• 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!

Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

Should we attack the REBELS for uising WMD?


  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The BRAD BLOG : Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons

"Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons"

"From Reuters tonight:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

So, it was the rebels, according to actual named sources, not the Syrian regime which may have used the sarin gas that set off the chain of events described above over the past week and a half?"

Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

Should we kick the rebels asses?

Now, who is the bad guy?

If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!

 
The BRAD BLOG : Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons

"Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons"



"From Reuters tonight:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

So, it was the rebels, according to actual named sources, not the Syrian regime which may have used the sarin gas that set off the chain of events described above over the past week and a half?"

Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

Should we kick the rebels asses?

Now, who is the bad guy?

If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!


I have no idea who the true bad guy is. The vicousness and uncertain nature of this war tells me we should stay uninvolved if at all possible. A couple sarin gas attacks are not enough for me. If either side started using it wholesale, I'd say yeah, kick their asses America.
 
I would not presume to know whether or not the US should get involved militarily, but I would note that there has been a lot of talk from many of the administration's supporters that it would be difficult to pull off an air attack on Syria similar to the French/NATO led bombardment of Libya because the Syrians have one of the best air defense systems in the world. I find that claim odd since it seems Israel has been able to breach those air defenses with impunity the past couple of days to take out Syrian weapons caches near the capital city of Damascus. The Israelis also took out a Syrian nuclear facility a few years back, if I'm not mistaken. How can the Israelis do it if the US can't?
 
Unless and until there is substantive egregious use of chemical weapons, the US really needs to mind their own business. Seems like Israel will deal with it anyway and they have far more intelligence data than we do.

"a lot of talk from many of the administration's supporters" is jargon for "clueless opinions by obscure individuals".
 
seems to be no easy answer and seems those who call for quick intervention in this do so in the vaguest of terms... arm the rebels we can trust- but don't name who these trustworthy rebels are and more than once one group turns it's weapons over to a group we don't much care for.

Use airpower but the same folks calling for airpower decried it's use in Libya.

No fly zones and yet decried no fly zones in Iraq as useless.

Some say we must intervene because civilians are being killed but in other news civilians killed in anti-terrorist strikes are simply collateral damage and are we to be the unpaid policemen of the world?

My thought is Syria is a key linchpin in the Middle East but the rebels are tainted by the closeness to Iran and the long term relationship the rebels will have with Iran. Look at Iraq which has warmly embraced Iran multiple times since we 'liberated' it.

Some pooches are just screwed no matter what and calls to become more involved are not going to end the way we would write the script.
 
Hell no. It's not our war. Let it be fought by those involved.
 
Who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? We can't even figure that out, yet we'd intervene militarily? Doesn't seem like a well thought out position.

In the end, this is not our fight, not our war, and our sovereignty is not at stake; thus it is not our business.
 
seems to be no easy answer and seems those who call for quick intervention in this do so in the vaguest of terms... arm the rebels we can trust- but don't name who these trustworthy rebels are and more than once one group turns it's weapons over to a group we don't much care for.

Use airpower but the same folks calling for airpower decried it's use in Libya.

No fly zones and yet decried no fly zones in Iraq as useless.

Some say we must intervene because civilians are being killed but in other news civilians killed in anti-terrorist strikes are simply collateral damage and are we to be the unpaid policemen of the world?

My thought is Syria is a key linchpin in the Middle East but the rebels are tainted by the closeness to Iran and the long term relationship the rebels will have with Iran. Look at Iraq which has warmly embraced Iran multiple times since we 'liberated' it.

Some pooches are just screwed no matter what and calls to become more involved are not going to end the way we would write the script.

Two comments I'd make:

1. Assad is propped up and armed by Iran - there is no closer ally of Iran in the middle east than Syria and Assad. I can't imagine that any new regime would be equally or more involved with Iran. It is troubling that Iraq appears to be allowing Iran to transport weapons over its territory to prop up Assad. Iran uses Syria to get to Lebanon and Hezbollah.

