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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:50:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  If Bashar al-Assad Uses Chemical Weapons, Should We Intervene in Syria?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: If Bashar al-Assad's government uses chemical weapons against the rebels, should we intervene?
#1
Democrat -Yes
 
#2
Democrat -No
 
#3
Republican -Yes
 
#4
Republican -No
 
#5
independent/third party -Yes
 
#6
independent/third party -No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 44

Author Topic: If Bashar al-Assad Uses Chemical Weapons, Should We Intervene in Syria?  (Read 2051 times)
AkSaber
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,315
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2012, 09:10:58 PM »

Assad is throwing rockets at your Turkish allies.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they couldn't prove whether is was Assad's allies or the opposition.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2012, 11:09:31 PM »


sell out
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2012, 12:21:37 AM »

yes, but with no boots.  Just remove the regimes ability to fight.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2012, 01:31:05 AM »

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.

1. "Not a threat to the United States" is not a legitimate argument for neglecting to prevent a serious human rights abuse when we have the capability to do so. There's a moral imperative, as a bystander who can prevent it, to do something about it.

This would be like if you look outside your window and you see some neonazi-looking guy down the street who's holding a gun and pointing it down at a group of your neighbors who are lying in the fetal position. Your loaded hunting rifle is kept in a case just next to this window; you could easily take him out and stop whatever this tragedy is before it gets any worse. But, you decide, "hey, not my problem if they're not bothering me, sucks for those guys who pissed him off" and go back to sit in front of the TV.

2. As said above, the US has an AirForce that is very good at things, and fighter jets are not susceptible to chemical weapons attacks.

3. Even if, for some reason, the US assists a Turkish/NATO invasion with ground assets, you can bet that every single one of those soldiers will have received a refresher course on chemical attack defense protocol:

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2012, 01:34:20 AM »

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.

US casualties in Libya: 0

Would be the same if done the same way here.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2012, 01:36:22 AM »

US profits in Libya?  the more relevant question.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2012, 01:39:53 AM »


Even more relevant is if intervention prevented Gaddafi from doing what he basically promised to do and slaughter all of Benghazi.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2012, 03:42:11 AM »


The Royal Danish Air Force accounted for ~17% of all targets bombed in Libya.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110811/DEFSECT01/108110302/Norway-Withdraws-F-16s-from-Libya-Ops

BLU-109s are produced by Lockheed Martin, so I guess one can extrapolate.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2012, 03:57:10 AM »


Keep in mind that many left-wing Europeans supported military intervention in Libya. All political parties in Denmark and Sweden (with the exception of the anti-immigrant Swedish Democrats) supported intervention, including the Danish Red-Green Alliance and the Swedish Left Party, both of whom sit in the same EU parliamentary group as SYRIZA, KKE, and Die Linke. The Norwegian left likewise supported intervention (as they currently form the Norwegian government) but got irate because they felt that Norway was taking on too large a role relative to its size.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2012, 01:22:44 PM »

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.

1. "Not a threat to the United States" is not a legitimate argument for neglecting to prevent a serious human rights abuse when we have the capability to do so. There's a moral imperative, as a bystander who can prevent it, to do something about it.

This would be like if you look outside your window and you see some neonazi-looking guy down the street who's holding a gun and pointing it down at a group of your neighbors who are lying in the fetal position. Your loaded hunting rifle is kept in a case just next to this window; you could easily take him out and stop whatever this tragedy is before it gets any worse. But, you decide, "hey, not my problem if they're not bothering me, sucks for those guys who pissed him off" and go back to sit in front of the TV.

Nope. This would be like if you look outside your window and you see some neonazi-looking guy down the street who's holding a gun and pointing it down at a group of people you don't know who are also pointing guns at him.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2012, 01:26:10 PM »


Keep in mind that many left-wing Europeans supported military intervention in Libya. All political parties in Denmark and Sweden (with the exception of the anti-immigrant Swedish Democrats) supported intervention, including the Danish Red-Green Alliance and the Swedish Left Party, both of whom sit in the same EU parliamentary group as SYRIZA, KKE, and Die Linke. The Norwegian left likewise supported intervention (as they currently form the Norwegian government) but got irate because they felt that Norway was taking on too large a role relative to its size.

that's because the "left" in europe has turned imperialist, not because it was particularly left wing to intervene.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2012, 01:27:01 PM »

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.

US casualties in Libya: 0

Would be the same if done the same way here.

Lol.

See the problem is that Syria is not Libya and no, the same way is not applicable. Any effective intervention would require ground forces.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2012, 01:48:41 PM »

Last I checked there are six foreign powers who are deeply involved in Syria: NATO/the west, Israel, Turkey, the Gulf Arab Sunni states, Russia, and Iran.

