Does the use of chemcial weapons by Syria threaten our National Security?

[Painter]

Obama and his administration are claiming that the use of chemical weapons threatens our national security.
Do you agree with this statement?

My answer is NO and here is why:

Even if we do nothing about it, that is not to suggest that if someone launched a chemical attack on one of our allies, a NATO member, or on American soil, that we would do nothing about it.
I do not think there is one single person on the face of the entire planet that thinks we would not respond in a very massive and aggressive way if we were attacked ourselves. We might even respond with the nuclear option depending on the severity.

Obama is wrong.
And that should mean something coming from me, as I strongly support Obama on all of his internal policy.

Please explain in detail if you think I am mistaken.
I'd love for you to sway my mind.

 

[joko104]

I do not believe Syria chemical weapons and all inspectors so far agree.

But regardless, no.

 

[Coin]

I though they wanted to go for civilians. :shock:

 

[Dapper Andy]

I think allowing bad behavior to go unpunished results in increased bad behavior. So, yes.

I don't want to put too much blame on Pres. Obama but I do think his dithering allowed this conflict to escalate. We should have given Assad an ultimatum the moment his military started firing on his people and launched those missiles if he ignored our ultimatum.

 

[Painter]

I think allowing bad behavior to go unpunished results in increased bad behavior. So, yes.

I don't want to put too much blame on Pres. Obama but I do think his dithering allowed this conflict to escalate. We should have given Assad an ultimatum the moment his military started firing on his people and launched those missiles if he ignored our ultimatum.

How many leaders around the world have done similar things in the last year? (fire on their people, not chemical weapons)
Do you suggest we give them all ultimatums?
Were we ever elected the world's policemen?
If we are the world's policemen, then do they get a fair trial?

 

[Dapper Andy]

How many leaders around the world have done similar things in the last year? (fire on their people, not chemical weapons)
Do you suggest we give them all ultimatums?
Were we ever elected the world's policemen?
If we are the world's policemen, then do they get a fair trial?

What does that even mean?

 

[Gipper]

I don't think Syria's actions threaten our national security. I think America's foreign policies, specifically with regard to the Middle East, threaten our national security.

 

[mak2]

It not only threatens our nation, it threatens the world.

 

[Wiseone]

I think at the very least we should bomb the known chemical weapon sites in Syria, to prevent not only Assad from using them but also to prevent them from being captured by the rebels.

 

[Painter]

I think at the very least we should bomb the known chemical weapon sites in Syria, to prevent not only Assad from using them but also to prevent them from being captured by the rebels.

I am not for attacking at all.
But if we did attack, I do not understand why we do not focus on the chemical weapons, either.
It is almost as though they are confusing chemical weapons with biological weapons.
Syria does not have biological weapons.
And it is only biological weapons that would have an extremely high risk of contamination if bombed.
There would be some collateral damage from bombing chemical weapons too, but only marginally more than what is caused by the bomb itself. Especially once you consider a few misses and the collateral damage from those.

 

[iliveonramen]

No...no it doesn't. The Assad regime has killed 10's or 100's of thousands of individuals depending on sources. The chemical attacks were a drop in the bucket in deaths.

Any bombing will end with probably as many or close to as many Syrian deaths as the chemical attacks.

Obama was ****ing stupid by drawing a "red-line". That's generally what chest thumping neanderthal chickenhawk Conservative politicians do.


This idea that us not attacking even though we drew a red line is somehow damaging is ****ing stupid. Nobody cares! At the end of the day actions matter. No dictator has ever stepped down because we've bombed other dictators dictators in the past. A red line is stupid. So 5,000 chemical related deaths matter but the people that didn't die before do matter? How about if it was 10? Would that matter? WTF is going on with this country and the constant need to fight wars. We honestly need a draft....

Edit: Sorry for the rant...be jeeze...do we really need a bombing every year or so? Couple of occupations ever decade or so? Military actions constantly?

 

[WCH]

I think at the very least we should bomb the known chemical weapon sites in Syria, to prevent not only Assad from using them but also to prevent them from being captured by the rebels.

