Is it time to intervene in Syria?

[Miccol]

Alright guys,

It's time to hear what you guys all think about one of the most pressing issues today. Should the United States, or any other country cough* (France) cough* intervene in the Syria conflict BECAUSE of the use of Chemical Weapons? My question is not to fix the civil war, my question is specifically related to the use of chemical weapons.

Discuss!

[bear_grylls_of_ib]

i believe that the united states should take action purely by the fact that we have one of the strongest military's in the world and the technology to at least keep either side from having to power to harm the harmless people there. I don't think either side is correct on the civil war part and we shouldn't help either side but your question is asking about the chemical weapons and i feel like we can make a difference without picking a side. so if you had to say a side it would be the side of the innocent civilians tht must standby in the war. and from there France will obviously join in and that would be enough but it would be better and look better if other allies jumped in as well to stand as united countries for what is right.

Syria=

[Luka Petrovic]

i believe that the united states should take action purely by the fact that we have one of the strongest military's in the world and the technology to at least keep either side from having to power to harm the harmless people there. I don't think either side is correct on the civil war part and we shouldn't help either side but your question is asking about the chemical weapons and i feel like we can make a difference without picking a side. so if you had to say a side it would be the side of the innocent civilians tht must standby in the war. and from there France will obviously join in and that would be enough but it would be better and look better if other allies jumped in as well to stand as united countries for what is right.

Syria=

Although Assad is barbaric, the rebels are making quite a name for themselves as well. Look at any of their ideologies, they are pledging allegiance to radical Islam. Slaughtering those who support Assad, executing POWs and on occasion eating the hearts of their enemies... at least under Assad minorities are protected and everyone is equally suppressed.

Launching these missiles is allowing the US to get its foot in the door, by getting involved "marginally" it will turn into some sort of moral duty,etc... That being said I dont think the American people will allow it to get to that point. They are sick of Wars in the Middle east for so called moral issues meanwhile their soldiers are dying over oil...

[bear_grylls_of_ib]

i believe that the united states should take action purely by the fact that we have one of the strongest military's in the world and the technology to at least keep either side from having to power to harm the harmless people there. I don't think either side is correct on the civil war part and we shouldn't help either side but your question is asking about the chemical weapons and i feel like we can make a difference without picking a side. so if you had to say a side it would be the side of the innocent civilians tht must standby in the war. and from there France will obviously join in and that would be enough but it would be better and look better if other allies jumped in as well to stand as united countries for what is right.

Syria=

Although Assad is barbaric, the rebels are making quite a name for themselves as well. Look at any of their ideologies, they are pledging allegiance to radical Islam. Slaughtering those who support Assad, executing POWs and on occasion eating the hearts of their enemies... at least under Assad minorities are protected and everyone is equally suppressed.

Launching these missiles is allowing the US to get its foot in the door, by getting involved "marginally" it will turn into some sort of moral duty,etc... That being said I dont think the American people will allow it to get to that point. They are sick of Wars in the Middle east for so called moral issues meanwhile their soldiers are dying over oil...

i completely agree with you on this however i would argue that minorities are protected under Assad. the innocent people are suffering and don't take a side to deserve it. i believe you're right to say that we are doing it for morality but is that correct to just for morals or not? what is your decision? do u think we should strike or no and why? also what is Canada's new and government saying about the issue seeing that you're from there i would find that interesting. thankyou!

[Luka Petrovic]

i believe that the united states should take action purely by the fact that we have one of the strongest military's in the world and the technology to at least keep either side from having to power to harm the harmless people there. I don't think either side is correct on the civil war part and we shouldn't help either side but your question is asking about the chemical weapons and i feel like we can make a difference without picking a side. so if you had to say a side it would be the side of the innocent civilians tht must standby in the war. and from there France will obviously join in and that would be enough but it would be better and look better if other allies jumped in as well to stand as united countries for what is right.

Syria=

Although Assad is barbaric, the rebels are making quite a name for themselves as well. Look at any of their ideologies, they are pledging allegiance to radical Islam. Slaughtering those who support Assad, executing POWs and on occasion eating the hearts of their enemies... at least under Assad minorities are protected and everyone is equally suppressed.

Launching these missiles is allowing the US to get its foot in the door, by getting involved "marginally" it will turn into some sort of moral duty,etc... That being said I dont think the American people will allow it to get to that point. They are sick of Wars in the Middle east for so called moral issues meanwhile their soldiers are dying over oil...

i completely agree with you on this however i would argue that minorities are protected under Assad. the innocent people are suffering and don't take a side to deserve it. i believe you're right to say that we are doing it for morality but is that correct to just for morals or not? what is your decision? do u think we should strike or no and why? also what is Canada's new and government saying about the issue seeing that you're from there i would find that interesting. thankyou!

I don't think it is for morality. The U.S used chemical weapons in Vietnam. Agent orange is a chemical weapon to kill vegetation, but a chemical weapon none the less. Just look up "Agent Orange, vietnam, birth defects" and if you don't think that is a war crime, I don't know what is. Or look up "depleted uranium, Kosovo-Serbia, U.S" again thousands of birth defects, but conveniently ignored because the chemical weapon nature of the depleted Uranium is a secondary effect. So no I don't really think its for the defence of morals, its about what every other Middle eastern was was about. OIL! Recall the whole "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" scare. It prompted a big conflict... years later we find out that there are no WMDs. The US government is running out of material from their political playbook.

If you ask me, I don;t know what to do. Striking it will make it worse and letting it go will mean it will go on, and result in a totalitarian regime again. A rock and a hard place essentially...

The US being our biggest trading partner as well as an ally in NATO means that we usually go in lock step with their actions...

[Arrowhead]

I think it's best to let the civil war play out and let the Syrian people come to the conclusion that they're heading towards. Every situation tends to become worse when the US gets involved, so I think America should stay away from the conflict and let the Middle East sort itself out.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Arrowhead

[MainRostand]

As it has been mentioned, USA has used chemical weapons before that caused throusands of birth defects. When I did reasearch on the Vietnam war, the aftermath that those chemical weapons left was simply horrid. USA always has an interest on any territory that they want to invade, even if they want to cover it up with so called 'moral reasons', but the truth is that there always is a reason. The economy in the country definitely deacayed... Can you imagine the profit that could be made by means like arms dealing? Selling weapons for war is a BIG thing that has the power to re-stablish a great economical stability.

What is happening in Syria is a civil war, same as any other civil war in any other part of the world, but why do they want to go into this one, despite being inactive when other civil wars took place? It is manipulation to their convenience! Just go back to the cold war, all the south and central american countries suffered, like Gabriel García Márquez refers to in his book that was awarded the Nobel Price, a solitude that was catalyzed by the economical and political interests that 'America' had on them. The ex-president of Guatemala during the cold war, Jacobo Arbenz, is a good example, he tried to impose an agrarian reform and was censored by the US when the United Fruit Company was affected and he was DEPOSED!

They should stay away and let them solve their conflicts. Either way, (I am not saying it is the correct way of acting) Assad's government is going to kill thousands with or without United States being involved.

Edited September 6, 2013 by MainRostand

[forlackofabettername]

To be honest, now's the time to incorporate Theory of Knowledge into your lives. Are you positively sure that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people? What would drive a man to attack his own country- knowing fully that it will create a scandal? Wouldn't it be more logical for the US-supported rebel forces to release said chemical weapons in order to create a scandal and force other countries to intervene?

Haven't we been down this road before with Iraq? "oh no dem iraqis have nuclear weps pls bush intervene pls pls", only replace Iraqis with Assad and nuclear weapons with chemical weapons.

In my opinion, the reason behind the US's targeting Assad is his refusal to make peace with Israel; meaning that he could choose to attack it whenever he feels like it (which ofcourse makes people uncomfortable, considering the sizeable army of the Syrian forces).

[Sandwich]

To be honest, now's the time to incorporate Theory of Knowledge into your lives. Are you positively sure that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people? What would drive a man to attack his own country- knowing fully that it will create a scandal? Wouldn't it be more logical for the US-supported rebel forces to release said chemical weapons in order to create a scandal and force other countries to intervene?

Haven't we been down this road before with Iraq? "oh no dem iraqis have nuclear weps pls bush intervene pls pls", only replace Iraqis with Assad and nuclear weapons with chemical weapons.

