Syria: Does Use of Chemical Weapons Change Anything?

[TMF]

If Obama's imaginary red line hasn't been crossed yet then the criteria must involve the use of nukes.  So the question is, do we have any moral obligation to intervene when atrocities like this are taking place?  Should we even have a red line to begin with or should we stay out of it no matter what?

[Chucktshoes]

No. No. Yes.

[TMF]

No. No. Yes.

 

Ha, well I knew where you would stand on this.

[Chucktshoes]

At least I'm consistent. :D

[leroy]

We've spilled more than enough blood and spent too much treasure in the middle east with no end in sight.  Let 'em kill each other off; the Israelis will finish 'em if they get too rowdy.

 

leroy, radical isolationist libertarian

[nightrunner]

We've spilled more than enough blood and spent too much treasure in the middle east with no end in sight. Let 'em kill each other off; the Israelis will finish 'em if they get too rowdy.

leroy, radical isolationist libertarian

Amen. I am not antiwar by ANY means but the US needs to stop being the world police. Israel is the only middle eastern country I would genuinely be afraid of if we were on their bad side.

[RED333]

I am with keeping the Israelis on our side, let the rest take care of each other, for we dont have a friend  in that fight.

[Randall53]

I get sick and tired of the world standing and pointing at crap like this, turning to us and saying " DO SOMETHING...Don't just stand there."...let the other freeloading countries spend their money and shed their blood if they are so concerned. And another thing is this. These people and most of the middle east hate our guts and protest us in the streets and would kill Americans on sight given half a chance. Why get involved at all? We need to cut all aide to these people, use the money to develop our own oil reserves and make ourselves self reliant on oil and stay out of all Muslim countries is my line of thinking.

[DaveS]

I get sick and tired of the world standing and pointing at crap like this, turning to us and saying " DO SOMETHING...Don't just stand there."...let the other freeloading countries spend their money and shed their blood if they are so concerned. And another thing is this. These people and most of the middle east hate our guts and protest us in the streets and would kill Americans on sight given half a chance. Why get involved at all? We need to cut all aide to these people, use the money to develop our own oil reserves and make ourselves self reliant on oil and stay out of all Muslim countries is my line of thinking.

Sir, that was very well said! In my opinion, the middle east is the cesspool of the planet. Let them settle it amongst themselves. What scares me is what Iran will do if the US strikes Syria?

 

Dave

Crack'a American

[Pat]

They can work it out themselves. Who cares if so-called "bad" weapons are involved? It'll get done and over with that much quicker.

[Worriedman]

There is no "good" side to take in that contest, who would we be helping?

[DaveS]

There is no "good" side to take in that contest, who would we be helping?

Exactly!

 

Dave

Crack'a American

[Guest TresOsos]

Let them kill each other and let Allah sort it out. Not worth one drop of American Blood or treasure.

But seeing how our fealess leader likes to arm and support our enemies.

However our fealess leader might also start WWIII over this.

Edited August 25, 2013 by TresOsos

[Dustbuster]

Hah no no yes from here as well. Thinking back w regards To chem stuff, In Iraq only the Kurds would attest to saddams use of chem war on their own. However, what ever happened w all the WMD crap and residuals that were found which is what got us into Iraq in the first place?
Hint: not on clearance rack at wal mart.

I believe The sign at our foreign aid help desk should say: Syria: we're out Servicing China in exchange for sexual favors come back later After the check they gave us clears..

[Chucktshoes]

Just gonna leave this here. http://www.dailypaul.com/296858/yahoo-news-1-30-13-us-backed-plan-to-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-on-syria-blame-it-on-assad-govt?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailypaul%2FFClq+%28The+Daily+P.Au.L+-+Peace+%7C+Gold+%7C+Love%29

[gregintenn]

They're going to kill somebody. That's how they've been bred and raised for thousands of years.

 

I figure that as long as they are busy killing each other, they're leaving us alone.

 

Why should we get involved. We would only go kill some of them, and they're already doing that without our assistance.

 

This way, none of our men and women get killed in the process.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I get sick and tired of the world standing and pointing at crap like this, turning to us and saying " DO SOMETHING...Don't just stand there."...let the other freeloading countries spend their money and shed their blood if they are so concerned. 

This is basically my position.  I am generally opposed to intervening in other nations' internal problems, however I do think the GLOBAL community has a duty to intervene in cases of especially egregious aggression that violates international law (like the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population).  I think other nations need to pony up more of their resources instead of always looking to the United States.  

 

[East_TN_Patriot]

They're going to kill somebody. That's how they've been bred and raised for thousands of years.

You do realize it is quite easy for others to say that about the United States and our ancestors from Europe, right?

[TMF]

Just gonna leave this here. http://www.dailypaul.com/296858/yahoo-news-1-30-13-us-backed-plan-to-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-on-syria-blame-it-on-assad-govt?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailypaul%2FFClq+%28The+Daily+P.Au.L+-+Peace+%7C+Gold+%7C+Love%29

This is where I make a tin foil joke.

[Chucktshoes]

This is where I make a tin foil joke.

C'mon! There's plenty of room on the couch for ya.

[TripleDigitRide]

The sooner we let them to kill each other, the better off we'll be. Edited August 25, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[East_TN_Patriot]

Just gonna leave this here. http://www.dailypaul.com/296858/yahoo-news-1-30-13-us-backed-plan-to-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-on-syria-blame-it-on-assad-govt?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailypaul%2FFClq+%28The+Daily+P.Au.L+-+Peace+%7C+Gold+%7C+Love%29

From the link:
 

 

 

The original link still works, but for how long?
http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weap...
US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report

How long? Apparently for at least 8 months now.  Isn't it funny how InfoWars is the only place that gets these scoops of info from random anonymous people?  If I were a high level whistleblower, I know that Alex Jones is the first person I would contact.  "Wikileaks, schmikileaks. CNN?  FoxNews? NBC?  BBC?  How about the United Nations? Or maybe a big organization like the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, or the ACLU?  Nah, I'll call the goofy guy who runs an internet conspiracy site.  That'll give me lots more credibility!"  

I know this should go without saying, but where is the transcript of this alleged email?  I did a little research and it seems there really is a contractor called Britam Defence and their files were hacked in January 2013.  This site alleges to have looked at the hacked data and states there is one email related to Syria with the following text:

 

 

Phil

We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

Kind regards

David

I really wish more people would exercise some level of critical thinking instead of parroting the BS spouted by some alternative media hack that makes a living off the sheep who refuse to question what they are told, especially when that information confirms what they already wanted to believe in the first place.  

[TMF]

C'mon! There's plenty of room on the couch for ya.

Ya know, I got into a conversation with someone the other day and revealed a few of my libertarian leaning ideas and was called "one of those Ron Paul lunatics" and I'm all like "how are people who believe in the basic principles of liberty lunatics?" Then I get a link to that site.....

[TMF]

From the link:

How long? Apparently for at least 8 months now. Isn't it funny how InfoWars is the only place that gets these scoops of info from random anonymous people? If I were a high level whistleblower, I know that Alex Jones is the first person I would contact. "Wikileaks, schmikileaks. CNN? FoxNews? NBC? BBC? How about the United Nations? Or maybe a big organization like the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, or the ACLU? Nah, I'll call the goofy guy who runs an internet conspiracy site. That'll give me lots more credibility!"

I know this should go without saying, but where is the transcript of this alleged email? I did a little research and it seems there really is a contractor called Britam Defence and their files were hacked in January 2013. This site alleges to have looked at the hacked data and states there is one email related to Syria with the following text:



I really wish more people would exercise some level of critical thinking instead of parroting the BS spouted by some alternative media hack that makes a living off the sheep who refuse to question what they are told, especially when that information confirms what they already wanted to believe in the first place.

That email looks totally legit.

[Wheelgunner]

So now the President is considering military intervention options, because there is some indication that the Assad regime killed several hundred Syrian civilians with chemical weapons?

 

If the logic goes that chemical weapons are a particularly effective means by which to kill large numbers of civilians, and therefore "we" have a duty to intervene to prevent said killing of large numbers of civilians, then why have we not done so before now?  In other words, how is this one particular alleged chemical weapons attack worse than the months-long artillery bombardment of whole Syrian cities by the Assad regime?  How is this one particular alleged chemical weapons attack worse than  Assad's forces calling in attack aviation against mixed rebel and civilian targets for months?

 

My point is that the Obama administration has been content watch Assad's forces kill utterly massive numbers of civilians for the past - oh, I don't know... two years or so.  Ergo, it's absurd for O to draw some arbitrary line in the sand and say, "You can kill thousands of women and children with indirect fire, Assad, but by golly I will not countenance your forces accomplishing exactly the same thing with gas.  When you use a CHEMICAL to kill them, then that's a whole different act!"

 

No, it's not.

 

Shifting gears a bit, other members have made some good points against intervention related to the senselessness of aiding nations or peoples who hate our Nation.  I'll add to that line of thinking that interfering in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation is almost never a legitimate means of conflict resolution.  How do y'all think we would have reacted if, during the Bloody Kansas period of American history, Ottoman Turks had deployed an army into the United States because the Sultan couldn't ethically watch the American bloodshed?