Syria: Chemical Weapons

[sparkles]

Apparently they've loaded up weapons with Saren? Sarin? gas. Seems like the leader just wants the attention, I don't think the US would let their use go unanswered.

[Abyssal Echo]

I think your're right it for attention. But, anything to do with Chemical wepons or warfare is a scarry situation and should be taken seriously.

[TheBigUnit]

israel and turkey would be furious

[Gigablue]

I don't think any country would let their use go unanswered. I don't really think they want attention, though, since the more attention Syria gets, the worse they look.

[Hypers]

It's not just attention. It also threatens countries that are against Syria.

[lukey1994]

President Obama repeated this week that any use of the weapons by Syria is a red line for the United States.

[Azunite]

Apparently they've loaded up weapons with Saren? Sarin? gas. Seems like the leader just wants the attention, I don't think the US would let their use go unanswered.

Let it go unanswered?

US is not the police of the world. I love how Americans like to see it so.

Why use the phrase "let go unanswered"? They are not using the gas against America, it is their problem. It's not like the US controls the Syrians or has right over them --

Oh wait....

[Taryn98]

Let it go unanswered?

US is not the police of the world. I love how Americans like to see it so.

Why use the phrase "let go unanswered"? They are not using the gas against America, it is their problem. It's not like the US controls the Syrians or has right over them --

Oh wait....

Einstein said it best:
The world is a dangerous place. Not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing!

[TheBigUnit]

Einstein said it best:
The world is a dangerous place. Not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing!

Also Usa's interests are right below and right on top of syria,

syria would be just flat out dumb if they threaten anyone with the gas

[Azunite]

Also Usa's interests are right below and right on top of syria,

syria would be just flat out dumb if they threaten anyone with the gas

Oh yeah the interests of the US that is what we should all be caring about.

[Skyline]

I don't think that the US should be worrying about Syria. As soon as the US retaliates to Syria you know that will set off some countries that actually support Syria such as China and Russia. Then after a while you have basically the war of the worlds super powers...

[World Eater]

I don't want us to get involved with these damned countries. Let them solve their own problems. Yes, it's a sad thing to see people suffer, but eventually something will change. it is up to the people to decide what to do with their country, not us.

[MisterSix]

It's probably just for deterrence. It has to protect itself from the U.S some how.

[TheBigUnit]

Oh yeah the interests of the US that is what we should all be caring about.

yes considering that i am from america and want to know what my country is doing, i dont care if you do,

if the gas is released and affects either turkish or israeli citizens, war will be declared

[Sugaree]

President Obama repeated this week that any use of the weapons by Syria is a red line for the United States.

The President has had well over a year and a half to lend US support to the Syrian rebels. What has he done to help? Sign pledges, make speeches about how awful it is and how much we support the rebels, and generally sitting back to watch. If you think the use of chemical weapons will actually change the US position, you're wrong.

[TheBigUnit]

What about libya (other than an excuse to go after person we had a bone to pick with)? Chemical weapons are like nukes in a sense, major powers must do something to stop assad if he does use it, if we don't stop him it will encourage other ppl including terrorists to use chemical weapons

[Human]

you know the USA can't be the police force of the world, and no one wants them to be. just because they have chemical weapons doesn't give other countries the right to destroy them.

[Wolfyboy69]

This should worry our government. Our relations with Syria had been deteriorating.

[Taryn98]

What about libya (other than an excuse to go after person we had a bone to pick with)? Chemical weapons are like nukes in a sense, major powers must do something to stop assad if he does use it, if we don't stop him it will encourage other ppl including terrorists to use chemical weapons

This is spot on! I understand why people don't want to be involved with places like syria or libya but what happens around the world effects america and our allies. We have the ability to do something so we need to do that.
If I was being raped on the side of the road, I would hope someone would stop and help me even though what was happening was none of the other peoples business.
Other countries and even people in america have the right to their own values and sense of morality but as human beings we need to share a basic sense of right and wrong and when wrong is done, people need to stand up and do the right thing. America chooses to do this even if other countries or some of our own people don't want us to. I feel that is what makes america so great. We are willing to sacrifice so much to do what is right!

[DerBear]

Its mainly for attention. However I think considering how things have been going so far. I think military intervention would be a thing that should happen sooner rather than later. Especially with this recent threat.

[TheBigUnit]

you know the USA can't be the police force of the world, and no one wants them to be. just because they have chemical weapons doesn't give other countries the right to destroy them.

Its not even being police, simply our intrests border syria, if they use a chemical weapon we have to help our allies who will most certainly declare war,

[Sugaree]

you know the USA can't be the police force of the world, and no one wants them to be. just because they have chemical weapons doesn't give other countries the right to destroy them.

