• 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!

UN: No clear proof of Syria chemical arms use

By whom? We should just bomb whoever? Maybe Canada! Someone used chemical weapons in Syria, so let's bomb Canada!

:lol:

While Canada will eventually be taken over, no, Israel, Britain and the US could easily locate where the various stockpiles of chemical weapons are, and then destroy them. The anti-air defenses that Syria has can be neutralized. Pretty much anything that they have (offensive/defensive) can be neutralized by our combined offensive/defensive capabilities.

Besides, once Assad is out, and the heavy military infrastructure is destroyed, the CIA or another Western intelligence agency will probably start picking off the rebels one-by-one via drone strike or airstrike. I mean, its not like the West looks at the rebels like 'good guys'. They've been co-opted by extremist elements and need to be eliminated. The War on Terrorism continues. A Clean Break continues.
 
Regarding the U.S.-Russia-sponsored peace conference for Syria, Reuters reported:

Russia and the United States agreed to seek new peace talks with both sides to end Syria's civil war, but opposition leaders were skeptical on Wednesday of an initiative they fear might let President Bashar al-Assad hang on to power...

But with Syria's factional and sectarian hatreds more entrenched than ever, it is far from clear the warring parties are ready to negotiate with each other. Most opposition figures have ruled out talks unless Assad and his inner circle are excluded from any future transitional government.


U.S., Russia seek new Syria peace talks; rebels skeptical | Reuters

Several quick thoughts:

1. The reluctance to negotiate is not surprising. In ethnic conflicts, parties typically embrace a zero-sum perspective.
2. Both Russia and the U.S. should agree to freeze any arms shipments to any factions in Syria. A lack of arms shipments would, over time, make negotiations the more attractive option as the arms supplies become depleted.
3. The EU should renew its arms embargo regarding Syria when it expires on June 1.

Also, a "National Coalition" member was critical of the U.S. pursuing its interests. It is quite ironic that the anti-Assad forces want the West to accommodate their interests through calls for no-fly zones and arms shipments, but begrudge other states from seeking their interests. The U.S., like any other country, should base its policy not on what any of the parties in the civil war desire, but on their interests.
 
2. Both Russia and the U.S. should agree to freeze any arms shipments to any factions in Syria. A lack of arms shipments would, over time, make negotiations the more attractive option as the arms supplies become depleted.
3. The EU should renew its arms embargo regarding Syria when it expires on June 1..

But unless you can get an embargo from Iran, the rebels will be outgunned. We can't even get the Iraqis to agree to stop overflights from Iran. And the Saudis have no incentive to see the Assad Regime retain power, so them and the various Gulf States will keep sending weapons.

At this point as proven by the Israelis, the Syrian Defense Net isn't as strong as we once thought. A few surgical B-2 strikes could severely weaken the Assad Regime.
 
:lol:

While Canada will eventually be taken over, no, Israel, Britain and the US could easily locate where the various stockpiles of chemical weapons are, and then destroy them. The anti-air defenses that Syria has can be neutralized. Pretty much anything that they have (offensive/defensive) can be neutralized by our combined offensive/defensive capabilities.

Besides, once Assad is out, and the heavy military infrastructure is destroyed, the CIA or another Western intelligence agency will probably start picking off the rebels one-by-one via drone strike or airstrike. I mean, its not like the West looks at the rebels like 'good guys'. They've been co-opted by extremist elements and need to be eliminated. The War on Terrorism continues. A Clean Break continues.

I vote for just minding our own ****ing business for the first time since... hrm.

Something America doesn't seem to have learned in the last 50 years of foreign policy failures: people don't care why you're bombing their country. It makes them mad at you.
 
But unless you can get an embargo from Iran, the rebels will be outgunned. We can't even get the Iraqis to agree to stop overflights from Iran. And the Saudis have no incentive to see the Assad Regime retain power, so them and the various Gulf States will keep sending weapons.

At this point as proven by the Israelis, the Syrian Defense Net isn't as strong as we once thought. A few surgical B-2 strikes could severely weaken the Assad Regime.

Several points:

1. I agree that an arms embargo should include all outside states. To garner Iran's cooperation, Iran almost certainly will need to have a seat at the proverbial table in the international conference.

2. Currently the parties to the conflict are in a situation that approaches stalemate, though I think the government's hold is slowly eroding, so it isn't quite a stalemate. With neither party really having a qualitative edge and neither party expecting imminent victory, a carefully-designed diplomatic framework that includes an arms embargo, might have the potential to shift the calculus to diplomacy and away from force. If so, civilians who have suffered enormously as the parties have fought ever more viciously with little regard for civilians, could finally gain a measure of respite.

3. To have any chance at reaching a legitimate path forward, all the parties to the conflict will need to have a role at the conference. Although I personally believe the Assad regime has lost legitimacy, it still commands allegiance of the minority Alawite and minority Shia populations, hence it cannot be excluded without the risk that a post-Assad transition would unravel in a fresh insurgency.

4. Aside from an agreed political path forward, which might require general forgiveness/reconciliation for the parties to the conflict, an important element of a viable transition would include robust protections for Syria's various ethnic and religious groups.

