• 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!

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

If Syria uses WMD's on it's own people

  • the USofA should get involved militarily. Immediately.

    Votes: 6 15.0%

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

    Votes: 13 32.5%

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

    Votes: 2 5.0%

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

    Votes: 8 20.0%

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

    Votes: 6 15.0%

  • other - please explain

    Votes: 5 12.5%
  • Total voters
    40
jamesrage said:
It is not the US's problem. If the UN wants to deal with then let the UN deal with it. Right now we are too broke and in serious debt to be playing world police.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% ... unless it's an immediate threat to the U.S.
 
Ill say what ive said time and time again. Yes this sucks. This however is a civil war with a very divided population in the country. We should stay out of civil wars. Syria for Syrians! Let the Syrians decide their future.
 
I think if you draw a line in the sand such as that, you pretty much have to be willing to do so. Albeit, it should be done with multilateralist approach as Obama has done in the past. Also, responding to a WMD attack would be the decent thing to do, and will score the U.S. some points. It will have to walk a tight-rope though. You don't want the United States to become too involved. You wouldn't want the public at home to think about another lengthy conflict, and you wouldn't want Syrians to consider leadership from the United States being a reality on the ground. You want them to determine their own course as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Ill say what ive said time and time again. Yes this sucks. This however is a civil war with a very divided population in the country. We should stay out of civil wars. Syria for Syrians! Let the Syrians decide their future.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised at this opinion, I would think you would have more internationalist and egalitarian sympathies than this--its what I usually find positive about my socialist friends. More to the point the Syrian opposition has repeatedly made clear that absent the use of weapons of mass destruction it believes it is capable of overthrowing Assad on their own, and that all they need are arms and proper support. Unfortunately we have been very slow in meeting those demands, which has allowed Islamists groups to fill the power vacuum, as well as allowing more conservative and reactionary militias to be propped up by some of our regional allies.

My current position is that we should be funding, coordinating with, and arming Syrian rebel groups under the aegis of Riad al-Asad and pushing them towards a final victory over the Baath party in Damascus. If however they began gassing Syrian cities I believe it would be imperative to launch interdiction strikes as a measure not only of preemptive security, but as a moral and strategic measure to prevent the Syrian people from being crushed underfoot and in facilitating the departure of the Baathist government.

No one is calling for an invasion and the fate of the US fiscal outlook hardly rests on whether or not we commit to targeted strikes in Syria, not anymore than it did in Libya.
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm surprised at this opinion, I would think you would have more internationalist and egalitarian sympathies than this--its what I usually find positive about my socialist friends.
Click to expand...
I have sympathies for them no doubt, but i however do not think its our job as country to get involved in any nations civil wars. I hold a very anti-interventionism foreign policy world view.

More to the point the Syrian opposition has repeatedly made clear that absent the use of weapons of mass destruction it believes it is capable of overthrowing Assad on their own, and that all they need are arms and proper support.
Click to expand...
Yes they do need support that is true. But also a big point into this is that much of the Syrian opposition may have Al-Qaeda ties or Islamic extremism ties. Also the opposition tactics are not so much different from the governments when it comes to brutality. But also this is part of any problem when it comes to civil war, with any opposition group this however does not mean they need to go to state actors to support them.
 
DVSentinel said:
The US should stay out of it, completely.
Click to expand...
You know we can't stay out of it...

We are AMERICA.... **** YEAH!!!

World Police Gonna Come for YOU now....
 
It depends on who has control of the WMDs.
 
jamesrage said:
It is not the US's problem. If the UN wants to deal with then let the UN deal with it. Right now we are too broke and in serious debt to be playing world police.
Click to expand...

We are 60% to 75% of the UN's funding. When you think of the UN, think American's money while other county's take the credit and often while not representing our values. Its the only game out there in terms of international cooperation so we try to work through it as best possible but it also has its scam properties. Where else can you take American taxpayer money, take some two bit tyranny with a serious human rights record, give their dictator's minion the title of "UN Ambassador" and place him over global human rights advocacy?
 
Penderyn said:
The rich in the USA want to control the Middle East at whatever cost in human life. Their puppets are spending large sums on destroying the Syrian government in favour of a Sunni dictatorship. What his this to do with us? Heil Netemyahu!
Click to expand...
Who among the rich wants to control the Middle East? I want to find out who it is so I can give him a piece of my mind!!
 
Last edited:
We should stay out of it. We should focus on America and the many problems that we have here.
 
Smeagol said:
We are 60% to 75% of the UN's funding. When you think of the UN, think American's money while other county's take the credit and often while not representing our values. Its the only game out there in terms of international cooperation so we try to work through it as best possible but it also has its scam properties. Where else can you take American taxpayer money, take some two bit tyranny with a serious human rights record, give their dictator's minion the title of "UN Ambassador" and place him over global human rights advocacy?
Click to expand...


I am all for cutting off funding to the UN.Global organizations are a threat to national independence.
 
I'm just not up for getting involved in other country's matters at this time. I've had enough for awhile. I do not believe it is our obligation or responsibility to save literally everybody. So, thanks, but no thanks.
 
It's unfortunate what is happening there; however, I do not think that in the position our country is in right now that it is the smartest thing to do. I don't like much foreign intervention anyways. Let's just stay out of it and worry about what is happening on our home front.
 
Dooble said:
Who among the rich wants to control the Middle East? I want to find out who it is so I can give him a piece of my mind!!
Click to expand...

Those who pay for AIPAC for a start. Oil interests are now divided because some feel wrecking America is easier than colonising the Middle East. There are also those who want to eliminate the Iranians to punish them for Thermopolae or just for the fun of the thing, obviously - but they are the sort who are already paying to murder children in Palestine.
 
Last edited:
The real question is: Why would Assad use WMDs which would give the West an excuse to invade his country?

EDIT:

Lutherf said:
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".
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
Click to expand...
If I were a betting person, this is where I'd put my money.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/w...ont-be-used-in-rebellion-syria-says.html?_r=0
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)



obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Invisible said:
The real question is: Why would Assad use WMDs which would give the West an excuse to invade his country?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom