Syria

[ihasfrozen]

Seems like a very prevalent topic in the news lately.

What do you think the U.S. (and the global community, U.N., etc.) should do, if anything, about the alleged chemical weapons attack by Assad on his own people?

[Dudecore]

Iran 2013. If we interfere, other Muslims extremists will take over after Assad - score settling and religion strife from Christians Sunnis and Shias. The rebel groups are all individually attempting to grab power, they're not friends.

Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to his regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, the kind of outcome most people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as everyone is so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Strategic bombing isn't likely to scare a man desperate enough to gas his own people.

Best scenario is leave them alone. It should not be America's job to police the world.

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

LETS GIT IN THER AND KEEL ALL 'DEM TURRORISTS BEFORE DEM KNOCK OVER MUR BILDIN'S!!! Sorry, had to act like a stereotypical American for a minute. In all reality, I agree with Dudecore 100%. Stay out of there, we aren't the international police. If the UN wants to take action against Assad for using chemical weapons, by all means go for it but we don't need to spend more money and throw away more lives for another 20 year war that isn't our business.

[Dudecore]

Chemical warfare violates the Geneva Conventions. Also, who cares? We can't afford to put troops on the ground - there is no more money to borrow so we can wage another war. Bombing a few buildings to show our "might" is a load of garbage, it will not do anything. Saddam and Osama did not turn themselves in because they were scared, it's never happened ever.

[Double-O-Scotch]

Since when does the U.S. care about the Geneva convention, being the only country in the world to nuke 2 civilian populaces?

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

/\ Too true. Anyway I watched Obama at 1:50pm and he said he wants to punish them and "strike at them". He wouldn't elaborate but did say that he would wait for Congress's approval, hinted that he would ignore the UN and said he would be cautious about going into a full scale war though because we "are a war-weary country".

[Piotr]

They ignored the un treaty something or other.  That treaty involves us.  If they break it, we need to punish them so they know not to mess with us and uphold the treaty.

Did Syria signed this treaty too?

I'm with DC on this one, and let's not forget that we don't have the proof of Syria using the weapons, they deny. We have seen this done to us before when government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Irak.

[Wingnut]

We need to cut any and all aid we have been giving them and tell them to go fornicate with themself. We do not need to be in another country, which is what this will turn into.

[Piotr]

We need to cut any and all aid we have been giving them and tell them to go fornicate with themself.

Strongly disagree. All voluntary aid should be left alone.

[Dudecore]

We need to cut any and all aid we have been giving them and tell them to go fornicate with themself. We do not need to be in another country, which is what this will turn into.

Lots of innocent people will die as well. One of the largests population deaths of all time occurred when the US filed sanctions against North Korea. Millions of people starved to death, were denied access to western medicines and all existing supplies were withheld for use by military goons. It happened in Iraq and everywhere we've ever tried it.

The dictators never suffer, the people do. By stating that any humanitarian aid given to our enemies, makes you our enemy, human suffering occurs. Nothing is worse then killing innocent people to show that killing innocent people is wrong.

[Piotr]

They ignored the un treaty something or other.  That treaty involves us.  If they break it, we need to punish them so they know not to mess with us and uphold the treaty.

Did Syria signed this treaty too?

I actually have no idea.  I think they did.  I might be wrong though.

This is important, because if they didn't then I can't see how intervention could be legally based on the fact that Syria possibly broke treaty they never signed.

[Piotr]

regardless of that, we DO NOT want people using chemical/biological warfare.  it would not end good.  in my opion we should crack down hard on any chemical warfare use.

Why? What difference does it make if I die from mustard gas, nuclear bomb, Predator drone or .22 bullet to the head?

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

They ignored the un treaty something or other.  That treaty involves us.  If they break it, we need to punish them so they know not to mess with us and uphold the treaty.

Did Syria signed this treaty too?

I actually have no idea.  I think they did.  I might be wrong though.

They did, along with 98% of the world. The treaty is the Geneva Convention, here is a list of the countries that signed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions

While I agree that we can't let people use chemical weapons, especially on innocent civilians, it is not America's job to stop the Assad regime. Let the U.N. investigation find what it will find and the UN do whatever they choose is best.

[Piotr]

They ignored the un treaty something or other.  That treaty involves us.  If they break it, we need to punish them so they know not to mess with us and uphold the treaty.

Did Syria signed this treaty too?

I actually have no idea.  I think they did.  I might be wrong though.

They did, along with 98% of the world. The treaty is the Geneva Convention, here is a list of the countries that signed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions

Excellent, now if someone (including me), without providing counter-proof, claims that Syria can legally use chemical weapons, they can be punished for lying by people who are hurt by that particular lie. Makes sense?

[Piotr]

The only reason I want the us to go after them, is that the un has no plans to punish them.  They are claiming that it isn't the country who did it or something. (Which brings up the debate of making the un keep their agreements). Their chemical weapon use has to stop, and no one else wants to do it.

Why use of chemical weapons has to stop and use of Apache helicopters and Predator drones has not? Or perhaps both should stop?