• 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!

Exotic weapons aim to destroy chemical weapons

Any dictator worth his salt would have stashed the chemicals among the citizens.

I heard they have filled the military installations with prisoners. The attack on Syria is going to accomplish nothing other than assuage the ego of someone in the white house. A lot of people are going to die because of that ego.
 
I heard they have filled the military installations with prisoners. The attack on Syria is going to accomplish nothing other than assuage the ego of someone in the white house. A lot of people are going to die because of that ego.

When you draw a bright red line in the sand and someone crosses it, you don't move the line.
 
When you draw a bright red line in the sand and someone crosses it, you don't move the line.

No, you keep your mouth shut about red lines in the first place. A U.S. President should never threaten. He should keep his mouth shut and act if and when action is indicated without telling the world what he is going to do in every detail.
 

I'm sure they could find a reason to use them. . . if that's what the administration thinks will garner the most votes for democrats during the next election cycle.

However, isn't it slightly hypocritical for us to run around destroying the chemical/ biological weapons in other countries when we have a greater stockpile of them than anyone else in the world?
 
When you draw a bright red line in the sand and someone crosses it, you don't move the line.

If you were to have been one of Obama's military advisor's and said that, Obama would have fired you from your position and replaced you with a REMF "yes man."

But I'm pretty sure Obama has all of the PC REMF's "yes men" in position of all of the commands by now.
 
No, you keep your mouth shut about red lines in the first place. A U.S. President should never threaten. He should keep his mouth shut and act if and when action is indicated without telling the world what he is going to do in every detail.

A U.S. president should never threaten...unless he's ready to walk the walk.
 

The Air Force has two Agent Defeat weapons, CrashPAD and the Passive Attack Weapon (PAW), according to Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman. Instead of explosives, these relatively low-tech weapons use metal rods or fragments to pierce containers holding toxic chemicals, allowing them to escape.

There's an idea. Instead of actually neutralizing chemical agents, release them into the soil, air, making proper containment and disposal as difficult and dangerous as possible.

Genius-meme.png
 
I heard they have filled the military installations with prisoners. The attack on Syria is going to accomplish nothing other than assuage the ego of someone in the white house. A lot of people are going to die because of that ego.

The main things to achieve are to punish Assad and all of the participants. The second aim must be that the US should not have to do these things alone. Most other countries are not helping. This will not work. So the US must show them this. I would have thought most of them had learned that from G W Bush. Of course some countries do not want R2P. If you have to crush resistance periodically at home, you do not want precedent of internationally coordinated preventive action and punishment.

The third thing is the Red Line. It is not a question of "ego". It is the question of how countries will react next time. If you think the other guy will make noise but do nothing?
 
The main things to achieve are to punish Assad and all of the participants. The second aim must be that the US should not have to do these things alone. Most other countries are not helping. This will not work. So the US must show them this. I would have thought most of them had learned that from G W Bush. Of course some countries do not want R2P. If you have to crush resistance periodically at home, you do not want precedent of internationally coordinated preventive action and punishment.

Assad will get his punishment from the war crimes tribunal. It is pointless to engage in military action against a non existent threat to the U.S. that can accomplish nothing positive for either side. It is all about ego. Presidents should not threaten and should not draw red lines publicly. I believe the whole purpose of this action was to assuage that ego. It certainly has no practical purpose. As it turns out, Obama blinked and that is good. In my view it shows character.

The third thing is the Red Line. It is not a question of "ego". It is the question of how countries will react next time. If you think the other guy will make noise but do nothing?[/QUOTE]
 
A U.S. president should never threaten...unless he's ready to walk the walk.

No, Presidents should never threaten for any reason. Telling the world what you might do is downright stupid. One should do what one is going to do when one decides to do it without telegraphing strategy to the world. Walking the walk is what it is about, not talking the talk. I'm all for transparency in government when it comes to domestic issues. It is downright wrong in military issues. It appears the crisis has passed and, perhaps, Assad will think twice about using chemicals in future. Or maybe not.
 
Assad will get his punishment from the war crimes tribunal. It is pointless to engage in military action against a non existent threat to the U.S. that can accomplish nothing positive for either side. It is all about ego. Presidents should not threaten and should not draw red lines publicly. I believe the whole purpose of this action was to assuage that ego. It certainly has no practical purpose. As it turns out, Obama blinked and that is good. In my view it shows character.

