• 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!

US suspects Syria used chemical weapons [W:284]

It's not like there's video tape of Assad pushing the button that fires chemical rockets. Can you wait a good 24 hours before demanding an invasion?

Also, don't go looking for photos and videos of this attack unless you want to ruin your day. If I've ever seen such horrors before, those memories have been suppressed. I hope every single person involved in this barbarity gets what is coming to them. Delivered at 500 knots by a tomahawk. I know tomahawks are very expensive and we're trying to cut back on spending.

So just four or five should do.
 
This incident needs to be investigated. It's likely that chemical weapons were used given the available videos. What's uncertain is who used them. There are plausible scenarios under which either party to the conflict used them, so I reserve judgment on that issue.
 
It's not like there's video tape of Assad pushing the button that fires chemical rockets. Can you wait a good 24 hours before demanding an invasion?

Also, don't go looking for photos and videos of this attack unless you want to ruin your day. If I've ever seen such horrors before, those memories have been suppressed. I hope every single person involved in this barbarity gets what is coming to them. Delivered at 500 knots by a tomahawk. I know tomahawks are very expensive and we're trying to cut back on spending.

So just four or five should do.

I'm with ya, I don't want invasion either. But, do ya think Obama could do something, anything to keep credibility?

At this point, he says red line, and even the camels laugh.
 
I'm with ya, I don't want invasion either. But, do ya think Obama could do something, anything to keep credibility?

At this point, he says red line, and even the camels laugh.

We have no business getting involved in Syria.
 
The problem with getting involved in Syria, or not to, is that we have no clear foreign intervention doctrine. Its all over the place, from nothing, to direct weapons and air cover, to covert CIA-run weapons.

Maybe the new US policy is to use a Magic 8 ball.
 
The problem with getting involved in Syria, or not to, is that we have no clear foreign intervention doctrine. Its all over the place, from nothing, to direct weapons and air cover, to covert CIA-run weapons.

Maybe the new US policy is to use a Magic 8 ball.

I don't believe the U.S. should intervene in Syria's sectarian conflict, either directly or indirectly (as it has with arms shipments). There are no compelling U.S. interests at stake. The absence of a foreign policy doctrine or strategy is a larger issue that has created complications far beyond Syria.

Having said that, if chemical weapons were used, by the Assad dictatorship, I would favor a missile strike against all known chemical weapons depots. I would also support a total arms embargo against the Assad dictatorship in such circumstances.

If, however, the chemical weapons were used by the anti-Assad forces, I would favor the U.S. working within the Security Council and in collaboration with the world's major powers to secure a total arms embargo on the anti-Assad forces. The latter would be difficult to achieve, as neighboring states supporting those elements could "cheat," because such an embargo would ultimately doom those forces to defeat.

Neither side has shown any meaningful regard for civilian protections. Neither would deserve sympathy if punishment for their use of chemical weapons leads to their loss of such weapons (missile strikes were the Assad dictatorship responsible) or battlefield defeat (if the anti-Assad forces were responsible).

I still believe that had a total arms embargo been imposed on both sides to the sectarian conflict, the environment would have been more conducive to diplomacy, as calculations for a military breakthrough would have been much less favorable during the stalemate that had existed until fairly recently. But that was not undertaken and the result has been more conflict and more conflict-related casualties.
 
Last edited:
I'm with ya, I don't want invasion either. But, do ya think Obama could do something, anything to keep credibility?

At this point, he says red line, and even the camels laugh.

Credibility is out the window, gone beyond any hope of recovery.
But let's not, please, get involved in Syria just to save face.
 
How much poison gas does Assad have to use to cross Obama's red line?

There is no 'red line' and everyone knows it, The world would be a safer place if BHO just shut up instead of pretending to be a leader.
 
Back
Top Bottom