Asaad used chemical weapons against his people: It's time for action!

[Walter Powers]

There is little doubt Syrian President Bashar Asaad used chemical weapons to kill over a thousand of his own people last Wednesday, according to the White House. US Secretary of State John Kerry described what went on there as a "moral obscenity."

Syria's civil war began over two years ago, and since then over 100,000 people have perished in the conflict.

We have positioned four battleships in the eastern Mediterranean a close but safe distance from the Syrian coast, ready to respond if President Obama gives the order for a strike or attack against the Assad regime.

I think we need to move forward and attack the Syrians in one way or another. I think we should target Assad directly either from the air or using a missile fired from a battleship. Kill him. We need to send the message to the world using such heinous means of warfare as chemical weapons against defense less people will not be tolerated. What do you think we should do?

[Harry Smith]

For once Walter I agree with you 100%.

We have the means to do a lot of damage, Tomahawk missiles are the safest way for us to go. I think we should also target the airbases in Syria to protect our pilots because once we bomb we can't just sit back until he does it again.

[NeuroTiger]

Use of chemical weapons on innocent defenseless people is to be condemned.
Tricky decision for president Obama.

[tovaris]

Tekneky there is stil a lot of doubt.
(I personaly belive he did use)
But it is NOT "time for action". Itis a civil war NOT to be interferd by others!

[Harry Smith]

Tekneky there is stil a lot of doubt.
(I personaly belive he did use)
But it is NOT "time for action". Itis a civil war NOT to be interferd by others!

It is time for action, this isn't a civil war- this is a man gassing his own people. This is why we have the united nations- to stop this sort of disgusting abuse of power

[tovaris]

It is time for action, this isn't a civil war- this is a man gassing his own people. This is why we have the united nations- to stop this sort of disgusting abuse of power

It is a horible war. But stil a civil war.
The english gassed thousands in WWI but noone was shocked and so did the germans and italians.

The international comunety should NOT interfeer in domestic conflict.

[Kameraden]

It is time for action, this isn't a civil war- this is a man gassing his own people. This is why we have the united nations- to stop this sort of disgusting abuse of power

What does it matter if he kills with bullets or gas? Death is death -- they decided to rebel, collateral damage is to be expected.

[Harry Smith]

It is a horible war. But stil a civil war.
The english gassed thousands in WWI but noone was shocked and so did the germans and italians.

The international comunety should NOT interfeer in domestic conflict.

It was because of World War 1 something that happened 100 years ago why chemical weapons are now banned and their use in international law is illegal.

Try telling that to Poland or Belgium- the UN have a legal right to interfere but sure we all know you support genocide

What does it matter if he kills with bullets or gas? Death is death -- they decided to rebel, collateral damage is to be expected.

It actually started by Syrians wanting democracy, the thousands of children who have been killed haven't rebelled.

[Human]

I really don't think that the US should intervene or should at least spend a lot of time considering, chances are the destruction will have collateral damage which not only affects the Assad regime but the locals we're supposed to be protecting, and I'm sure Syrias powerful allies such as Iran will want to support Syria too.

Does the US really want to get into another Iraq? The US and the world should focus on getting Syrias neighbours to intervene more, such as Turkey, and encouraging Turkey to take in survivors or asylum seekers, or encouraging Iraq to put pressure on Syria.


This is another bloody conflict in the middle east and as we see with Egypt bringing back democracy isn't all that great.

Keep in mind that the US hasn't itself destroyed all it's stockpiles of chemical weapons yet...

[tovaris]

It was because of World War 1 something that happened 100 years ago why chemical weapons are now banned and their use in international law is illegal.

Try telling that to Poland or Belgium- the UN have a legal right to interfere but sure we all know you support genocide



It actually started by Syrians wanting democracy, the thousands of children who have been killed haven't rebelled.

I do NOT suport genocide! What is wrong with you?

This is a civil war not a internationa one. This is not a war between two countries or a world war.
The international comunety will only make it worse by interfeering.

[Harry Smith]

I do NOT suport genocide! What is wrong with you?

This is a civil war not a internationa one. This is not a war between two countries or a world war.
The international comunety will only make it worse by interfeering.

How, so you want more children to get gassed then? Are you happy for Assad to continue killing his own people?

[tovaris]

How, so you want more children to get gassed then? Are you happy for Assad to continue killing his own people?

Afcors im not happy.
But any interfering will only make it worst.
This is a civil war and we know from history what happens when forein powers interfeer.

Yust look at mezo america whre usa suported fashist military hunts that caused thousands more defs, you want that to happen in siria? They have enouth problems. They do not need some trigger hapy americans to steal from them.

[Walter Powers]

Afcors im not happy.
But any interfering will only make it worst.
This is a civil war and we know from history what happens when forein powers interfeer.

Yust look at mezo america whre usa suported fashist military hunts that caused thousands more defs, you want that to happen in siria? They have enouth problems. They do not need some trigger hapy americans to steal from them.

Steal from them? We're considering attack to punish Asaad, not raid him!

[Harry Smith]

Afcors im not happy.
But any interfering will only make it worst.
This is a civil war and we know from history what happens when forein powers interfeer.

Yust look at mezo america whre usa suported fashist military hunts that caused thousands more defs, you want that to happen in siria? They have enouth problems. They do not need some trigger hapy americans to steal from them.

It would be action under the umbrella of the UN, not the US.

I also love that you need to go back to 1947 to back up your idea- Look at Bosnia in the 1990's, look at Sierra Leon, Look at kosova, look at Libya. Each time we've moved in to protect civilan life.

I want to stop children getting gassed- you want to support more children getting gassed. It's as simple as that

[tovaris]

Steal from them? We're considering attack to punish Asaad, not raid him!

Aha
Because history has taught us what of american interferings....


It would be action under the umbrella of the UN, not the US.

I also love that you need to go back to 1947 to back up your idea- Look at Bosnia in the 1990's, look at Sierra Leon, Look at kosova, look at Libya. Each time we've moved in to protect civilan life.

I want to stop children getting gassed- you want to support more children getting gassed. It's as simple as that

Because the war actions of the un have been so sucsesfull.




Look at Bosnia in the 1990's, look at Sierra Leon, Look at kosova, look at Libya. Each time we've moved in to protect civilan life.


Yes look at bosnia and what tha UN caused!
Look at Kosovo and how tha made the PEOPLE suffer hov thy forced them to despurs across Serbia cariing their trevmas with them...
Look at Libia the rebils might have won but now the international conpanies alredy started milking them.

You see what happens ahen They interfeer...

[Harry Smith]

Aha
Because history has taught us what of american interferings....




Because the war actions of the un have been so sucsesfull.




Yes look at bosnia and what tha UN caused!
Look at Kosovo and how tha made the PEOPLE suffer hov thy forced them to despurs across Serbia cariing their trevmas with them...
Look at Libia the rebils might have won but now the international conpanies alredy started milking them.

You see what happens ahen They interfeer...

I look at Kosovo and I know that we stopped a genocide. I'm happy to say that I support stopping mass murder.

In Libya we stopped a tyrannical dictator who raped his own bodyguards and didn't give democracy or human rights to his own people.

I don't understand how you can support children getting gassed, how do you sleep at night?

[tovaris]

I look at Kosovo and I know that we stopped a genocide. I'm happy to say that I support stopping mass murder.

In Libya we stopped a tyrannical dictator who raped his own bodyguards and didn't give democracy or human rights to his own people.

I don't understand how you can support children getting gassed, how do you sleep at night?

Did you by any chance spil some acid in your eies? Yust asking...

[Harry Smith]

Did you by any chance spil some acid in your eies? Yust asking...

I'm not the one supporting using chemical weapons on children am I?

[Southside]

As much as I am against war and intervention, I kind of support whatever action our military might take against the Assad regime..

My biggest fear is if we do go ahead and do a military strike, a regional conflict will break out (Iran, Hezbollah, Israel ect.). Also, lets say the Assad regime collapses in a result of these strikes, who is going to takeover and how will these chemical weapons and surface to air missiles be secured?

As Harry said, the safest method to attack would be Tomahawk missiles(1.4 Billion dollars each), Syria has a pretty complex air defense system which might endanger our pilots..


All of this is just regional destabilization so we can get the big prize which is Iran...

[tovaris]

I'm not the one supporting using chemical weapons on children am I?

Oh go to...
Churche and listen to your beloved precher.

[comical]

I think, with all of the current issues here in America, Pres. Obama should keep us out of Syria and try and handle our own problems. He's already killing INNOCENT civillians and civilian children almost every day with these drone strikes. This would just be another preventable loss of innocent lives.

[britishboy]

There is little doubt Syrian President Bashar Asaad used chemical weapons to kill over a thousand of his own people last Wednesday, according to the White House. US Secretary of State John Kerry described what went on there as a "moral obscenity."

Syria's civil war began over two years ago, and since then over 100,000 people have perished in the conflict.

We have positioned four battleships in the eastern Mediterranean a close but safe distance from the Syrian coast, ready to respond if President Obama gives the order for a strike or attack against the Assad regime.

I think we need to move forward and attack the Syrians in one way or another. I think we should target Assad directly either from the air or using a missile fired from a battleship. Kill him. We need to send the message to the world using such heinous means of warfare as chemical weapons against defense less people will not be tolerated. What do you think we should do?

completly agree, Obama has finally doing something and David Cameron is supporting it and has recalled parliament

[Yolo98]

We dont even know who used the chemical weapons yet , it could be the rebels. Plus Syria would be much better off with Assad at its helm , jihadists and terrorists might take over and god knows how bad that could turn out .

[Harry Smith]

Oh go to...
Churche and listen to your beloved precher.

I don't go to church, what the fuck are you talking about mate?

[PinkFloyd]

There is little doubt Syrian President Bashar Asaad used chemical weapons to kill over a thousand of his own people last Wednesday, according to the White House. US Secretary of State John Kerry described what went on there as a "moral obscenity."

Syria's civil war began over two years ago, and since then over 100,000 people have perished in the conflict.

We have positioned four battleships in the eastern Mediterranean a close but safe distance from the Syrian coast, ready to respond if President Obama gives the order for a strike or attack against the Assad regime.

I think we need to move forward and attack the Syrians in one way or another. I think we should target Assad directly either from the air or using a missile fired from a battleship. Kill him. We need to send the message to the world using such heinous means of warfare as chemical weapons against defense less people will not be tolerated. What do you think we should do?

I agree. Something has to be done...

[Harry Smith]

We dont even know who used the chemical weapons yet , it could be the rebels. Plus Syria would be much better off with Assad at its helm , jihadists and terrorists might take over and god knows how bad that could turn out .

Yeah because the rebels have access to chemical weapons dropped by Migs! You can't claim that Syria is better under someone who has gassed his own people

[britishboy]

Yeah because the rebels have access to chemical weapons dropped by Migs! You can't claim that Syria is better under someone who has gassed his own people

I agree with this, what do you think should be done?

[Capto]

This whole chemical weapons thing is a real Schrodinger's Cat isn't it~

It's actually tough, and not completely certain that Assad used the weapons. Contrary to popular belief, there exists a relatively significant possibility that the rebels may have used them instead.

[Harry Smith]

This whole chemical weapons thing is a real Schrodinger's Cat isn't it~

It's actually tough, and not completely certain that Assad used the weapons. Contrary to popular belief, there exists a relatively significant possibility that the rebels may have used them instead.

Schrodingers cat is the thing about the poison right? I don't understand how the Rebels would not only get their hands on Sarin gas but also the gas has been delivered by air strikes- something the rebels simply cannot do

[thatcountrykid]

Bust out the daisy cutters and M.O.A.B's.

[EddietheZombie]

We should not get into the middle of this. This is America being "Big Brother" again. Unless we have allies, or more soldiers then no. We cant solve every problem in the word at the same time, and keep ourselves safe too. We have lost too many people already, why have another war, and more blood on our hands? Innocent people always die to the side helping. How many Hellfire drone missiles do you think hit only the enemy? There is always about 10 people killed in each blast. Innocent and enemy.

[Capto]

We cant solve every problem in the word at the same time, and keep ourselves safe too.

This has nothing to do with 'solving problems' in the world. This is about looking after America's legacy and influence in the Middle East.

[Jess]

I agree we need to act. It's disgusting how he's using chemical weapons on innocent people.

[EddietheZombie]

This has nothing to do with 'solving problems' in the world. This is about looking after America's legacy and influence in the Middle East.

Yes it does. We are our Number One priority. We need to handle our 17 trillion dollar debt, our homeless, and our elderly before we worry about whats happening over there.

[Capto]

Schrodingers cat is the thing about the poison right? I don't understand how the Rebels would not only get their hands on Sarin gas but also the gas has been delivered by air strikes- something the rebels simply cannot do

It's unclear whether the gas was sarin, delivery method was also unclear. The problem is, that we need to clear things up first, then continue with level heads.

Yes it does. We are our Number One priority. We need to handle our 17 trillion dollar debt, our homeless, and our elderly before we worry about whats happening over there.

What's happening over there is important to the USA on a long-term socioeconomic, not to mention political basis. It's quite painfully clear why too.

Hint. Because it's Syria.

[EddietheZombie]

It's unclear whether the gas was sarin, delivery method was also unclear. The problem is, that we need to clear things up first, then continue with level heads.



What's happening over there is important to the USA on a long-term socioeconomic, not to mention political basis. It's quite painfully clear why too.

Hint. Because it's Syria.

Who gives a shit about Syria? Are they feeding our people, building homes for the homeless, or helping fix our debt? Hell no! if we need to do anything, we need to help get out of the hole before we have 17 trillion more dollars on our hands. Most of which is owed to China, and if they get tired of Americas shit, they just have to call in their money and we would all be the property of China. Plain and simple.

[Capto]

Who gives a shit about Syria? Are they feeding our people, building homes for the homeless, or helping fix our debt? Hell no! if we need to do anything, we need to help get out of the hole before we have 17 trillion more dollars on our hands. Most of which is owed to China, and if they get tired of Americas shit, they just have to call in their money and we would all be the property of China. Plain and simple.

Acquisition of Syria as a strategic ally is a strategem far longer term and more worldly significant than the aforementioned temporal problems.

And China won't get tired of our shit. We won't ever all be the property of China.