They've likely been moved. If not, Obama will let them know before he bombs them.

 

[Smeagol]

Obama and his administration are claiming that the use of chemical weapons threatens our national security.
Do you agree with this statement?

My answer is NO and here is why:

Even if we do nothing about it, that is not to suggest that if someone launched a chemical attack on one of our allies, a NATO member, or on American soil, that we would do nothing about it.
I do not think there is one single person on the face of the entire planet that thinks we would not respond in a very massive and aggressive way if we were attacked ourselves. We might even respond with the nuclear option depending on the severity.

Obama is wrong.
And that should mean something coming from me, as I strongly support Obama on all of his internal policy.

Please explain in detail if you think I am mistaken.
I'd love for you to sway my mind.

I think yes. There's a reason instability in the Middle East is on the top of our national security concerns and not Rwanda, Sudan or The Congo, which have their share of instability as well. That reason is which region has oil and which does not. The Middle East will continue to be our problem as long as oil holds a vice-grip monopoly on such an important component of our ability to function as a county, personal transportation and our ability to get to work every day and ship food and consumer products. Middle Eastern entanglement is the reason I am such a strong supporter of electric car development after having my eyes opened following the 9/11 attacks on innocent Americans.

 

[Painter]

I think yes. There's a reason instability in the Middle East is on the top of our national security concerns and not Rwanda, Sudan or The Congo, which have their share of instability as well. That reason is which region has oil and which does not. The Middle East will continue to be our problem as long as oil hold a monopoly on such an important component of our ability to function as a county, personal transportation and our ability to get to work every day and ship food and consumer products. Middle Eastern entanglement is the reason I am such a strong supporter of electric car development after having my eyes opened following the 9/11 attacks on innocent Americans.

Ok but if Middle East stability was the national security concern, would it not be better to back the Syrian Government? End this, and have stability?
(I am not for this. Just rationalizing the national security over oil issue)

If we aid the rebels it will make this thing drag out for many years.
Iran and Russia will match our aid.
The potential for it to expand is HUGE.

If we aided the Syrian Government, it would be over in a flash. And the oil would flow.

I am not for this. I am just arguing against stability and oil as our National Security issue for the attack.

 

[KevinKohler]

Would we be talking about this is they had used bullets, instead of gas?

 

[Smeagol]

Ok but if Middle East stability was the national security concern, would it not be better to back the Syrian Government? End this, and have stability?
(I am not for this. Just rationalizing the national security over oil issue)

If we aid the rebels it will make this thing drag out for many years.
Iran and Russia will match our aid.
The potential for it to expand is HUGE.

If we aided the Syrian Government, it would be over in a flash. And the oil would flow.

I am not for this. I am just arguing against stability and oil as our National Security issue for the attack.

Excellent question. The historic US doctrine on the Middle East since the 1950s was if the waters seemed peaceful on the surface, that equaled stability, we benefit from the free flow of oil and all is well. However what 9/11 taught us (actually the Iranian Embassy Hostage crisis but we didn't connect the dots) although things might seem fine on the surface for a host of complicated reasons, there is major instability brewing beneath the surface throughout the Middle East. At or near the top of those host of reasons is being forced to live under dictatorships. Worse if it is seen as an American supported dictator where true or imagined they think they live under oppression because of us, are denied freedoms that we enjoy and their average citizens live in relative poverty so that we get to be the wealthiest nation on earth thanks to their oil while in their minds we hypocritically don't live up to the motto: Making the World Safe for Democracy. Post 9/11 part of our Middle Eastern policy began to shift where instead of supporting the dictators period. Our new position says if the people made it clear they wanted representative government, we'd start supporting the people as opposed to the dictators thinking eventually the people's will will win out and then if we ended up on the losing side we'd suffer oil related consequences or we'd be fueling (unintended pun) the sentiment in the region that gets young people to support and join Al Qaeda and terrorism against Americans.

 

[SMTA]

I think allowing bad behavior to go unpunished results in increased bad behavior. So, yes.

