View Poll Results: Should we attack the REBELS for uising WMD?

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES!

    2 6.90%
  • NO!

    22 75.86%
  • There are no good guys, including the USA in this matter.

    5 17.24%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

  1. #1
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,294

    Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    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!


  2. #2
    is totally not a robot.
    Juiposa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ontario
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,591
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    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.
    "After all, you know, there are worse things in life than death. I mean, if you've ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know exactly what I mean."
    -Woody Allen

  3. #3
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    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?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #4
    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: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    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".

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    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.

  6. #6
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Hell no. It's not our war. Let it be fought by those involved.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #7
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    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.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #8
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    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.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #9
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,677

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,264

    Re: Should the USA attack those using Chemical weapons in Syris?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •