• 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!

You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and why

You're the Congressman, and Your Vote on Syria


  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Semantic quibbling aside I summarized the evidence pretty clearly.
Is that the same evidence the UN, the UK, and everyone else has pretty much disavowed? Or maybe similar evidence the UN had in May which stated it WAS in fact the Obama supported rebels which launched chemical weapons? Was that the Sarin gas that rebels were found with in June? Has there been any offering of WHY Bashar Assad would order a chemical attack when he has been steadily defeating the rebels for the last year now?

How 'certain' are you of that 'certainty'?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Yes! We need to show a united front to our enemies and would be enemies.

Holy ****, we agree on something.

I think I can see a pig in the sky...
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Yea, of course.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Is that the same evidence the UN, the UK, and everyone else has pretty much disavowed? Or maybe similar evidence the UN had in May which stated it WAS in fact the Obama supported rebels which launched chemical weapons? Was that the Sarin gas that rebels were found with in June? Has there been any offering of WHY Bashar Assad would order a chemical attack when he has been steadily defeating the rebels for the last year now?

How 'certain' are you of that 'certainty'?

What evidence has been disavowed? It is the simplest of evidence. What delivery systems were used, lethality (and thus quantity) of the chemical agent used, where the attack occurred, and who was affected. To my knowledge this has not been disputed. Even if you knew nothing but this you'd be hard pressed to come to the conclusion that the rebels were responsible for the attack.

This is a separate question from why the attack was launched. Though as previously stated it is entirely possible that a local commander or member of the inner circle exceeded his authority and used the weapons without permission. Never the less the evidence that regime forces were responsible is pretty clear cut.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I am a reluctant yea, although I do love Rand Pauls "Who wants to be the first to die for a mistake?" Classic. I think Obama botched this whole thing, but you got to back him at this point and just hope he doesn't make things even worse.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Can i pick to invade uganda instead?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Is that the same evidence the UN, the UK, and everyone else has pretty much disavowed? Or maybe similar evidence the UN had in May which stated it WAS in fact the Obama supported rebels which launched chemical weapons? Was that the Sarin gas that rebels were found with in June? Has there been any offering of WHY Bashar Assad would order a chemical attack when he has been steadily defeating the rebels for the last year now?

How 'certain' are you of that 'certainty'?

As for the why there are a variety of possible reasons.

Firstly your characterization of 'steadily defeating' the rebels is inaccurate. The Syrian government has won some much needed victories these past few months but the opposition remains entrenched across its territory and has scored local victories around Damascus, in Latakia province, and in the north-east. By no means was or is the war showing signs of coming to a close or an impending government victory. More fighters, weapons, and supplies flow across the border daily and the longer the conflict goes on the worse the situation is for Assad who has been reduced to using proxy levies in large part because of the risk of defection when organized Syrian formations come into contact with the rebels. Hence the reliance on artillery, aerial bombardment, and foreign shock troops.

But why were the weapons used? If it came down directly from Assad I can think up quite a few reasons:

1. After repeated small scale use without eliciting western retaliation or further sanction the possibility of increasing their utilization with a limited test to push Western resolve and possibly offer a quick way to end the conflict.
2. In conjunction with the above point it is an excellent psychological weapon. A failure of western response would be devastating to rebel morale while holding the specter of further chemical attack over their heads.
3. Reasons that are not clear to us but somehow make sense to Assad. At the end of the day he is a dictator from a dynastic family. Gaddafi didn't think he could be toppled until a mob grabbed him, Saddam didn't think he'd be bombed let alone invaded until it actually happened, Mubarak didn't think the military could turn on him until it did despite days of warning and offers of asylum, Musharraf actually thought he'd get a hero's welcome on his return to Pakistan, etc. Dictators have historically been prone to bouts of delusion and difficult to comprehend decision making. If that proves to be the case in Syria it wouldn't be the first or last time it has happened.

The alternate plausible option? A regime commander, family member, or sufficiently high ranking Baath official authorized the use of chemical weapons without the consent of Assad. Though considering the signals intelligence that has been reported this seems to be an uncertain theory at the moment.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Holy ****, we agree on something.

I think I can see a pig in the sky...

You're not right often, but when you're right, you're right. Even a blind hog finds an acorn...lol!
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

What evidence has been disavowed? It is the simplest of evidence. What delivery systems were used, lethality (and thus quantity) of the chemical agent used, where the attack occurred, and who was affected. To my knowledge this has not been disputed. Even if you knew nothing but this you'd be hard pressed to come to the conclusion that the rebels were responsible for the attack.

This is a separate question from why the attack was launched. Though as previously stated it is entirely possible that a local commander or member of the inner circle exceeded his authority and used the weapons without permission. Never the less the evidence that regime forces were responsible is pretty clear cut.
If your goal was to bring your 'allies' into the cause with arms against the regime, what better way than launch a few artillery shells (easily done) with a chemical weapon you have already been caught in possession of?

With those bits of 'evidence' you listed...you still clinging to that 'virtual' certainty?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

As for the why there are a variety of possible reasons.

Firstly your characterization of 'steadily defeating' the rebels is inaccurate. The Syrian government has won some much needed victories these past few months but the opposition remains entrenched across its territory and has scored local victories around Damascus, in Latakia province, and in the north-east. By no means was or is the war showing signs of coming to a close or an impending government victory. More fighters, weapons, and supplies flow across the border daily and the longer the conflict goes on the worse the situation is for Assad who has been reduced to using proxy levies in large part because of the risk of defection when organized Syrian formations come into contact with the rebels. Hence the reliance on artillery, aerial bombardment, and foreign shock troops.

But why were the weapons used? If it came down directly from Assad I can think up quite a few reasons:

1. After repeated small scale use without eliciting western retaliation or further sanction the possibility of increasing their utilization with a limited test to push Western resolve and possibly offer a quick way to end the conflict.
2. In conjunction with the above point it is an excellent psychological weapon. A failure of western response would be devastating to rebel morale while holding the specter of further chemical attack over their heads.
3. Reasons that are not clear to us but somehow make sense to Assad. At the end of the day he is a dictator from a dynastic family. Gaddafi didn't think he could be toppled until a mob grabbed him, Saddam didn't think he'd be bombed let alone invaded until it actually happened, Mubarak didn't think the military could turn on him until it did despite days of warning and offers of asylum, Musharraf actually thought he'd get a hero's welcome on his return to Pakistan, etc. Dictators have historically been prone to bouts of delusion and difficult to comprehend decision making. If that proves to be the case in Syria it wouldn't be the first or last time it has happened.

The alternate plausible option? A regime commander, family member, or sufficiently high ranking Baath official authorized the use of chemical weapons without the consent of Assad. Though considering the signals intelligence that has been reported this seems to be an uncertain theory at the moment.
Just as your previous post showed...all you can offer is speculation about what MAY have happened. Now...who was caught in march of this year (by the UN) using chemical weapons against civilians?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

The only inteligent period in USA history was 1914 - 1917. (in context of foreign wars)

They gassed each other. We did nothing.
They killed each other. We did nothing.

And before that we did nothing.

Time for sanity to return to USA.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

My vote:

Nay.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I vote not no, but hell no. We have yet to see any conclusive evidence that it was the Syrian government that used chemical weapons.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I am a reluctant yea, although I do love Rand Pauls "Who wants to be the first to die for a mistake?" Classic. I think Obama botched this whole thing, but you got to back him at this point and just hope he doesn't make things even worse.

Why the hell should I back a person who I know, as you say, "botched this whole thing?"
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I do not see a compelling reason for us to take "limited military action" for this event. One goes to war to kill, break things and win. You do not shoot at someone and then say ok, you've learned your lesson. War should be saved for when war is really necessary.
I agree. The whole notion of "limited military action" is oxymoronic. It's a political term for politicians to engorge their chests and strut around impressing their peers.

War is a last result, not some political tool. Only the little child and the complete fool thinks they can 'play war.'
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

You're not right often, but when you're right, you're right. Even a blind hog finds an acorn...lol!

Ah, there's the apdst I know.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

They do not have experience handling chemical weapons, and they did not have access to rockets or the chemical warheads that were used. The information comes from consistent reports from virtually every media and intelligence source over the past two years. The FSA has never deployed these weapons and has never possessed heavy fixed artillery. Let alone warheads capable of being fitted onto rockets, moreover according to the Guardian and intelligence reports the rockets were littered with neurotoxic material and identified by numerous sources as the delivery system. Again your scenario requires much more complexity and conspiracy. Could al-Qaeda or the FSA or some group somehow have acquired these weapons, smuggled them, and deployed them in a nefarious false flag attack? I mean anything is possible. It just isn't probable. The evidence is overwhelmingly slanted towards this being a regime unit that launched the strike. I'll restate the logical evidence:

Since you are restating the above point I'll address with the points.

1. The delivery method was by artillery and rocket bombardment not local detonation.

Given that the Palestinian Authority is able to launch rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel, all that would be required would be to launch a few shells from a few miles away to do the deed. The people who would do this would probably risk contamination to the sarin but they would be able to launch them into the area they wanted. Also they would not have to aim at a particular target but a more general area so expertise would not have to be so great. Any one who does fair at Angry Birds should do.

As for the rockets or artillery themselves they could have been snuck in thru Jordan or perhaps Saudi Arabia did it thru their common border. I did not suggest a local detonation as such, but that it could have been released locally.


2. It used unitary and/or binary chemical shells and warheads (as they were fixed to rockets).

Which could have developed and sent by a third party. Or some chemical shells could have been seized by the rebel from an overrun millitary storehouse. Now that I think about it the shells could have been planted.

3. No Syrian opposition group has ever shown that it possesses this equipment or the stockpiles of chemical weapons required for a sophisticated attack of this kind. Nor has any been known or thought to possess it.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. We have intelligence to an extent for the terror groups but that does not mean that some smaller lower profile group done the deed. Also keep in mind that this could have originally been an operation targeting Israel but Assad was considered a better target.

4. The attack occurred in the midst of a pre-dawn government offensive into the suburbs.

Which is a good time to do a false flag attack.

5. The bombardment exclusively targeted opposition held areas.

Just because different rebel groups are fighting against Assad doesn't mean that they are opposed to each other and would not take the opportunity to do something like this especially if they thought they would not get caught and could blame it on Asaud.

So you can either believe this is a massive and sophisticated false flag attack or that somehow a regime commander released some of their stockpile for bombardment. It may have even been a rogue commander or an overzealous member of Assad's family. Regardless of why it happened it seems highly implausible that it was anything other than a regime bombardment.

It might be a regime action, but that is circumstantial evidence but not enough evidence to target the regime when we have no dog in this fight. If a response must occur then let the international community decide if there is one needed.

Edit: Moreover the Syrian government has not even attempted to release evidence to the contrary. France, the UK, Turkey, and the US have released intelligence findings and evidence to back up their claims while foreign media sources in Syria have confirmed local reports giving us a more accurate assessment of what occurred. Syrian efforts to delay access to the site and allow evidence to dissipate and degrade is also another piece of logical evidence to throw onto the table.

Do you mean that they should release evidence that they did not use chemical weapons or that they chemical weapons were sneaked into the country somehow? By what method could they prove that they did not use chemical weapons? If their intelligence did not catch the import and existance of chemical weapons by one of the rebel groups, then by what standard can we demand that they prove that it was done by rebels right now.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I am a reluctant yea, although I do love Rand Pauls "Who wants to be the first to die for a mistake?" Classic. I think Obama botched this whole thing, but you got to back him at this point and just hope he doesn't make things even worse.

I have to respectfully disagree. Since Obama by now has shown himself to be fubar incarnate it would be a bad decision to follow thru with an attack. It would be better to accept that Obama has egg on his face which would hopefully teach him not to make such sweeping off the cuff statements. And if the Senate decides not to approve the action it would not damage a reputation much further that it has been done so far now with respect to the international community.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I vote nay. The people of the Middle East need to learn how to work through their own problems with the "Zionists" interfering. In addition, any kind of war no matter the scale, has an effect on our people. This will be viewed as another example of the US putting their nose where it doesn't belong and may lead to another 9/11 type event.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I vote nay. The people of the Middle East need to learn how to work through their own problems with the "Zionists" interfering. In addition, any kind of war no matter the scale, has an effect on our people. This will be viewed as another example of the US putting their nose where it doesn't belong and may lead to another 9/11 type event.
...or something far, far worse.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Nay for military aid, yea for humanitarian aid.
 
Back
Top Bottom