2. Syria is only of strategic importance in the middle east because of its support of terrorism under Assad and the Russian duplicity in both Iran and Syria that keeps them alive.
 
The BRAD BLOG : Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons

"Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons"

"From Reuters tonight:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

So, it was the rebels, according to actual named sources, not the Syrian regime which may have used the sarin gas that set off the chain of events described above over the past week and a half?"

Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

Should we kick the rebels asses?

Now, who is the bad guy?

If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!

Are we exactly rolling in Syrian oil?

We shouldnt talk **** if we arent going to back it up. If there aint gone be no red line, we should talkin like there is one. And maybe...just maybe...we shouldnt be funding rebels without knowing which side they are on. Its funny...Bush was blamed for nation building...where is the conversation on Obamas continued efforts at region destabilization? So far everything he ahs touched there has turned to ****. So...its probably a good thing he doesnt act more.
 
The BRAD BLOG : Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons

"Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons"

"From Reuters tonight:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

So, it was the rebels, according to actual named sources, not the Syrian regime which may have used the sarin gas that set off the chain of events described above over the past week and a half?"

Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

Should we kick the rebels asses?

Now, who is the bad guy?

If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!

Dave, we only buy about 2000 barrels of oil a year from Syria. It's nothing. I have no idea why we even bother with it.
 
I dont know who the bad guys are. They both seem pretty bad.
 
Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

Should we kick the rebels asses?

Now, who is the bad guy?

If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!


I dont know if the rebels did use chimecal weapons but there is doubt that Assad's forces used. Idf inform that while BB was in a meeting with Kerry, the day after USA joined and coniform that Assad used chimecal weapons against the rebels.
Its hard to tell what is the red line because Obama didnt set a clear limits for the use of chimecal weapons, i think Obama made him an escape route from attacking in Syria with vague defenition of the red line.

Right now Assad is the bad guy because he have military supremacy over the rebels.
 
Dave, we only buy about 2000 barrels of oil a year from Syria. It's nothing. I have no idea why we even bother with it.

Based on what we know now, I say we should stay out. And yes, although we are not big consumers of Syrian petroleum, the people of the Middle East see themselves as one people. It is very likely many of the fighters in Syria are from other parts of the Middle East. Oil is at the root of the problems we've had with the Middle East since the Embassy Hostage Crisis and oil has been the problem ever since. Even North Korea's nuclear threat can be traced back to oil. Pakistan, although technically not the Middle East, is almost in the neighborhood. They also share a common religion and through it share a bond of brotherhood. It was elements within the Pakistani military and intelligence services who were secretly harboring Osama Bin Laden. In order to "level the playing field" with respect to America's superpower status, a Pakistani government scientist went on a nuclear proliferation tour right under our noses after 9/11 and gave nuclear weapons technology to every rouge dictatorship who were not friendly with America. This list of dictatorships included North Korea; traceable back to oil and the Middle East. I'd rather see us take serious and emergency measures to end the power oil holds over the global economy.
 
Based on what we know now, I say we should stay out. And yes, although we are not big consumers of Syrian petroleum, the people of the Middle East see themselves as one people. It is very likely many of the fighters in Syria are from other parts of the Middle East. Oil is at the root of the problems we've had with the Middle East since the Embassy Hostage Crisis and oil has been the problem ever since. Even North Korea's nuclear threat can be traced back to oil. Pakistan, although technically not the Middle East, is almost in the neighborhood. They also share a common religion and through it share a bond of brotherhood. It was elements within the Pakistani military and intelligence services who were secretly harboring Osama Bin Laden. In order to "level the playing field" with respect to America's superpower status, a Pakistani government scientist went on a nuclear proliferation tour right under our noses after 9/11 and gave nuclear weapons technology to every rouge dictatorship who were not friendly with America. This list of dictatorships included North Korea; traceable back to oil and the Middle East. I'd rather see us take serious and emergency measures to end the power oil holds over the global economy.
I will not argue about the influence of oil on the world economy. Unfortunately, it's all we have at present for the vast, vast majority of our energy needs. We do not rely on Syria for oil. In fact, the only thing we are able to rely on from Syria is trouble. I am not anxious for involvement in Syria's problems, and I wish Obama would've kept his mouth shut about what constitutes a red line. I imagine he does now, too. I do not see oil as a source of evil, but rather the people who use it as a weapon at the expense of the innocent. We have enough oil here that we don't have to get any oil from the ME.
 
I will not argue about the influence of oil on the world economy. Unfortunately, it's all we have at present for the vast, vast majority of our energy needs. We do not rely on Syria for oil. In fact, the only thing we are able to rely on from Syria is trouble. I am not anxious for involvement in Syria's problems, and I wish Obama would've kept his mouth shut about what constitutes a red line. I imagine he does now, too. I do not see oil as a source of evil, but rather the people who use it as a weapon at the expense of the innocent. We have enough oil here that we don't have to get any oil from the ME.

I agree. If we would just allow ourselves to become energy independent as a nation, then the remainder of the industrialized world would have to take care of issues in the ME to ensure their access to those resources...
 
The BRAD BLOG : Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons

"Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons"

"From Reuters tonight:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

So, it was the rebels, according to actual named sources, not the Syrian regime which may have used the sarin gas that set off the chain of events described above over the past week and a half?"

Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

Should we kick the rebels asses?

Now, who is the bad guy?

If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!


she seems a nice italian
 
I agree. If we would just allow ourselves to become energy independent as a nation, then the remainder of the industrialized world would have to take care of issues in the ME to ensure their access to those resources...
This has been clear for decades now, and if anything, the case for energy independence becomes more compelling every day.
 
I will not argue about the influence of oil on the world economy. Unfortunately, it's all we have at present for the vast, vast majority of our energy needs. We do not rely on Syria for oil. In fact, the only thing we are able to rely on from Syria is trouble. I am not anxious for involvement in Syria's problems, and I wish Obama would've kept his mouth shut about what constitutes a red line. I imagine he does now, too. I do not see oil as a source of evil, but rather the people who use it as a weapon at the expense of the innocent. We have enough oil here that we don't have to get any oil from the ME.

We should do a thread at some point of oil and its history at some point. Saddam and his mass murderous career, Al Qaeda, 2 wars in Iraq, 9/11, the Iranian hostage crisis, OPEC's control of the US economy despite only getting a fraction of our oil from OPEC because they set the global price, the Iran Iraq war, Iran Contra, the present Argentine UK standoff over the Falklands and Russia declaring the seabed under the North Pole in international waters its sovereign territory all trace their roots to oil. Yes, oil is all we have at present to meet out transportation needs but it doesn't have to be that way. We can add other options to the oligopoly and would have already except for deliberate efforts made over the decades to maintain oil as the only option for personal transportation by those with huge financial interests in making sure there was no competition.

Now were are seeing advances electric cars and as is the case with new technologies, because they're on the market that technology is being improved upon. I firmly believe we are on the path to electric cars being the next big thing and hope and pray nobody slams the breaks on it just as its taking off, although I'm sure those who stand to make bank from oil having no competitor will do everything they can to including but not limited to PR campaigns convincing the public unlike all other new technologies electric cars will never improve nor become less expensive they today's level of development. I'm not on some environmentalist kick. I just think its time to defund the bloodshed and take control of the American economy back from OPEC and internationalists invested in the oil future's market and give it back to the American people.
 
We should do a thread at some point of oil and its history at some point. Saddam and his mass murderous career, Al Qaeda, 2 wars in Iraq, 9/11, the Iranian hostage crisis, OPEC's control of the US economy despite only getting a fraction of our oil from OPEC because they set the global price, the Iran Iraq war, Iran Contra, the present Argentine UK standoff over the Falklands and Russia declaring the seabed under the North Pole in international waters its sovereign territory all trace their roots to oil. Yes, oil is all we have at present to meet out transportation needs but it doesn't have to be that way. We can add other options to the oligopoly and would have already except for deliberate efforts made over the decades to maintain oil as the only option for personal transportation by those with huge financial interests in making sure there was no competition.

