Is it America's job to deal with countries that use Chemical Weapons?

[zimmer]

Is it?

Yes.
No.
And Obama's Favorite: Not Present.

 

[jamesrage]

Is it?

Yes.
No.
And Obama's Favorite: Not Present.

I say no. The idea that we should care about someone using chemical weapons is absurd and its just an excuse to wage war with another country. I do not think the those that were temporarily injured, or permanently injured by a bomb or gun are sitting there thanking God that they were not temporarily injured, or permanently injured by a chemical weapon.Nor do I think the loved ones of those that died due to bombs or guns are glad that their loved ones were not killed by a chemical weapon. I do not think those that died because of chemical weapons were wishing that they were killed by bombs or guns instead of chemical weapons.

 

[Smeagol]

I don't know the answer to that. The biggest slap in the face is when we sacrifice our tax dollars and lives of our military and then the people we were helping hate our guts for it as was the Middle East reaction to the ouster of the most brutal madman in Middle Eastern history, Saddam Hussein who probably holds the distinction of killing more Arabs than anyone in history. Add rape rooms, torture chambers and some if the most sick and twisted brutality imaginable and the people who rescue them from that are the bad guys.

I'd say yes in most cases but give more consideration to staying away from the Middle East due to their unique ideology on isolationalism/segregation were based on the Iraqi experience they've made it clear they'd rather live under an horrifically brutal dictator than have freedom at the hands of the United States. Of course, with respect to Syria there are other considerations. S Since we're in an unofficial treaty with the government of Syria that we recognize, the opposition fighting Assad where we publicly agreed in advance to help them militarily if Assad used chemical weapons and he did plus our need to use the full resources of the American taxpayers to support the oil oligopoly.

 

[DDD]

I don't know the answer to that. The biggest slap in the face is when he sacrifice our tax dollars and lives of our military and then the people we were helping hate our guts for it as was the Middle East reaction to the ouster of the most brutal madman in Middle Eastern history, Saddam Hussein who probably holds the distinction of killing more Arabs than anyone in history. Add rape rooms, torture chambers and some if the most sick and twisted brutality imaginable and the people who rescue them from that are the bad guys.

Something just does not communicates well does it not? Anything is better than that should have been the case. Yet you end being bad guys and Russia uses that to impose his own "good guy" policies and these idiots but it!

Irrelevant the fact that Russia has historically damaged Muslim countries everywhere. Afghanistan is as $hitty of a place today because Russia messed it into that hole first. It was more modern before.

You know, I have a gut feeling that religious Islam leaders are misinterpreting the well intentions there. They preach and demonize what you do no matter what you do.

Even here in 1998 they were preaching to stay away from NATO! Can you believe the shear destructiveness of this message?! I urge you to read it again for it weighs tons for us here!

Why would entrusted religious leaders lead their religious followers to stay away from help? It almost sounds like Russia and Muslim countries are working together to keep populations oppressed and back to the medieval ages!

People trapped in that time are the best candidates to be controlled from countries where religion has the last world. Be it in countries whom explicitly state that religion is government such as in ME, be it those who hide it implicitly such as Russia, Serbia, and other Slavic nations.

 

[mak2]

I dont think we should be the world police. I do beleive allowing one whacky leader do it without serious repercussions could make North Korea or Iran or some other country think they might be able to get away with it too. Chemical weapons are evil, there is a reason they are banned. I think the entire world should take out any one or country that uses them.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I'd say yes in most cases but give more consideration to staying away from the Middle East due to their unique ideology on isolationalism/segregation were based on the Iraqi experience they've made it clear they'd rather live under an horrifically brutal dictator than have freedom at the hands of the United States. Of course, with respect to Syria there are other considerations. S Since we're in an unofficial treaty with the government of Syria that we recognize, the opposition fighting Assad where we publicly agreed in advance to help them militarily if Assad used chemical weapons and he did plus our need to use the full resources of the American taxpayers to support the oil oligopoly.

Of course! Just look at how 'free' Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are. It isn't like those places aren't extremely dangerous with people being killed on a regular/semi-regular basis.

 

[Smeagol]

Of course! Just look at how 'free' Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are. It isn't like those places aren't extremely dangerous with people being killed on a regular/semi-regular basis.

That's all a part of my argument. Whether we "help them" or not, the culture itself seems to be bent on incivility at least to some extent. Whoever is in charge, there will probably be instability and violence. Gotta love that oil monopoly over our economy's ability to function.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It is a UN issue since it is usually the actions of a sovereign nation. If the UN decides action is necessary then member states can volunteer to participate in corrective action.

The only time it becomes a strictly USA problem is when such weapons are being used against an ally, or against us. In either case, we respond with "shock and awe" against the aggressor nation.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It is a UN issue since it is usually the actions of a sovereign nation. If the UN decides action is necessary then member states can volunteer to participate in corrective action.

The only time it becomes a strictly USA problem is when such weapons are being used against an ally, or against us. In either case, we respond with "shock and awe" against the aggressor nation.

I agree - it's entirely conditional upon who is using the weapons and upon whom they are used.

