• 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

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
30,867
Reaction score
19,281
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD - Yahoo! News <-- clicky

"Today I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command: The world is watching," Obama said. "The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

Is this a problem the USofA should deal with? Or the UN? Or some other coalition of countries?
 
You left out "Put Syria On Double Secret Probation".
 
So, its OK for other nations to execute their civilians using tanks, rockets, machine guns, grenades and aircraft, but if they use a "WMD" then the U.S. will come to their rescue. That makes total sense to...?
 
We should stay the hell out of it. We've got enough of our own problems to deal with.
 
So, its OK for other nations to execute their civilians using tanks, rockets, machine guns, grenades and aircraft, but if they use a "WMD" then the U.S. will come to their rescue. That makes total sense to...?

Obama recently said that he wasn't confident that Syrias stockpile was secure and i imagine Obama is more concerned that any chemical or biological weapons will fall into the hands of the wrong people if/when Assad's authority erodes. Assad has been killing his own citizens for 17 months now and he knows there will be no intervention like we saw in Lybia and he seems unconcerned with committing War Crimes. If it keeps up, soon he will have no one left to rule. We will never really know the full truth of what is happening there. The pro-democracy protestors are on their own.

My thoughts and solidarity are with the Syrian people.
 
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.
 
Obama recently said that he wasn't confident that Syrias stockpile was secure and i imagine Obama is more concerned that any chemical or biological weapons will fall into the hands of the wrong people if/when Assad's authority erodes. Assad has been killing his own citizens for 17 months now and he knows there will be no intervention like we saw in Lybia and he seems unconcerned with committing War Crimes. If it keeps up, soon he will have no one left to rule. We will never really know the full truth of what is happening there. The pro-democracy protestors are on their own.

My thoughts and solidarity are with the Syrian people.

That differs how from North Korea and Pakistan? There are a lot of nations, with serious WMDs, headed by the "wrong people", Syria is but one. It seems that the "pro-democracy" protestors in Egypt have been duped as well, Lybia is still in total chaos and the entire region is, at best, "unstable". The last thing the U.S. needs is another 10-15 year commitment to a foreign war with no objective but to find a way out if (when?) things don't "improve".
 
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.

Syria threatened Monday to unleash its chemical and biological weapons if the country faces a foreign attack, a desperate warning from a regime that has failed to crush a powerful and strengthening rebellion.
Syria's first-ever acknowledgment that the country possesses weapons of mass destruction — suggests President Bashar Assad will continue the fight to stay in power, regardless of the cost.

Syria is believed to have nerve agents as well as mustard gas, Scud missiles capable of delivering these lethal chemicals and a variety of advanced conventional arms, including anti-tank rockets and late-model portable anti-aircraft missiles.

During a televised news conference Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed that the weapons are secure and would only be used in the case of an external attack.

Syria says it will use chemical weapons if attacked
Syria says will use chemical weapons if attacked - Yahoo! News
 
So we don't know they have them. I thought not. From your first article: "all of these types of weapons — IF ANY — are in storage and under security." Even they don't know whether they have any.
You thought wrong. Read it properly without conveniently omitting part of the quote to take it out of context.

During a televised news conference Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed that the weapons are secure and would only be used in the case of an external attack. "All of these types of weapons are in storage and under security and the direct supervision of the Syrian armed forces and will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression."

and the rest of the quote you ommitted..

The Syrian government later tried to back off from the announcement, sending journalists an amendment to the prepared statement read out by Makdissi. The amendment said "all of these types of weapons — IF ANY — are in storage and under security." It was an attempt to return to Damascus' position of neither confirming nor denying the existence of non-conventional weapons.
 
You thought wrong. Read it properly without conveniently omitting part of the quote to take it out of context.



and the rest of the quote you ommitted..

Yes, the official backtracked on what he said, but I doubt whether he really knows for sure, he's likely just a mouthpiece of Assad. I've not seen a picture of any chemical weapons, just high level views of buildings. People have often said that Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. At least in Iraq there was evidence that they were used on the Kurds. I've seen nothing in either story you posted or in any other news that says that Syria has them. Just implications, innuendo and wordplay. How often in this country does a politician say something and then moments later some correction comes out. Everyone from Obama on down.

Spare me the implication that I'm being deceitful by omitting some wider piece of the article. There is still no proof and some Syrian politician misspeaking or being deliberately deceitful doesn't change that.
 
Yes, the official backtracked on what he said, but I doubt whether he really knows for sure, he's likely just a mouthpiece of Assad. I've not seen a picture of any chemical weapons, just high level views of buildings. People have often said that Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. At least in Iraq there was evidence that they were used on the Kurds. I've seen nothing in either story you posted or in any other news that says that Syria has them. Just implications, innuendo and wordplay. How often in this country does a politician say something and then moments later some correction comes out. Everyone from Obama on down.

