Syrian Strike Vote

[Falvlun]

Would not a vote of "no" send a message to Assad that the US and it looks like the majority of the world doesn't care what he does in Syria as long as he doesn't directly attack them? Would he then not be more apt to use any weapon he so desired if a situation arose that he thought could only be solved by using WMD? Basically his thoughts could be "I did it once and nothing happened so I'll do it again". By the way I am still undecided, just playing the devils advocate.

To begin with, I do not think it is clear that Assad authorized the chemical strike. It is possible that it was a rogue element in his administration, or that some other party did it.

But assuming that Assad did indeed use the chemical weapons, yes, he will likely feel like he got away with something. But I doubt he'd think this would give him free-reign to act however he wants, seeing as this act brought him very close to destruction, and that another strike might serve to be a tipping point.

As for making America appear weak, my response is that I could care less. America's military abilities are astronomical, and they'd have to be blind to think that an instance of restraint somehow magically means that next time we can't blow them to bits. Furthermore, I'd hope that restraint is our general policy in the future. America shouldn't unilaterally be the world's police, and if this is America's first step in abdicating that role, then the sooner the rest of the world wakes up to that fact, the better.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

The American Government claims America is not going to war with Syria and that America is not declaring war. What a joke... If the U.S. does bomb Syria, what is that called? I'm almost sure Assad knows what the U.S. is planning. Does the American government really believe Assad would just let the U.S. bomb his country or that he isn't preparing for that worst case scenario? I think Assad would've started negotiations by now knowing his country is at risk of being bombed. The American Government claiming they are not declaring war but carrying out limited strikes to "teach Assad a lesson" is like telling someone "I don't want to fight you" and then punching that person in the face Knockout. What would the U.S. do if another country threatened to bomb the U.S. and then said we aren't declaring war we just want to teach you a lesson...:tsk:...?

In the words of the Comedian (Watchmen 2009)- Edward Blake: "Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the Comedian is the only thing that makes sense......This is a joke. This is all a joke."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You seem pretty pro-war now.

Where do I "seem pro-war?" (BTW, I voted no.)

Your post implied otherwise, but ...

May I ask which post and how?

 

[Valjean]

Let me ask you a few questions? If we do nothing, is there any point as Assad undoubtedly uses more chemical weapons where you would be inclined to intervene? How about if he uses them against some neighboring countries? What about if he begins to equip various terrorist groups internationally? What about if they were to be used against your fellow Hindus? The intelligence report that was recently declassified says that Assad literally has tons of sarin, so is there any point whereas you would say "Enough!" and decide maybe it's necessary to downgrade his ability to kill more?

You assume a lot about Assad, I think. What would prevent him from using chemical weapons even after we bombed him? If he's determined to resist the insurgency he'll use what weapons he has.

Personally, I'm no more inclined to intervene after a gas attack than I am after an artillery attack. Both kill indiscriminately. At least after a gas attack survivors have intact homes and neighborhoods to return to.

Assad's got his hands full just keeping the insurgents at bay. I don't think he's in a position to extend the war to other countries or ship materiel abroad.

Let me ask you a question: If the case for war is so clear cut, why are the UN and NATO not on board? Why are only the US and France rattling sabres?
If all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. The US is enamored of its mighty military and is itching to show it off and watch the world quake in fear.

 

[LuisDantas]

As one whom has studied the Middle East for decades besides just being there (I'm an anthropologist), if we do not do something rather significant, we will come off as cowards, thus emboldening our enemies and telling our allies that we are not at all dependable.

Do you think that it will be helpful to send a missile attack to the area? In which way?

I just don't see how one earns respect or cooperation by causing serious destruction from afar.

There are conceivable ways of doing a positive influence in Syria. But the sad reality is that they are not being considered, mostly because they involve real, significant risks and sacrifices.

This area is not one for wimps, so the only realistic choice is which actions we should take. Severally damaging Assad's air force is a good start.

We simply have too many vested interests in that area, and it's not just oil, so for us to ignore what's happening over there would be counter-productive, and attempts at isolationism in the past usually backfired on us.

Isolationism is awful. Caring just to the point of causing further destruction is certainly not any better, though.

 

[Knight of Albion]

NO to bombing.

Work with the Russians to get Assad to stand down and set up a government of national unity...

 

[Aquitaine]

I'm pleased to see that the vast majority of voters in this thread voted for the sensible option.

The only people who truly want this war are those who will profit from it.

 

[nazz]

This pacifist votes yes. If Assad is not stopped many more will die.

 

[Aquitaine]

This pacifist votes yes. If Assad is not stopped many more will die.

Ready to enlist, soldier?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm pleased to see that the vast majority of voters in this thread voted for the sensible option.
The only people who truly want this war are those who will profit from it.

