• 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!

Assad loyalists attack US, French embassies in Syria

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is an act of war.

What say you?

Was it sanctioned by the government of Syria? They are the only ones who can legally declare war. But more importantly aren't you a little tired of war already, I think we got enough problems to deal with right now and there are certainly better ways of handling this situation than starting another conflict.
 
Was it sanctioned by the government of Syria? They are the only ones who can legally declare war. But more importantly aren't you a little tired of war already, I think we got enough problems to deal with right now and there are certainly better ways of handling this situation than starting another conflict.

The Syrian Government has a responsibility to protect foreign diplomatic installations from violence. They failed to do so, when pro-government forces attacked these embassies. That equates to complicity by the Syrian government.
 
The Syrian Government has a responsibility to protect foreign diplomatic installations from violence. They failed to do so, when pro-government forces attacked these embassies. That equates to complicity by the Syrian government.
Are you sure you want to stick with theory or attribution? Perhaps you want to specify that it only applies for Syria and for this instance.
 
Are you sure you want to stick with theory or attribution? Perhaps you want to specify that it only applies for Syria and for this instance.

Do you want to keep trying to make any sense at all?
 
So you don't like Libya, but would be willing to go into a war with Syria?
 
The Syrian Government has a responsibility to protect foreign diplomatic installations from violence. They failed to do so, when pro-government forces attacked these embassies. That equates to complicity by the Syrian government.

But if the United States does not abide by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, why should Syria?
 
No. No. No. This is not an act of "war".
It would be abasolutly idiotic that we went to war because some citizens who are pro government got in a mob and were all pissed and attacked a embassy. What they do break and cause structural damage?
 
The Syrian Government has a responsibility to protect foreign diplomatic installations from violence. They failed to do so, when pro-government forces attacked these embassies. That equates to complicity by the Syrian government.

I actually just heard there's a protest planned in front of the US embassy in Seoul this weekend, I guess we are at war with South Korea now? Anyway, no it doesn't constitute war because while I agree that the Syrian government may have willingly failed to protect our embassies from protesters, its hardly more than a sign of poor relations and Syria's willingness to increase poor relations, not a declaration of war. There is a much more proper and diplomatic solution or reaction to this incident, and again I seriously ask you "Do you want war with Syria?" Is this worth the amount of money we will spend, the American Soldiers who will be killed and wounded?

Go ask some of our Soldiers, "Hey are you willing to be seperated from your familes for a year, go fight and perhaps die in a foreign country, and perhaps create a whole other Iraq just after the real one finally calmed down, over some damaged building and broken windows?" See what your answer would be.
 
Was it sanctioned by the government of Syria?
Come on now... is that a joke question? Even if it WAS sanctioned by the Syrian government do you think Assad or his toadies would come out and ADMIT it? Laughable.
But more importantly aren't you a little tired of war already, I think we got enough problems to deal with right now and there are certainly better ways of handling this situation than starting another conflict.
Agreed, three wars still going on, one that's not even hostile <snickers>, but I guess that means it's open season on U.S. Embassies since we're "a little tired of war."
 
No, not an act of war.

If I throw a brick through the window of the Chinese embassy, has the US just committed an act of war against China?
 
No, not an act of war.

If I throw a brick through the window of the Chinese embassy, has the US just committed an act of war against China?

That would pale in comparison to what the Chinese did to several U.S. consulates in China in May 1999.
 
That would pale in comparison to what the Chinese did to several U.S. consulates in China in May 1999.

You didn't answer the question.
 
A single brick, no. Trashing the embassy/consulate -- definately violation of the Vienna Convention, but perhaps falls short of act of war; government sanctioned invasion of embassy/consulate = act of war.

What is the line between the brick and the "trashing?" How much damage can be inflicted before it's a violation of the Vienna Convention, when there's no government sanction?
 
Back
Top Bottom