Spare me the implication that I'm being deceitful by omitting some wider piece of the article. There is still no proof and some Syrian politician misspeaking or being deliberately deceitful doesn't change that.

To try and keep this thread on-topic (I know I'm guilty of off-topic stuff in some threads as well), the context of this thread is that Syria would not only have WMDs but will have used them. Given those two assumptions being correct, what would you the think the U.S. should to do?

Me personally, I think this is a U.N. problem and I would have no problem with the U.S. going in a support role along with other major nations. However, this would be contingent upon major support from the other nations and not just the U.S. footing the bill in money and lives.
 
The US should stay out of it, completely.

While a revolt against the leaders in Syria may be a welcomed idea, the problem is that the rebels are a coalition similar to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the soviet invasion. After Assad is overthown, some of these factions will start fighting each other. Some are hardcore fundamentalist. Iran will continue supporting the Shi'ite faction that currently holds power, even after Assad is removed. Other fundamentalist will support various Sunni factions. Al Queda and others did this in Iraq.

I for one have no confidence that Obama would institute changes in the military necessary to take on such conditions. We would only endanger our troops without the leadership with the political will necessary to carry us to victory. I am all for taking Assad out, but if we are not going to do it right and stay until the end, then we should stay the hell out of it.
 
Me personally, I think this is a U.N. problem and I would have no problem with the U.S. going in a support role along with other major nations. However, this would be contingent upon major support from the other nations and not just the U.S. footing the bill in money and lives.


This. perfect.
 
Is this a problem the USofA should deal with? Or the UN? Or some other coalition of countries?

I think that everyone should stay out of it unless they are directly involved-- AKA, being attacked by Syria.

They need to get their **** together, and the US is not the solution to their problems.
 
I think that everyone should stay out of it unless they are directly involved-- AKA, being attacked by Syria.

They need to get their **** together, and the US is not the solution to their problems.

It is a Human problem. Really nice example of socialist humanity you demonstrate. Based upon your statement, it is clear that you have a rather selfish point of view.

The problem is not that we shouldn't, from a human standpoint, it's that we currently are not set up to do it right and in the end may actually do harm instead of good. Also Syria borders on Israel, a US ally and we certainly have an interest in protecting our allies. Strategically, humanly, morally and ethically, we have a lot of reasons to get involved, but if we are not willing to develop and deploy the tactics necessary for the time needed, then we should stay the hell out of it.
 
It is a Human problem. Really nice example of socialist humanity you demonstrate. Based upon your statement, it is clear that you have a rather selfish point of view.

The problem is not that we shouldn't, from a human standpoint, it's that we currently are not set up to do it right and in the end may actually do harm instead of good. Also Syria borders on Israel, a US ally and we certainly have an interest in protecting our allies. Strategically, humanly, morally and ethically, we have a lot of reasons to get involved, but if we are not willing to develop and deploy the tactics necessary for the time needed, then we should stay the hell out of it.

I just don't think that the US needs to get involved with Syria with all of the things that they're already dealing with.

My thought process is that if the US gets involved with Syria, then a war will break out with Syria, but that's not really the issue... it's Syria's allies that are the problem. I'm sure that if the US gets involved with fending off Syria, then their allies would be more than happy to retaliate.

Maybe that wouldn't happen, but what does a little Canuckistanian know?
 
The US, a western government coalition or an Arab government coalition led by the US. Its amazing the level of crap we always find ourselves in the middle of because global oil market stability is crucial to our own economic well being. Oligopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is our own fault. We have other options that we chose not to take. We use diesel-electric rail instead of electric rail. We use diesel and gasoline powered cars/trucks instead of Hydrogen, natural gas or bio-fuel powered ones. All of these can be introduced and enter the market today. With the use of nuclear batteries, we might even be able to use straight electric. Can we completely change it overnight, no, but if implemented changes, in less than 5 years, we wouldn't need crude oil at levels we could not produce ourselves if we needed any at all.
 
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.

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".
 
other , the easy way out....
I'll say this over and over..
We must learn to mind our own business !
We do have a UN, do we not ?
I am asking this, as I do not know for certain.
And, I do question if we support the UN as much as we should.
Now, if any nation were to attack us, and this has been done many times, unprovoked, IMO.,
we must respond, not in kind, but 100 times greater..
Japan - Hiroshima, Nagasaki...
And I am speaking "nation", not criminal elements within that nation.
Arabia - Islamic extremists.
 
I think the majority of this country has grown tired of the military, in general. If we can't cut Welfare checks and leave it at that, then we don't want any part of it!
 
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!
 
Back
Top Bottom