• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • No

    Votes: 23 79.3%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Total voters
    29
Considering the "intelligence" we used last decade, I'll take the Israeli intelligence any day.


Here's a little gas for you fire.

Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

"This article is a collaboration between Dale Gavlak reporting for Mint Press News (also of the Associated Press) and Yahya Ababneh.

August 30, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said."
 
What if you have absolutely zero proof of the guilt of the alleged aggressor? As is the current case.

You have to be living under a rock if you actually believe there is no proof Assad is killing his own people.
 
I'm sure we could still get some of them.


We really don't want to bomb any of those sites due to the possible release on those agents. That with not actually knowing who has them.....
 
Not sure. On one hand, I think that a message should be sent about the use of chemical weapons, because the world has decided that the particular horror inflicted by them is inhuman and unacceptable, and of course any country that would do that to its own wouldn't hesitate to use them on us and others. In fact, it may have been an excuse to use them on their own, to see the reaction, before using them on us. On the other hand, we have not reacted when others have used them, like Iraq in the 1980s AND THE UNITED STATES DURING THE VIETNAM WAR. So I suspect there's a different reason to be so horrified about Syria. Syria is an enemy of ours and friend of Iran, so maybe U.S. wants to send a message to Iran? Or do we have pressure from Israel? What's going on here? I'm not sure. But I do trust Obama's calm reasoning and judgment abilities in matters like this. He's not exactly a war monger. I just hope he's not overly pressured by Kerry or Israel to act. I don't think he will be.
 
You're confusing the Syria civil war/revolution with the use of chemical weapons. Two totally separate things. The U.S. made a decision not to intervene in the civil war. That has not changed. It is solely the use of chemical weapons, and their being against international war, that is the issue. That they were used during a civil war is irrelevant.

Obama isn't dithering, IMO. He's weighing the options and giving careful consideration to what we should do. This is what I want. I don't want a leader who does knee jerk reactions or succumbs easily to pressure from other countries or the Sec of State. Obama has a good track record in making thoughtful foreign policy decisions. If only GWB had given more thoughtful consideration to going into Iraq and not succumbed to the pressure from Rumsfeld and Cheney.
 
You have to be living under a rock if you actually believe there is no proof Assad is killing his own people.

One of us is surely under a rock. There is no proof. All the proof indicts the rebels. Live with it. I'll put some kibbles and bits under your rock.
 
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.

No, and I don't understand (and never have) why some think the U.S. need to be the world's police force.
 
Back
Top Bottom