1,500 people losing their lives in a chemical attack inside Syria is a tragedy but no more so than the other 100,000 who lost their lives in more conventional ways in Syria over the past two plus years and no more so a tragedy than people losing their lives all over the world under the hands of despots who consider the death of their citizens to be a cost of power.

As an example, the UN reports that more than 260,000 people lost their lives in African famines during 2010 to 2012, more than half of them children, and the UN and others in the world did virtually nothing to help. I'd much rather see the world help those who want to help themselves than spend precious resources helping people who are only interested in killing their own countrymen out of hate.

 

[avatar]

Not using the tactics presented and the reasons stated. If we were the police, where were we earlier in the year? Where were we when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Where were we when gas was used against the Iranians in the Iraq/Iran war.

Well, for that last one we know where we were. It was targeting information provided by our CIA that Iraq used.

You cannot be the worlds police unless your hands are squeeky clean and you are consistent. Should something be done about poison gas? Probably, but not by us, not unilaterally, not untill we clean up our act and not until we are prepared to really do something about it that carries a bit more sting than a slap on the wrist.

 

[aberrant85]

The answer is no, but somebody's got to do it. If we don't like that nobody is, then we have to decide if we make it our job.

 

[Smeagol]

The answer is no, but somebody's got to do it. If we don't like that nobody is, then we have to decide if we make it our job.

Agreed but I think we'd have more of an option not to if more of us drove electric cars and stability in regions of the world that supply oil to the global petroleum market, which is currently a global must have product.

 

[aberrant85]

Agreed but I think we'd have more of an option not to if more of us drove electric cars and stability in regions of the world that supply oil to the global petroleum market, which is currently a global must have product.

Yup. Energy independence would be a game changer.

 

[iguanaman]

Agreed but I think we'd have more of an option not to if more of us drove electric cars and stability in regions of the world that supply oil to the global petroleum market, which is currently a global must have product.

What does that have to do with a nation that violates international law and uses poison gas on its own people? The alternative to punishing Syrian leaders for the action is a worldwide rearming with poison gas and biological weapons. If sarin is to become a viable weapon, then all nations will need to have it including the US. We can't have a "Sarin gap" can we?

 

[penn1954]

I voted not present as a smart a**.

In all seriousness I don't feel the need for us to continue to be
the world's policeman!!

If its important enough get the UN !!!!

 

[Smeagol]

I voted not present as a smart a**.

In all seriousness I don't feel the need for us to continue to be
the world's policeman!!

If its important enough get the UN !!!!

One issue I have with that, although I think its inevitable, is we'd be helping to move toward setting up a scenario for the UN to come in an police us at some point. Currently, under the present accepted arrangement nobody else tell us what to do. Do we really want America under international law to be subject to a global body made up of governments like Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China, Somalia and Pakistan?

 

[mak2]

Oh no, not the UN taking over thing again? I thought the Birchers were extinct.

One issue I have with that, although I think its inevitable, is we'd be helping to move toward setting up a scenario for the UN to come in an police us at some point. Currently, under the present accepted arrangement nobody else tell us what to do. Do we really want America under international law to be subject to a global body made up of governments like Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China, Somalia and Pakistan?

 

[penn1954]

One issue I have with that, although I think its inevitable, is we'd be helping to move toward setting up a scenario for the UN to come in an police us at some point. Currently, under the present accepted arrangement nobody else tell us what to do. Do we really want America under international law to be subject to a global body made up of governments like Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China, Somalia and Pakistan?

I don't think we're policeable at present.
Too many Patriots with weapons available!!:mrgreen:

 

[Scrabaholic]

The USA needs to learn to mind it's own business. And it wonders why it's hated so much overseas ......

 

[Lukas105]

The fact that we used chemical weapons in WWI, Napalmed cities to the ground in WWII, Used Agent Orange in Vietnam, and White Phosphorus in Iraq, Hardly gives us the say in this matter. The U.S. is being hypocritical, and I'm still waiting for the Obama administration to release the proof that the Assad government personally ordered this attack.

Is it?

Yes.
No.
And Obama's Favorite: Not Present.

 

[Slyhunter]

The fact that we used chemical weapons in WWI, Napalmed cities to the ground in WWII, Used Agent Orange in Vietnam, and White Phosphorus in Iraq, Hardly gives us the say in this matter. The U.S. is being hypocritical, and I'm still waiting for the Obama administration to release the proof that the Assad government personally ordered this attack.

Expectations of such proof is unrealistic. It couldn't be gotten even if true.

 

[Artevelde]

The fact that we used chemical weapons in WWI, Napalmed cities to the ground in WWII, Used Agent Orange in Vietnam, and White Phosphorus in Iraq, Hardly gives us the say in this matter. The U.S. is being hypocritical, and I'm still waiting for the Obama administration to release the proof that the Assad government personally ordered this attack.

Rather stupid attempt to lob all sorts of things together that have nothing to do with one another.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No....

 

[American]

Is it?

Yes.
No.
And Obama's Favorite: Not Present.

I can't answer because I don't like the way you asked the question. It's too Yes or No. And are you asking if America should handle these things alone? You need to explain.

 

[Peter Grimm]

No, and Obama needs to stop warmongering.

Syria is not our problem.