In my opinion, the reason behind the US's targeting Assad is his refusal to make peace with Israel; meaning that he could choose to attack it whenever he feels like it (which ofcourse makes people uncomfortable, considering the sizeable army of the Syrian forces).

US-supported, how? If there's any support that's happened so far, it's purely just that they've been recognised politically. No other support aside from aid has actually gone into Syria, although the rebels have had plenty of time over the past 3 years to acquire the weapons they need. Initially at the start of the conflict, the US were considering arming the rebels, but they never did, and other than that, they've never yet intervened. US support and indeed support from various other members of the UN is solely one of recognising the rebels as a counter-force (although I actually think they're relatively unrecognisable now and highly fragmented), but no direct action. Unless I've missed something massive.

As for what would drive a man to attack his own country - the fact that if he doesn't do something to quell the rebels and try to re-assert the authority of the government, he and his government would be overthrown, potentially brutally murdered or at the very least hauled up in front of the Hague facing charges of war crimes. You can make exactly the same argument for the rebel side, who (assuming they used the chemical weapons) would not only be attacking their own country but attacking their own forces. In fact, the most obvious thing is for Assad to use the weapons to strengthen his position and then blame the rebels, knowing that their position is such and the fragmentation sufficient that it's not implausible. Besides the fact only the government has chemical weapons plants. The fact is, we can't know who shot the chemical weapons just from looking at the situation with no evidence. The US came out with evidence last night showing that there were rockets fired from Syrian military bases exactly 90 minutes before each of the chemical weapon attacks took place, and that every single one of the weapons landed in areas geographically controlled by the rebels. Is that enough evidence? Yes for some, no for others. There's going to be some element of speculation no matter what happens, unless the UN weapons inspectors literally walk in as the military shout "FIRE!".

Personally I think your response is highly cynical and makes the error of putting the US in too important a position. The fact is that the war in Syria is a civil war which has had nothing to do with anybody else, including the US, for around 3 years now. People are murdering each other, millions have been displaced, the entire country is being ripped apart and actually thanks to Russia, no member of the international community has lifted a finger except for in aid. The US isn't 'targeting' Assad, Syria is targeting Assad and also its own people. Personally I think the US has three motives for doing something:

1) Obama's somewhat ill-advised statement that chemical weapons would cross a red line, and that to not back that up now would look pretty weak

2) Morally to try and save millions of lives (although whether you can prevent violence through violence is moot)

3) Because what started out as a civil war is gradually becoming religious and factioned with groups like Al-Quaida muscling their way into areas of conflict as per usual in order to recruit and radicalise

At the end of the day, the problem is Syria and not the US. It's not solely the US which thinks something should be done about it either. America-bashing is inappropriate in this situation, in my opinion.

As for the US using chemical weapons in the past, well it used nuclear weapons in the past as well. It has a chequered history. However since all those things, various declarations have been made, agreements set, and they're now against using chemical weapons AND nuclear weapons. Realistically speaking, they were some of the first people to use both types of weapon and the consequences were not known. Agent Orange was also not intended to affect the people, but to destroy the vegetation, although it unfortunately did both. The fact it did all these things in the past doesn't mean it's suddenly wrong to try and stop them being used now in the present.

My opinion is that chemical weapons put too much emphasis on the type of weapon used. If I'm going to be killed, I don't really give a **** whether it's a chemical weapon, an incendiary bomb or a sniper bullet. All of those are atrocities. We should take action because of the fact hundreds of thousands of people are being killed, not because a different type of weapon has now been used in order to kill those hundreds of thousands. I think the whole 'chemical weapons' thing is a bad motive for suddenly taking action, and actually that the time for taking action on the basis that a government was prepared to massacre its own people rather than submit to greater democracy or a regime change was early on, and has now passed.

I'm with Arrowhead, I don't think anybody should do anything. I honestly don't know how much it would help to add in another force to the conflict in Syria. It's awful to say 'let them keep killing each other and hope it blows over' but actually if international forces go in, the history of Iraq, Afghanistan etc. just seems to suggest that you generate more groups whose goal is no longer to hate the government/rebels but now to hate the international forces, that any government becomes inherently suspected of being some sort of puppet and really I think unless you can say with relatively high certainty that there'll be LESS loss of life with intervention, you shouldn't do it. For once, the British government actually voted the right way (in my opinion). It's messed up, and I know a lot of people in Syria DO want intervention (although equally many do not), but almost everybody just wants to get it over with and get back to normal life. If military action from an international force could safely expedite that outcome, I'd be in favour, but right now I don't think anybody can confidently say that it will.

[Luka Petrovic]

To be honest, now's the time to incorporate Theory of Knowledge into your lives. Are you positively sure that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people? What would drive a man to attack his own country- knowing fully that it will create a scandal? Wouldn't it be more logical for the US-supported rebel forces to release said chemical weapons in order to create a scandal and force other countries to intervene?

Haven't we been down this road before with Iraq? "oh no dem iraqis have nuclear weps pls bush intervene pls pls", only replace Iraqis with Assad and nuclear weapons with chemical weapons.

In my opinion, the reason behind the US's targeting Assad is his refusal to make peace with Israel; meaning that he could choose to attack it whenever he feels like it (which ofcourse makes people uncomfortable, considering the sizeable army of the Syrian forces).

US-supported, how? If there's any support that's happened so far, it's purely just that they've been recognised politically. No other support aside from aid has actually gone into Syria, although the rebels have had plenty of time over the past 3 years to acquire the weapons they need. Initially at the start of the conflict, the US were considering arming the rebels, but they never did, and other than that, they've never yet intervened. US support and indeed support from various other members of the UN is solely one of recognising the rebels as a counter-force (although I actually think they're relatively unrecognisable now and highly fragmented), but no direct action. Unless I've missed something massive.

As for what would drive a man to attack his own country - the fact that if he doesn't do something to quell the rebels and try to re-assert the authority of the government, he and his government would be overthrown, potentially brutally murdered or at the very least hauled up in front of the Hague facing charges of war crimes. You can make exactly the same argument for the rebel side, who (assuming they used the chemical weapons) would not only be attacking their own country but attacking their own forces. In fact, the most obvious thing is for Assad to use the weapons to strengthen his position and then blame the rebels, knowing that their position is such and the fragmentation sufficient that it's not implausible. Besides the fact only the government has chemical weapons plants. The fact is, we can't know who shot the chemical weapons just from looking at the situation with no evidence. The US came out with evidence last night showing that there were rockets fired from Syrian military bases exactly 90 minutes before each of the chemical weapon attacks took place, and that every single one of the weapons landed in areas geographically controlled by the rebels. Is that enough evidence? Yes for some, no for others. There's going to be some element of speculation no matter what happens, unless the UN weapons inspectors literally walk in as the military shout "FIRE!".

Personally I think your response is highly cynical and makes the error of putting the US in too important a position. The fact is that the war in Syria is a civil war which has had nothing to do with anybody else, including the US, for around 3 years now. People are murdering each other, millions have been displaced, the entire country is being ripped apart and actually thanks to Russia, no member of the international community has lifted a finger except for in aid. The US isn't 'targeting' Assad, Syria is targeting Assad and also its own people. Personally I think the US has three motives for doing something:

1) Obama's somewhat ill-advised statement that chemical weapons would cross a red line, and that to not back that up now would look pretty weak

2) Morally to try and save millions of lives (although whether you can prevent violence through violence is moot)

3) Because what started out as a civil war is gradually becoming religious and factioned with groups like Al-Quaida muscling their way into areas of conflict as per usual in order to recruit and radicalise

At the end of the day, the problem is Syria and not the US. It's not solely the US which thinks something should be done about it either. America-bashing is inappropriate in this situation, in my opinion.

As for the US using chemical weapons in the past, well it used nuclear weapons in the past as well. It has a chequered history. However since all those things, various declarations have been made, agreements set, and they're now against using chemical weapons AND nuclear weapons. Realistically speaking, they were some of the first people to use both types of weapon and the consequences were not known. Agent Orange was also not intended to affect the people, but to destroy the vegetation, although it unfortunately did both. The fact it did all these things in the past doesn't mean it's suddenly wrong to try and stop them being used now in the present.

My opinion is that chemical weapons put too much emphasis on the type of weapon used. If I'm going to be killed, I don't really give a **** whether it's a chemical weapon, an incendiary bomb or a sniper bullet. All of those are atrocities. We should take action because of the fact hundreds of thousands of people are being killed, not because a different type of weapon has now been used in order to kill those hundreds of thousands. I think the whole 'chemical weapons' thing is a bad motive for suddenly taking action, and actually that the time for taking action on the basis that a government was prepared to massacre its own people rather than submit to greater democracy or a regime change was early on, and has now passed.

I'm with Arrowhead, I don't think anybody should do anything. I honestly don't know how much it would help to add in another force to the conflict in Syria. It's awful to say 'let them keep killing each other and hope it blows over' but actually if international forces go in, the history of Iraq, Afghanistan etc. just seems to suggest that you generate more groups whose goal is no longer to hate the government/rebels but now to hate the international forces, that any government becomes inherently suspected of being some sort of puppet and really I think unless you can say with relatively high certainty that there'll be LESS loss of life with intervention, you shouldn't do it. For once, the British government actually voted the right way (in my opinion). It's messed up, and I know a lot of people in Syria DO want intervention (although equally many do not), but almost everybody just wants to get it over with and get back to normal life. If military action from an international force could safely expedite that outcome, I'd be in favour, but right now I don't think anybody can confidently say that it will.

I'm not overly sure about that. the US has made no massive statements about arming the rebels, but there is no way they haven't had a hand in it. In 2011, Croatia sent a massive boatload of old eastern block small-arms including AK-74 variants and RPKs. Croatia was probably told to do this by some of the larger European powers as part of their initiation into the EU. Which of course was at least condoned and encouraged by the US. These small arms were nothing compared to the heavy artillery, air support and missiles Assad had, but it changed the tides enough for the rebels to survive as they even had difficulty doing that. The rebels have also made a point of getting t the Turkish border and Assad has made a point of shooing them away. That is no coincidence.

Yes that is very true, the rebels have become the same thing they were trying to fight. I don;t think Assad would have used the chemical weapons though. They have had the upper hand these last few months with the "volunteers" coming from Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Revolutionary guard from Iran as well as countless Kurdish and Armenian irregulars. He knows that firing chemical weapons would bring a world of hurt. Doing it while winning would have no strategic advantage, perhaps as a last stand, but not as the stronger power... The rebels on the other hand are desperate and would do anything to get foreign intervention.

Yes, vietnam was many years ago, but as late as the 1999 they used depleted Uranium which we all know is radioactive and when used as an incendiary or anti-tank wepaon it leaves radioactive debris everywhere. It doesn;t take a military engineer to tell you that setting off a vast number of what basically work like a bunch of dirty bombs will impact the health of a population severely. Now the children and their children pay the price, In the same conflict they also used cluster bombs which the international community has been very outspoken against. Considering their foreign policy hasn't changed much since then, it is still quite hypocritical to be talking about red lines and chem. weps.

It is a horrible reality that any aid to either side will be a choice between bad and worse (depending on your point of view) and that letting this conflict run its course is an option that will cost lives and be brutal, but it may the quickest path to getting back to some sort of a decent life.

[nuby]

I'd like to make it clear that I think that the most probable explanation so far is that the Syrian Arab Army (Assad's forces) were the cause of the chemical weapons attack. I'm not sure if Bashar al-Assad was involved with that decision directly, however.

But I did notice some errors in Sandwich's post.

As for what would drive a man to attack his own country - the fact that if he doesn't do something to quell the rebels and try to re-assert the authority of the government, he and his government would be overthrown, potentially brutally murdered or at the very least hauled up in front of the Hague facing charges of war crimes.

I think the general consensus is that Bashar al-Assad was not "losing" the war in the months prior to the recent attack. Supporters of the regime say that he was winning (to be fair, there was the victory at al-Qusayr in June and the regime regained land in Homs shortly thereafter). However, I have seen one pro-revolutionary Syrian (living in Syria) who claimed the war was in a state of stalemate. So, I believe that your point that Bashar al-Assad was on the verge of defeat and performed a desperate chemical attack doesn't really hold.

You can make exactly the same argument for the rebel side, who (assuming they used the chemical weapons) would not only be attacking their own country but attacking their own forces.

You said it yourself that the opposition was fragmented, so it's not hard to believe that an opposing rebel faction had motivation to launch chemical weapons (if they were able to do that is another question, though).