Now were are seeing advances electric cars and as is the case with new technologies, because they're on the market that technology is being improved upon. I firmly believe we are on the path to electric cars being the next big thing and hope and pray nobody slams the breaks on it just as its taking off, although I'm sure those who stand to make bank from oil having no competitor will do everything they can to including but not limited to PR campaigns convincing the public unlike all other new technologies electric cars will never improve nor become less expensive they today's level of development. I'm not on some environmentalist kick. I just think its time to defund the bloodshed and take control of the American economy back from OPEC and internationalists invested in the oil future's market and give it back to the American people.
I honestly think natural gas fired cars will happen before electric because the technology already exists and would be easy to implement. I do think the thread you mention would have some merit. I will not offer it, nor any other thread however. I simply don't have the time to do it properly. I also don't cite a lot of references and such just because 1)sources are available that can be construed as supportive of nearly any position; 2) I assume others here can read at least as extensively as I do; 3) I don't require any such reference in my requests of others - just say what you mean; and, 4) I'm lazy in that regard. Admittedly, that puts me at a distinct disadvantage with certain aggressive posters here. I don't care, and I honestly don't care to engage such posters because I've noted that many of them never had an original thought in their entire lives. If you decide to offer such a thread, I'll be supportive, and I'm certain many others will be as well. It's an interesting topic worthy of discussion.
 
The BRAD BLOG : Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons

"Reuters: U.N. Investigators Say Syrian Rebels, Not Syrian Regime, Used Chemical Weapons"

"From Reuters tonight:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

So, it was the rebels, according to actual named sources, not the Syrian regime which may have used the sarin gas that set off the chain of events described above over the past week and a half?"

Isn't this the red line Obama, McCain and many others talked about?

Should we kick the rebels asses?

Now, who is the bad guy?

If we attack the rebels, do we still get the OIL? OOPS, it's never about OIL!



Syria doesn't have much oil.
 
I honestly think natural gas fired cars will happen before electric because the technology already exists and would be easy to implement. I do think the thread you mention would have some merit. I will not offer it, nor any other thread however. I simply don't have the time to do it properly. I also don't cite a lot of references and such just because 1)sources are available that can be construed as supportive of nearly any position; 2) I assume others here can read at least as extensively as I do; 3) I don't require any such reference in my requests of others - just say what you mean; and, 4) I'm lazy in that regard. Admittedly, that puts me at a distinct disadvantage with certain aggressive posters here. I don't care, and I honestly don't care to engage such posters because I've noted that many of them never had an original thought in their entire lives. If you decide to offer such a thread, I'll be supportive, and I'm certain many others will be as well. It's an interesting topic worthy of discussion.

Natural gas fired cars have a distinct advantage over electric cars, specifically they are very similar to gasoline cars and would continue to help bring in 40% of the profits in replacement parts and maintance the companies we look to to make our cars have come to rely upon in their business models. This plus the greater/more rapid wear out factor of the internal combustion engine the guarantees getting us back in the showroom more regularly. The public's lack of understanding on the simplicity (far fewer moving parts) and better durability bodes well for NG powered cars. As a consumer I'd rather see NG used to power more power plants. Either way is better than entaglement in middle eastern conflict such as Syria and icomes down to a matter of good, better best.
 
This post is about the UN stating that it was the rebels that used the WMD, not Assad. Pay attention NO1.
 
Last edited:
Without a clear side that we could support, we should stay the hell out of it unless it spills over into Israel.

Most of it is a Shi'ite vs Sunni thing, let them kill each other however they want to. It's not like any side is likely to like us or Israel.
 
I'm for letting Israel handle it unless things get really ugly and someone else steps in, then we might have to throw our weight around. Is it stands now we should keep observing and leave the "assistance", if any, to others.
 
Back
Top Bottom