I don't want to put too much blame on Pres. Obama but I do think his dithering allowed this conflict to escalate. We should have given Assad an ultimatum the moment his military started firing on his people and launched those missiles if he ignored our ultimatum.

Fine! Someone else can spend their money to police the world.

It does not effect the US even if the wind changes.

None of our business.

 

[DaveFagan]

I think allowing bad behavior to go unpunished results in increased bad behavior. So, yes.

I don't want to put too much blame on Pres. Obama but I do think his dithering allowed this conflict to escalate. We should have given Assad an ultimatum the moment his military started firing on his people and launched those missiles if he ignored our ultimatum.

What if you have absolutely zero proof of the guilt of the alleged aggressor? As is the current case.

 

[Painter]

What if you have absolutely zero proof of the guilt of the alleged aggressor? As is the current case.

Today Kerry outlined the proof and it sounded air tight to me.
I suppose it depends on how you'd define "proof".
But I think we now have as much proof as could be reasonably expected in such a situation.

That being said, I am still against interfering.

 

[Surtr]

It threatens Syrians, and Syria isn't really our problem. By aiding rebels, we're merely setting up the next heinous regime we'll "need" to topple in the future.

 

[Redress]

Obama and his administration are claiming that the use of chemical weapons threatens our national security.
Do you agree with this statement?

My answer is NO and here is why:

Even if we do nothing about it, that is not to suggest that if someone launched a chemical attack on one of our allies, a NATO member, or on American soil, that we would do nothing about it.
I do not think there is one single person on the face of the entire planet that thinks we would not respond in a very massive and aggressive way if we were attacked ourselves. We might even respond with the nuclear option depending on the severity.

Obama is wrong.
And that should mean something coming from me, as I strongly support Obama on all of his internal policy.

Please explain in detail if you think I am mistaken.
I'd love for you to sway my mind.

Directly, no. Syria is unlikely to directly use them against us. However, the indication that they are willing to use them, and with allies close enough that Stria could use them on them does to me make this a security issue.

 

[DaveFagan]

Today Kerry outlined the proof and it sounded air tight to me.
I suppose it depends on how you'd define "proof".
But I think we now have as much proof as could be reasonably expected in such a situation.

That being said, I am still against interfering.

I read Kerry's speech and it is far from the proof required for more people to die. Fer Krissakes, it relies on Israeli intelligence. Another player with a vested, biased agenda. No thanks, let's play in the real world. That is my honest, sincere opinion.

 

[Cephus]

How could it threaten our national security? They neither have the means, nor the stated desire, to attack the United States on our soil. Obama is once again being an idiot.

 

[Linc]

Considering the "intelligence" we used last decade, I'll take the Israeli intelligence any day.

 

[MMC]

Today Kerry outlined the proof and it sounded air tight to me.
I suppose it depends on how you'd define "proof".
But I think we now have as much proof as could be reasonably expected in such a situation.

That being said, I am still against interfering.

Heya Painter. :2wave: Not according to some others out there.

U.S. Officials say 'no smoking gun' implicating Assad in chemical attack


The U.S. and its allies have "no smoking gun" proving Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad personally ordered his forces to use chemical weapons to attack a rebel-held Damascus neighborhood, U.S. national security officials said on Thursday.

In secret intelligence assessments and a still-unreleased report summarizing U.S. intelligence on the alleged gas attack on August 21, U.S. agencies express high confidence that Syrian government forces carried out the attack, and that Assad's government therefore bears responsibility, the officials said.

"This was not a rogue operation," one U.S. official said.

However the evidence does not prove that Assad himself ordered that chemical munitions be used, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Evidence that forces loyal to Assad were responsible goes beyond the circumstantial to include electronic intercepts and some tentative scientific samples from the neighborhood which was attacked, officials said.

While Obama has not yet announced a decision on military action, he has left little doubt the choice was not whether but when to punish Assad's government for the attack, in which hundreds of people died.....snip~

U.S. Officials say 'no smoking gun' implicating Assad in chemical attack | Reuters