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 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 78

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

  1. #61
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    The lack of storage and production facilities rules that out. It's kind of hard to have a chemical or biological weapons program without the means to build and store them. Not to mention last I checked, we never found any soldiers that had chemical or biological weapons training. What exactly was Saddam going to do with weapons he couldn't build, store or use?
    He had a few facilities. I'm not going to claim that he had a massive industrial complex dedicated to producing chem. That would be dishonest. But I know for a fact that he had a few because I raided them with Aussie SAS. I don't know about troops with training though. I wouldn't think they would be hard to "get rid of".
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    True, but did they have residue of chemical weapons? Was the soil contaminated? Even America and Russia's programs, arguably the two countries that had the more resources to build them left huge amounts of contamination in their storage and production facilities. It's a dead giveaway that you were building and storing chemical weapons by simply sampling the soil around the facilities. Heck, we are still spending billions on clean up. I find is super hard to believe that Iraq was able to build and store such weapons in a far cleaner manner then we were able to.
    As I said above, I'm not claiming a massive program. He didn't have that. But I do know he had a few facilities. Testing confirmed their presence as well. However, the NBC teams couldn't tell what had been there. Remember our tech for this stuff wasn't at the leve it is now. We didn't have the ability to test for this stuff in that sort of environment. Whether a follow on team came after us is beyond my scope. I do know we were told to secure it and then were shooed away. It could have been nothing in all honesty.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  2. #62
    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 MarineTpartier View Post
    He had a few facilities. I'm not going to claim that he had a massive industrial complex dedicated to producing chem. That would be dishonest. But I know for a fact that he had a few because I raided them with Aussie SAS. I don't know about troops with training though. I wouldn't think they would be hard to "get rid of".
    Was it civilian or actual weapons production? That's an inherent problem with dual use. One thing I never saw anything about was accidents. Chemical weapons production is dirty stuff, and it's worse when it's small scale as safety is easier to do on a large production facility as there is more space in the facility and likely better management. Small facilities risk mixing fumes and chemicals before they're ready not to mention the mere smaller space problem. We should have plenty of people with chemical accident injuries. Even the Soviets had serious problems with their production. Their biological program killed off dozens of leading Soviet Scientists. That came out in the 90s when people wondered what happened to several previously high profile biological scientists in the Soviet union. Basically they dropped dead from accidents in Soviet biological weapons plants.

    I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that Saddam was cleaner, more efficient and safer then the US or the Soviet union.

    As I said above, I'm not claiming a massive program. He didn't have that. But I do know he had a few facilities. Testing confirmed their presence as well. However, the NBC teams couldn't tell what had been there. Remember our tech for this stuff wasn't at the leve it is now. We didn't have the ability to test for this stuff in that sort of environment. Whether a follow on team came after us is beyond my scope. I do know we were told to secure it and then were shooed away. It could have been nothing in all honesty.
    What gets me about this is, if we actually found contamination of known chemical agents in the soil around certain facilities storage or production, the GOP would have been all over this. Fox went gaga over soldiers finding 1980s mustard gas artillery rounds. Finding a chemical facility with contamination all over? That's a HUGE sign Saddam was breaking his agreement. I don't remember anything about something like this on Fox. The only real news source Fox put up was the alleged caravan of trucks headed into Syria. Vehicles moving in a large amount is a red flag, but if they're coming from a place that shows no sign of chemical or biological weapons, it's just speculation they were moving that.

    Saddam's Iraq was notoriously inefficient and corrupt. Building even a small scale weapons program cleaner then the US or Soviets? I just can't get my head around that.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #63
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

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

    As per OP:

    We've known for quite a while that the war in Syria is basically 4 factions:

    1. Syrian Government
    2. Hezbollah

    v

    3. Hodgepodge of militias organized around tribal lines
    4. Militia's organized around Islamist lines to include the International Bad Guy types

    worth noting: 3 and 4 are not exactly clearly defined or clear-cut


    As soon as it became a possibility that any CBRN assets of #1 might become the property of #'s 3 or 4; we should have had the military option on the table.

  4. #64
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Last Seen
    10-30-15 @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    922

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

    Interesting that there are many who think that America should not intervene if assad uses wmd - particularly sarin nerve gas, where 1 artilllery shell loaded with it and fired into an urban area would kill at least 20,000 people within the first minute of dispersal and many more potentially after that.

    If america is not the world's policeman, then why spend 600 billion plus a year on its military. If america only has to think of protecting itself, then surely they can close all those military bases around the world and vastly reduce their stockpiles. They sure wouldn't need 10 aircraft carriers, 70 subs, 2400 plus fighter planes, 8000 main battle tanks etc. etc.

    America must intervene if assad uses Gas. It has to show the world that using such weapons can only result in one outcome. Total destruction of the user. If America doesn't take the lead, you think Putin will allow a country on his border to use WMD? Does american want to cede its position in the middle east and asia to Russia? I think not.