This is unfair to the profit motive. Many who want war do so
out of hatred, self-righteous hegemony, or lust to wield power.
OK, OK...I suppose some do so out of compassion for the innocent civilians.

 

[Falvlun]

Ready to enlist, soldier?

I don't really see why you think that this is such a great response. Our military is fully voluntary and they are compensated for doing their duty. It is their job to go to war. They have picked a dangerous profession. We all want electricity, but we all aren't gonna be coal miners. Likewise, if someone thinks we should go to war, that doesn't mean that he should necessarily have to become a soldier in order to avoid committing some sort of hypocrisy.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't really see why you think that this is such a great response. Our military is fully voluntary and they are compensated for doing their duty. It is their job to go to war. They have picked a dangerous profession. We all want electricity, but we all aren't gonna be coal miners. Likewise, if someone thinks we should go to war, that doesn't mean that he should necessarily have to become a soldier in order to avoid committing some sort of hypocrisy.

Because generating electricity ain't the same as fighting a war. Secondly, it's Chicken-hawking: you want to be all gung-ho with it like a Hawk, but Chicken out at the idea of you yourself signing up to do something about the very issue you're apparently so "appalled" at.

I've come to learn that, when these people say "we should go to war/intervene" what they really mean is "other people should go to war/intervene on my behalf, so I can feel all smug and prowd2b'murican".

 

[Aquitaine]

This is unfair to the profit motive. Many who want war do so
out of hatred, self-righteous hegemony, or lust to wield power.
OK, OK...I suppose some do so out of compassion for the innocent civilians.

Exactly. These politicians who care so much for foreign civilians, whilst neglecting their own damn citizens amaze me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't really see why you think that this is such a great response. Our military is fully voluntary and they are compensated for doing their duty. It is their job to go to war. They have picked a dangerous profession. We all want electricity, but we all aren't gonna be coal miners. Likewise, if someone thinks we should go to war, that doesn't mean that he should necessarily have to become a soldier in order to avoid committing some sort of hypocrisy.

I agree that this isn't fair criticism of you.

 

[Aquitaine]

Meh, I just don't like how people seem to view military personnel as just disposable machines, that should be sent off to some far land so we at home can feel morally superior about some "cause" or "crusade".

I guess I'm just not as quick to want to send somebody's father, husband, brother, son, or mother, wife, sister or daughter off to potentially die for yet another totally and utterly pointless conflict, whether or not said individuals took an Oath to potentially do so - whilst in the relatively safe and reassuring environment of their homeland.

 

[esmith]

Because generating electricity ain't the same as fighting a war. Secondly, it's Chicken-hawking: you want to be all gung-ho with it like a Hawk, but Chicken out at the idea of you yourself signing up to do something about the very issue you're apparently so "appalled" at.

I've come to learn that, when these people say "we should go to war/intervene" what they really mean is "other people should go to war/intervene on my behalf, so I can feel all smug and prowd2b'murican".

If asked I would return to active duty without any qualms other than knowing that my military specialty skills has, how should I say, been left behind after 32 years of stagnation. In other words, I would probably be as useful at teats on a boar hog.

 

[nazz]

Because generating electricity ain't the same as fighting a war. Secondly, it's Chicken-hawking: you want to be all gung-ho with it like a Hawk, but Chicken out at the idea of you yourself signing up to do something about the very issue you're apparently so "appalled" at.

I've come to learn that, when these people say "we should go to war/intervene" what they really mean is "other people should go to war/intervene on my behalf, so I can feel all smug and prowd2b'murican".

LOL, that would hardly characterize me! But since that is your attitude I see no point in discussing it further with you!

 

[Draka]

If asked I would return to active duty without any qualms other than knowing that my military specialty skills has, how should I say, been left behind after 32 years of stagnation. In other words, I would probably be as useful at teats on a boar hog.

There are certainly some military jobs that just don't exactly transfer well into civilian life. If I were to go back in the Navy, even though it surely hasn't been 32 years, still...it wouldn't be a leap to say I would be rusty.

 

[Aquitaine]

If asked I would return to active duty without any qualms other than knowing that my military specialty skills has, how should I say, been left behind after 32 years of stagnation. In other words, I would probably be as useful at teats on a boar hog.

Well to be fair you don't qualify to be a Chicken-Hawk, since you actually served. I suppose you'd just be a Hawk?

 

[Aquitaine]

LOL, that would hardly characterize me! But since that is your attitude I see no point in discussing it further with you!

Go on then Mr. Pacifist, tell me why the US essentially committing an act of war against Syria is justifiable, in the sense that it would be necessary for the defence of the nation?

Tell me why it would be worth risking American lives, not to mention worth all the Syrian civilians who will inevitably be caught up in the strikes?