So you would rather watch thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of innocent Syrians who want NOTHING to do with this civil war, die than for world action to be taken against the Assad regime? That's pretty fucked up, man. No, it's not the United States' job to be the police force of the world, but we DO have the pulling power to get shit done.

You obviously don't understand the gravity of this situation. We've been dealing with life and death in Syria since March 2011, and now it's coming to an apocalyptic scenario where Serin gas is going to be used on innocent men, women, and children. Do you even know what that means? Can you fucking comprehend what Serin gas DOES? Think Saddam Hussein's little experiments in the 80s with chemical weapons on a larger scale. If you think the best thing to do is be neutral, you can stay there while the rest of us are actively trying to do something.

You also must have no concept of a chemical weapon. You think countries should just have these massive tools of destruction, which can wipe out a majority of populations if they're large enough, without being watched? You think nations should be armed to the bone with nuclear weapons and not be reprimanded by others? What the fuck is wrong with you? You think that this is the US trying to be world police? Please, get your head out of your ass, and wake the hell up. Chemical weapons have no place in this world and I support every measure to take them out of existence.

I don't get some of you liberal thinkers on VT. You think being nonviolent works because obviously the US is nothing but a violent country. War is not the answer for us here, no; but the world isn't going to sit and watch because too many people have died in Syria already. So if you want to sit at the side and say the US is trying to be world police with Syria, go ahead; you're part of the problem as it is.

This should worry our government. Our relations with Syria had been deteriorating.

We hardly had any in the first place. The only relations we had with them was because of oil companies, like much of the Middle East. Even if we DID have relations, it wouldn't be that good. I love how the United States, who once supported many of the now overthrown Middle East governments, is all of a sudden AGAINST them. It's no wonder the Middle East hates us.

[Haufen]

Obama can't interfere unless he wants trouble with Russia and China.
Putin warned Obama against intervention, and China is against it too.

[TheBigUnit]

Obama can't interfere unless he wants trouble with Russia and China.
Putin warned Obama against intervention, and China is against it too.

Was that before or after the chemical weapons?

[World Eater]

Obama can't interfere unless he wants trouble with Russia and China.
Putin warned Obama against intervention, and China is against it too.

The hell are they going to do? Bitch and complain? Condemn our actions? Say something, but do nothing? Declare war?

[Azunite]

yes considering that i am from america and want to know what my country is doing, i dont care if you do,

if the gas is released and affects either turkish or israeli citizens, war will be declared

The fuck?

Okay just to make this clear as a Turk I don't want the US to declare war on our account if we get gassed.

[Human]

So you would rather watch thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of innocent Syrians who want NOTHING to do with this civil war, die than for world action to be taken against the Assad regime? That's pretty fucked up, man. No, it's not the United States' job to be the police force of the world, but we DO have the pulling power to get shit done.

You obviously don't understand the gravity of this situation. We've been dealing with life and death in Syria since March 2011, and now it's coming to an apocalyptic scenario where Serin gas is going to be used on innocent men, women, and children. Do you even know what that means? Can you fucking comprehend what Serin gas DOES? Think Saddam Hussein's little experiments in the 80s with chemical weapons on a larger scale. If you think the best thing to do is be neutral, you can stay there while the rest of us are actively trying to do something.

You also must have no concept of a chemical weapon. You think countries should just have these massive tools of destruction, which can wipe out a majority of populations if they're large enough, without being watched? You think nations should be armed to the bone with nuclear weapons and not be reprimanded by others? What the fuck is wrong with you? You think that this is the US trying to be world police? Please, get your head out of your ass, and wake the hell up. Chemical weapons have no place in this world and I support every measure to take them out of existence.

I don't get some of you liberal thinkers on VT. You think being nonviolent works because obviously the US is nothing but a violent country. War is not the answer for us here, no; but the world isn't going to sit and watch because too many people have died in Syria already. So if you want to sit at the side and say the US is trying to be world police with Syria, go ahead; you're part of the problem as it is.



We hardly had any in the first place. The only relations we had with them was because of oil companies, like much of the Middle East. Even if we DID have relations, it wouldn't be that good. I love how the United States, who once supported many of the now overthrown Middle East governments, is all of a sudden AGAINST them. It's no wonder the Middle East hates us.
chill out broski, "you think nations should be armed to the bone with nuclear weapons and not be reprimanded by others?"
listen to yourself, you're the kind of americans people think of, oh , "DAMN CHINA AND THEIR NUCLEAR ARMOURY" "but wait america, you have thousands of nuclear bombs!" "NO WE DON'T *INVADES COUNTRIES FOR OIL* WE'RE A PEACE LOVING NATION"

What
chill out brah

[World Eater]

chill out broski, "you think nations should be armed to the bone with nuclear weapons and not be reprimanded by others?"
listen to yourself, you're the kind of americans people think of, oh , "DAMN CHINA AND THEIR NUCLEAR ARMOURY" "but wait america, you have thousands of nuclear bombs!" "NO WE DON'T *INVADES COUNTRIES FOR OIL* WE'RE A PEACE LOVING NATION"

What
chill out brah

Who mentioned anything about China?

