What Do You Think About Chemical Weapons Used In Syria?

1. 72

   crazyhorsesghostposted 10 years ago

   What Do You Think About Chemical Weapons Used In Syria?
   
   In the name of religion various factions of the Muslim faith are fighting one another and now they have used chemical weapons. Why do these people keep doing this to their own people. I think the world, not just the USA should step in and take over these countries. Why does the world let these things keep happening. Maybe these people shouldn't be alloweed to rule themselves. What do you think?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   I think we should mind our own business. I am a staunch conservative on many issues.  But I break with many conservatives on this constant state of intervention.  Intervening and taking over nations even if the goal is to institute a democracy can only lead to more Iraq's and Afghanistan's.  There is a good bet that they got these chemical weapons from Iraq because we invaded and they smuggled out these WMD's to Syria to hide them, as it was widely rumored back then.   
   
   Even if the cause is noble in it's intent, the US cannot keep policing the world.  Sending in NATO or UN troops is the same thing as sending in the US with less effectiveness, because the US carries most of the cost burden.  Nobody wants to see this type of thing happen.   But we need to stop funding these govt's with aid, which they use to buy off terrorist organizations and suppress their own people.  Let them police and pay for their own actions. We have very few allies in the region.  And the best we could do is stay out of it.  The concern over the impact on this type of instability in the region effecting the price of oil and damaging the global economy could be easily circumvented if we used our own resources more effectively.  I don't want to keep sacrificing American boys to protect groups that just turn on us anyway.  Look at Libya, we had to choose between Muammar Gaddafi and Al-Qaeda linked terror groups.  It's like playing a game of pick your favorite terrorist.  Or rather the one you hate the least.
   
   If we want to exercise a positive influence, we should do business with only those nations that respect the rights of their citizens.  That means we can sell them, not give them military aide, as well as exercise free trade policies. But we don't.  We give aide to some of the worst players in the world like the North Koreans in the hope that they'll behave.  And they never do.

   replyreport
3. 95

   chef-de-jourposted 10 years ago

   Chemical weapons are a truly horrible weapon to use. Why so when conventional bombs also kill indiscriminately. Well when you know the bombs are coming you can hide your children and older people in the basement and give them relative protection. With chemical weapons you have no way of protecting the vulnerable - masks not being readily available - plus death is slow and agonising.
   
   There are attempts being made to ban the manufacture of these weapons but consensus has not been reached yet. Does this have something to do with the big boys who sponsor the making of chemical weapons? My guess is yes.
   
   Intervention of some kind in Syria will have to take place but it's going to be messy, protracted and hugely controversial. Dictators who annihilate their own people, and minorities, have to be dealt with. This is a moral stance the world takes  (and always has against tyrants who overstep the mark....think of Hitler, Saddam Hussein and others). If we do nothing we send the wrong message to these type of people and they always take advantage of non-action. Assad will carry on oppressing his people if nothing is done.
   
   Someone has to be moral leader for world good and the UN has to be the policeman. With Syria we have to get Putin on board and sort out what to do with Assad. His regime needs to change and Russian pressure -  they sponsor his military hardware? - may persuade him.
   
   But it could be too late for a clean solution. Many extreme elements are now 'fighting' for the rebel cause, including Al Quaeda and Hisbollah, plus mercenaries from all over the place. Giving these guys more hardware would be tantamount to arming Muslim hardliners but if Assad is to be toppled on the ground there's no other way. Air strikes have been mentioned.
   
   If Assad does go the military would have to take charge as in Egypt. Not a safe scenario but better than chemical weapons being used again.
   
   The UN has to speak up and offer more hope for the Syrian people. Millions have fled. They won't return until Assad has gone and the fighting stopped. They'll go back to a military state or one run by the Opposition sanctioned by the UN but with Muslim input?
   It's a sick game but what can you do when faced with a brutal dictator? Walk away and say get on with your torture and killing of innocents?

   replyreport
4. 62

   Frienderalposted 9 years ago

   I believe that the chances of military intervention from the USA and other regional powers, will be a pie in the sky. The only possible chance for USA to initiate the military intervention is if Syria do not honour the chemical weapons disarmament programme.
   
   However, if the USA is to provide military aid, we will need to understand what is the goal of the military aid. Right now, what remains unclear is the aim of the military intervention.
   
   Is the goal simply to destroy chemical weapons and reinforce against its use? What if, without the use of chemical weapons, Assad's regime manages to acquire key opposition stronghold and countless of civilians are killed in the process? Can we still say that the military intervention is a success?
   
   It is particularly heart-wrenching to see millions of children being separated from their families to live as refugees in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey.

   replyreport