Edited September 7, 2013 by nuby

[bear_grylls_of_ib]

I think it's best to let the civil war play out and let the Syrian people come to the conclusion that they're heading towards. Every situation tends to become worse when the US gets involved, so I think America should stay away from the conflict and let the Middle East sort itself out.

see i agree that we shouldn't take sides and let the civil war play out but the question is about response to the chemical weapons used against the civilians. i believe that if we go in strictly to take away WMD then it would force them to fight their civil war without being able to cause genocide to their innocent people.

To be honest, now's the time to incorporate Theory of Knowledge into your lives. Are you positively sure that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people? What would drive a man to attack his own country- knowing fully that it will create a scandal? Wouldn't it be more logical for the US-supported rebel forces to release said chemical weapons in order to create a scandal and force other countries to intervene?

Haven't we been down this road before with Iraq? "oh no dem iraqis have nuclear weps pls bush intervene pls pls", only replace Iraqis with Assad and nuclear weapons with chemical weapons.

In my opinion, the reason behind the US's targeting Assad is his refusal to make peace with Israel; meaning that he could choose to attack it whenever he feels like it (which ofcourse makes people uncomfortable, considering the sizeable army of the Syrian forces).

idk if i quite agree with you though because the US isn't really supporting either side at this moment and there are multiple rebel groups and none of them have the strength to have chemical weapons. at least that's what we're told here. and my guess is that syria is testing us and killing their own people for power so that when we go to attack them they can say "if you attack us we'll attack israel" and then all the other radical islamic groups will jump in and rage war against israel. it's only a matter of time. israel could fend off just syria (cuz they have our help) but against them all they would be screwed unless we helped them tremendously.

[TykeDragon]

You know, I think it's terrible the loss of life being seen in Syria, and yes innocent lives have been lost to chemical weapons... However, potentially that number will be a fraction of what could be damaged by the air support. Also, just because you have a strong military doesn't mean you HAVE to go rushing into every fight. For that same reason, though I hope the Syrian innocents don't suffer, as Arrowhead said leave it to them, I don't understand this US/British obsession to make everything that is nothing to do with them, all about them! Why do we go rushing in?! I'm not being funny but I don't see every other country in the world rushing to help out with our problems (proportionally, of course - doing only what they can) yet we seem to gasp and go rushing in everywhere for no real reason.

I mean, when you think about Britain specifically, we went rushing into WW1 back in 1914 when we could most certainly have avoided it. It would have had potential disastrous consequences for Europe (in terms of everywhere becoming Germany's *****, although I guess there'd have been no Hitler, Bolshevik Russia or Mussolini... ponder upon that ) but Britain? We were fine before, afterwards we were weak, with a very damage economy and a massive percentage of our young men dead. So forgive me for being cynical as to why we want to make every war our war.

[forlackofabettername]

Just gonna put this out there,

IF the US is supporting syrian rebel troops it won't just blatantly say that it is, you know? It wouldn't look good if they're supporting the rebels that caused the whole revolution in the first place while simultaneously urging Assad to be more lenient with the rebels. It just doesn't fit. And it's true enough that these rebel groups don't all have the firepower needed to harm Assad's army, but you're not factoring in other rogue guerrilla forces (hezbollah, alqaeda, the islamic brothers etc). So it's really a matter of what factions are supporting what side of the rebellion.

As for wether or not to take action, taking action right now with so many countries against such a decision would potentially cause world war 3 (what with iran supporting assad, iran alone is a significant threat). It would probably be best for the Syrian citizens (and all neighbouring countries) if iran and the US came to some sort of agreement without threatening to blow up israel and whatever. It is honestly not clear who released the chemical weapons, and it would be against all common sense for Assad to release them, he even said so in a speech he gave a while ago.

And hasn't it ever occurred to you how rebel forces hide in neighbourhoods filled with people while the military just sit in their bases (isolated from the common folk)? (In the case of Syria, I believe these rebel forces are in fact external guerrilla forces-but i could be wrong. it can't be a coincidence that all the arabian peoples decided to revolt on their government at the same time- the league of shadows from The Dark Knight come to mind) Anywho, if the syrian military didn't respond to the Guerrilla forces' attacks, it would most certainly be overthrown (and all hell would break loose, just like Egypt). And if the syrian military *did* respond, you'd all complain about how "it shouldn't attack citizens". Chemical weapons would seem like a really stupid choice for an experienced general/dictator since it's a pretty much broad-spectrum attack and wouldn't destroy enemy bases; while rockets/bombs are more precise and effective. and that is why i believe Assad didn't use chemical weapons, and that people should not rely on the media for information.

Edited September 7, 2013 by jbashto

[IBidiot]

Lets be honest: no country goes to war for moral reasons. They simply go for their own personal interest and gains. This is a Syrian problem and I think that we should leave it to them simply because we shouldn't have to but our heads in on everything that we don't like! Syria will do a lot better if there aren't any foreign influences to screw it up; if we did intervene and then leave, the Syrians would be in chaos trying to figure out what to do since other countries had been calling the shots before. If we were to intervene, then we would want the Syrians to pick the leader we like and establish the government we like, not actually let the Syrians decide what THEY want for their own country. The U.S. should have slowed down their foreign affairs policy a long time ago, but I guess it's too late now, with so many intricate ties between countries.

[bear_grylls_of_ib]

Just gonna put this out there,

IF the US is supporting syrian rebel troops it won't just blatantly say that it is, you know? It wouldn't look good if they're supporting the rebels that caused the whole revolution in the first place while simultaneously urging Assad to be more lenient with the rebels. It just doesn't fit. And it's true enough that these rebel groups don't all have the firepower needed to harm Assad's army, but you're not factoring in other rogue guerrilla forces (hezbollah, alqaeda, the islamic brothers etc). So it's really a matter of what factions are supporting what side of the rebellion.

As for wether or not to take action, taking action right now with so many countries against such a decision would potentially cause world war 3 (what with iran supporting assad, iran alone is a significant threat). It would probably be best for the Syrian citizens (and all neighbouring countries) if iran and the US came to some sort of agreement without threatening to blow up israel and whatever. It is honestly not clear who released the chemical weapons, and it would be against all common sense for Assad to release them, he even said so in a speech he gave a while ago.

And hasn't it ever occurred to you how rebel forces hide in neighbourhoods filled with people while the military just sit in their bases (isolated from the common folk)? (In the case of Syria, I believe these rebel forces are in fact external guerrilla forces-but i could be wrong. it can't be a coincidence that all the arabian peoples decided to revolt on their government at the same time- the league of shadows from The Dark Knight come to mind) Anywho, if the syrian military didn't respond to the Guerrilla forces' attacks, it would most certainly be overthrown (and all hell would break loose, just like Egypt). And if the syrian military *did* respond, you'd all complain about how "it shouldn't attack citizens". Chemical weapons would seem like a really stupid choice for an experienced general/dictator since it's a pretty much broad-spectrum attack and wouldn't destroy enemy bases; while rockets/bombs are more precise and effective. and that is why i believe Assad didn't use chemical weapons, and that people should not rely on the media for information.

You're assuming that any leader who kills their own people has common sense... and it would be to no benefit to the US if we were to support the rebels. the ideal scenario is that we are able to take away the rebels and the governments abilities to mass murder the people stuck in the middle of it. so to help those people without changing the outcome of the civil war.

[Luka Petrovic]

I could easily put down a bet that it was a rebel faction that got a hold of the chemical weapons and fired them off. They have two motives, neither of which Assad has for firing these chemical weapons.

(I) Chemical weapons quickly decimate a large number of combatants or unsympathetic civilians who support enemy combatants

-The wars has slowed down the last few weeks coming to a near stalemate, but before that, the rebels lost Homs and the land around it

-They are always less well equipped so chemical weapons are optimum for such a small/ under funded force

- If they really are losing the war why would they have any inhibitions of using chemical weapons, its a last stand

(II) Chemical weapons gets everyones attention

-The rebels know that using chemical weapons on would quickly bring the worlds attention to the war and blaming it on Assad would make them sympathetic to the rebels

-It would be the final straw before they got assistance from NUS/NATO forces, whi was the only way the rebels in Libya won. With NATO airstrikes softening up targets

This may seem ludicrous, but when a group has an agenda, yes they will hurt their own people. To gain international support during the Yugoslav civili war, Bosnian muslim troops shelled their own cities/ territories and blamed it on the enemy. This first gained media coverage and sympathy, afterwards it turned into funding and weapons.... So yes it does happen!