Right now, I still believe the international conference has a low probability of near-term success. The intense zero-sum perspective that pervades ethnic conflicts presents a formidable barrier. Already, the anti-Assad elements are insisting that the current regime have no place at the talks. Yet, even as the probability of near-term success is low, a path that has the chance to reduce the harm to civilians currently being inflicted by the conflict, is worth attempting.
 
All the while the people that suffer the most as usual on a 21st century battlefield are the innocents.

Innocents suffer a lot less than past centuries.
 
So just like Iraq?

No, everyone knows Saddam used chemical weapons to commit genocide against the Kurds, killing towns of 10k... women and children dead in the streets.
 
No, everyone knows Saddam used chemical weapons to commit genocide against the Kurds, killing towns of 10k... women and children dead in the streets.

I am talking about the build up of Iraq 2003.
 
I am talking about the build up of Iraq 2003.

You were talking about the use of chemical weapons.

If you are referring to intelligence agencies, then your statement is even more ignorant than I imagined. Intel from all over the world believed Saddam had weapons and a program. Why? Because, as everyone now knows, he was actively attempting to fake such a stock and program in order to fend off the Iranians.

Do you actually know anything about this? Or do you just make stuff up as you go and hope that no one will expose you.
 
Last edited:
You were talking about the use of chemical weapons.

If you are referring to intelligence agencies, then your statement is even more ignorant than I imagined. Intel from all over the world believed Saddam had weapons and a program. Why? Because, as everyone now knows, he was actively attempting to fake such a stock and program in order to fend of the Iranians.

Do you actually know anything about this?

I was not talking about the US of Chemical Weapons. I was talking about the intel that was claiming such usage or havage. Go back to here to see what I was talking about and don't try and put words in my mouth.

Actually Intel all over the world didn't believe it. US's intel came from a guy named Curveball.

It doesn't matter what Saddam said or did. The lack of intel led the US into Iraq. So to claim we suspect Syria did this or did that.. isn't clear cut proof. We suspected Iraq (Saddam) had chemical weapons and were still building them. We had no proof he did or didn't, It was all circumstantial. To argue usage of force of that is damn right idiocy.
 
I was not talking about the US of Chemical Weapons.

That's what makes your statement even more pathetic than I first thought. You don't seem to be able to grasp a very simple idea:

When one is a twice genocidal dictator (killing 200k and 50k), firing on no-fly zones meant to stop further genocide, violating 17 chapter 7 unscrs, starved 400k children by selling baby food and institutionalizing rape...

Then faking a WMD program just might cause someone to do something.
 
I'm sure that's comforting to the parents of dead children.

I'm just correcting a grossly false implication. When a post is disconnected from reality, I like to comment on that.
 
It is a good thing we don't have dimwitted cowboy in charge here in the US or else we would have glassed the place based on whatever evidence he wanted to use to justify his war. I swear that boys dogs were talking to him and telling him some crazy things. We must stop the muslims from killing all the muslim targets in the country. Seriously, how are we going to go to war if all the muslims are dead already?

I'm all for them killing each other, but Obama shouldn't make comments that he knows he isn't going to back up with action, because it makes him look like a *****. The Kim Jun Un's of the world are watching.
 
Several points:

1. I agree that an arms embargo should include all outside states. To garner Iran's cooperation, Iran almost certainly will need to have a seat at the proverbial table in the international conference.

Realistically, I don't see that happening. Even getting the Saudis to stay out will be hard. And Qatar will find a way.

2. Currently the parties to the conflict are in a situation that approaches stalemate, though I think the government's hold is slowly eroding, so it isn't quite a stalemate. With neither party really having a qualitative edge and neither party expecting imminent victory, a carefully-designed diplomatic framework that includes an arms embargo, might have the potential to shift the calculus to diplomacy and away from force. If so, civilians who have suffered enormously as the parties have fought ever more viciously with little regard for civilians, could finally gain a measure of respite.

The introduction of Hezbollah to the fight I think is changing things. Where Assad would probably have gone down reliably with the next year or so, hardened fighters from Hezbollah are making their presence known. Things could change if Iran ships more weapons and Hezbollah starts pushing back against the rebels in force.

3. To have any chance at reaching a legitimate path forward, all the parties to the conflict will need to have a role at the conference. Although I personally believe the Assad regime has lost legitimacy, it still commands allegiance of the minority Alawite and minority Shia populations, hence it cannot be excluded without the risk that a post-Assad transition would unravel in a fresh insurgency.

Not to mention Christian population. Christians in Syria have owned their security and stability to Assad and his father for decades. Crying shame that Syria went to Iran. Many of Assad's secular traits would have made him a friend of the US. Still, having Assad at the table is going to make things extremely difficult, if not possible. What a mess.

4. Aside from an agreed political path forward, which might require general forgiveness/reconciliation for the parties to the conflict, an important element of a viable transition would include robust protections for Syria's various ethnic and religious groups.

This works more in East Asian Muslim nations. When did amnesty work in a Middle Eastern nation? Even Kuwait had issues and they're pretty tolerant. I just don't see this happening. I agree it would help, but 500 years of that particular brands of Islam doesn't bode well. This ain't Indonesia.

I'm only gravitating towards the surgical strikes because Israel proved the air defense net is far weaker than expected.
 
Back
Top Bottom