[EddietheZombie]

Acquisition of Syria as a strategic ally is a strategem far longer term and more worldly significant than the aforementioned temporal problems.

And China won't get tired of our shit. We won't ever all be the property of China.

Why not? We owe a debt and need to pay it. Our "Leaders" would hand us over in a minute. And Syria is not a strategic ally. The way they act, it would be like saying Hitler was a good ally.

[Capto]

Why not? We owe a debt and need to pay it. Our "Leaders" would hand us over in a minute. And Syria is not a strategic ally. The way they act, it would be like saying Hitler was a good ally.

You mean Assad is not a strategic ally. A Syria based off of US principles, due to their position, is a ridiculous boon to the US, and would, as much as I hate to say this, round our sphere off nicely along with Iraq, and debatably Arabia.

China don't give a shit about taking us over.

[EddietheZombie]

You mean Assad is not a strategic ally. A Syria based off of US principles, due to their position, is a ridiculous boon to the US, and would, as much as I hate to say this, round our sphere off nicely along with Iraq, and debatably Arabia.

China don't give a shit about taking us over.

Yeah they do. They cant do it by force, or it would ruin their economy. But all they have to do is say "We want our money now" and We would be handed over. That simple. And as far as being strategical, i still fail to see it. Our people, and economy come first.

EDIT: I just read that Russia and China disapprove of a war between America and Syria. So are we going to anger our allies for a "Strategic Ally". So i wonder if Russia or China will back Syria up?

[Korashk]

Of course the US shouldn't intervene, mainly because it's none of the US government's damn business. You can't help everybody and you shouldn't try to. It will just lead to more of the same shit that's been going on in the Middle East for the last 60 years. Mainly us killing them, overthrowing their governments, and them wanting to kill us for it.

I'll be like the overly emotional here like Harry for a second and say: Do you want another 9/11?

[Walter Powers]

I don't go to church, what the fuck are you talking about mate?

Maticek is the product of your leftist dream for the world. It's not his fault...

[Stronk Serb]

It would be action under the umbrella of the UN, not the US.

I also love that you need to go back to 1947 to back up your idea- Look at Bosnia in the 1990's, look at Sierra Leon,

Look at Kosovo, look at Libya. Each time we've moved in to protect civilian life.

Bosnia: a banana republic with no influence on the outside world, tensions are still high between the Serbian and Muslim population.
Kosovo: A banana republic where it is legal to fill the government's coffers by illegal gun and drugs trade. Thaci was an OVK terrorist warlord who also committed genocide against the Serb population. He was also involved in extracting and selling organs from Serbian POWs and captured civilians.

I want to stop children getting gassed- you want to support more children getting gassed. It's as simple as that

As far as I'm concerned, take out the rebels first and Assad next. The rebels also used chemical weapons and are supported by elements of Al-Qaeda and were very generously armed by the US.

[britishboy]

I also love that you need to go back to 1947 to back up your idea- Look at Bosnia in the 1990's, look at Sierra Leon,


its a treaty that works for everyone, if we ignore stuff like that warfare would be like ww1 gasing eachother


Bosnia: a banana republic with no influence on the outside world, tensions are still high between the Serbian and Muslim population.

it can be whatever fruit you want, its a democratic republic and it wouldnt have influence anyway

As far as I'm concerned, take out the rebels first and Assad next. The rebels also used chemical weapons and are supported by elements of Al-Qaeda and were very generously armed by the US.
the rebels have also been armed by the UK and France, Assad tried to use ILLEGAL weapons on CIVILIANS, I would like to see everything of his flattened by cruse missiles and cluster bombs, not one NATO soilders foot should touch the ground

[Korashk]

This just in, apparently according to victim testimony it's strongly suggested that the Syrian rebel groups used sarin nerve gas on civilians in the recent incident, not the Syrian government. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/)

[britishboy]

I think everyone is getting to wrapped up in the chemical weapons, HE IS KILLING AND BOMBING HIS OWN PEOPLE!

[Korashk]

I think everyone is getting to wrapped up in the chemical weapons, HE IS KILLING AND BOMBING HIS OWN PEOPLE!
And the point those opposed to intervention are trying to make is that all American intervention tends to do is make things worse. We have a very poor track record.

[britishboy]

And the point those opposed to intervention are trying to make is that all American intervention tends to do is make things worse. We have a very poor track record.

by the sound of it its going to be cruse missile strikes, not an intervention and it wont just be US most likely UK will join on Thursday and France may help

[Harry Smith]

by the sound of it its going to be cruse missile strikes, not an intervention and it wont just be US most likely UK will join on Thursday and France may help

It needs to be done under the umbrella of the UN. We can't simply attack, the majority of the forces will be the US's, they've simply got more hardware than we do in the area,

We cant have action by NATO alone it has to be approved by the UN

Maticek is the product of your leftist dream for the world. It's not his fault...

So it's my fault he thinks I'm religious?

I also love that you need to go back to 1947 to back up your idea- Look at Bosnia in the 1990's, look at Sierra Leon,



Bosnia: a banana republic with no influence on the outside world, tensions are still high between the Serbian and Muslim population.
Kosovo: A banana republic where it is legal to fill the government's coffers by illegal gun and drugs trade. Thaci was an OVK terrorist warlord who also committed genocide against the Serb population. He was also involved in extracting and selling organs from Serbian POWs and captured civilians.



As far as I'm concerned, take out the rebels first and Assad next. The rebels also used chemical weapons and are supported by elements of Al-Qaeda and were very generously armed by the US.

The only way that we could do that would be with a Nuclear Strike- we don't have the means to eradicate both sides and then someone help rebuild the country after it's been flattened, we support the legitimate Syrian opposition council who simply want democracy and are not Al-Qaueda based, everyone also seems to forgot that Hezbollah is supporting Assad.

You do know what was going on in Bosnia- you had mass genocide occurring. Rwanda has shown the world was happens when we left genocide continue

[TheBigUnit]

This just in, apparently according to victim testimony it's strongly suggested that the Syrian rebel groups used sarin nerve gas on civilians in the recent incident, not the Syrian government. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/)

this is what i heard too which is probably true because the rebels are supplied by various sects around the world, the problem with intervening is that there is no good guy bad guy, assad is your typical dictator while the rebels are your typical uneducated maniacs who has connections to various terrorist organizations, if we destroy assad we will have an unstable syria with radical leaders which kinda is a bad thing considering that israel is right under, overall though the US will probably benefit though if assad goes because we could easily curropt the new government

[britishboy]

It needs to be done under the umbrella of the UN. We can't simply attack, the majority of the forces will be the US's, they've simply got more hardware than we do in the area,

We cant have action by NATO alone it has to be approved by the UN

by the sounds of it its going a head, I dont think the UN needs to over see it but the talk of pulling them out early so we can strike is wrong but then again many people are dying and many by chemical weapons, we must act fast

my ideal situation would be UN confirms it, UK USA and France do the 3 days of relentless cruse missile strikes on military facilities and NO troops hit the ground, I dont want another long war

[Harry Smith]

by the sounds of it its going a head, I dont think the UN needs to over see it but the talk of pulling them out early so we can strike is wrong but then again many people are dying and many by chemical weapons, we must act fast

my ideal situation would be UN confirms it, UK USA and France do the 3 days of relentless cruse missile strikes on military facilities and NO troops hit the ground, I dont want another long war

My only concern is that we're going to have to get involved further, that's why we need to go all out rather than just doing 3 days worth of strikes because the Assad Regime will continue to kill civilians after the air strikes and he could continue to use chemical weapons.

We've had boots on the ground since day 1

[Yolo98]

My only concern is that we're going to have to get involved further, that's why we need to go all out rather than just doing 3 days worth of strikes because the Assad Regime will continue to kill civilians after the air strikes and he could continue to use chemical weapons.

We've had boots on the ground since day 1

Its not only Assad killing civilians. Rebels and extremists have performed hideous acts towards civilians too, and there are reports of mass executions etc performed by the rebels. There are two evils in this war, no side has the moral high ground.


For example -- http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/18/20074133-syrian-rebels-kill-11-mainly-christians-in-checkpoint-attack?lite

[Kameraden]

This just in, apparently according to victim testimony it's strongly suggested that the Syrian rebel groups used sarin nerve gas on civilians in the recent incident, not the Syrian government. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/)

Check the date, kid.

[Harry Smith]

Its not only Assad killing civilians. Rebels and extremists have performed hideous acts towards civilians too, and there are reports of mass executions etc performed by the rebels. There are two evils in this war, no side has the moral high ground.


For example -- http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/18/20074133-syrian-rebels-kill-11-mainly-christians-in-checkpoint-attack?lite

As we've learned from this war a news report doesn't show anything, the rebels can't simply patrol the whole of syria and ensure that everyone who is fighting against Assad is a model secular muslim who is western friendly can they? It's just like how the west got friendly with uncle Joe in WW2.

We can't let Assad get away with what is considered a war crimes- if we don't do anything than what's the point in an international community, he'll simply gas his own people again.

This started out with Syrians wanting Democracy, and that is something which can still be achieved

[Magus]

Action? Are you guys noticing the Bombings going on Iraq? It seems America didn't fix shit there.

[Yolo98]

As we've learned from this war a news report doesn't show anything, the rebels can't simply patrol the whole of syria and ensure that everyone who is fighting against Assad is a model secular muslim who is western friendly can they? It's just like how the west got friendly with uncle Joe in WW2.

We can't let Assad get away with what is considered a war crimes- if we don't do anything than what's the point in an international community, he'll simply gas his own people again.

This started out with Syrians wanting Democracy, and that is something which can still be achieved

The jihadists will just go underground , it'll be another Afghanistan.

[Capto]

Yeah they do. They cant do it by force, or it would ruin their economy. But all they have to do is say "We want our money now" and We would be handed over. That simple. And as far as being strategical, i still fail to see it. Our people, and economy come first.

EDIT: I just read that Russia and China disapprove of a war between America and Syria. So are we going to anger our allies for a "Strategic Ally". So i wonder if Russia or China will back Syria up?

China won't do that for sure. I'm sure we won't. :)

The jihadists will just go underground , it'll be another Afghanistan.

Unlike Afghanistan, it's much more difficult to simply 'go underground' in Syria.

[DerBear]

I don't want the US or the UK to use chemical weapons as a response and I think we can all understand that its an option they've considered even though technically speaking they signed a document stating the discontinuation of chemical weapons. I think aid for the people is needed as well as to act within the country itself is needed.

[Stronk Serb]

My only concern is that we're going to have to get involved further, that's why we need to go all out rather than just doing 3 days worth of strikes because the Assad Regime will continue to kill civilians after the air strikes and he could continue to use chemical weapons.

We've had boots on the ground since day 1

As we've learned from this war a news report doesn't show anything, the rebels can't simply patrol the whole of syria and ensure that everyone who is fighting against Assad is a model secular muslim who is western friendly can they? It's just like how the west got friendly with uncle Joe in WW2.

We can't let Assad get away with what is considered a war crimes- if we don't do anything than what's the point in an international community, he'll simply gas his own people again.

This started out with Syrians wanting Democracy, and that is something which can still be achieved

Wherever an UN authorized intervention happens, shit breaks loose, especially in the Middle East. When you take down an anti-Jihadist dictatorship and replace it with a corrupt government, you get heaps more trouble. Assad is no saint, but I would rather live under his regime, I would not have to worry about shootouts and bombings every day. Jihadists will be let loose and another Iraq and Afghanistan will happen if you intervene, because the new government will not have enough grip over it's people.

[Capto]

There is little doubt Syrian President Bashar Asaad used chemical weapons to kill over a thousand of his own people last Wednesday, according to the White House.

Only problem I have with this whole shebang. :)

[Yolo98]

Wherever an UN authorized intervention happens, shit breaks loose, especially in the Middle East. When you take down an anti-Jihadist dictatorship and replace it with a corrupt government, you get heaps more trouble. Assad is no saint, but I would rather live under his regime, I would not have to worry about shootouts and bombings every day. Jihadists will be let loose and another Iraq and Afghanistan will happen if you intervene, because the new government will not have enough grip over it's people.


One of the few things you've said i agree with. Assad is better than any alternative.

[Living For Love]

There's a film called "Charlie Wilson's War" that recounts the true story of U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson who partnered with CIA operative Gust Avrakotos to launch Operation Cyclone, a program to organize and support the Afghan "mujahideen" during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
The film ends with Charlie receiving a major commendation for all the support given, but he was not that happy as he knew what would happen to Afghanistan after the war. USA helped the afghan mujahideen army to make the Soviets retreat from Afghanistan, but after that the country was left totally devastated, and USA stopped their aid after the Soviet withdrawal. It was established the perfect environment so that bin Laden and the Taliban could emerge as the dominant political and economic power.
If USA strikes Syria and tries to finish this stupid needless massacre, Obama needs to assure that there's no leeway for terrorist leaders to establish themselves in the country. With all the tensions going on in the Middle East, this isn't surely an easy decision for USA and its allies.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

We shouldn't go in without an official UN mandate. But by the looks of it, we're gonna cut through the red tape and might strike as early as tomorrow. That doesn't sit well with me. We're gonna be seen as warmongers meddling in things that don't concern us. Again.

Also, it's not all black and white. There's a huge Jihadist presence in the rebel forces, and if Assad falls, they'll be the ones that'll come to power. Basically, it'll be Libya all over again. If the real agenda is putting an end to the conflict and stabilizing the country, and not just overthrowing Assad, we need to take action against the rebels as well. Call me crazy, but I think they've done shit that's just as bad as what Assad has done.

[Harry Smith]

Wherever an UN authorized intervention happens, shit breaks loose, especially in the Middle East. When you take down an anti-Jihadist dictatorship and replace it with a corrupt government, you get heaps more trouble. Assad is no saint, but I would rather live under his regime, I would not have to worry about shootouts and bombings every day. Jihadists will be let loose and another Iraq and Afghanistan will happen if you intervene, because the new government will not have enough grip over it's people.

Sure with Assad you just get your children pumped full of gas

[Capto]

Sure with Assad you just get your children pumped full of gas

Without Assad, you have a coalition of infighting groups and a very high probability of a radical Islamist regime coming to power.

It's a tricky question. Assad was bad, but he provided relative stability prior. Which means that he's good for outsiders, but bad for the inside.

[Harry Smith]

Without Assad, you have a coalition of infighting groups and a very high probability of a radical Islamist regime coming to power.

It's a tricky question. Assad was bad, but he provided relative stability prior. Which means that he's good for outsiders, but bad for the inside.

The Syrian people have a right to choose their future, if they want to elect a radical Islamic regime then they have every right to that.

Assad is part of the Axis of evil that exists in the modern world, and it amazes me that people can still support him after he has gassed his own people which in fact breaks the 1925 Geneva Protocol. We can't have a war criminal in charge.

Look at the Arab Spring- Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen have all changed government, this is the the Syrians wanting democracy

[sqishy]

Does it matter if these weapons are chemical,nuclear,biological,psychological or just projectiles? If we are going to condemn chemical weapons, we would make that decision and action to remove them pointless, if we don't condemn and ban all other kinds of weapons.

I can see why chemical weaponry is seen as especially dangerous and therefore evil in malevolent hands: they tend to have a large and powerful impact on the victims, as opposed to bullets and mines. But so what if they are chemicals or guided meteors? They still kill people. Most of those people as innocent in life and war as us on this website.
Biological, nuclear and psychological weapons can be just as bad if not worse- in fact, nuclear weapons are probably hundreds of times worse than chemicals. And all we see being done with nuclear weaponry is with the nuclear superpowers saying "oh, we'll remove another ten warheads this year from our stockpile". No quick action. And with North Korea having fun with it's nuke sandbox, most reactions have been and still are resigned to great displeasure. Not much more.

Yes, it's great that chemical weapons may see their way to the door out of public and easy use. But we are all lying to ourselves if that solves anything: Thousands of people still die from all the other kinds of weapons.

Yes, action has a real chance of being seen for chemical weapons being removed. But it's still only talk for all the nukes and viruses.

It's like we have begun the marathon to the end, where the hope of weapon restriction lies- and we've stopped after the first hundred metres, thinking that that sprint was good enough and that it't time for a break.

No point doing a job if it's not done correctly. Especially where thousands of mostly innocent lives and the future of international relations is at stake.

[Capto]

The Syrian people have a right to choose their future, if they want to elect a radical Islamic regime then they have every right to that.

Assad is part of the Axis of evil that exists in the modern world, and it amazes me that people can still support him after he has gassed his own people which in fact breaks the 1925 Geneva Protocol. We can't have a war criminal in charge.

Look at the Arab Spring- Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen have all changed government, this is the the Syrians wanting democracy

Not quite what I meant. The fact is, that plenty of the rebel factions aren't pro-democracy, but merely anti-Assad.

[Harry Smith]

Not quite what I meant. The fact is, that plenty of the rebel factions aren't pro-democracy, but merely anti-Assad.

The issue I have is that the Syrian Opposition council- who are pro western and largely secular with European financial links can't go around making sure that everyone opposing Assad is legitimate can they? They've got to defeat him first, as I said before in the second world war and during the cold war we did some very questionable deals that ensured national security. The most important thing is getting rid of this war criminal- everyone is obsessed with an exit plan when we haven't even entered

[IAMWILL]

My 2 cents.

Obama said on PBS Newshour last night I believe that he had "no doubt" that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attacks. Being that he is informed by the most powerful and talented intelligence agency in the world, I would safely bet that the CIA knows a bit more about the attacks than what gets reported through third party and/or major news networks. Also, ABC News interviewed a high ranking military commander guy and he said that if the US does strike, it will be 2-3 days of bombing carried out by long range/high capacity bombers (Maybe B2s if we want to look badass) and ship-based cruise missiles (mainly Tomahawks). The targets? Airports, weapon/supply depots. Strictly military targets. They did possibly suggest a symbolic target like the Syrian Defense Ministry building in Damascus, but given the chance of collateral damage on such an important ancient city, I doubt that will happen.

In short: no troops on the ground, quick flash of American airpower to severely hinder the Assad regime and strike fear into Assad himself.

If that is the case, I am very supportive of military intervention here. Its not going to be another Iraq, we've learned our lesson there. It helps that we have nearly universal support outside of Russia and China. The support of 22 Arab nations was a big step too.

[Sir Suomi]

As long as Western troops stay off the ground, I'm fine with whatever attack methods Obama sets on the table. Syria would be a nightmare to tackle on the ground. Armored support would be limited, since a lot of the fighting is taking place in large urban environments, and the same principle applies with air support, if we don't want to risk collateral(Which will sadly more than likely happen either way if we intervene). A sniper's heaven, I swear you can probably find 10+ areas where a sniper could hole in. And I know Assad would result to guerilla warfare if the U.S and U.K intervened, and we saw how Iraq was.

[Southside]

As long as Western troops stay off the ground, I'm fine with whatever attack methods Obama sets on the table. Syria would be a nightmare to tackle on the ground. Armored support would be limited, since a lot of the fighting is taking place in large urban environments, and the same principle applies with air support, if we don't want to risk collateral(Which will sadly more than likely happen either way if we intervene). A sniper's heaven, I swear you can probably find 10+ areas where a sniper could hole in. And I know Assad would result to guerilla warfare if the U.S and U.K intervened, and we saw how Iraq was.

What if I told you...

Western boots have been on the ground for months?

[TheBigUnit]

Check the date, kid.

yeah...if you havent noticed this war has been going on for over 2 years this is actually quite recent in those terms

[EddietheZombie]

My 2 cents.

Obama said on PBS Newshour last night I believe that he had "no doubt" that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attacks. Being that he is informed by the most powerful and talented intelligence agency in the world, I would safely bet that the CIA knows a bit more about the attacks than what gets reported through third party and/or major news networks. Also, ABC News interviewed a high ranking military commander guy and he said that if the US does strike, it will be 2-3 days of bombing carried out by long range/high capacity bombers (Maybe B2s if we want to look badass) and ship-based cruise missiles (mainly Tomahawks). The targets? Airports, weapon/supply depots. Strictly military targets. They did possibly suggest a symbolic target like the Syrian Defense Ministry building in Damascus, but given the chance of collateral damage on such an important ancient city, I doubt that will happen.

In short: no troops on the ground, quick flash of American airpower to severely hinder the Assad regime and strike fear into Assad himself.

If that is the case, I am very supportive of military intervention here. Its not going to be another Iraq, we've learned our lesson there. It helps that we have nearly universal support outside of Russia and China. The support of 22 Arab nations was a big step too.

Yeah but the missiles launched add alot of debt(Approximately 100,000 to almost 1,000,000 per missile). We are in enough debt already!

[Stronk Serb]

One of the few things you've said i agree with. Assad is better than any alternative.

And what if those Jihadists get their hands on the chemical weapons after Assad is defeated? We could have the Taliban and Al-Qaeda doing chemical bombings everywhere.

[Harry Smith]

And what if those Jihadists get their hands on the chemical weapons after Assad is defeated? We could have the Taliban and Al-Qaeda doing chemical bombings everywhere.

The same argument could be used anywhere around the world, that's why I'm certain we have assets on the ground who are making sure that the right people get their hands on not only weapons but also chemical weapons post assad.

That's why we need a strike to remove the chemical weapons now, they're such high risk weaponry that simply shouldn't be in the country or the world.

It also takes a very high degree of training to operate chemical weaponry, something Al-Qaeda don't have

[The Flash]

Cant wait for World War 3 to break out, once the US drops one on Syria.

Apparently the Syrian army is ready to send in Kamikaze pilots. But they probably wouldn't make it close enough to the US, to do any damage.

[Living For Love]

Cant wait for World War 3 to break out, once the US drops one on Syria.

Apparently the Syrian army is ready to send in Kamikaze pilots. But they probably wouldn't make it close enough to the US, to do any damage.


Sweet Jesus, dude, don't be so dramatic.

Once Assad is down, and a democratic government is established, things will eventualy get better, as long as the USA and its allies prevent terrorist from assuming power on that region.

[Harry Smith]

Cant wait for World War 3 to break out, once the US drops one on Syria.

Apparently the Syrian army is ready to send in Kamikaze pilots. But they probably wouldn't make it close enough to the US, to do any damage.

They've got a very long way to fly

[Stronk Serb]

Sure with Assad you just get your children pumped full of gas

The truthfulness of the information is questionable.

The issue I have is that the Syrian Opposition council- who are pro western and largely secular with European financial links can't go around making sure that everyone opposing Assad is legitimate can they? They've got to defeat him first, as I said before in the second world war and during the cold war we did some very questionable deals that ensured national security. The most important thing is getting rid of this war criminal- everyone is obsessed with an exit plan when we haven't even entered

The rebel factions are decentralized. The UN suspects some are even using chemical weapons. Do you want to let these people be in Syria after Assad is overthrown? Many of the rebel factions are supported or are elements of the Al-Qaeda, by allowing the rebels to win, and installing a corrupt government like in Afghanistan and Iraq, you could add to the further destabilization of the Middle East and allow Jihadists to run around with AKs shooting foreign troops and those they suspect are co-operating with them. Nobody asked you to be the world police.

[Harry Smith]

The truthfulness of the information is questionable.



The rebel factions are decentralized. The UN suspects some are even using chemical weapons. Do you want to let these people be in Syria after Assad is overthrown? Many of the rebel factions are supported or are elements of the Al-Qaeda, by allowing the rebels to win, and installing a corrupt government like in Afghanistan and Iraq, you could add to the further destabilization of the Middle East and allow Jihadists to run around with AKs shooting foreign troops and those they suspect are co-operating with them. Nobody asked you to be the world police.

it's funny how when ever you mention Assad and Chemical weapons everyone demands to see solid evidence and reports but it's okay to assume that the rebels have gas on sketchy news reports from Iran.

This is started in the Arab Spring, this is Syrians wanting the right to vote after about 30 years of being tortured and oppressed. The important thing is allowing them to vote- if they want to vote in a radical islamist that I would accept that.

Please actually read the content of my post- I have never suggested that Britain act alone, I'm suggesting we wait for the UN weapons team to report and then we go to the security council.

I don't want to let a dictator use chemical weapons and get away with it. He's broken the 1925 Geneva Protocol, he should taken to the Hague

[Capto]

This is started in the Arab Spring, this is Syrians wanting the right to vote after about 30 years of being tortured and oppressed. The important thing is allowing them to vote- if they want to vote in a radical islamist that I would accept that.


Not what we were saying at all. The point is, if they can establish proper democratic conduct and process in the first place, then it's fine. The point is, it's not looking likely now.

[Harry Smith]

Not what we were saying at all. The point is, if they can establish proper democratic conduct and process in the first place, then it's fine. The point is, it's not looking likely now.

But it is, you've got the Syrian national council and the coalition of secular and democratic Syrians, both groups have a leadership group with business links in Europe meaning they're not radicals but simply people wanting to be able to vote.

The UN have provisions to send peace keepers into the region later and ensure that democracy occurs.

I ask you this- can you see Assad still being president of a peaceful Syria in 2 years time?

[Capto]

But it is, you've got the Syrian national council and the coalition of secular and democratic Syrians, both groups have a leadership group with business links in Europe meaning they're not radicals but simply people wanting to be able to vote.

The UN have provisions to send peace keepers into the region later and ensure that democracy occurs.

I ask you this- can you see Assad still being president of a peaceful Syria in 2 years time?

No. Nor did I ever want to push that impression.

[Harry Smith]

No. Nor did I ever want to push that impression.

That's what I don't understand, everyone is saying how stable it was with Assad before and how he's fighting Al-Qaeda but the reality is I can't see him being able to continue in a peaceful Syria after he's done so much punishment to the country

[Capto]

That's what I don't understand, everyone is saying how stable it was with Assad before and how he's fighting Al-Qaeda but the reality is I can't see him being able to continue in a peaceful Syria after he's done so much punishment to the country

It was stable with Assad because he punished everyone who was against him [including Al-Qaeda]. Happiness is irrelevant in this regard.

[Harry Smith]

It was stable with Assad because he punished everyone who was against him [including Al-Qaeda]. Happiness is irrelevant in this regard.

Nazi Germany was very stable and had low unemployment thanks to the Gestapo, does that make the Gestapo legal or moral? No.

The whole stability argument is pretty weak because it forgets the fact that this stability has been shattered into about 10,000 pieces, if the regime was so great and stable how come it's resorted to gassing it's own people

[Capto]

Nazi Germany was very stable and had low unemployment thanks to the Gestapo, does that make the Gestapo legal or moral? No.

The whole stability argument is pretty weak because it forgets the fact that this stability has been shattered into about 10,000 pieces, if the regime was so great and stable how come it's resorted to gassing it's own people

Precisely!

The regime was never great, but it was stable! And that's all that was important. Once the civil war started up, however, that was when we decided that we needed to get involved, due to protect our interests in the region. I don't agree with that at all. Do you?

[Joe245]

I don't think so

[Harry Smith]

Precisely!

The regime was never great, but it was stable! And that's all that was important. Once the civil war started up, however, that was when we decided that we needed to get involved, due to protect our interests in the region. I don't agree with that at all. Do you?

We're not launching military strikes to further our nation, to invade or to install a british backed government. We're going to strike to show president Assad that he can't use chemical weapons on his own

[britishboy]

We're not launching military strikes to further our nation, to invade or to install a british backed government. We're going to strike to show president Assad that he can't use chemical weapons on his own

unlikely UK will now:'( I've seen terrible footage on the BBC of a school attacked with a napalm like substance, truly horrible.

[Sir Suomi]

What if I told you...

Western boots have been on the ground for months?

Define this, please.

[LouBerry]

This whole situation terrifies me. I mean, of course we have to act. You don't sit back and watch someone kill their own people. I'm sure someone has already made a Hitler reference, but it wasn't okay back then and it's not okay now. Something must be done.

But, I don't like this one bit. If you study the events leading up to WWI and WWII, you can see a lot of similarities to all the tension and pointing fingers that's going on right now. It's scary to think that there could be a WWIII. And this time, all the major forces have nuclear weapons. The results of a major world war like that now would be unthinkable. Can you imagine how many people would die?

[pieman10]

1. As of yet there is no solid proof that chemical weapons were used, the official report must come back.

2. We dont know who used the weapons! The rebels have the biggest motive to use chemicals, and its known the FSA has raided bases where they are stored.
Why would assad provoke a reaction like this when he was winning?

