View Poll Results: If Syria uses WMD's on it's own people

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • the USofA should get involved militarily. Immediately.

    7 14.89%
  • the USofA should continue to stay out of it completely.

    16 34.04%
  • it's proof the USofA should have gotten involved militarily sooner.

    2 4.26%
  • it would be the UN's problem, not ours.

    11 23.40%
  • let some other coalition of countries deal with it. The US should stay out.

    6 12.77%
  • other - please explain

    5 10.64%
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 78

Thread: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

  1. #41
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    The real question is: Why would Assad use WMDs which would give the West an excuse to invade his country?

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Why should that matter? Saddam did have chem weapons and did use them on his people but still to this day there are millions of people who figure that we just went in and overthrew the second coming of Ghandi for oil revenues.

    Obama's ME policy seems to be appeasement and deferral to the UN security council for decision making so I suspect that's the way things will go. Even if Assad does use chem weapons China and Russia will probably oppose intervention so all signs seem to point toward "do nothing".
    I wouldn't say its deferral to the UNSC, but rather, I would say that Obama goes to the UNSC to make it seem as if he as international support for his actions. On the issues of war and intervention, he is much more intelligent and much more deceptive than Bush was.
    Last edited by Mr. Invisible; 12-05-12 at 09:29 AM.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  2. #42
    Professor
    Penderyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK, Cymru mostly.
    Last Seen
    05-03-17 @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,618

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Amazing how people go on believing yesterday's imperialist propaganda. If Sadam had had those weapons the yellowbellies wouldn't have attacked him, any more than they attack North Korea. When Libya gave them up, in went the racists!

  3. #43
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Syria started out as the cultural rest and residue of the Ottoman Empire. Asad's pops ruled with an iron fist in a somewhat secular velvet glove because that is what the situation required to keep the country from falling apart. The troubles in Egypt are nothing compared to what will happen in Syria if the US backs one side over the other. We need to talk loudly and carry a Popsicle stick unless we want to get sucked into the whirlpool that cometh if and when Bashir is whacked.

  4. #44
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,584
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    I've said this in other threads on the topic, and I'll say again because I like to repeat myself.

    The Syrian people cannot win this war, no matter who emerges "victorious". If Assad stays in power, then Syria will be ruled by a very angry genocidal dictator with a stockpile of WMDs. If the "rebels" take over, then an arm of Al Qaeda will have it's very own country and a stockpile of WMDs.

    It's a lose-lose situation for the Syrian people, Syria's neighbors, and the west. Sorry for the pessimism, but obvious facts are obvious.

    As for the poll, unless Syria attacks our allies in the region the US should totally stay out of the fray, beyond joining what will certainly be near universal outrage by most of the planet.

  5. #45
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD - Yahoo! News <-- clicky



    Is this a problem the USofA should deal with? Or the UN? Or some other coalition of countries?
    The UN maybe, but unless they're using them against us, I don't see it being our problem.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  6. #46
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,397

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I've said this in other threads on the topic, and I'll say again because I like to repeat myself.

    The Syrian people cannot win this war, no matter who emerges "victorious". If Assad stays in power, then Syria will be ruled by a very angry genocidal dictator with a stockpile of WMDs. If the "rebels" take over, then an arm of Al Qaeda will have it's very own country and a stockpile of WMDs.

    It's a lose-lose situation for the Syrian people, Syria's neighbors, and the west. Sorry for the pessimism, but obvious facts are obvious.

    As for the poll, unless Syria attacks our allies in the region the US should totally stay out of the fray, beyond joining what will certainly be near universal outrage by most of the planet.
    If I were a betting person, this is where I'd put my money.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  7. #47
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    How do we know they have them? They've never used them on their own people and no evidence has been produced that they have them at all.
    Because they admitted it:

    “Any stock of W.M.D. or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, said at a news conference shown live on Syrian state television, using the initials for weapons of mass destruction. “These weapons are made to be used strictly and only in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/wo...says.html?_r=0
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #48
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Why should that matter? Saddam did have chem weapons and did use them on his people but still to this day there are millions of people who figure that we just went in and overthrew the second coming of Ghandi for oil revenues.
    Do you really think we would have given a **** if Iraq didn't have oil? If the Middle East didn't have oil at all, we wouldn't have blinked when Saddam invaded Kuwait back in the 90s. North Korea is way more of a threat to South Korea and Japan then Iraq ever was to our regional allies there. Does North Korea have substantial oil?

    Obama's ME policy seems to be appeasement
    So that's why we're killing terrorists by the dozens monthly with drones across the Middle East, destroyed the Libyan air defense in a few days, did an operation to essentially murder Obama Bin Laden while committing an act of war against Pakistan and are helping overthrow terrorists in Somalia. Got it. Appeasement.

    Maybe you haven't noticed the massive debt and deficits we have. You can partially thank Afghanistan and Iraq for that. Excuse me for thinking that the era of US unilateral decision making (and funding) are over.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #49
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Any kind of successful attack by NK would disrupt SK and Japan and have a giant impact on the world economy, including the US.

    The Iraq war was as much or more about making money for MIC contractors as it was oil. (just an opinion)



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Do you really think we would have given a **** if Iraq didn't have oil? If the Middle East didn't have oil at all, we wouldn't have blinked when Saddam invaded Kuwait back in the 90s. North Korea is way more of a threat to South Korea and Japan then Iraq ever was to our regional allies there. Does North Korea have substantial oil?



    So that's why we're killing terrorists by the dozens monthly with drones across the Middle East, destroyed the Libyan air defense in a few days, did an operation to essentially murder Obama Bin Laden while committing an act of war against Pakistan and are helping overthrow terrorists in Somalia. Got it. Appeasement.

    Maybe you haven't noticed the massive debt and deficits we have. You can partially thank Afghanistan and Iraq for that. Excuse me for thinking that the era of US unilateral decision making (and funding) are over.

  10. #50
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    The real question is: Why would Assad use WMDs which would give the West an excuse to invade his country?
    Because he's taking a calculated risk that the West won't actually do anything. Remember that Libya showed that European militaries are essentially paper tigers. Without US removal of air defense systems, the Europeans were basically helpless. Furthermore, Libya's campaign showed that European supply and resupply are incredibly shallow with European stockpiles running desperately thin early into the campaign, so faced with a defense net way more advanced then Libya and an America who frankly can't afford another round of regime change, he essentially has cover. And when faced with rebels moving into the main cities of Aleppo and Damascus, it's a risk he might just take. Make no mistake, we will likely suffer losses in the destruction of the Syrian air defense system. This isn't Serbia. Or Libya.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •