Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While it is horrible to think of people getting killed with chemical weapons, I wonder where to draw the line when it comes to interfering in other countries as long as those do not attack their neighbors. It is "not even" a genocide, after all they are all Syrians...
Is it more fun to be hacked to death with machetes in some African civil war?
I am not against intervening, but I think we should be consistent. Either we - and by that I mean an international force run by an overhauled UNO where such a decision is made by majority, no more vetoing - intervene in all civil wars or in none. I don't think it is fair to intervene for egoist reasons in one place just because it is close to Israel or Europe, while we don't give a crap about victims in Africa or some other more remote place.
Question: Is death by lead poisoning less horrific than chemical weapons? Someone school me. I'm not a diplomat so the subtle differences are a bit confusing.
There is no question that chemicals were used, but to rely on videos and using them as a "source of intelligence" gathered to assess that it was the Assad regime is not exactly "intelligent". Yup, no chance that the rebels could be cooking up sarin and mustard gas and smuggling it into Syria. If there's one cell cooking up gas then it's safe to say there can be two or more.
Quote:
Iraq's defence ministry has said that it has intercepted an al-Qaeda cell working to produce poisonous gas for attacks within the country as well as in Europe and North America.
The group of five men built two facilities in Baghdad to produce sarin and mustard gas, using instructions from another al-Qaeda group, spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said on Saturday.
The members of the cell were preparing to launch attacks domestically, and also had a network to smuggle the toxins to neighbouring countries and to Europe, Canada and the US, Askari said
This is an article by Peter Bergen of CNN which explains the "calculus" of any military action the U.S. might take toward Syria. It is not long, and it is informative
This is a lengthier, but not horribly long, article about why the U.S. will/should intervene militarily.
I have never wanted our forces to get involved in this. But the gassing of citizens, men, women and children is a heinous offense. I suspect that Assad feels he is not making progress, or is not doing so fast enough. So he murdered Syrian civilians. The second article puts him in the same class as Hitler and Mussolini.
At least after reading it I understand why the U. S. feels it must act. Apparently the government will use cruise missiles, not air power or boots on the ground. Even if you don't want our government to act, reading these pieces will help you understand why it is deemed important to do so.
I am on the fence on this. What do you think?
What's the outcome of military involvement? To what end? What will it accomplish?
If you can answer those questions, and the answers justify the use of the military... then would you say "go for it" and if the answers do not, then it seems self explanatory, no?
There will be no impeachment. Republicans who push for this are delusional. It will tie up the government, and make people even more angry with Congress.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
The President has the authority to do this. Even if you don't agree with it, he has the authority.
What part of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 are you not able to comprehend?
"[Congress shall have the power] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
Presidents do not declare wars, only Congress has that authority. Even Obama admitted that fact in 2007:
Quote:
Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
If Obama takes any kind of military action against Syria without prior approval from Congress he would be abusing the power of his office, which is an impeachable offense.
Iv we go boots on the ground in Syria, it will be another quagmire.
More importantly, on which side would be we be on?
Would we support the al Qaeda terrorist organization that killed over 3,000 innocent Americans on 09/11/2001 and now seeks to overthrow Assad?
Or do we support the brutal dictator Assad who gases his own citizens?
We should let them fight it out between them and not get involved. Or, if we do get involved, it should be in the same way Reagan got involved in the Iran/Iraq War - By giving intelligence to both sides equally, preventing either side from gaining a major victory.
The more al Qaeda terrorists killed by Assad the better. If al Qaeda overthrows Assad, that would not be a bad thing either. Either way, it is a win-win situation for the US, providing we do not get involved.
Glitch, stop the lies that Assad gassed his own people. Most of us know that is pure bs to gin up this war. I don't care if Congress does approve an invasion by US, it would still be wrong and against the will of the people in this country. We have had enough war making based on lies.
» Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
There is no question that chemicals were used, but to rely on videos and using them as a "source of intelligence" gathered to assess that it was the Assad regime is not exactly "intelligent". Yup, no chance that the rebels could be cooking up sarin and mustard gas and smuggling it into Syria. If there's one cell cooking up gas then it's safe to say there can be two or more.
Knowing who is behind it would also seem important. Given the major financial activity going on in the background the amping up of war would seem to go hand in hand. Sept and Oct should be interesting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup, no chance that the rebels could be cooking up sarin and mustard gas and smuggling it into Syria. If there's one cell cooking up gas then it's safe to say there can be two or more.