3. Who are we to say either side cant use such weapons? They may have signed the geneva convention but they havent signed a treaty saying they cant use chemical weapons, we can ram treatys down people's mouths.

4. Thousands die every day of starvation and dysentery, why is everyone so bothered about death by chemicals against dissidents?

4. Military action is laughable, do you want to start WW3? Iran, Russia and China back Assad, they wont appreciate the US or the UK using any kind of force.

I can imagine the syrians retaliating against the US for using tomahawks, then the US will use that as an excuse for a full blown invasion.

The west is by no means the perfect role model.

Think about what happened last time WMDs were apparently going to be used, it didn't end well.

Let them sort it out themselves

[LouBerry]

1. As of yet there is no solid proof that chemical weapons were used, the official report must come back.

2. We dont know who used the weapons! The rebels have the biggest motive to use chemicals, and its known the FSA has raided bases where they are stored.
Why would assad provoke a reaction like this when he was winning?

3. Who are we to say either side cant use such weapons? They may have signed the geneva convention but they havent signed a treaty saying they cant use chemical weapons, we can ram treatys down people's mouths.

4. Thousands die every day of starvation and dysentery, why is everyone so bothered about death by chemicals against dissidents?

4. Military action is laughable, do you want to start WW3? Iran, Russia and China back Assad, they wont appreciate the US or the UK using any kind of force.

I can imagine the syrians retaliating against the US for using tomahawks, then the US will use that as an excuse for a full blown invasion.

The west is by no means the perfect role model.

Think about what happened last time WMDs were apparently going to be used, it didn't end well.

Let them sort it out themselves

We can't "step aside". Yes, people die, in mass numbers from things like starvation and this and that, all the time. But, we're talking about a government purposely killing hundreds of innocent people. Little kids convulsing and dying in the streets in dozens. That is not okay. You don't watch hundreds of people being killed and not try to help.

[Castle of Glass]

*NOTE. PLEASE READ*
I have not read any of the other pages or posts other than OP, because tl;dr. I am just responding to that post. Sorry if i repost anything.
*END NOTE*

NO. it is not time for action. Why? Because firstly, the US IS NOT THE FUCKING WORLD POLICE. It doesn't matter who is the president, they aren't the world police.

Secondly, Syria is in a Civil war. they need to solve it themselves.Before any of you come crying to me saying "oh but they gassed their own people". So what if they did. They are one countries not signed in the Chemical Weapons Convention. so in short, you can't do a fucking thing if they use chemical weapons(if i read it correct)

And finally, it isn't 100% sure that it was the government. what i believe happened was the rebels did it so they could accuse the government and get help from western countries, namely the UN.

[pieman10]

We can't "step aside". Yes, people die, in mass numbers from things like starvation and this and that, all the time. But, we're talking about a government purposely killing hundreds of innocent people. Little kids convulsing and dying in the streets in dozens. That is not okay. You don't watch hundreds of people being killed and not try to help.

Its a civil war, thats the way it works.
One side must come out on top and what do you expect Assad to do? Throw the rebels in jail? No you kill them as they are your enemy!

And I repeat that there is no proof that assad used the weapons, he was winning before he used them.
Im sure the rebels would have no hesitation killing civilians or children.

Id like to tell you a story called
" Repeating history "

Once upon a time the russians invaded Afghanistan, the west didn't like that so they trained locals and supplied them with weapons, the nasty Russians left and everyone was happy.

Until those locals trained by the West decided to use their training and weapons against the west.
So the west invaded the country to destroy the very enemy they created.
The end.

The moral is that if we help these rebels, they will be tomorrows enemy.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Southside]

Define this, please.

CIA and UK intelligance teams have been on the ground since 2012. US Military officers are over in Jordan training rebels.

[LouBerry]

Its a civil war, thats the way it works.
One side must come out on top and what do you expect Assad to do? Throw the rebels in jail? No you kill them as they are your enemy!

And I repeat that there is no proof that assad used the weapons, he was winning before he used them.
Im sure the rebels would have no hesitation killing civilians or children.

Id like to tell you a story called
" Repeating history "

Once upon a time the russians invaded Afghanistan, the west didn't like that so they trained locals and supplied them with weapons, the nasty Russians left and everyone was happy.

Until those locals trained by the West decided to use their training and weapons against the west.
So the west invaded the country to destroy the very enemy they created.
The end.

The moral is that if we help these rebels, they will be tomorrows enemy.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Well, some cowards will sit back and watch it all play out. But, the rest of us are going to save innocent lives, whether it be from the government or the rebels. Regardless of who did it, someone broke international law by using those chemical weapons, and they need to be stopped.

[The Flash]

Sweet Jesus, dude, don't be so dramatic.

Once Assad is down, and a democratic government is established, things will eventualy get better, as long as the USA and its allies prevent terrorist from assuming power on that region.

I read that the Iranian, Chinese, and the Russians are in support of Syria. And that France, Germany, and Britain aren't supporting the bombing.

[Southside]

Sweet Jesus, dude, don't be so dramatic.

Once Assad is down, and a democratic government is established, things will eventualy get better, as long as the USA and its allies prevent terrorist from assuming power on that region.

You think everything will be peaceful in Syria once Assad falls? Lol...Have you been paying attention to wars in the last 10 or so years? It's still going to be conflict even if the Assad regime falls..

Taliban government fell over 10 years ago, Afghanistan is still going through hell and they even have a "democratic" government!

Saddam Hussein fell in 2003, why are people still getting blown to pieces in car bombs in Iraq? They have a "democratic" government

Ghaddafi has been out since 2011, why are Islamist militas still roaming around in the Libyan desert fighting each other? They have a "democratic" government

[Stronk Serb]

it's funny how when ever you mention Assad and Chemical weapons everyone demands to see solid evidence and reports but it's okay to assume that the rebels have gas on sketchy news reports from Iran.

This is started in the Arab Spring, this is Syrians wanting the right to vote after about 30 years of being tortured and oppressed. The important thing is allowing them to vote- if they want to vote in a radical islamist that I would accept that.

Please actually read the content of my post- I have never suggested that Britain act alone, I'm suggesting we wait for the UN weapons team to report and then we go to the security council.

I don't want to let a dictator use chemical weapons and get away with it. He's broken the 1925 Geneva Protocol, he should taken to the Hague

I have nothing against intervening against Assad. People deserve democracy, I just say that it's not likely to establish a safe Syria now, both sides are armed and are fighting, and there are going to be a lot of Jihadist rebel factions. It's very likely both sides have used chemical weapons, and politicians make matters worse by saying 'we are 100% sure Assad/rebels used chemical weapons'. And yes, I approve of an UN inspection, and if the invasion get's sanctioned by the UN, go for it, but do not make the same mistakes like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Harry Smith]

I have nothing against intervening against Assad. People deserve democracy, I just say that it's not likely to establish a safe Syria now, both sides are armed and are fighting, and there are going to be a lot of Jihadist rebel factions. It's very likely both sides have used chemical weapons, and politicians make matters worse by saying 'we are 100% sure Assad/rebels used chemical weapons'. And yes, I approve of an UN inspection, and if the invasion get's sanctioned by the UN, go for it, but do not make the same mistakes like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I pretty much agree with that, I would not support the US striking on their own without letting the UN weapon inspectors present their evidence and their case

[tovaris]

The best for sirians is that noone interfeers with their war, and that the country brakes up along its natural borders.

[Walter Powers]

This just in: The UK will not aide the US in a strike against Syria.
Could somebody from Britain on here please explain why you guys always have to freeload off of our military? By punish the use of weapons of mass destruction, we are benefiting the entire world. American soldiers shouldn't be the only people risking their lives, and American taxpayers shouldn't be the only people footing the bill. The other governments of the world, including Britain's, need to stop acting like cowards.

Of course the US shouldn't intervene, mainly because it's none of the US government's damn business. You can't help everybody and you shouldn't try to. It will just lead to more of the same shit that's been going on in the Middle East for the last 60 years. Mainly us killing them, overthrowing their governments, and them wanting to kill us for it.

I'll be like the overly emotional here like Harry for a second and say: Do you want another 9/11?

How in the world would this cause another 9/11? Give me a break.

If somebody's using weapons of mass destruction, we have to intervene for the sake of international secuirty. That cannot be deemed an acceptable means of warfare, if it is then instead of thousands millions would be dying in wars, or even a billion if there is ever a WWIII. We do not want that. But your an anarchiest, so maybe you do.

This just in, apparently according to victim testimony it's strongly suggested that the Syrian rebel groups used sarin nerve gas on civilians in the recent incident, not the Syrian government. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/)

That's an old article, genius.

I think everyone is getting to wrapped up in the chemical weapons, HE IS KILLING AND BOMBING HIS OWN PEOPLE!

As I said above, the point is that we cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to be used in warfare, including chemical weapons, as it makes things much more deadly. That's why we're so concerned about stopping Assad from using them. And as said, the rebels aren't the best people in the world, either. We should just try to stop the use of chemical weapons and then get out.
this is what i heard too which is probably true because the rebels are supplied by various sects around the world, the problem with intervening is that there is no good guy bad guy, assad is your typical dictator while the rebels are your typical uneducated maniacs who has connections to various terrorist organizations, if we destroy assad we will have an unstable syria with radical leaders which kinda is a bad thing considering that israel is right under, overall though the US will probably benefit though if assad goes because we could easily curropt the new government
As said, we need to punish Asaad somehow so he won't use chemical weapons again.

Action? Are you guys noticing the Bombings going on Iraq? It seems America didn't fix shit there.
We you be opposed to simply making some isolated strikes until Asaad stops using weapons of mass destruction?

Only problem I have with this whole shebang. :)
President Obama has now confirmed that there is "no doubt" that Asaad used chemical weapons.

Does it matter if these weapons are chemical,nuclear,biological,psychological or just projectiles? If we are going to condemn chemical weapons, we would make that decision and action to remove them pointless, if we don't condemn and ban all other kinds of weapons.

I can see why chemical weaponry is seen as especially dangerous and therefore evil in malevolent hands: they tend to have a large and powerful impact on the victims, as opposed to bullets and mines. But so what if they are chemicals or guided meteors? They still kill people. Most of those people as innocent in life and war as us on this website.
Biological, nuclear and psychological weapons can be just as bad if not worse- in fact, nuclear weapons are probably hundreds of times worse than chemicals. And all we see being done with nuclear weaponry is with the nuclear superpowers saying "oh, we'll remove another ten warheads this year from our stockpile". No quick action. And with North Korea having fun with it's nuke sandbox, most reactions have been and still are resigned to great displeasure. Not much more.

Yes, it's great that chemical weapons may see their way to the door out of public and easy use. But we are all lying to ourselves if that solves anything: Thousands of people still die from all the other kinds of weapons.

Yes, action has a real chance of being seen for chemical weapons being removed. But it's still only talk for all the nukes and viruses.

It's like we have begun the marathon to the end, where the hope of weapon restriction lies- and we've stopped after the first hundred metres, thinking that that sprint was good enough and that it't time for a break.

No point doing a job if it's not done correctly. Especially where thousands of mostly innocent lives and the future of international relations is at stake.

The point is that condemning and punishing the use of weapons of mass destruction means the difference of thousands dead and tens of millions dead. That'w why we need to do this. We'd do some very targeted strikes, which would kill very limited numbers, and in the end many more people will live because Asaad won't be using chemical weapons anymore.

I don't think so

Why not? Please explain. Using weapons of mass destruction cannot go unpunished.

This whole situation terrifies me. I mean, of course we have to act. You don't sit back and watch someone kill their own people. I'm sure someone has already made a Hitler reference, but it wasn't okay back then and it's not okay now. Something must be done.

But, I don't like this one bit. If you study the events leading up to WWI and WWII, you can see a lot of similarities to all the tension and pointing fingers that's going on right now. It's scary to think that there could be a WWIII. And this time, all the major forces have nuclear weapons. The results of a major world war like that now would be unthinkable. Can you imagine how many people would die?

Yes, it is terrifying. It's times like now when I wish the Middle East just didn't exist. I really don't think we have to worry about a world war yet, though. Russia and China would have to be very crazy to do that. We'd hurt a lot, but they'd be devastated.

1. As of yet there is no solid proof that chemical weapons were used, the official report must come back.

2. We dont know who used the weapons! The rebels have the biggest motive to use chemicals, and its known the FSA has raided bases where they are stored.
Why would assad provoke a reaction like this when he was winning?

3. Who are we to say either side cant use such weapons? They may have signed the geneva convention but they havent signed a treaty saying they cant use chemical weapons, we can ram treatys down people's mouths.

4. Thousands die every day of starvation and dysentery, why is everyone so bothered about death by chemicals against dissidents?

4. Military action is laughable, do you want to start WW3? Iran, Russia and China back Assad, they wont appreciate the US or the UK using any kind of force.

I can imagine the syrians retaliating against the US for using tomahawks, then the US will use that as an excuse for a full blown invasion.

The west is by no means the perfect role model.

Think about what happened last time WMDs were apparently going to be used, it didn't end well.

Let them sort it out themselves

I'll take your points one by one:

1. It has been confirmed by multiple entities, as Obama said, "there's no doubt" Asaad used chemical weapons on his people.
2. Again, there's no doubt.
3. These are weaposn of mass destruction we're talking about! that is breaking a big war norm. Do you think he should be allowed to nuke his own people, too?
4. This will not start WWIII. We've attacked Chinese and Russian allies numerous times in the past, and that hasn't happened.
The syrians won't be able to retaliate, they'd be launched from battleships. And I don't think Syria has much in the way of a Navy.


*NOTE. PLEASE READ*
I have not read any of the other pages or posts other than OP, because tl;dr. I am just responding to that post. Sorry if i repost anything.
*END NOTE*

NO. it is not time for action. Why? Because firstly, the US IS NOT THE FUCKING WORLD POLICE. It doesn't matter who is the president, they aren't the world police.

Secondly, Syria is in a Civil war. they need to solve it themselves.Before any of you come crying to me saying "oh but they gassed their own people". So what if they did. They are one countries not signed in the Chemical Weapons Convention. so in short, you can't do a fucking thing if they use chemical weapons(if i read it correct)

And finally, it isn't 100% sure that it was the government. what i believe happened was the rebels did it so they could accuse the government and get help from western countries, namely the UN.

Of course we are not the world police. But we, as all other nations, have a duty to punish those who use WMDs. It's about saving lives. We cannot allow chemical weapons to become a norm in wars; millions more people will die.

I'm not suggesting we "solve" there civil war. Simply punish those who do something as low as using chemical weapons. And I don't car eif they never agreed not to do it, that doesn't make it allowable!

According to President Obama, there is now no doubt Asaad is resonsible for the attacks.

Its a civil war, thats the way it works.
One side must come out on top and what do you expect Assad to do? Throw the rebels in jail? No you kill them as they are your enemy!

And I repeat that there is no proof that assad used the weapons, he was winning before he used them.
Im sure the rebels would have no hesitation killing civilians or children.

Id like to tell you a story called
" Repeating history "

Once upon a time the russians invaded Afghanistan, the west didn't like that so they trained locals and supplied them with weapons, the nasty Russians left and everyone was happy.

Until those locals trained by the West decided to use their training and weapons against the west.
So the west invaded the country to destroy the very enemy they created.
The end.

The moral is that if we help these rebels, they will be tomorrows enemy.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I'll quote our president whom I hate: There is NO DOUBT that Asaad used chemical weapons on his people!

I'm not suggesting we side with the rebels, simply punish the governemnt who used the poor man's equivalent of nukes!

I pretty much agree with that, I would not support the US striking on their own without letting the UN weapon inspectors present their evidence and their case
So what do you make of your government leaving us to fend for oursleves?

[Harry Smith]

This just in: The UK will not aide the US in a strike against Syria.
Could somebody from Britain on here please explain why you guys always have to freeload off of our milirary? By punish the use of weapons of mass destruction, we are benefitting the entire world. American soldiars shouldn't be the only people risking their lives, and American taxpayers shouldn't be the onlt people footing the bill. The other governments of the world, including Britains, need to stop acting like cowards.

So what do you make of your government leaving us to fend for oursleves?

Firstly, if you understood how are parliament works you would of worked out that the government put forward the Bill but several Mp's from both the government and the opposition said that they wanted to wait for the UN weapon inspectors to carry out their report.

We haven't ruled out a strike- we simply want the UN to publish the evidence

We all seem to remember how convinced Tony Blair and George Bush were that the Iraqi's had nuclear weapons- they claimed to have the intel but look Iraq didn't have Nuclear weapons. You need to have the evidence before you make a decision

We've not acted like cowards, the United Kingdom has not be attacked, neither has our allies. We have no duty to act on our own. The United States has not been attacked either. Please do not make it out like the US has been attacked and that the UK is simply standing back.

We're not Freeloading, we went 3 years on our own in WW1, 2 years on our own in WW2 and we got back the Falklands on our own.

I also ask how come you want this US lead strike when the the US government in the 1980's supported Saddam Hussein using gas against Iranian Soldiers and cities?

[Walter Powers]

Firstly, if you understood how are parliament works you would of worked out that the government put forward the Bill but several Mp's from both the government and the opposition said that they wanted to wait for the UN weapon inspectors to carry out their report.

We haven't ruled out a strike- we simply want the US to publish the evidence

We all seem to remember how convinced Tony Blair and George Bush were that the Iraqi's had nuclear weapons- they claimed to have the intel but look Iraq didn't have Nuclear weapons.

We've not acted like cowards, the United Kingdom has not be attacked, neither has our allies. We have no duty to act on our own. The United States has not been attacked either. Please do not make it out like the US has been attacked and that the UK is simply standing back.

We're not Freeloading, we went 3 years on our own in WW1, 2 years on our own in WW2 and we got back the Falklands on our own.

I also ask how come you want this US lead strike when the the US government in the 1980's supported Saddam Hussein using gas against Iranian Soldiers and cities?

Okay, first of, your twisting things. We supported Saddam Hussein while he was doing that because he was th lesser of two evils. Th global situation was much different back then, it was before the fall of the societ union.

Also, are you really allowed to use text that big? cool, I might start doing it.

You guys are so freeloading, we have conclusive evidence already and you won't support us. You do this so often. We are helping the entire world buy doing this. Just cause you aren't world superpower doesn't give you an exemption from contributing.

EDIT: You shrunk the text. I was wondering if you'd do that!

[Harry Smith]

Okay, first of, your twisting things. We supported Saddam Hussein while he was doing that because he was th lesser of two evils. Th global situation was much different back then, it was before the fall of the societ union.

Also, are you really allowed to use text that big? cool, I might start doing it.

You guys are so freeloading, we have conclusive evidence already and you won't support us. You do this so often. We are helping the entire world buy doing this. Just cause you aren't world superpower doesn't give you an exemption from contributing.

EDIT: You shrunk the text. I was wondering if you'd do that!

The 7 was slightly too big, I didn't do a preview so then I changed it.

You supported Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons on civilans. Chemical weapons have been illegal for the last 100 years. Legally it was just the same- Saddam gassed children, Assad gassed children. Both were terrible- but the US supported one of them.

Your not helping the entire world, that's an exaggeration.

We'll support you when the UN have done their Job, and sure we're not a superpower- that doesn't really offend me. I'll support the UN but I'm not supporting a independent US strike. It's not under any of the NATO articles and a strike would not have backing of the UN at the moment.

How are we freeloading? I seem to recall the US wanting to use British Bases during Libya and wanting to use Cyprus in this.

The UN is the world's governing body- not the US

[Capto]

We are helping the entire world buy doing this. Just cause you aren't world superpower doesn't give you an exemption from contributing.


lolwut.

[Southside]

Okay, first of, your twisting things. We supported Saddam Hussein while he was doing that because he was th lesser of two evils. Th global situation was much different back then, it was before the fall of the societ union.

Also, are you really allowed to use text that big? cool, I might start doing it.

You guys are so freeloading, we have conclusive evidence already and you won't support us. You do this so often. We are helping the entire world buy doing this. Just cause you aren't world superpower doesn't give you an exemption from contributing.

EDIT: You shrunk the text. I was wondering if you'd do that!

"And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons we sold him that shit after Ronald Reagans election"-Immortal Technique

Do tell me my friend, how are the Brits being cowards by not wanting to attack a country that didnt do shit to them?

Republicans, always complaining about where tax money goes but never bitching about how one single Tomahawk missile cost 1.4 Billion...

[Capto]

Sweet Jesus, dude, don't be so dramatic.

Once Assad is down, and a democratic government is established, things will eventualy get better, as long as the USA and its allies prevent terrorist from assuming power on that region.

Assuming that happens, which, with common sense and prior experiences, is not very likely.

[Jean Poutine]

This is a blatant false flag attack. Why would al-Assad, who has been warned of an American risk of intervention by Obama's "thin red line" comment would use chemical weapons when 1) he is gaining ground and essentially winning and 2) UN inspectors were situated a few km away?

For any criminal act, there is something that is absolutely necessary and it's called intent. Al-Assad had no reason to use the weapons, and the rebels had every reason to. They have repeatedly begged for American intervention. What better way to set it off? Americans saying he used them because "he doesn't care" is bullshit. He cares enough to defend himself against the rebels. He doesn't want to lose.

We still haven't seen any of America's supposed "proof". This is likely to be Iraq II, and yes, the comparison is valid.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-30/shadow-of-false-iraq-intelligence-hangs-over-syria-strike.html

That's an old article, genius.

Okay then, "genius", how about this one :

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Before you criticize the source, Dale Gavlak is a recognized journalist that deals exclusively with Middle Eastern affairs and has written for the BBC before. There's a reason you won't see that in the news, it's called information control.

2. Again, there's no doubt.

Why, because the American government says so?

Show me real proof or get out. I would think Americans should have learned by now not to trust their government to the letter, not when it comes to shit like this.

Obama's playing the reluctant crusader and it's disgusting.

Another thing. The Al-Nusra front that's fighting with the rebels is Al-Qaeda. Name should sound familiar, so why would Americans help the supposed perpetrators of the greatest tragedy on American soil in modern times? A civil war isn't a democracy, you don't elect winners. If America goes in, they'll basically be setting up another radical Islamist regime. That's completely against their interests, or at least should be.

PS : nobody should trust the CIA farther than they can throw them. Ever heard of MKULTRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mkultra)?

[britishboy]

This is a blatant false flag attack. Why would al-Assad, who has been warned of an American risk of intervention by Obama's "thin red line" comment would use chemical weapons when 1) he is gaining ground and essentially winning and 2) UN inspectors were situated a few km away?

For any criminal act, there is something that is absolutely necessary and it's called intent. Al-Assad had no reason to use the weapons, and the rebels had every reason to. They have repeatedly begged for American intervention. What better way to set it off? Americans saying he used them because "he doesn't care" is bullshit. He cares enough to defend himself against the rebels. He doesn't want to lose.

We still haven't seen any of America's supposed "proof". This is likely to be Iraq II, and yes, the comparison is valid.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-30/shadow-of-false-iraq-intelligence-hangs-over-syria-strike.html



Okay then, "genius", how about this one :

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Before you criticize the source, Dale Gavlak is a recognized journalist that deals exclusively with Middle Eastern affairs and has written for the BBC before. There's a reason you won't see that in the news, it's called information control.



Why, because the American government says so?

Show me real proof or get out. I would think Americans should have learned by now not to trust their government to the letter, not when it comes to shit like this.

Obama's playing the reluctant crusader and it's disgusting.

Another thing. The Al-Nusra front that's fighting with the rebels is Al-Qaeda. Name should sound familiar, so why would Americans help the supposed perpetrators of the greatest tragedy on American soil in modern times?

your a conspiracy theorist, trust your country, stop hating everything it does, does it make you feel good to hate everything?

oh silly me thats the government mind control that made us say that right?

you are a citizen of one of the best countries on the planet, people risk there lives on impossible missions to be American, all around the world people look up to you, and what do you do? just hate and moan and hate!

[Southside]

your a conspiracy theorist, trust your country, stop hating everything it does, does it make you feel good to hate everything?

oh silly me thats the government mind control that made us say that right?

you are a citizen of one of the best countries on the planet, people risk there lives on impossible missions to be American, all around the world people look up to you, and what do you do? just hate and moan and hate!

Hes a conspiracy theorist for telling the truth? Most of those rebels are Al-Qaeda linked and we are sending them in money.

Why do we have to be the world police in every conflict?

Its foreign intervention like the one in Syria that caused 9/11

[britishboy]

Why do we have to be the world police in every conflict?


BE PROUD OF THAT!
be proud to be the country that will that anyone anywhere to protect human rights
be proud that whenever freedom calls your country will be there, kicking in the doors, getting those responsible

[Southside]

BE PROUD OF THAT!
be proud to be the country that will that anyone anywhere to protect human rights
be proud that whenever freedom calls your country will be there, kicking in the doors, getting those responsible

I dont like to cuss that much in debates but...

Your full of shit.

So when the United States killed hundreds of my Panamanian countrymen for one cocaine dealer in the 1989 Panama invasion, that was "freedom calling"?

When the US invaded Iraq and killed thousands of civilians, that was "freedom calling"?

When the US kills innocent farmers and innocent children in Yemen and Pakistan with million dollar drones, thats "freedom calling"?

How can we protect human rights by bombing civilian infrastructure and violating UN resolutions?
The last legitimate war we faught was WW2...

[Harry Smith]

BE PROUD OF THAT!
be proud to be the country that will that anyone anywhere to protect human rights
be proud that whenever freedom calls your country will be there, kicking in the doors, getting those responsible

That's the most stupid thing you've ever said, and that's saying something. I actually hope your fishing for someone to tell you to f off.

Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Israel
Bahrain
Egypt

All these countries are US allies, and they have very questionable human right's abues, the US doesn't give a shit about human rights otherwise they would of invaded Saudi Arabia in the 90's.

The US government gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and intel how to use them against civilans, the US government has got rid of over 7 democratic governments in the last 50 years. The United States committed terrorist action against Cuba, the US is no saint

[britishboy]

I dont like to cuss that much in debates but...

Your full of shit.

So when the United States killed hundreds of my Panamanian countrymen for one cocaine dealer in the 1989 Panama invasion, that was "freedom calling"?

When the US invaded Iraq and killed thousands of civilians, that was "freedom calling"?

When the US kills innocent farmers and innocent children in Yemen and Pakistan with million dollar drones, thats "freedom calling"?

How can we protect human rights by bombing civilian infrastructure and violating UN resolutions?
The last legitimate war we faught was WW2...
swear as much as you want, I curse and im not a hypocrite, feel free

you have fucked up alot, im not gonna beat around the bush, and alot is an understatement, but in Iraq you tried and done what you thought was right, unfortunately lead on false information

you as a nation are always helping and helping! the cold war was bad with Vietnam but look at 9/11, you was directly attacked, did you back down? no, you hunted those responsible and put a bullet in their skull, you now are training the police forces of Afghanistan to keep the country free when you leave

That's the most stupid thing you've ever said, and that's saying something. I actually hope your fishing for someone to tell you to f off.

Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Israel
Bahrain
Egypt

All these countries are US allies, and they have very questionable human right's abues, the US doesn't give a shit about human rights otherwise they would of invaded Saudi Arabia in the 90's.

The US government gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and intel how to use them against civilans, the US government has got rid of over 7 democratic governments in the last 50 years. The United States committed terrorist action against Cuba, the US is no saint

I wasnt defending every war, I dont even know most

he said 'why is it always us' and I said thats a good thing that your country has the balls to stick up for its national interests

[Jean Poutine]

your a conspiracy theorist, trust your country, stop hating everything it does, does it make you feel good to hate everything?

oh silly me thats the government mind control that made us say that right?

you are a citizen of one of the best countries on the planet, people risk there lives on impossible missions to be American, all around the world people look up to you, and what do you do? just hate and moan and hate!

Well, first of all I'm not American. I thought the guy in my avatar with all the Canadian flags behind him gave that away.

Second, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/21/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-questions/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Some opposition activists say the toxin used may have been "Agent 15," also known as BZ. Its full name is 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, and it affects both the peripheral and central nervous systems.

The opposition claimed that BZ was used in tank shells fired in the city of Homs last December. A doctor in the city told the online publication "The Cable" soon after that the victims "all had miosis -- pinpoint pupils. They also had generalized muscle pain. There were also bad symptoms as far as their central nervous system. There were generalized seizures, and some patients had partial seizures."

Physicians for Human Rights, a non-governmental organization, says that BZ induces a "severely altered mental status (hallucinations, giddiness, confusion); lack of secretions -- dry mucous membranes, dry mouth, eyes, skin; dilated pupils, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting."

But the reports from Homs, like so many of the allegations to emerge from Syria, were never confirmed. The next month, the U.S. State Department said it had "found no credible evidence to corroborate or to confirm that chemical weapons were used" in Homs. Some experts doubt the Assad regime possesses BZ.

Perhaps more significant is an account from the spring of this year, when Jean-Philippe Remy from the French newspaper Le Monde spent weeks in and around Jobar, the opposition-held district on the edge of Damascus that saw many of the casualties early Wednesday.
"No odor, no smoke, not even a whistle to indicate the release of a toxic gas," he reported "And then the symptoms appear. The men cough violently. Their eyes burn, their pupils shrink, their vision blurs. Soon they experience difficulty breathing, sometimes in the extreme; they begin to vomit or lose consciousness."

Read the bold. The rebels have an history of lying about the use of Syrian gov't chemical weapons and their nature.

Third, if you had read more than two lines of that Wiki page, you'd know the evidence for the existence of the MKULTRA program comes from a FoI request and the declassification of CIA papers, and you'd also know the CIA tried to cover it up by destroying all the evidence. You would also know that the CIA tested various chemicals and mind control techniques on unwitting, unsuspecting, completely innocent American citizens who definitely did not give any kind of consent. That wasn't a conspiracy theory, it was cold, hard truth. The CIA is supposed to protect American citizens, not experiment on them like lab rats. And you trust these guys? If you do, get your conscience to the garage, it's due for an oil check.

Fourth, I'm not surprised you don't understand the importance of motive in trying to prove a crime. It is a fact that the Syrian government had none, while the rebels had plenty. Americans are known for false flag attacks. Criminals don't act without a reason, not even serial killers. Al-Assad wants to win. Using chemical weapons is completely the opposite of winning. It's literally suicide. American officials say Al-Assad "doesn't give a damn" and that's why he did it - that's an extremely poor excuse for a motive and flies in the face of any judicial logic out there. He knew America would intervene, they did in Afghanistan and they did in Iraq. Why wouldn't they in Syria?

Lastly, please do continue with your unabashed trust in your government. It's people like you that gives them license to do whatever they want - they accept what authorities say without question. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a skeptic, and I've been given plenty of reasons to be a skeptic.

I am still waiting for that "proof" the Americans supposedly have. It's better be hard evidence, else it's Iraq all over again where Americans said "Saddam has WMDs, trust us!" We did. They didn't.

[Sugaree]

Sweet Jesus, dude, don't be so dramatic.

Once Assad is down, and a democratic government is established, things will eventualy get better, as long as the USA and its allies prevent terrorist from assuming power on that region.

Because establishing a democratic government in Iraq and Afghanistan really did the trick for those countries. If there's one thing you can count on in the Middle East, is that they don't give a damn about democracy. We tried it before in Iraq, we tried it in Afghanistan, and both of those countries have FAILED. There's only a sliver of people in the Middle East who want democracy, and they aren't going to assume power anytime soon because the people there are too dumb to recognize what's good for them. It's sad, but it's also true.

We're best to just leave Syria alone. The cries of the innocent have gone on for 30 months, and they may as well have gone on for 30 years. But I can not see how anyone can justify Obama pulling a George W. Bush and going in as a lone wolf ready to kill. No one gives a damn what the UN or NATO thinks, they're nothing more than symbols, so don't bring them up if you're going to convince me otherwise.

Democracy in the Middle East is a pipe dream. And it's a very very VERY thin pipe you're trying to crawl through. This region has almost always been at war ever since it was inhabited. Everything from land disputes to whoever is the rightful owner of a camel hump has been used for justification of the slaughter of millions in that region in the history of mankind. It's not worth it to get involved anymore.

I hate to say it, I really do, but humanitarian feelings can't go that far. You have to use common sense and think rationally about what the affects and consequences of your actions will be. At this point, it's not worth angering Russia and China. If we were to invade Syria, our destroyer warships currently deployed in the Mediterranean Sea would be in direct conflict with Russian ships that are also in the region, with no backup. Are we going to risk OUR men and women again for a cause that's not going to be worth it in the long run? What's our fucking endgame if we DO strike? Because I certainly don't see one other than "Well, we have to stay there and help them make a government."

We need to stop acting like world police and realize that shit like this happens. If we want to intervene in Syria, then we should intervene in Sudan and other countries where innocent people are killed by the government. It makes no sense to turn a blind eye, and anyone who does that should be ashamed of themselves.

[Harry Smith]

swear as much as you want, I curse and im not a hypocrite, feel free

you have fucked up alot, im not gonna beat around the bush, and alot is an understatement, but in Iraq you tried and done what you thought was right, unfortunately lead on false information

you as a nation are always helping and helping! the cold war was bad with Vietnam but look at 9/11, you was directly attacked, did you back down? no, you hunted those responsible and put a bullet in their skull, you now are training the police forces of Afghanistan to keep the country free when you leave



I wasnt defending every war, I dont even know most

he said 'why is it always us' and I said thats a good thing that your country has the balls to stick up for its national interests

Ignorance is bliss

If you really want to go into 9/11 it can be argued that US foreign policy caused it after they stationed troops around mecca and were pretty shit in the middle east.

Training? Don't give me that bollocks, half of them are on drugs, the other half belong to the Taliban. That police force is so weak- there is a reason that their loyal police forces shoots at us.

If you look at Iraq George Bush said he would invade whether or not their were nuclear weapons.

You've had US soldiers shooting families dead in Afghanistan for no reason other than the fact that they're Afghans

The US also lead a number of terrorist attacks of Cuba, look at operation moongose- the CIA were going to stage terrorist attacks in Miami to get support for a war, they tried to kill Castro and they blew up half the island. America committed terrorist attacks against Cuba so put the tissue away about 9/11

[Capto]

Training? Don't give me that bollocks, half of them are on drugs, the other half belong to the Taliban. That police force is so weak- there is a reason that their loyal police forces shoots at us.


From personal experience, in a majority of big cities [the only place the police can actually be argued to exist; obviously discounting most parts of Qandahar], Herat, Kabul, Ghazni, so on, the police wasn't half-bad. They were obviously quite slow, but honest enough. They're well enough trained for the city, but clearly can't work farther out. I've had decent enough experiences with Afghan policemen.

[britishboy]

From personal experience, in a majority of big cities [the only place the police can actually be argued to exist; obviously discounting most parts of Qandahar], Herat, Kabul, Ghazni, so on, the police wasn't half-bad. They were obviously quite slow, but honest enough. They're well enough trained for the city, but clearly can't work farther out. I've had decent enough experiences with Afghan policemen.

I agree with you, most of the police are honest and brave and a few give them a bad name but how have you had experiences with Afghan police in the beautiful land of Los Angeles

[Capto]

I agree with you, most of the police are honest and brave and a few give them a bad name but how have you had experiences with Afghan police in the beautiful land of Los Angeles

Did some volunteer stuff in Afghanistan with a Japanese group. That sorta stuff. Safe stuff though, near more stable beg-controlled areas right outside Ghazni and Kabul.

[Sir Suomi]

CIA and UK intelligance teams have been on the ground since 2012. US Military officers are over in Jordan training rebels.

Ah, I understand. When I said boots on the ground, I was meaning starting a land invasion with Western troops. I suppose I should have been more precise in what I was saying.

[Azunite]

Sooo, let me post my first thing here:

Some points:

1- Assad does NOT use chemical weapons. There is absolutely no proof of it. The same thing happened with Iraq, they told there were WMDs and they found none. A council from UN was supposed to investigate it but the world declared that Assad used chems even before they presented any report on the situation.

2- It is another excuse for America to establish a colony in the Middle East.

3- Assad is a modern man. He is like the only leader in the realm of Islam to wear a tie now. Believe me, in my town if you wear a tie it means you are a good guy (excluding that dumbass faggot bitch motherfucker Turkish PM of ours he is just a show and he hates the tie)


Seriously, what the fuck are you guys were expecting? People would assault Assad and Assad would be like "Oh okay, let me just sit back and take a beating."

And we thought Obama was a pacifist. Well, fuck you. He ended the war in Iraq just so he could be named so. Now, the US is the only nation in the Western Hemisphere so keen on declaring war on Syria.

I can't believe Americans. I can't believe you people. Fucking bunch of morons, fuck you. You think this is a fucking game? READ THIS FUCKING POST: You people think you are playing Total War games: "Yah we should just send a few Tomahawks and then bring the airbases so our guys can bomb safe. What the fuck? Excuse me, are you the Commander in Chief? We have people like you here too, they are like "We should just enter Syria and we'll have our supper in Damascus the next day.

I am fucking sick of those brute illiterate immigrants from Syria who sought shelter in Turkey. Our arse licking moron PM got them free (plus monthly payments to their pockets) in universities. Because of them, no Turkish citizen could get into the university he or she wanted. Yeah, and when the West strikes, he will lash his lapdog, the Turkish PM, one more time and say: "While your people are starving, open up some more camps for Syrians. Oh, wait, abort that, build some apartments for them. In fact, create a city for them. Yeah. And while you are up to it, make sure you fuck up your country more so that we may finish you guys off in 20 years"

The next step is that he'll turn them into Turkish citizens for votes. Thaat's right it is a filthy shitty game and you people think this is all a fucking game here a 13 year old pussy boy or a girl talks about which weapons to use and where to attack in Syria.

Have fun with the Russian warships and a pissed off Iran who has been sleeping for years.

Remember what happened to Napoléon who attacked the "sleeping giant", Russia. That's right, buttfuck.

I digress.

Get brains, people. Assad is like the last modern man left in the Middle East...

But of course! WHY WOULD AMERICANS WANT MODERN PEOPLE IN MIDDLE EAST? You want to kill Assad because he doesn't like America. Yeah bring democracy to Syria too so that America can create another brainless army of fucking minions to suck out the resources from.

I don't know why I try to reason with you. All you want is a brainwashed, moron Middle East. What I want is a Middle East who is as modern as the West; and by modern I don't talk about morals I am talking about technology and completely removing ignorance from the East. But why would you guys want it right?

Let them kill each other. What would America think if the European powers embarked on Boston and said "Okay pussies you guys back of we'll take care of the civil war here" back in the Civil War time in America?

Let Assad kill and get killed. This thing will blow over in several months anyway. Only difference is that when America intervenes, they will be the one who will appoint the mayor of Syria. I can't believe it. "Patriotic" American's don't hate the fact that their men get killed for a bunch of camel riders ( I said camel riders because I know how the US sees Arabs and come on you hate them you won't mind it ).

Yeah, your guys get killed for the race you hate! Hah! Suck on this.

[Left Now]

Once US said Iraq had mass killing weapons,and began a great attack on that country;But after that they declared that it was a mistake!After killing thousands of innocent people they said that it was a mistake!

So now,if US wants to once again make another mistake,this time in Syria,so surely I will say : "Go to hell you war makers!"

Before any report from UN about Assad's using of chemical weapons,I think having another attack on Middle East is exactly a great crime.

Also,if it was proved that the rebels have used chemical weapons,I think US has to be ready for the consequences if supporting them;

[Harry Smith]

From personal experience, in a majority of big cities [the only place the police can actually be argued to exist; obviously discounting most parts of Qandahar], Herat, Kabul, Ghazni, so on, the police wasn't half-bad. They were obviously quite slow, but honest enough. They're well enough trained for the city, but clearly can't work farther out. I've had decent enough experiences with Afghan policemen.

The police force out their like the government is a joke, I'm sure though they've got enough PR training from the west to guard the more western affluent areas but I'm doubt the people in afganistan can rely on a police force which largely chooses not to wear body armour because they have faith in god

I agree with you, most of the police are honest and brave and a few give them a bad name but how have you had experiences with Afghan police in the beautiful land of Los Angeles

You agree because it suits you, a few give them a bad name- that's an understament. How do you know their honest and brave or is this one again just empty words without facts

Sixty percent of the police in Helmand province use drugs

You can't say that's good policing,

You've got a police force that sells weapons to the Taliban, attacks British troops and abuses children whilst also massive amounts of corruption.

Their police force is a joke

[Stronk Serb]

This aggression should not be tolerated. Unless the UN has concrete evidence on chemical weapons used by Assad, the US should piss off. They supported Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran.

[Capto]

You agree because it suits you, a few give them a bad name- that's an understament. How do you know their honest and brave or is this one again just empty words without facts

Sixty percent of the police in Helmand province use drugs

You can't say that's good policing,

You've got a police force that sells weapons to the Taliban, attacks British troops and abuses children whilst also massive amounts of corruption.

Their police force is a joke

That's cause Hilmand is... for lack of better terms, difficult. Not to mention, you know, mostly uncontrolled by the government.

[Left Now]

This aggression should not be tolerated. Unless the UN has concrete evidence on chemical weapons used by Assad, the US should piss off. They supported Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iraq.

I think maybe you wanted to say Iran;Saddam Hussain was in Iraq himself.He used chemical weapons against Kurdistan and Iran and US was completely silence when these crimes were happening.

[Stronk Serb]

I think maybe you wanted to say Iran;Saddam Hussain was in Iraq himself.He used chemical weapons against Kurdistan and Iran and US was completely silence when these crimes were happening.

Yes, I meant Iran. He used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. The US were completeky silent back then, amd why are they now thinking they can police the world?

[Harry Smith]

Yes, I meant Iran. He used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. The US were completeky silent back then, amd why are they now thinking they can police the world?

I agree, I hate how the US are attacking the UK as being weak and cowardly- this will be the third US attack in the middle east in the last 13 years. I thought the Russians were meant to be bad

[Stronk Serb]

I agree, I hate how the US are attacking the UK as being weak and cowardly- this will be the third US attack in the middle east in the last 13 years. I thought the Russians were meant to be bad

As I remember in history class, the UK endured 2 years of WWII by itself, not to mention WWI so we can say that the American leaders are cowards from those experiences because they did not join the Allies in the beggining especially in WWII, and all wars waged afterwards by the US have met heavy casualties and partial victory or utter failure. Most of the Russians are good people, just the bad minority gives them a bad name.