Oh and the comments about "invading for oil" and the U.S. being an imperalist country are getting very old and are unoriginal.

[Sugaree]

chill out broski, "you think nations should be armed to the bone with nuclear weapons and not be reprimanded by others?"
listen to yourself, you're the kind of americans people think of, oh , "DAMN CHINA AND THEIR NUCLEAR ARMOURY" "but wait america, you have thousands of nuclear bombs!" "NO WE DON'T *INVADES COUNTRIES FOR OIL* WE'RE A PEACE LOVING NATION"

What
chill out brah

>implying I'm a war mongering neo-conservative
>implying I think America should be the only nation to have chemical weapons
>implying I'm the stereotypical American who wants to invade others for resources
>implying implications

Seriously, get a load of yourself. I don't support war or fighting in any instance, and you'd be surprised that many Americans feel the same way. Not all of us are war mongering assholes. And if you're going to point to George Bush, please leave; it's getting old. I can just as easily say that everyone in Britain is a beer chugging asshole, but I don't because I don't have any basis for that statement. So what's the basis for your statements about America? Let me guess, it's George W. Bush, right?

Just because I said we should take diplomatic action and push sanctions on Syria if they use their chemical weapons doesn't mean I want the US to invade the fucking country. There's no doubt that the United States IS a strong diplomatic power, and we certainly have the pulling power in the United Nations. If we want to preserve what we claim to stand for, we need to stand up for people who genuinely need our help. The Syrians need our help. They've fought alone for too long and now they have almost no options.

[Inventor2]

I think at some point they might use them. But they should remember...the world is watching

[nice]

I think the USA should just sit down I'm pretty sure we have chemical weapons over here too it's like the lot calling the kettle black. We already have got involved with to many countries over seas problems that aren't really ours we should let them fitful their own battles and only get involved if its necessary and they ask for help

[Gigablue]

I think that other countries should intervene, with sanctions and military action as a last resort. The Syrian government is out of control and is killing innocent civilians. They have large supplies of chemical weapons which would kill many people if they were used.

The problem isn't that they have chemical weapons, but that they might actually use them against their own citizens. Chemical weapons can kill indiscriminately and, if used, would result in thousands of deaths.

I think diplomatic action might prevent their use, but I don't think the Syrian government would readily back down. The only thing stopping the government from using them is that almost every other country would turn against Syria if they used chemical weapons on civilians.

[TheBigUnit]

The fuck?

Okay just to make this clear as a Turk I don't want the US to declare war on our account if we get gassed.

Well maybe thts just you but turkey is part of NATO, you don't seem to understand the full spectrum of this do you? We not going there to protect you, your about to declare war anyway, if the gas attack do happen tht may be just enough for ur country to delcare war meaning we will most likely have to anyway including ethical reasons

And gigas right

[Sugaree]

I think the USA should just sit down I'm pretty sure we have chemical weapons over here too it's like the lot calling the kettle black. We already have got involved with to many countries over seas problems that aren't really ours we should let them fitful their own battles and only get involved if its necessary and they ask for help

The difference between the US and Syria, however, is that the US doesn't threaten to use its chemical weapons on its own citizens. Yes, it's the pot calling the kettle black, but you're looking at it too narrowly. If we want to prove that we are a country which supports freedom of the people, in all situations, we need to stand up for those who can't defend themselves. If we sit back, we're doing a disservice to our own ideology of personal liberty and freedom.

[TheBigUnit]

I think the USA should just sit down I'm pretty sure we have chemical weapons over here too it's like the lot calling the kettle black. We already have got involved with to many countries over seas problems that aren't really ours we should let them fitful their own battles and only get involved if its necessary and they ask for help

Some of you guys really underestimate chemical weapons, so I will show u a similar dilemma
We have nukes, so why do we try to stop countries like n korea and iran making nukes? A lot of countries have nukes likewise a lot of countries have chemical weapons, the reason why we are pressuring syria is because they are actually willing to use it,
To tell you the truth I rather die from a nuke and get vaporized in a second than die from a chemical weapon and puke all my guts out and liquidfy my eyes,
The future world we are getting more and more treats from non-nuclear weapons if syria were to have treatened with biological weapons instead of chemical, we would probably have the Marines, IDF, Turkish forces, and UN sanctions already there

[Texas warrior]

I shit my self when I read about Syria stocking up on chemical weapons.

[Azunite]

The difference between the US and Syria, however, is that the US doesn't threaten to use its chemical weapons on its own citizens.

It because the US are not in civil war.

I'm pretty sure the President would also act in the same ruthless way when there was a general rebellion all across the states.

[Sugaree]

It because the US are not in civil war.

I'm pretty sure the President would also act in the same ruthless way when there was a general rebellion all across the states.

I'm sure anyone in power would do that. Not setting the US on a pedestal or anything, but we'd have to be beyond fucked up for something like that to happen.

[Zenos]

And let us not forget peeps that the U.S. Government has also recognized the Rebel movement in Syria as a terrorist organization.


So if the Syrian Government doe suse Chemical weapons in an effort to defeat this Terrorist organization that has taken over the rebel movement we should just stay out of it,better yet we should throw mour support behind the syrain governmnment because cause at least then we "KNOW" who we are dealing with.

[Zenos]

The difference between the US and Syria, however, is that the US doesn't threaten to use its chemical weapons on its own citizens. Yes, it's the pot calling the kettle black, but you're looking at it too narrowly. If we want to prove that we are a country which supports freedom of the people, in all situations, we need to stand up for those who can't defend themselves. If we sit back, we're doing a disservice to our own ideology of personal liberty and freedom.



The problem as a cousin of mine that's 40 and serevd in the U.S. Military from the original Gulf war until he resligned earlier this year pointed out is that Our Government is only tooo fast to spread it's so-called verison of personal liberty and freedom at the barrel of a gun,leaving behind weak tottering unstable governmnets.

I know we teens have our own opinions of things but honestly just because we are plugged into the net does not mean we know it all or have somehow got a better grasp of things the adults, and i've seen some of my fellow teens here spouting oipions like they are facts,etc etc.Lets face it we are still kids and while we may have opinions ,we don't need to be talking like they are THE facts are we some how have a better grasp and understanding the adults on these kinda things.

Until we get OUR own problems solved who are we to dictate to "SOVERIGN" natiosn what they can or can not do within their own boarders?

[Sugaree]

And let us not forget peeps that the U.S. Government has also recognized the Rebel movement in Syria as a terrorist organization.


So if the Syrian Government doe suse Chemical weapons in an effort to defeat this Terrorist organization that has taken over the rebel movement we should just stay out of it,better yet we should throw mour support behind the syrain governmnment because cause at least then we "KNOW" who we are dealing with.

But yesterday the Obama Administration recognized the Syrian rebels as the true representatives of the Syrian people. When did we say that the rebels in Syria were terrorists?

[Zenos]

But yesterday the Obama Administration recognized the Syrian rebels as the true representatives of the Syrian people. When did we say that the rebels in Syria were terrorists?

Sorrry i was wrong!I found the following:

"The United States has declared a Syrian Jihadist force as a terrorist organization, while Western powers gathered in Morocco to push international support for Syria's new opposition coalition.

The State Department designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a terror group on Tuesday, saying that it serves as an alias of al-Qaida in Iraq as it attempts to infiltrate the Syrian conflict."



But i do believe we should keep our nose out of Syria,because how do we know key members of this rebellion are not terrorists trying to remove a legit government so they cna have a base of operations in the region to workfrom?

[Azunite]

I'm sure anyone in power would do that. Not setting the US on a pedestal or anything, but we'd have to be beyond fucked up for something like that to happen.

Still, the US government would be in the same situation as the Syrian one, they would have done the same thing.

Of course, in comparison to land scale and population, yours would require a much more massive revolt.

[TheBigUnit]

Not necessarily, I mean our presidents serve their terms then step down unlike the "presidents" there, if we are really upset with the president we will petition and impeach the president, otherwise riots will occur but mostly shortlived b/c majority of the people will lose faith that they aren't recieveing enought supprt, that being said it might possible for a large countrywide riot like syria but very unlikely

[Drew5]

Let's let the UK or EU handle syria. Let the let the US have a break from the middle east. Plus we got the nut jobs in N.Korea want to get frisky with us. Need to let other world powers a chance to use their stuff or at least lead the way.

[World Eater]

And now troops and missiles are being sent to Turkey.

[MrDaniel2K13]

The situation in Syria is similar in a away to what happened in Libya, but I don't think and Major Western country will intervene because then other middle eastern countries would get involved which would cause a massive war

[Kacey]

why would other ME countries support syria?

[MrDaniel2K13]

I'd made a mistake, Syria's two main allies, Russia and China would get involved

[TheBigUnit]

why would they waste their time with a civil war where it seems that the rebels are winning, if they wanted to do something they would have done it by now

[Stronk Serb]

I can understand a nuclear program, but chemical weapons, screw that that is bad, they should get rid of it or else.

[TheBigUnit]

right now we should just wait and see what happens if something does happen it will be a joint UN strife to stop them