• 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!

What are we missing about the threatened U.S. attacks against Syria

2002-2003 U.N. inspections of Iraq weapon systems found unreported empty chemical war heads and they claimed they were old and forgotten. Upon further inspections Iraq claimed to have destroyed stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent yet failed to provide adequate documentation of the destruction. Shortly after Iraqi scientists begin to deny interviews with U.N. inspectors.

Supported military action:






Opposed military action:





Most took no actual stance on the use if military force is disarming Iraq though almost all felt the threat was still present and real enough to continue U.N. inspections.

After the invasion Democrats continued to use it as an example of G.W. Bush's war mongering abuse of power.

Now here we are ten years later and only two countries (France and possibly Saudi Arabia) oppose military action is Syria. U.S. officials claim to have proof that the attacks used sarin gas, however U.N. officials do not feel certain that the Syrian government is responsible for the attacks.

Obama boldly moves forward. Wouldn't that be a highly hypocritical moves to do the exact same thing with less evidence and less support than the invasion into Iraq? Iraq admitted to having the weapons and destroying them, but failed to prove it.

Now is a good time to point out that in 1988 the Halabja massacre (mass chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurdish people) conducted by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein. Saddam was tried and convicted of those events in 2010, two military conflicts later, neither of which were instigated by the chemical attacks.

Do I think we should stand by and do nothing as such crimes against humanity are committed? that is not what I am saying at all. But I am saying that it is contradictory to the party's previous attacks against the Bush Administration, as well horrible tactical decision to "telegraph your punch" allowing them plenty of time to move/dispose of any of these weapons if they do exist, while the current administration has already cut funding, man power, and training to a war tired military who has been putting their lives on the line every day for the last 12 years.

What are your thoughts?

Such an act now will not only cost us precious military funding that is already stretched too thin, it will accomplish nothing against Syria as we have given them plenty of time to prepare defenses that risks American lives and gives them justification to retaliate in an already unstable portion of the world.
Top Bottom