The third thing is the Red Line. It is not a question of "ego". It is the question of how countries will react next time. If you think the other guy will make noise but do nothing?
[/QUOTE]

There is no question, you are right that it seems to have been rash of Obama to have drawn that line. But it is now drawn. And we cannot change that.

The proven rule is that once drawn you pay heavily, if you do not carry through. It would be very bad for die country to let Obama back down.

As to the court? You need police to feed any court. The UN does not have such police. I am totally with you in that the US should not be the Lone Sheriff riding again. And I think strongly that we need a new approach immediately. And we can gladly discuss how the alternative organization of international security should look and what it needs to have in assets and do. But that is not the question right now.
 
No, Presidents should never threaten for any reason. Telling the world what you might do is downright stupid. One should do what one is going to do when one decides to do it without telegraphing strategy to the world. Walking the walk is what it is about, not talking the talk. I'm all for transparency in government when it comes to domestic issues. It is downright wrong in military issues. It appears the crisis has passed and, perhaps, Assad will think twice about using chemicals in future. Or maybe not.

Sometimes presidents have to threaten action. I agree that giving the bad guys your play book is a bad idea.
 
Sometimes presidents have to threaten action. I agree that giving the bad guys your play book is a bad idea.

I disagree. They carry a big stick. If it is time to use it, then use it. Threatening to use it is unnecessary. It is understood that the US will defend itself.
 

There is no question, you are right that it seems to have been rash of Obama to have drawn that line. But it is now drawn. And we cannot change that.

The proven rule is that once drawn you pay heavily, if you do not carry through. It would be very bad for die country to let Obama back down.

As to the court? You need police to feed any court. The UN does not have such police. I am totally with you in that the US should not be the Lone Sheriff riding again. And I think strongly that we need a new approach immediately. And we can gladly discuss how the alternative organization of international security should look and what it needs to have in assets and do. But that is not the question right now.[/QUOTE]

He made a mistake by threatening with his red line. So he has corrected the mistake by withdrawing the threat. Sure, he and we look foolish but it is far better than lobbing missiles into the desert. It's a little bad press. Perhaps it will help Obama keep his mouth shut in the future.
 
I disagree. They carry a big stick. If it is time to use it, then use it. Threatening to use it is unnecessary. It is understood that the US will defend itself.

It was understood...before Obama got elected.
 
It was understood...before Obama got elected.

I'll give you that point. Certainly Benghazi was a direct attack on a U.S. facility and our government did zero to prevent it, defend it or go after the perpetrators. We just turned the other cheek. Can't do that too many times without getting the other cheek slapped.
 
There is no question, you are right that it seems to have been rash of Obama to have drawn that line. But it is now drawn. And we cannot change that.

The proven rule is that once drawn you pay heavily, if you do not carry through. It would be very bad for die country to let Obama back down.

As to the court? You need police to feed any court. The UN does not have such police. I am totally with you in that the US should not be the Lone Sheriff riding again. And I think strongly that we need a new approach immediately. And we can gladly discuss how the alternative organization of international security should look and what it needs to have in assets and do. But that is not the question right now.

He made a mistake by threatening with his red line. So he has corrected the mistake by withdrawing the threat. Sure, he and we look foolish but it is far better than lobbing missiles into the desert. It's a little bad press. Perhaps it will help Obama keep his mouth shut in the future.[/QUOTE]

He did better than I had expected and has gained some valuable time (not of course for the girls and guy that will die in the interim). The street fighting lawyer came through and I liked it.

And you will be right, that we can stand off, if the Security Council can be persuaded to act. And that would be the best result, not so much because of this immediate issue. It would give dearly needed precedence. And there is no reason for the Russians or Chinese to block action now, as it does not seem as likely that their leadership will need gas instead of rifles to quell demonstrations.
 
I'll give you that point. Certainly Benghazi was a direct attack on a U.S. facility and our government did zero to prevent it, defend it or go after the perpetrators. We just turned the other cheek. Can't do that too many times without getting the other cheek slapped.

Solution to that problem is to get out of the Middle East.
 
Sometimes presidents have to threaten action. I agree that giving the bad guys your play book is a bad idea.

No they don't. They never do. The president is the bad guy.
 
Solution to that problem is to get out of the Middle East.

And by the time things are so far out of control, we'll lose a half million troops getting it under control again.
 
Back
Top Bottom