[the mystical shaman]

Syria is a fake nation, it was given to the banking family known as the Rothchilds in WW1 by Britain,either way, they pose no threat to us, they're going to kill each other, we should have no part in being the worlds police officer, attacking Syria would create Diplomatic issues with China, Russia, France, Germany, e.t.c. We already have enough economic problems due to war in this country, with our military budget(about 700 billion), no country is a threat. Like I said, we shouldn't interfere.

[Sir Suomi]

As I remember in history class, the UK endured 2 years of WWII by itself, not to mention WWI so we can say that the American leaders are cowards from those experiences because they did not join the Allies in the beggining especially in WWII, and all wars waged afterwards by the US have met heavy casualties and partial victory or utter failure. Most of the Russians are good people, just the bad minority gives them a bad name.

Well maybe you should look a little bit more into that history books. The reason we stayed out of those wars is due to the Neutrality Act of 1794, which states that the U.S is to not wage wars on any nations that are at peace with the United States. So we were simply following our own rules. Besides, at the time, we didn't want to get involved in a foreign war that we had no part in. It took Germany sinking our ships in WWI, and Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in WWII, that drove us to war, although in both we tried to remain neutral in the start. Every war since has not been the general American public's idea, instead it was our leaders in charge that was smacking down on the Commies. So don't think that we're "Cowards". We just don't what to get involved in the shit that you guys start over there. Hell, the general public today is still unwilling to get involved in Syria.

[Harry Smith]

Well maybe you should look a little bit more into that history books. The reason we stayed out of those wars is due to the Neutrality Act of 1794, which states that the U.S is to not wage wars on any nations that are at peace with the United States. So we were simply following our own rules. Besides, at the time, we didn't want to get involved in a foreign war that we had no part in. It took Germany sinking our ships in WWI, and Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in WWII, that drove us to war, although in both we tried to remain neutral in the start. Every war since has not been the general American public's idea, instead it was our leaders in charge that was smacking down on the Commies. So don't think that we're "Cowards". We just don't what to get involved in the shit that you guys start over there. Hell, the general public today is still unwilling to get involved in Syria.

Christ, that act was pretty old- I thought even back then that the US got rid of the really old laws.

I think mike's point was that Walter had accused the UK of being cowardly and abandoning our responsibly some how

[Sir Suomi]

Christ, that act was pretty old- I thought even back then that the US got rid of the really old laws.

I think mike's point was that Walter had accused the UK of being cowardly and abandoning our responsibly some how

Oh it's still there. Hell, in '07 we busted some guys for trying to overthrow the Dominican Republic I think. Can't remember if they were ever found guilty though. But yeah, we still use that act. It's kind of a way to protect against section 8, so that only Congress can officially declare war.

Yes, I'm not mad at you Brits for not wanting to take part. In all honesty, I don't care what happens over there, as long as we can assure that chemical weapons don't end up in the hands of some Islamic radicals. But I just wanted to make sure that you guys know we weren't being cowards. Hell, we were helping you Brits the whole time while we were "neutral" in WWII, with F.D.R risking impeachment, using loopholes to send over combat planes, ships, armor, weapons, etc. We even had pilots fighting the Krauts during the Blitz. So you can definitely say we are not "Cowards".

[Capto]

In all honesty, I don't care what happens over there, as long as we can assure that chemical weapons don't end up in the hands of some Islamic radicals.

We can't assure that though.

[Sir Suomi]

We can't assure that though.

And you have any ideas on how we can?

[britishboy]

We can't assure that though.

do you have assads phone number? ill just call him up and ask him shall i? the fact is unless he says so theres never 100% proof

[Capto]

And you have any ideas on how we can?

No. And that's precisely my point.

[Southside]

And you have any ideas on how we can?

The only possible way to secure those chemical weapons is to send boots in or have some type of drone survillance on the suspected sites. It's not just chemical weapons either, you dont want anything to fall into the hands of these "Islamic Radicals". Syria has a large stockpile of portable anti-air launchers and a shit ton of other stuff, how are we going to secure all of that?

I remember seeing videos of people in Libya looting Ghaddafi's warehouses and coming out with Anti-Air launchers(Strela-7's)

[Human]

I don't believe that there is 100% proof that Assad himself used Sarin gas on the civilians, I think it's more likely that the rebels or a terrorist group did it*. Despite what the news tells you, Assad himself is an intelligent man, he trained to be a doctor. I don't think that a week after the US condemning any future chemical attack, Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people.

Not only that, but supporting the rebels would mean indirectly supporting terrorist groups such as Al Nusra, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (Among the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan's stated objectives are resistance against the Pakistani state, enforcement of their interpretation of sharia and a plan to unite against NATO-led forces in Afghanistan), Fatah al-Islam.

I think that the US should convince other countries near Syria such as Iraq and Turkey to do more.

*http://rt.com/news/un-syria-rebels-chemical-weapons-854/

[lightPainting]

I would say send the air force and NO ground troop.

[Stronk Serb]

I would say send the air force and NO ground troop.

What if there is no chemical weapons used by the government forces? What if a future inspection finds none? Shooting first and then asking questions is never a good idea. Especially in a volatile region like the Middle East.

[Harry Smith]

The other issue I have is that the US are going to launch limited strikes, so they're pretty much saying to Assad don't use chemical weapons but it's fine for you to continue bombing your own people with napalm and other legal weapons. These strikes won't end the civil war, they'll just put a small hole in Syria's chemical weapons stockpile.

I'm for western intervention but I'm not for useless strikes in Syria which will achieve nothing

[Walter Powers]

The 7 was slightly too big, I didn't do a preview so then I changed it.

You supported Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons on civilans. Chemical weapons have been illegal for the last 100 years. Legally it was just the same- Saddam gassed children, Assad gassed children. Both were terrible- but the US supported one of them.

Your not helping the entire world, that's an exaggeration.

We'll support you when the UN have done their Job, and sure we're not a superpower- that doesn't really offend me. I'll support the UN but I'm not supporting a independent US strike. It's not under any of the NATO articles and a strike would not have backing of the UN at the moment.

How are we freeloading? I seem to recall the US wanting to use British Bases during Libya and wanting to use Cyprus in this.

The UN is the world's governing body- not the US

I'm not going to delve into what I don't know, but I do know in this day and age we cannot tolerate the usage of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is an issue of global security.

lolwut.

By enforcing international laws and war norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction, we are doing the whole world a favor by vastly decreasing the amount of war fatalities.

"And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons we sold him that shit after Ronald Reagans election"-Immortal Technique

Do tell me my friend, how are the Brits being cowards by not wanting to attack a country that didnt do shit to them?

Republicans, always complaining about where tax money goes but never bitching about how one single Tomahawk missile cost 1.4 Billion...

$1.4 Billion? Where the hell did you get that number? Last I checked they are less the $800k a pop, which isn't that much when you potentially could be saving thousands or millions of lives!

The Brits, along with every other industrialized nation, need to acknowledge that any use of WOMDs is an international crisis and must not be tolerated .

BE PROUD OF THAT!
be proud to be the country that will that anyone anywhere to protect human rights
be proud that whenever freedom calls your country will be there, kicking in the doors, getting those responsible

THANK YOU!

I dont like to cuss that much in debates but...

Your full of shit.

So when the United States killed hundreds of my Panamanian countrymen for one cocaine dealer in the 1989 Panama invasion, that was "freedom calling"?

When the US invaded Iraq and killed thousands of civilians, that was "freedom calling"?

When the US kills innocent farmers and innocent children in Yemen and Pakistan with million dollar drones, thats "freedom calling"?

How can we protect human rights by bombing civilian infrastructure and violating UN resolutions?
The last legitimate war we faught was WW2...

Dude, we can't always be right, and you can't fight a war without killing innocent people, but look at how many innocent people Asaad has killed with chemical weapons! Something has to be done! Look at all the UN resolutions Asaad has violated!

That's the most stupid thing you've ever said, and that's saying something. I actually hope your fishing for someone to tell you to f off.

Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Israel
Bahrain
Egypt

All these countries are US allies, and they have very questionable human right's abues, the US doesn't give a shit about human rights otherwise they would of invaded Saudi Arabia in the 90's.

The US government gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and intel how to use them against civilans, the US government has got rid of over 7 democratic governments in the last 50 years. The United States committed terrorist action against Cuba, the US is no saint

The only nation we are truly allies with on that list is Israel, all the rest it's more like neutral but since it's the Middle East and most of every leaders there hate us they seem like an ally. It's relative.

And it doesn't matter if the government is democratic if it doesn't have a sound, enforced constitution and violates the rights of a large minority.

Sooo, let me post my first thing here:

Some points:

1- Assad does NOT use chemical weapons. There is absolutely no proof of it. The same thing happened with Iraq, they told there were WMDs and they found none. A council from UN was supposed to investigate it but the world declared that Assad used chems even before they presented any report on the situation.

2- It is another excuse for America to establish a colony in the Middle East.

3- Assad is a modern man. He is like the only leader in the realm of Islam to wear a tie now. Believe me, in my town if you wear a tie it means you are a good guy (excluding that dumbass faggot bitch motherfucker Turkish PM of ours he is just a show and he hates the tie)


Seriously, what the fuck are you guys were expecting? People would assault Assad and Assad would be like "Oh okay, let me just sit back and take a beating."

And we thought Obama was a pacifist. Well, fuck you. He ended the war in Iraq just so he could be named so. Now, the US is the only nation in the Western Hemisphere so keen on declaring war on Syria.

I can't believe Americans. I can't believe you people. Fucking bunch of morons, fuck you. You think this is a fucking game? READ THIS FUCKING POST: You people think you are playing Total War games: "Yah we should just send a few Tomahawks and then bring the airbases so our guys can bomb safe. What the fuck? Excuse me, are you the Commander in Chief? We have people like you here too, they are like "We should just enter Syria and we'll have our supper in Damascus the next day.

I am fucking sick of those brute illiterate immigrants from Syria who sought shelter in Turkey. Our arse licking moron PM got them free (plus monthly payments to their pockets) in universities. Because of them, no Turkish citizen could get into the university he or she wanted. Yeah, and when the West strikes, he will lash his lapdog, the Turkish PM, one more time and say: "While your people are starving, open up some more camps for Syrians. Oh, wait, abort that, build some apartments for them. In fact, create a city for them. Yeah. And while you are up to it, make sure you fuck up your country more so that we may finish you guys off in 20 years"

The next step is that he'll turn them into Turkish citizens for votes. Thaat's right it is a filthy shitty game and you people think this is all a fucking game here a 13 year old pussy boy or a girl talks about which weapons to use and where to attack in Syria.

Have fun with the Russian warships and a pissed off Iran who has been sleeping for years.

Remember what happened to Napoléon who attacked the "sleeping giant", Russia. That's right, buttfuck.

I digress.

Get brains, people. Assad is like the last modern man left in the Middle East...

But of course! WHY WOULD AMERICANS WANT MODERN PEOPLE IN MIDDLE EAST? You want to kill Assad because he doesn't like America. Yeah bring democracy to Syria too so that America can create another brainless army of fucking minions to suck out the resources from.

I don't know why I try to reason with you. All you want is a brainwashed, moron Middle East. What I want is a Middle East who is as modern as the West; and by modern I don't talk about morals I am talking about technology and completely removing ignorance from the East. But why would you guys want it right?

Let them kill each other. What would America think if the European powers embarked on Boston and said "Okay pussies you guys back of we'll take care of the civil war here" back in the Civil War time in America?

Let Assad kill and get killed. This thing will blow over in several months anyway. Only difference is that when America intervenes, they will be the one who will appoint the mayor of Syria. I can't believe it. "Patriotic" American's don't hate the fact that their men get killed for a bunch of camel riders ( I said camel riders because I know how the US sees Arabs and come on you hate them you won't mind it ).

Yeah, your guys get killed for the race you hate! Hah! Suck on this.

I'm gonna go at each of your points individually.

1- Assad does NOT use chemical weapons. There is absolutely no proof of it. The same thing happened with Iraq, they told there were WMDs and they found none. A council from UN was supposed to investigate it but the world declared that Assad used chems even before they presented any report on the situation.

The US government has now confirmed that they have, we have proof. You trust the UN, which includes some of Assad's allies, more then the United States Government?

2- It is another excuse for America to establish a colony in the Middle East.

We've have had plenty of opportunities in the past to establish a middle eastern colony and never done it. What makes you'd think we'd do it now?

And nobody's asking for a full out war with Syria.

3- Assad is a modern man. He is like the only leader in the realm of Islam to wear a tie now. Believe me, in my town if you wear a tie it means you are a good guy (excluding that dumbass faggot bitch motherfucker Turkish PM of ours he is just a show and he hates the tie)

Are saying Asaad is a "good guy" because he wears a tie? :0

And we thought Obama was a pacifist. Well, fuck you. He ended the war in Iraq just so he could be named so. Now, the US is the only nation in the Western Hemisphere so keen on declaring war on Syria.

Yes, all the American liberals though Obama was a pacifist, too.

And again, we are not debating declaring war on Syria. Me and many of my fellow Americans simply want a few strikes to Asaad's regime to punish him for using chemical weapons. That cannot be tolerated. For the same reason we cannot tolerate the use of nuclear weapons.

What if we do nothing? Maybe it will embolden North Korea, for example, to use chemical weapons on South Korea, which would be terrible!

I am fucking [B]sick of those brute illiterate immigrants from Syria who sought shelter in Turkey

How come whenever I say something like this, with softer language, about American illegals, I suddenly am being attack by five different posters calling me a bigot, but when this guy says it nobody blinks?

Once US said Iraq had mass killing weapons,and began a great attack on that country;But after that they declared that it was a mistake!After killing thousands of innocent people they said that it was a mistake!

So now,if US wants to once again make another mistake,this time in Syria,so surely I will say : "Go to hell you war makers!"

Before any report from UN about Assad's using of chemical weapons,I think having another attack on Middle East is exactly a great crime.

Also,if it was proved that the rebels have used chemical weapons,I think US has to be ready for the consequences if supporting them;

Iraq wasn't a complete loss. We ousted a terrible leader, and gave justice to many bad people.

But that's aside the point.

When we attack, all we'll probably doing is some very precision attacks against the regime using guided Tomahawk missiles from our warships off the coast. It will not be another Iraq; simply punishing Asaad for what he did. There will be minimum fatalities. Punishing a crime is not a crime.