    Its niaive and foolish to retreat from the world stage unless there is concensus that america should enact a 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine pertaining to Asia and Africa and Europe. In other words, tell the world that if you don't screw around in NA or SA you are free to do whatever you want.

    that'll work well.
    My Karma ran over your Dogma.

  5. #65
    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?

    I think NK is much crazier than Iran. Iran has a civilization, they make cars, they have universities et. NK has nothing except for its few top owners. IMHO the NK people would be better off dead than the existence they have now.

    Why do you think we can remove these regimes? We've tried and lost before. NK is bunkered and Iran is a pretty big place. Short of using nuclear weapons, a decision that would have zero support, neither country is easily defeated and can cause incalculable harm if they feel threatened.

    My mental capacity is just fine and I can tell you that oil is not the only or primary reason for Iraq. It certainly is no reason for Afghanistan.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Nah, North Korea ain't nuts. Neither is Iran. Who is nuts are those who have nothing to lose. Stateless actors without any means of deterrence are essentially nuts as we cannot do anything to prevent their actions short of killing them. With Iran and North Korea, the desire to stay in power is a big negotiating chip. Both nations know that we can remove their regimes if we really wanted to.



    That's one way of looking at it. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why. But I seriously gotta question the mental capacity of anyone who thinks oil is irrelevant.

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

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

    Syria could disappear off the face of the earth as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick of the U.S. being the cop and then getting dumped on by everybody else. It's somebody else's turn.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonsa View Post
    Interesting that there are many who think that America should not intervene if assad uses wmd - particularly sarin nerve gas, where 1 artilllery shell loaded with it and fired into an urban area would kill at least 20,000 people within the first minute of dispersal and many more potentially after that.

    If america is not the world's policeman, then why spend 600 billion plus a year on its military. If america only has to think of protecting itself, then surely they can close all those military bases around the world and vastly reduce their stockpiles. They sure wouldn't need 10 aircraft carriers, 70 subs, 2400 plus fighter planes, 8000 main battle tanks etc. etc.

    America must intervene if assad uses Gas. It has to show the world that using such weapons can only result in one outcome. Total destruction of the user. If America doesn't take the lead, you think Putin will allow a country on his border to use WMD? Does american want to cede its position in the middle east and asia to Russia? I think not.

    Its niaive and foolish to retreat from the world stage unless there is concensus that america should enact a 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine pertaining to Asia and Africa and Europe. In other words, tell the world that if you don't screw around in NA or SA you are free to do whatever you want.

    that'll work well.
    Hey, if Russia or France or Germany or anybody else wants to intervene, go for it. Just not us.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  8. #68
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Last Seen
    10-30-15 @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    922

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    Hey, if Russia or France or Germany or anybody else wants to intervene, go for it. Just not us.
    so you have no problem in ceding the dominant international position of America.
    My Karma ran over your Dogma.

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

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

    I don't think ceding the dominant position of america results from telling the Europeans or the Russians to fix the mess in Syria. But if it does, so be it. No more american deaths in these worthless countries.

    Maybe Canada would be willing to take the lead.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  10. #70
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Was it civilian or actual weapons production? That's an inherent problem with dual use. One thing I never saw anything about was accidents. Chemical weapons production is dirty stuff, and it's worse when it's small scale as safety is easier to do on a large production facility as there is more space in the facility and likely better management. Small facilities risk mixing fumes and chemicals before they're ready not to mention the mere smaller space problem. We should have plenty of people with chemical accident injuries. Even the Soviets had serious problems with their production. Their biological program killed off dozens of leading Soviet Scientists. That came out in the 90s when people wondered what happened to several previously high profile biological scientists in the Soviet union. Basically they dropped dead from accidents in Soviet biological weapons plants.

    I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that Saddam was cleaner, more efficient and safer then the US or the Soviet union.



    What gets me about this is, if we actually found contamination of known chemical agents in the soil around certain facilities storage or production, the GOP would have been all over this. Fox went gaga over soldiers finding 1980s mustard gas artillery rounds. Finding a chemical facility with contamination all over? That's a HUGE sign Saddam was breaking his agreement. I don't remember anything about something like this on Fox. The only real news source Fox put up was the alleged caravan of trucks headed into Syria. Vehicles moving in a large amount is a red flag, but if they're coming from a place that shows no sign of chemical or biological weapons, it's just speculation they were moving that.

    Saddam's Iraq was notoriously inefficient and corrupt. Building even a small scale weapons program cleaner then the US or Soviets? I just can't get my head around that.
    Look bro, as I said, I have a very limited scope on this stuff. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm just relaying what was said by the NBC guys that showed up and tested it. You're talking to the door kicker here, not a scientist lol. Also, as I said, it could have been nothing. What I do know is that a few facilities that we hit were definitely chem producing plants. I don't know if they were civilian or military. The country was in chaos when we started looking for this stuff. If I had a map of Iraq, I could show you the exact buildings I'm talking about though.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •