• 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]

and what's the POTUS saying about this development?
Saying that confirmation was still needed to provide conclusive proof, Obama stopped short of declaring that Assad had crossed a "red line" he had warned earlier would unleash unspecified consequences, widely interpreted to include possible U.S. military intervention.

"Horrific as it is when mortars are being fired on civilians and people are being indiscriminately killed, to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law," Obama told reporters at the White House as he met with Jordan's King Abdullah.
Click to expand...

He's being cautious, but there is already more evidence that Syria used WMD than there was that Hussain had them before the invasion.
 
Manc Skipper said:
He doesn't want to rush in based on faulty (faked) information. I reckon he doesn't want to go at all, but right now we have some evidence that Sarin has probably been used, but we don't know who did it. If it was used, it was probably Assad, but it could have been the rebels. Either way, this increases the pressure at the UN on Russia and China, Assad's main support.
Click to expand...

So what if Sarin was used in Syria, what does this have to do with the United States, Russia, or China?
 
Quik said:
So what if Sarin was used in Syria, what does this have to do with the United States, Russia, or China?
Click to expand...

Exactly! "What difference does it make?"

They're dead now so let's move on.
 
Quik said:
So what if Sarin was used in Syria, what does this have to do with the United States, Russia, or China?
Click to expand...

The U.S. Is a signatory to treaties, and it is U.S. policy, to oppose the use of chemical weapons always and everywhere. Plus, BHO publicly said it was a "red line" so the credibility of the U.S. is now in play. He had better step up, or he'll be the leading hypocrite of the 21st century.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
The U.S. Is a signatory to treaties, and it is U.S. policy, to oppose the use of chemical weapons always and everywhere.
Click to expand...

That's not true, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Our treaty only says we won't give other people chemical weapons, it doesn't say we have to invade countries who ALLEGEDLY, MIGHT, POSSIBLY, have chemical weapons. Especially when such countries pose absolutely no threat to the United States whatsoever.

Jack Hays said:
BHO publicly said it was a "red line" so the credibility of the U.S. is now in play. He had better step up, or he'll be the leading hypocrite of the 21st century.:cool:
Click to expand...

The United States government has credibility? Since when? When did this begin? The world never got the memo.

By the way, in what way are you a "libertarian?" Do you just like the way the word sounds or...?
 
Grant said:
The US Ambassador to Syria, who hasn't been in Syria for well over a year, is a pretty tough guy himself.

He said that if Assad is using chemical weapons on his own people it would be "troublesome".

Indeed! And for a few Syrians as well.

John Kerry should have found some easy place to draw another line in the sand.

U.S. officials unsure whether chemical weapons used in Syria | Reuters
Click to expand...

Why is any of this a cause for concern? The biggest problem I see is the US government making threats and then meddling in the affairs of yet another Middle Eastern country.
 
Jack Hays said:
The U.S. Is a signatory to treaties, and it is U.S. policy, to oppose the use of chemical weapons always and everywhere. Plus, BHO publicly said it was a "red line" so the credibility of the U.S. is now in play. He had better step up, or he'll be the leading hypocrite of the 21st century.:cool:
Click to expand...

The red line may have been crossed but there are other options besides war.

One would be to call on the United Nations security council to act, and possible force Russia and china to stop sheilding Assad.

Another option is to pressure the Assad regime into allowing the United Nations task force currently in cypress to go into Syria and investigate the reports.

Another action that could be taken is to address the issue of the influx of syrian refugees into neighboring countries and the stress on the economies and stability of the neighboring countries, particularly Jordan.
 
Quik said:
That's not true, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Our treaty only says we won't give other people chemical weapons, it doesn't say we have to invade countries who ALLEGEDLY, MIGHT, POSSIBLY, have chemical weapons. Especially when such countries pose absolutely no threat to the United States whatsoever.



The United States government has credibility? Since when? When did this begin? The world never got the memo.

By the way, in what way are you a "libertarian?" Do you just like the way the word sounds or...?
Click to expand...

I am a libertarian because I value liberty above all, first, last and always.
The U.S. has no credibility the moment BHO, having declared a "red line," starts looking for shades of pink, like now.:cool:
 
Quik said:
Why is any of this a cause for concern? The biggest problem I see is the US government making threats and then meddling in the affairs of yet another Middle Eastern country.
Click to expand...

You really should read that article. It encourages meddling, non-meddling, support, non-support, lines and non-lines and every mealy-mouth phrase ever spoken by a glib, robotic, crap-talking bureaucrat.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The red line may have been crossed but there are other options besides war.

One would be to call on the United Nations security council to act, and possible force Russia and china to stop sheilding Assad.

Another option is to pressure the Assad regime into allowing the United Nations task force currently in cypress to go into Syria and investigate the reports.

Another action that could be taken is to address the issue of the influx of syrian refugees into neighboring countries and the stress on the economies and stability of the neighboring countries, particularly Jordan.
Click to expand...


We do not need to go to war. But we need to send weapons and ammunition to those who are at war and fighting our fight.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
We do not need to go to war. But we need to send weapons and ammunition to those who are at war and fighting our fight.:cool:
Click to expand...

I don't think it's clear yet that it really is 'our fight'. If the cure is worse than the disease then we'd have to be consistent and get rid of the next despot as well. I'm all for that until someone finally pays attention and gets it right, but would we ever make that commitment?
 
Grant said:
I don't think it's clear yet that it really is 'our fight'. If the cure is worse than the disease then we'd have to be consistent and get rid of the next despot as well. I'm all for that until someone finally pays attention and gets it right, but would we ever make that commitment?
Click to expand...

The destruction of the Asad regime in Syria is a strategic blow against Iran. It smothers Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is a victory worth working for.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
I am a libertarian because I value liberty above all, first, last and always.
Click to expand...

But you want to tax me in order to pay for some war with Syria that is not gonna benefit me in any way, shape, or form, right?

Jack Hays said:
The U.S. has no credibility the moment BHO, having declared a "red line," starts looking for shades of pink, like now.:cool:
Click to expand...

Oh ok, so under Bush the US government was seething with credibility. Am I understanding your logic correctly?
 
Grant said:
You really should read that article. It encourages meddling, non-meddling, support, non-support, lines and non-lines and every mealy-mouth phrase ever spoken by a glib, robotic, crap-talking bureaucrat.
Click to expand...

Right, and the biggest threat to my liberty is the US government making threats and then dragging me into yet another pointless war.
 
Quik said:
But you want to tax me in order to pay for some war with Syria that is not gonna benefit me in any way, shape, or form, right?



Oh ok, so under Bush the US government was seething with credibility. Am I understanding your logic correctly?
Click to expand...

GWB gained credibility going into Afghanistan. Lost some not finding WMD in Iraq. Got it back with the surge in Iraq. No additional taxes. What the Syrian opposition needs can be provided from existing budgets. As for benefits, the destruction of the Asad regime in Syria would be a strategic blow against Iran.:roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
The destruction of the Asad regime in Syria is a strategic blow against Iran. It smothers Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is a victory worth working for.:cool:
Click to expand...

Every single one of your little interventions has been a complete disaster. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Hell, it really doesn't matter how far we go back. Somalia, Kosovo. Not even one of these interventions have helped Americans in any way. Yet you keep dragging us into your pointless chessboard games.

Honestly, if I have to choose between free cell phones for people who refuse to work, or your idiotic, ill-conceived, pointless wars, I will have to go with the free cell phones for the moochers. And THAT my friend, is why you guys keep losing elections time and time and time again. The sooner you figure that out, the better.
 
Quik said:
Every single one of your little interventions has been a complete disaster. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Hell, it really doesn't matter how far we go back. Somalia, Kosovo. Not even one of these interventions have helped Americans in any way. Yet you keep dragging us into your pointless chessboard games.

Honestly, if I have to choose between free cell phones for people who refuse to work, or your idiotic, ill-conceived, pointless wars, I will have to go with the free cell phones for the moochers. And THAT my friend, is why you guys keep losing elections time and time and time again. The sooner you figure that out, the better.
Click to expand...

Interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Kosovo have all helped create a better world. We have not intervened in any meaningful way in Somalia.:cool:
 
Quik said:
Right, and the biggest threat to my liberty is the US government making threats and then dragging me into yet another pointless war.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...Drag you into another pointless war? Are you in the military? were in the military? Understand anything at all about Geo political strategic interests? Seems not.

But you want to tax me in order to pay for some war with Syria that is not gonna benefit me in any way, shape, or form, right?
Click to expand...

Not at all...You are free to relocate anytime you wish to Venezuela....
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB gained credibility going into Afghanistan. Lost some not finding WMD in Iraq. Got it back with the surge in Iraq. No additional taxes.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yep, Bush magically regained the United States' credibility with the surge. After the surge, countries around the world started listening to and trusting the United States and our great leader, George W. Bush!

What planet are you living on?

Jack Hays said:
What the Syrian opposition needs can be provided from existing budgets.
Click to expand...

Existing budgets are about 100x too big first of all. Secondly, that's what you guys say every, single, time. And every, single, time, it turns out to be a gross underestimation, almost exponentially wrong. No exceptions.

Jack Hays said:
As for benefits, the destruction of the Asad regime in Syria would be a strategic blow against Iran.:roll:
Click to expand...

How does that benefit me again?
 
Quik said:
Right, and the biggest threat to my liberty is the US government making threats and then dragging me into yet another pointless war.
Click to expand...

It's not pointless if you go in to win and win quick, with tons of shock and awe. It's when you go in and then shilly shally about, getting all political, that you begin to (inevitably) lose.
 
Jack Hays said:
Interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Kosovo have all helped create a better world.
Click to expand...

Unsupported assertion, and it's false.

Jack Hays said:
We have not intervened in any meaningful way in Somalia.:cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah we did, and a bunch of soldiers lost their lives for no reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom