If Bashar al-Assad Uses Chemical Weapons, Should We Intervene in Syria?

[Frodo]

Should we intervene on the rebels' behalf if Bashar al-Assad uses chemical weapons against them?  There is a very real possibility he might do it.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, if it is practically possible without involving troops on the ground. Arming the rebels should remain the top options, though.

[Zioneer]

Yes, especially to prevent ethnic cleansing on both sides.

[© tweed]

no, knee-jerk anti-imperialist

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If that happens he's put himself in Gaddafi territory and Russia and China would abstain on the inevitable similar UN Resolution that would be brought up. So yes assuming it's not involving any ground troops and enforcing the Resolution. The question is Assad smart enough to know this. Or does he know that if he throws any chemical weapons anywhere in the general direction of Turkey that they'll retaliate and are probably capable of effectively destroying the Syrian Air Force and wiping out all military within 50 miles of the border.

[Blue3]

Definitely.

I also think we should have intervened a long time ago, but if they cross that red line then there's no excuse for inaction any longer.

[k-onmmunist]

no.

[Franzl]

Yes

[Silent Hunter]

If that happens he's put himself in Gaddafi territory and Russia and China would abstain on the inevitable similar UN Resolution that would be brought up.

He's arguably already there, but if he uses them, the objections to intervention go very quickly.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Absolutely

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yup

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Tactical air strikes are the name of the game... I'd hate to see too many troops on the ground in another Middle East hellhole

[Insula Dei]

Yes.

NATO threw some Patriot rockets Turkey's way today, incidentally.

[AkSaber]

How is this any of our business?

And where will it end? There aren't enough explosives in the world to kill everyone we don't like.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Mike Assad must be stopped.

[politicus]

How is this any of our business?

And where will it end? There aren't enough explosives in the world to kill everyone we don't like.

Assad is throwing rockets at your Turkish allies.

[Donerail]

No. Not a threat to the United States and not our business.

[Nhoj]

Yes, especially to prevent ethnic cleansing on both sides.

Just like Iraq? I would say that there is no good option in this case.

[Sbane]

Yes. I am anti-war to an extreme, and opposed the Libyan operation, but using chemical weapons against your own people crosses a line.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No. Sam said it best...

No. Not a threat to the United States and not our business.

If we go into Syria, it will be a disaster. If they use gas on their own people, they would not think twice about doing it on our men.

[The Mikado]

As I've said before, if there is a Syrian intervention, Turkey can and should take the lead, with the rest of NATO as air support and logistical roles.   

[Sbane]

No. Sam said it best...

No. Not a threat to the United States and not our business.

If we go into Syria, it will be a disaster. If they use gas on their own people, they would not think twice about doing it on our men.

We have an incredible air force we could unleash on them.

[Lincoln Republican]

I laid out my plan for intervention months ago on this forum long before the threat of chemical weapons was even being discussed.

If my plan had been followed by the U.S. and allies, this situation would never have come to this, the tyrant Assad and his henchmen would be history and thousands of innocent lives would have been saved.

[RogueBeaver]

Republican- Absolutely

[2952-0-0]

Part of me thinks that if push comes to shove, Russia and China will somehow not veto a UN resolution authorizing NATO intervention in Syria, to allow the US to charge head-on into a cluster[inks] which will put it in a lose-lose situation. Russia can claim the moral high ground on the Middle East, and the US will be too bogged down to try to "pivot" to Asia.