Attack on Syria is it justified ?
- Thread starter Mr Deeds
- Start date
Two questions: Do you believe the evidence, and do you believe it is wise to attack Syria.The Americans are positioning to launch an attach on Syria for the use of chemical weapons. Do you think this justified or is the another hunt
for non existent weapons of mass destruction.
That stated, it would certainly seem that the evidence is correct it is hard to get wrong technical intelligence that all the missiles were launched from areas under the control of the Syrian Army and landed in areas under rebel control, it is also highly suspicious that the Syrian Army would shell the the neighborhood at a rate many, many times that of the previous month immediately after the Nerve Gas attack. Likewise that the Syrian Government would deliberately obstruct the work of the U.N. Inspectors.
Is it justified is a more difficult question. Certainly the Obama Administration is showing that the devotees of the "Brother Jonathan" school of foreign policy are in control, and the statement that this has been the second and third terms of the Carter Administration applies to foreign as well as domestic policy.
Going to war based on nothing more than "they deserve to be punished" is deeply troubling. Further, I worry that there seemingly has been no thought as to follow-up, if we attack what then, and I am concerned that this has overtones of "Serbia deserves to be punished," however, I wonder if we will not all wake up on "August 2" and say how on earth did we get here i.e. I foresee real possibility of this "kicking over the ant hill" and turning a Civil War into a Regional Conflict, and even the possibility of major powers being drawn in a significant way.
Last edited:
Most of the international community agrees that using chemical weapons is crossing the line, you can murder with bullets but not chemical weapons.
I don't think the US should get involved with this though, although there won't be any ground troops used, it can/will be devastating for the American and Western economy as a whole. There's no direct threat to the US by the civil war in Syria, so they should just focus on their own interests instead of letting the price of oil shoot through the roof by attacking Syria.
I don't think the US should get involved with this though, although there won't be any ground troops used, it can/will be devastating for the American and Western economy as a whole. There's no direct threat to the US by the civil war in Syria, so they should just focus on their own interests instead of letting the price of oil shoot through the roof by attacking Syria.
Not true. They have acknowledged that AQ is fighting Assad and they have discussed how to avoid helping AQ while supporting others who are fighting Assad.The U.S. has admitted to supporting Al Qaeda in Syria.
Where is the review and link? Without it how can we advise you if she is worth being attached to?
Shhhh! It's freedom that freedomlover loves, not facts.Not true. They have acknowledged that AQ is fighting Assad and they have discussed how to avoid helping AQ while supporting others who are fighting Assad.
It seem hypocritical or at least inconsistent that America uses drone attacks which indiscriminately kill everyone in the vicinity including children, yet not only draw the line but freak out over a possible instance of one alleged chemical weapon attack.
LOL, I decided to ignore that.Where is the review and link? Without it how can we advise you if she is worth being attached to?
They aren't firing chemicals weapons out of those drones. The drones are considerably more discriminating than the weapons that were used in the Iraq war, and far more discriminating than the weapons used in Vietnam.It seem hypocritical or at least inconsistent that America uses drone attacks which indiscriminately kill everyone in the vicinity including children, yet not only draw the line but freak out over a possible instance of one alleged chemical weapon attack.
Drone operators actually do see what they are firing at.
May I suggest you read (and I hate to say it will involve a number of books and historical scholarly magazine articles) up on the Colony of Pennsylvania in the Eighteenth Century as to the problems posed when you say "No War is Justified/lets all sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya," and the other folks say well we'd rather burn down your town or seize your ships. . . . .IMHO.. No War Is Justified..
May I point out that the use of Chemical and Nerve Agents is prohibited by International Treaty.freak out over a possible instance of one alleged chemical weapon attack.
The US needs to attack the country that gave Saddam WMDs and over a billion dollars of foreign aid each year to help him develop his WMD program, the same country who knew that he had used those WMDs to gas his own people and yet still gave him over a billion dollars in aid the following year. Once the US invades that country then the US will have the moral right to go into Syria.
Does Canada get to sign on to everything the British Empire has done over the years as well?The US needs to attack the country that gave Saddam WMDs and over a billion dollars of foreign aid each year to help him develop his WMD program, the same country who knew that he had used those WMDs to gas his own people and yet still gave him over a billion dollars in aid the following year. Once the US invades that country then the US will have the moral right to go into Syria.
Yet the moral question is whether it is justifiable to use force to stop a war.IMHO.. No War Is Justified..
Theoretically I'd say yes but since I doubt whether military intervention will stop the killing in the long term, I don't know.
Chemical attacks are guaranteed to kill large numbers of civilians. Drone attacks if done right don't.It seem hypocritical or at least inconsistent that America uses drone attacks....
I tried to explain that to Hitler. But would he listen? And you should see the mess that created.IMHO.. No War Is Justified..