If NATO directly intervenes even if it's just lobbing bombs on Assad's positions like in Libya this opens a huge can of worms. Unlike in Libya there are sectarian dimensions, and unlike Libya most the country isn't a pile of sand. Acting as a referee in Syria is guaranteed to deeply annoy one or more of an extremely crucial ally of the west in some form or another.

Aggressively opposing Assad will will support from the Gulf Arab states, yet will cause Islamists to creep up to Israel's northern border, which has the potential to invite Israeli intervention regardless of US opposition. Plus, Assad has already deliberately allowed the Syrian Kurds to gain strength as a middle finger to Erdogan. If the Kurds gain strength even further this will destabilize both Turkey and Iraq (though the latter is already an Iranian client state anyways).

Merely dropping bombs like in Libya risks mission creep which already was happening in Libya. Eventually those who were saved by the western intervention will demand that the west stay on, and it will be very difficult to leave in this situation.

Actually trying to act as a referee is laughably naive, since Assad's opponents will accuse the west of complicity and treachery.

I think the least bad scenario would be if Assad and his acolytes retreat to the Alawite region and abandon the rest of Syria, and continue to claim to be the only legal government of all Syria, exactly like Chang Kai Shek retreating to Taiwan and claiming to be the only legal government of all China. It could be done by secret deals with the US and Russia. The rest of Syria might be able to pull off a relatively peaceful Libya-like transition to elections and a new regime. Though the Kurdish region is probably lost for good. In any case Erdogan must be kicking himself in the groin.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2012, 01:52:53 PM »

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.

1. "Not a threat to the United States" is not a legitimate argument for neglecting to prevent a serious human rights abuse when we have the capability to do so. There's a moral imperative, as a bystander who can prevent it, to do something about it.

This would be like if you look outside your window and you see some neonazi-looking guy down the street who's holding a gun and pointing it down at a group of your neighbors who are lying in the fetal position. Your loaded hunting rifle is kept in a case just next to this window; you could easily take him out and stop whatever this tragedy is before it gets any worse. But, you decide, "hey, not my problem if they're not bothering me, sucks for those guys who pissed him off" and go back to sit in front of the TV.

Nope. This would be like if you look outside your window and you see some neonazi-looking guy down the street who's holding a gun and pointing it down at a group of people you don't know who are also pointing guns at him.

Well okay my analogy does leave a lot to be desired, I'll give you that. Tongue

And of course the rebels are armed. The guy holding a gun on defenseless people was supposed to be the use of chemical weapons on civilians. I.E., something so evil and reprehensible that there's basically a moral obligation to act against the aggressor in the scenario. Which I guess is a bit muddled in the analogy by the fact that you also have a weapon. But like I said, bad analogy: it was two in the morning and I was taking a break from my essay writing all-nighter Tongue
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2012, 06:55:44 PM »

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite

Well he's about to use them, so...
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,202
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2012, 08:10:12 PM »

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.

This
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2012, 09:57:47 PM »


More likely as a deterrent. He can't be so incredulous as to think that using chemical weapons would lead to any other outcome except a knife up his ass.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2012, 10:05:34 PM »

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.

US casualties in Libya: 0

Would be the same if done the same way here.

Lol.

See the problem is that Syria is not Libya and no, the same way is not applicable. Any effective intervention would require ground forces.

Why would ground forces be needed to wipe out the Syrian Air Force and any capabilities the military has of delivering chemical weapons?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2012, 10:38:07 PM »

Yes, if it is practically possible without involving troops on the ground. Arming the rebels should remain the top options, though.
Arming the rebels won't do any good against chemical weapons.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2012, 10:39:15 PM »

Yes, if it is practically possible without involving troops on the ground. Arming the rebels should remain the top options, though.
Arming the rebels won't do any good against chemical weapons.

It might reduce the timespan during which Assad can use them.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2012, 10:44:47 PM »

Yes, if it is practically possible without involving troops on the ground. Arming the rebels should remain the top options, though.
Arming the rebels won't do any good against chemical weapons.

It might reduce the timespan during which Assad can use them.

or it might make him more desperate to use them.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 11, 2012, 10:55:05 PM »

Yes, if it is practically possible without involving troops on the ground. Arming the rebels should remain the top options, though.
Arming the rebels won't do any good against chemical weapons.

It might reduce the timespan during which Assad can use them.

or it might make him more desperate to use them.

Well, regardless, if the goal is to make him stop slaughtering his own citizens, there are only two ways to achieve it: intervention or arming the rebels. If the latter is sufficient, it is highly preferable. If not, it's time to intervene.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2012, 09:22:08 PM »

Latest reports claim Assad is firing Scud missiles at rebels themselves. An Al Jazeera analyst says Assad is down to one armoured division and two infantry divisions "maybe". Perhaps the moment of truth is coming?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.