Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[illram]

So you'd intervene on both sides of the civil war at once?

That's an interesting idea. I don't think it's ever been, officially, tried before.

No, assuming the evidence is not as strong that the rebels did anything, I would continue with the plan to attack Syrian materiel and its command structure with the limited objective of punishment and deterrence.

 

[BSmith1068]

It's not about picking sides. It's about punishing the use of chemical weapons. Whomever uses them should be punished.

 

[Glassmage]

Ridiculous. Stop policing the world and punish the black thugs and illegals in USA.

Moderator Action: Racist advocacy of selective use of law enforcement resources is not OK on these forums. -pete
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Borachio]

^That's a joke, right?

 

[JollyRoger]

We don't even have the guts to punish bankers in the USA.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

We don't even have the guts to punish bankers in the USA.

Tru Dat.

Sent via mobile.

 

[caketastydelish]

Tru Dat.

Sent via mobile.

What about an illegal black banker?

 

[Commodore]

I think that ultimately this is a simple issue.

Do you feel that the use of chemical weapons is acceptable in this day and age?

If not, then what should be the repercussions for someone who uses them?

All of the other issues like prevalence of Al Qaida, a net saving of lives, etc. are just side shows. Answer those two questions and you get to what our response should be.

I personally think there is absolutely no question that chemical weapons were used. I also think it is quite a stretch to believe that the rebels used them on themselves. Occam’s Razor would clearly favor the use of these weapons by the Government, and indeed all of the evidence points in this direction. I have seen nothing credible that would support the notion of the rebels using these weapons.

To me it is clear that Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people.

So what should we do about it?

We can either do nothing, or we can do something.

Doing nothing would be the worst outcome. It would provide tacit approval of Assad’s actions. It would embarrass our standing as a nation and reduce our credibility even further than it has already been degraded. It would mean the word of the President of the United States is worthless. It would certainly not stop the continued use of these weapons by Assad in Syria. And most likely it would embolden other despotic leaders that may be inclined to use their own weapons of mass destruction in their time of need.

Doing nothing is not an option.

So we have to do something.

But what is that something?

Whatever it is it needs to punish Assad and make him feel pain. It needs to be big enough that other regimes will think twice about using weapons of mass destruction in the future, lest something similar happens to them. It needs to be decisive. It needs to be quick. It needs to be targeted.

It doesn’t need to be sustained. It doesn’t need to pick favorites. It doesn’t need to save lives. These are all just side issues.

So I ask everyone here. Let’s stop talking about the side issues and start talking about what needs to be done.

If you were in charge, what would you do?

The issue is not as black and white as you are making it seem. Assad is not the only one using chemical weapons, so by punishing him and not the rebels that have used them you are giving tacit approval of the rebels' use of chemical weapons. Now what kind of message does that send? I'll tell you: it sends the message that you can commit any atrocities you want as long as you are supporting our agenda. Now I want you to sit there and tell me how that doesn't damage our credibility as a nation.

Given that both sides have used chemical weapons we obviously cannot support one side or the other, so doing nothing is most certainly an option. I say this because you simply cannot enter a war without picking sides. It is an unavoidable fact of war. Seeing as supporting one side or the other gives tacit approval of that faction's crimes, the only way we can keep our hands clean in this is to stay out of it militarily. At this point the only involvement I support is humanitarian aid.

 

[illram]

Is it a given that both sides have used chemical weapons?

 

[Borachio]

It's certainly not impossible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

 

[Commodore]

Is it a given that both sides have used chemical weapons?

From what I have seen, yes it is a given.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

What about an illegal black banker?

Clintons Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, died in a plane crash in 1997 in Bosnia. He was a rich black banker.

Sent via mobile.

 

[timtofly]

Let Israel annex Syria. There would still be a constant struggle, but no chemical weapon usage.

 

[Borachio]

Israel is already still occupying part of Syria.

 

[JollyRoger]

I thought Syria was occupying Israel's next expansion.

 

[Borachio]

That's taking a very long term view, though.

It's yet to be decided whether Israel can hold on to what it's already got. I think it may do.

But I'd say Lebanon is the next step. Then maybe Jordan? Who knows?

 

[Rashiminos]

The issue is not as black and white as you are making it seem. Assad is not the only one using chemical weapons, so by punishing him and not the rebels that have used them you are giving tacit approval of the rebels' use of chemical weapons. Now what kind of message does that send? I'll tell you: it sends the message that you can commit any atrocities you want as long as you are supporting our agenda. Now I want you to sit there and tell me how that doesn't damage our credibility as a nation.

It doesn't. The US has excess reserves of credibility to expend for these sorts of occasions. Just look at Defiant's uncritical acceptance of the intel report.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Guys, check out these little gems:

US troops aren't the only thing Saudi Arabia is funding.


And this little gem:


Okay, people, the debate is over: who is the terrorist state?

 

[Borachio]

It doesn't. The US has excess reserves of credibility to expend for these sorts of occasions. Just look at Defiant's uncritical acceptance of the intel report.

Credibility isn't like a finite physical resource though. It's more like a human passion/emotion. So that the more you use it the more you have.

As long as people get used to believing you, there's no reason to think they'll ever stop, perhaps?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Fooling some of the people some of the time is enough, like one admittedly rather dire anti-imp pro-Iranian poster had in his signature.

I find it morbidly amusing how the whole Middle Eastern mess created some unlikely bedfellows. I remember the time when leftist option of Al-Jazeera was very good...