Asaad is the war maker here.

I personally am against Obama's decision to arm the rebels.

This aggression should not be tolerated. Unless the UN has concrete evidence on chemical weapons used by Assad, the US should piss off. They supported Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran.

I trust US intelligence more then UN intelligence. The UN has an ally of Assad as one of the permanent members: Russia.

I don't believe that there is 100% proof that Assad himself used Sarin gas on the civilians, I think it's more likely that the rebels or a terrorist group did it*. Despite what the news tells you, Assad himself is an intelligent man, he trained to be a doctor. I don't think that a week after the US condemning any future chemical attack, Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people.

Not only that, but supporting the rebels would mean indirectly supporting terrorist groups such as Al Nusra, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (Among the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan's stated objectives are resistance against the Pakistani state, enforcement of their interpretation of sharia and a plan to unite against NATO-led forces in Afghanistan), Fatah al-Islam.

I think that the US should convince other countries near Syria such as Iraq and Turkey to do more.

*http://rt.com/news/un-syria-rebels-chemical-weapons-854/

We now have concrete evidence, or as good as we are gonna get. It's time to act.

I don't think we should support the rebels for what they did; just do some strikes on strategic locations get get outa there. Do you disagree with doing that?

Also, we've (Obama specifically) promised to do this, it would devastate our creditability as an ally and also undermine our future threats, which is dangerous.

The other issue I have is that the US are going to launch limited strikes, so they're pretty much saying to Assad don't use chemical weapons but it's fine for you to continue bombing your own people with napalm and other legal weapons. These strikes won't end the civil war, they'll just put a small hole in Syria's chemical weapons stockpile.

I'm for western intervention but I'm not for useless strikes in Syria which will achieve nothing

Do you want us to go in on the ground and have the rebels win?

I just want to punish Asaad.

[TheBigUnit]

frankly im quite happy that we re most likely not going to war

[Left Now]

I'm not going to delve into what I don't know, but I do know in this day and age we cannot tolerate the usage of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is an issue of global security.



By enforcing international laws and war norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction, we are doing the whole world a favor by vastly decreasing the amount of war fatalities.



$1.4 Billion? Where the hell did you get that number? Last I checked they are less the $800k a pop, which isn't that much when you potentially could be saving thousands or millions of lives!

The Brits, along with every other industrialized nation, need to acknowledge that any use of WOMDs is an international crisis and must not be tolerated .



THANK YOU!



Dude, we can't always be right, and you can't fight a war without killing innocent people, but look at how many innocent people Asaad has killed with chemical weapons! Something has to be done! Look at all the UN resolutions Asaad has violated!



The only nation we are truly allies with on that list is Israel, all the rest it's more like neutral but since it's the Middle East and most of every leaders there hate us they seem like an ally. It's relative.

And it doesn't matter if the government is democratic if it doesn't have a sound, enforced constitution and violates the rights of a large minority.



I'm gonna go at each of your points individually.



The US government has now confirmed that they have, we have proof. You trust the UN, which includes some of Assad's allies, more then the United States Government?



We've have had plenty of opportunities in the past to establish a middle eastern colony and never done it. What makes you'd think we'd do it now?

And nobody's asking for a full out war with Syria.



Are saying Asaad is a "good guy" because he wears a tie? :0



Yes, all the American liberals though Obama was a pacifist, too.

And again, we are not debating declaring war on Syria. Me and many of my fellow Americans simply want a few strikes to Asaad's regime to punish him for using chemical weapons. That cannot be tolerated. For the same reason we cannot tolerate the use of nuclear weapons.

What if we do nothing? Maybe it will embolden North Korea, for example, to use chemical weapons on South Korea, which would be terrible!



[b]How come whenever I say something like this, with softer language, about American illegals, I suddenly am being attack by five different posters calling me a bigot, but when this guy says it nobody blinks?



Iraq wasn't a complete loss. We ousted a terrible leader, and gave justice to many bad people.

But that's aside the point.

When we attack, all we'll probably doing is some very precision attacks against the regime using guided Tomahawk missiles from our warships off the coast. It will not be another Iraq; simply punishing Asaad for what he did. There will be minimum fatalities. Punishing a crime is not a crime.

Asaad is the war maker here.

I personally am against Obama's decision to arm the rebels.



I trust US intelligence more then UN intelligence. The UN has an ally of Assad as one of the permanent members: Russia.



We now have concrete evidence, or as good as we are gonna get. It's time to act.

I don't think we should support the rebels for what they did; just do some strikes on strategic locations get get outa there. Do you disagree with doing that?

Also, we've (Obama specifically) promised to do this, it would devastate our creditability as an ally and also undermine our future threats, which is dangerous.



Do you want us to go in on the ground and have the rebels win?

I just want to punish Asaad.

Punish for what?US claims that Assad has used chemical weapons and because of this,the Americans need themselves to be in there and punish Assad?At least wait for the reports of UN investigators;until when do the American leaders want to abuse anything to have another war in the world?

What exactly did US do for Iraq?

+ : They overthrew Saddam a real dictator

_ : They destroyed that country to the dust

_ : War crimes happened against civilians

_ : Terrorist groups gained power in that country

and ...

Even now the score of US in attacking to Iraq is -2 which means terrible!



Any attack on Syria before any announcement from UN,has great consequences which US cannot escape them.

[STEALTHy]

We're my comments deleted I felt like I hit on key points? Walter reflects my opinion though so at a boy. ;)

[Stronk Serb]

Dude, we can't always be right, and you can't fight a war without killing innocent people, but look at how many innocent people Asaad has killed with chemical weapons! Something has to be done! Look at all the UN resolutions Asaad has violated!

The rebels are much worse. Especially the Jihadist factions. And after the UN says Assad has used chemical weapons, I will believe them, if the theory sounds logical enough.

The only nation we are truly allies with on that list is Israel, all the rest it's more like neutral but since it's the Middle East and most of every leaders there hate us they seem like an ally. It's relative.

Not really. You are sucking off Saudi Oil. Israeli leadership has broken so much human rights, probably more then Assad, and for a longer time. You really want to be allies with THEM?

And it doesn't matter if the government is democratic if it doesn't have a sound, enforced constitution and violates the rights of a large minority.

That's Israel.

The US government has now confirmed that they have, we have proof. You trust the UN, which includes some of Assad's allies, more then the United States Government?

Yes, as a matter of fact I will. The US is a state, while the UN is a international organization. The US as a state has it's interests which are probably to establish another satellite country in the Middle East.

We've have had plenty of opportunities in the past to establish a middle eastern colony and never done it. What makes you'd think we'd do it now?

You are establishing satellite states across it. Iraq, Afghanistan...

And nobody's asking for a full out war with Syria.

It will happen. After a few bombing someone will say to invade.

What if we do nothing? Maybe it will embolden North Korea, for example, to use chemical weapons on South Korea, which would be terrible!

No, North Korea is not stupid to attack South Korea, you are over exaggerating

Iraq wasn't a complete loss. We ousted a terrible leader, and gave justice to many bad people.

And plunged the country into chaos, destroyed it's economy, killed tens of thousands of civilians.

But that's aside the point.

I will not trust your intelligence after that fiasco in Iraq.

When we attack, all we'll probably doing is some very precision attacks against the regime using guided Tomahawk missiles from our warships off the coast. It will not be another Iraq; simply punishing Asaad for what he did. There will be minimum fatalities. Punishing a crime is not a crime.

It won't do shit. And it's better not to believe your intelligence.

I trust US intelligence more then UN intelligence. The UN has an ally of Assad as one of the permanent members: Russia.

The weapon inspectors aren't all Russian for your information. I think there are no Russians in the weapon inspection.

We now have concrete evidence, or as good as we are gonna get. It's time to act.

Is it as concrete as the evidence on chemical weapons in Iraq? If so, you better not intervene.

I don't think we should support the rebels for what they did; just do some strikes on strategic locations get get outa there. Do you disagree with doing that?

I do.

Also, we've (Obama specifically) promised to do this, it would devastate our creditability as an ally and also undermine our future threats, which is dangerous.

Undermine your future threats? So you plan to be a threat in the future?

Do you want us to go in on the ground and have the rebels win?

No. Stay out of it. You will have another civil war between the rebel militias.

[Left Now]

Sweet Jesus, dude, don't be so dramatic.

Once Assad is down, and a democratic government is established, things will eventualy get better, as long as the USA and its allies prevent terrorist from assuming power on that region.

Well,well.We have seen a lot from US making democratic governments in the world;It is exactly like saying that fire doesn't burn the wood.

Until US worries about its own national interests,i can assure you that they even do not think about democracy.

[chrisf55]

I don't think we should act, but the US likes to stick their noses in things so its obvious we're going to. I just hope we hit the right spot and don't kill civilians.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not going to delve into what I don't know, but I do know in this day and age we cannot tolerate the usage of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is an issue of global security.



By enforcing international laws and war norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction, we are doing the whole world a favor by vastly decreasing the amount of war fatalities.



$1.4 Billion? Where the hell did you get that number? Last I checked they are less the $800k a pop, which isn't that much when you potentially could be saving thousands or millions of lives!

The Brits, along with every other industrialized nation, need to acknowledge that any use of WOMDs is an international crisis and must not be tolerated .



THANK YOU!



Dude, we can't always be right, and you can't fight a war without killing innocent people, but look at how many innocent people Asaad has killed with chemical weapons! Something has to be done! Look at all the UN resolutions Asaad has violated!



The only nation we are truly allies with on that list is Israel, all the rest it's more like neutral but since it's the Middle East and most of every leaders there hate us they seem like an ally. It's relative.

And it doesn't matter if the government is democratic if it doesn't have a sound, enforced constitution and violates the rights of a large minority.



I'm gonna go at each of your points individually.



The US government has now confirmed that they have, we have proof. You trust the UN, which includes some of Assad's allies, more then the United States Government?



We've have had plenty of opportunities in the past to establish a middle eastern colony and never done it. What makes you'd think we'd do it now?

And nobody's asking for a full out war with Syria.



Are saying Asaad is a "good guy" because he wears a tie? :0



Yes, all the American liberals though Obama was a pacifist, too.

And again, we are not debating declaring war on Syria. Me and many of my fellow Americans simply want a few strikes to Asaad's regime to punish him for using chemical weapons. That cannot be tolerated. For the same reason we cannot tolerate the use of nuclear weapons.

What if we do nothing? Maybe it will embolden North Korea, for example, to use chemical weapons on South Korea, which would be terrible!



[b]How come whenever I say something like this, with softer language, about American illegals, I suddenly am being attack by five different posters calling me a bigot, but when this guy says it nobody blinks?



Iraq wasn't a complete loss. We ousted a terrible leader, and gave justice to many bad people.

But that's aside the point.

When we attack, all we'll probably doing is some very precision attacks against the regime using guided Tomahawk missiles from our warships off the coast. It will not be another Iraq; simply punishing Asaad for what he did. There will be minimum fatalities. Punishing a crime is not a crime.

Asaad is the war maker here.

I personally am against Obama's decision to arm the rebels.



I trust US intelligence more then UN intelligence. The UN has an ally of Assad as one of the permanent members: Russia.



We now have concrete evidence, or as good as we are gonna get. It's time to act.

I don't think we should support the rebels for what they did; just do some strikes on strategic locations get get outa there. Do you disagree with doing that?

Also, we've (Obama specifically) promised to do this, it would devastate our creditability as an ally and also undermine our future threats, which is dangerous.



Do you want us to go in on the ground and have the rebels win?

I just want to punish Asaad.

I don't want a lecture from America about chemical weapons when they fine with Saddam pumping Iran and the kurds full of them, I don't want a lecture about human rights from america after they've support regimes such as Saudi Arabia. I don't want a lecture from America about foreign policy. The US is running out of countries to attack.

All this will do if the US strike is make Assad not use chemical weapons but continue to kill the rebels with napalm and every other weapon in his arsenal.

Nice point about Russia- they may be biased, at least they don't have a history of delivering false intelligence aka Iraq. The last time you told us their were WMD's you were plain wrong- let the united nations do it's job

[Jean Poutine]

I rewatched Fahrenheit 9/11 for the Hell of it.

While the documentary might be biased, there's one part of it that can't be and that has bearing here. All the officials before the Iraq fiasco saying they were "certain" and "sure" and that there was "no doubt" about Iraq having WMDs.

Suddenly, after the fact, it's "oh I guess we weren't so sure about it after all. The intelligence we obtained from that organization famous in the Cold War for setting up dictators on flimsy motives that had everything to do with our own national interests wasn't so accurate after all. Our mistake, LOL!".

As long as I don't have that proof in my hands, I'm not going to trust the White House that's said "we know, trust us!" and not much else. Release the damn proof and then we can see, and if it's solid I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong.

[britishboy]

if anything Iraq was good, now evidence is checked and double checked, now people admit doubt

[Sandra Main]

I don't believe we should take action .
America has alteady spent american tax dollers.
We have spent billions of dollars and lifes fighting other countries wars.
I believe its time to leave our noses out of it.

[The Trendy Wolf]

It is a horible war. But stil a civil war.
The english gassed thousands in WWI but noone was shocked and so did the germans and italians.

The international comunety should NOT interfeer in domestic conflict.

I agree as well, and besides, do we really want Russia getting caught up in the mix? (And eventually China) They said that they may intervene as well if we decide to and that can only cause problems.

[Trenton_]

the us can fire up the drones. just because the us is bored and feels like doing some bombing doesn't mean the opinion of other countries carries any weight. it doesn't matter if attack or not because it will still be dusty. helping terrorist seems wrong tho

[Sir Suomi]

Has anyone seen that video of the Syrian rebels executing those guards? Damn, I really don't know what side to go for the further in depth we go into this civil war.

[tovaris]

Has anyone seen that video of the Syrian rebels executing those guards? Damn, I really don't know what side to go for the further in depth we go into this civil war.

They should be left alone to fight it out them selves.

[nklarke]

The problem is who will take the power after the genocide Assad. The Muslims love killing between them, not only in Syria. Egypt is another example. Sunnis against Chiites are the 2 principal sects of Islam represented by Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[Vocabulous]

I say we need to figure our other problems out first before we get involved with this mess