US Military to Syria

[Nonsensei]

One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.

The Syrian government is waging chemical warfare on its own citizens. There isnt much that is worse than a Sharia government but certainly this is one of them.

[DunkleSeele]

One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.

The Syrian government is waging chemical warfare on its own citizens. There isnt much that is worse than a Sharia government but certainly this is one of them.

And what will happen if those chemical weapons will fall in the hands of an Islamic, theocratic government?

For the record, I despise Assad; he is a ruthless maniac and he surely has no scruples. I'm just afraid the alternative can be even worse.

[Farroc]

You know what we need to do? Make a marijuana bomb. Get everybody over there high. That'll calm em down.

[Nonsensei]

And what will happen if those chemical weapons will fall in the hands of an Islamic, theocratic government?

I don't know what will happen (and neither do you). I don't even know whether or not such a government will even form. I think some people are using the boogie man of a sharia takeover of Syria as an excuse for not lifting a finger to stop chemical genocide. There comes a point where things are so fucking horrible that you go in and do something about it and roll the dice on the aftermath because the alternative is letting people get wiped out en masse. If a sharia takeover occurs and Syrians allow themselves to think of us as villains then oh well. At least we know we did what was right. And it will be the first time in a while that the US government could claim that about anything.

[Nonsensei]

Syrians allow themselves to think of us as villains then oh well.

Oh why would they 'allow' themselves to think such a thing at all?! I mean what on earth could be the reason?!  

If we were to enter Syria and stop the use of chemical weapons? I dont know. You're from the general region, why don't you tell us?

[DunkleSeele]

And what will happen if those chemical weapons will fall in the hands of an Islamic, theocratic government?

I don't know what will happen (and neither do you). I don't even know whether or not such a government will even form. I think some people are using the boogie man of a sharia takeover of Syria as an excuse for not lifting a finger to stop chemical genocide. There comes a point where things are so fucking horrible that you go in and do something about it and roll the dice on the aftermath because the alternative is letting people get wiped out en masse. If a sharia takeover occurs and Syrians allow themselves to think of us as villains then oh well. At least we know we did what was right. And it will be the first time in a while that the US government could claim that about anything.

People in Syria have been already wiped out en masse well before the alleged use of chemical weapons. We're talking about more than 90'000 deaths, of which about 150 are due to the use of chemical weapons. Weren't those 90000 enough to decide to do "what was right"?

Or maybe the right thing to do would just be to not intervene once again in a foreign country just to play world police. Let's face it: if the US and/or its Western allies intervene in Syria, it won't be to save lives, or they would have taken action before. It will be, once again, just a political game. The US and the West didn't intervene in Iraq when Saddam was waging chemical warfare on the Kurds (and he really did). They had to fabricate, several years later, dodgy evidence of Iraq's possession of WMDs. When I look at the situation in Syria, it feels like deja-vu.

[DunkleSeele]

Or maybe the right thing to do would just be to not intervene once again in a foreign country just to play world police. Let's face it: if the US and/or its Western allies intervene in Syria, it won't be to save lives, or they would have taken action before. It will be, once again, just a political game. The US and the West didn't intervene in Iraq when Saddam was waging chemical warfare on the Kurds (and he really did). They had to fabricate, several years later, dodgy evidence of Iraq's possession of WMDs. When I look at the situation in Syria, it feels like deja-vu.

Feels like? I love how polite you are. Are you single?  :P

Happily married and father of a lovely kid! :-D

[SilentFutility]

One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.

The Syrian government is waging chemical warfare on its own citizens. There isnt much that is worse than a Sharia government but certainly this is one of them.

There have been unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons usage since this war began, as well as countless massacres and atrocities committed, and only now is military intervention on the table. This seems awfully convienient given that it coincides with a major turning point in the war after the regime dealt some decisive blows to the rebels.

Potential chemical weapons use was never a "red line", and whether you massacre everyone in a town by gassing them or setting them on fire or shooting them doesn't make a difference. It is the excuse for intervention because the rebels are on the back foot.

This is not an argument for or against intervention, I'm just saying that the unverified, but highly likely fact that a small fraction of the atrocities committed in this war were with chemicals rather than knives and guns is the trigger for intervention is just the official line.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm sometimes polite..not here often, but am when I'm out in public. Here I can be a jerk among jerks and it gives me omnipotent powers beyond imagination! :D/

On second thought it might be the medication.. :shock:

[AllPurposeAtheist]

The defense industry lobby needs war less their stock prices fall and who will be the recipients of the fine tools they manufacture? Well, it damned sure won't be their own kids and the few who do go, if any at all will be in the officer ranks at the pentagon 'making the tough decisions' of what corporation to buy what from.. Oh! Daddy's company! FUCK! That's a tough job!

[Colanth]

Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment

It also had high confidence that Hussein had stockpiled WMD in 2003.  It will have "high confidence" in any viewpoint it's ordered to have.

So we'll intervene militarily (only with some "assistance" - but isn't that what we did in Nam?), help to push Assad out of office and in a few years the rebels, now the legal government of Syria, will be staunchly anti-American.

What would we ever do if we had no enemies?  (Even if we have to manufacture a new one every time we're about to run out of an old one.)

[Minimalist]

U.S. officials have concluded that the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebel fighters

I'm a little confused about something.  Is someone deader if killed with chemical weapons than if you shoot him in the fucking head?  If Assad just shot people in the head would be invited to a White House dinner?  Why do we always have to be such fucking hypocrites?

[Shiranu]

U.S. officials have concluded that the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebel fighters

I'm a little confused about something.  Is someone deader if killed with chemical weapons than if you shoot him in the fucking head?  If Assad just shot people in the head would be invited to a White House dinner?  Why do we always have to be such fucking hypocrites?

Because chemical weapons violate international law.

And they are dead either way yes, but they are tortured to death. Would you rather dying of poisoning, most likely losing control of bodily organs, extreme pain in your skin/eyes/nostrils/stomach or take a *boom*, dead bullet to the back of the head? That is why chemical weapons are wrong...

Lets look at the effects of some chemical weapons...

For gases like phosgene and chlorine, you end up choking to death. Imagine drowning, mixed with vomiting and extreme pain on your skin and rest of the body.

For mustard and gases like these, you get the benefit of it not acting immediately at the cost of it more slowly killing you. Your skin breaks out in rashes, which soon turn into painful blisters. Your eyes start to burn and you start having blood come out of your throat and rectum. Don't forget also the constant coughing, fevers and vomiting. Then your nose and throat start to swell and develop rashes and blisters until you end up suffocating.

Then finally there are nerve agents like Sarin gas... this shit will stick to your clothing and continue to release from it for over 30 minutes after exposure, meaning you can take the gas home and your entire family can suffocate to death as your nervous system fails! Yay, fun for the whole family!

So yes, it is sorta a big deal that he is using chemical weapons. Unless you think being tortured to death is at all similar to being shot in the back of the head, in which case you either have a high pain tolerance or a low empathy level.

[Colanth]

The use of gas is a violation of Protocol III, and Syria isn't a signatory nation.  We can't hold them liable for violating a treaty they're not a party to, we can just come down on them for doing something we find abhorrent.  But, not being bound by Protocol III, Syria can't be violating it.

[Farroc]

Yeah, people are tuuuuribble.