[Monkei]

I am having a real problem with this line in the sand stuff over chemical warfare. We let Ethnic cleansing go on without interfering we allow people to starve because our aid is stopped by guerrillas and thieves, in the end it is a bitter death for others who afforded a much better outcome as did the chem weapons. Unfortunately we cannot pick and choose no matter how much we would like to.

Stopping aid I am sure is not going to work I think Russia would just fill in the gaps. But I am not against trying it.

[Villager Dude]

Originally Posted by gomoho

So allow the innocents to be murdered??? I don't know the answer, but what if Hitler hadn't been stopped? It's not cut and dry - it is very complicated and there is a humanitarian issue.

I am not sure what authority the US has to strike Syria. I think the US should wait for a UN resolution and if it does not come then do not get involved. If it comes make sure you are just a participant with other nations.

Also based on the circumstances I do not believe the President has the authority to strike without congressional approval.

[skip0358]

Originally Posted by Villager Dude

I am not sure what authority the US has to strike Syria. I think the US should wait for a UN resolution and if it does not come then do not get involved. If it comes make sure you are just a participant with other nations.

Also based on the circumstances I do not believe the President has the authority to strike without congressional approval.

I agree 100%. IF the UN doesn't support this stay out period. No boots on the ground period. No prolonged engagement. We've been through enough. We can't afford another war and we're downsizing our military. Let someone else be the policemen period. JMO

[blueash]

Interesting how many are saying, if I am reading this correctly, that the US and whatever coalition it can develop, cannot act unless the United Nations says ok! Many Americans have, in other circumstances, loudly complained that the US should not in any way be restricted by the UN or any world court or any international law. The expression is often stated that our elected officials take an oath on our Constitution not the UN charter ....

Interesting comment on ethnic cleansing. If any non-UN major military intervention was a success it was the NATO action in Yugoslavia. The UN specifically did not support it as both Russia and China opposed it in the Security Council, but similarly the UN was unable to pass a resolution condemning the act. NATO acted to stop Serbian actions against Albanians in Kosovo. The theory of the legality of that military action was that instability in Yugoslavia could spill over into neighboring countries and destabilize the entire region. Couldn't that same argument be made here, that use of chemical weapons if ignored by the international community would so destabilize that the failure to respond would amount to appeasement?

That future tyrants would calculate that as long as they only use poisons on their own citizens they can do it with impunity? Remember that one of the major justifications for our Iraq war number 2 was the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use them. Those weapons were chemical weapons, recalling Sec. Powell showing those photos of "mobile labs" to the UN. The arguments against the military action at the time was not that we shouldn't act if he had WMD's but whether our information was adequately accurate of the existence of WMD's which Saddam said he had already destroyed, admitting to past possession only. The US has at least a recent history of strong leadership in trying to prevent chemical warfare from being an option. Chemicals are, unlike nuclear weapons, easy to make and easy to use. If we don't act does that make us the Neville Chamberlain of this situation?

[Bay Kid]

+-100 women and children killed? How many women and children will be killed if we attack? Sounds like someone is baiting us to attack. Oh, STOP giving money away to people that hate us.

[keithwand]

Keep out.

[Taltarzac725]

U.N. Council set for Syria clash as West readies attack | Reuters

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...cials-say?lite

I see no reason for any US or other European troops on the ground in Syria but the stockpiling and extremely probably use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is deeply troubling. The US and other powers should be able to just target areas where there would be little or no civilian casualties like military airfields and the like.

[blueash]

And now just being reported

Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable

Quoting from that article, and its important commentary:


an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

If this was a rogue officer rather than official government policy, does that make it better? Why would there even be chemical weapons available? Or was the call a deliberate deception knowing we would hear it and giving Assad plausible deniability?

[TOTV Team]

Too many users have made political references. Thread closed now as a result.