us from being friends." Yeah, right, we all would be speaking Russian today if we had done that.

Ithink you drastically overrate the Russians..........................
 
That's it? That's all you got? Putting words in someones mouth, and sarcastic drivel? Come on back when you want to have a rational discussion.

Putting words in your mouth?

Did you not say that you think those trucks going into Syria had Saddam's WMD?

or did I just misinterpret your point?
 
What's the chance Syrian rebels used gas on their own in order to force US involvement?
 
I would agree the Burden of Proof is on us to prove that Assad gave such an Order.....but one thing is for sure. We shouldn't trust anything the Syrian Rebels has coming out of their mouths. These guys are so Desperate they would sell one of their own family members out to get their way.

The rebels are going to win. It's Asad who's desperate.:shock:
 
What? Draw a "red line", then when it's crossed, wuss out and do nothing? We could have but didn't....

You're right. He could invade,occupy a country, spend lives and money, only to be wrong, which would be Bush like without the republican praise.

Anyway, you're not answering my question either. :coffeepap
 
Sure they did. Soviet troops were routinely indoctrinated with political propaganda just as American troops are.

Much like American troops are often told they are fighting for "freedom," Soviet troops were told that they were fighting for the worldwide communist revolution -- which they associated with freedom as well.

Soviet troops knew they weren't fighting for freedom...LOL!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom