Lets talk about Syria...

If our whole point of attacking Syria is to punish Assad for using chemical weapons on his people(Obama has called any action we take against Syria to be a punitive measure), are we then okay with allowing him to kill his own people in other ways? Isn't that hypocritical? "Well, we're okay that you kill your people, so long as you don't do it with chemical weapons!"

Syria is not about chemical weapons, its about Russia, China, Iran and future/current pipelines. eggdog1234

That's not the point. Isn't it hypocritcal to attack a country under the pretense that we're punishing them for using chemical weapons on their people instead of attacking them simply because they're murdering their people? What is a cruise missile strike going to do to STOP Assad from killing his people?

It's not hypocritical because Obama is not Bush where as Bush is definitely nothing like Obama. Obama is the man!

But seriously, yes I think it's hypocritical. One nation kills thousands through conventional means and no one bats an eye but use chemical weapons and the whole world goes apeshit.

However, we can't go to war against all nations that do harm to their people but we can pick and choose. I guess that's why Syria is our number one target right now.

If our whole point of attacking Syria is to punish Assad for using chemical weapons on his people(Obama has called any action we take against Syria to be a punitive measure), are we then okay with allowing him to kill his own people in other ways? Isn't that hypocritical? "Well, we're okay that you kill your people, so long as you don't do it with chemical weapons!"

airshocker

If our whole point of attacking Syria is to punish Assad for using chemical weapons on his people(Obama has called any action we take against Syria to be a punitive measure), are we then okay with allowing him to kill his own people in other ways? Isn't that hypocritical? "Well, we're okay that you kill your people, so long as you don't do it with chemical weapons!"

airshocker

Chemical weapons are a more cruel way to kill people (I guess), but I see your point. JML897

i will never get how gassing people to death in a few mins are the immoral way to kill people while blowing them up is fine.

sure it is a bit indiscriminate and you can kill civilians but you do that anyway with bombs.

No, it is not hypocritical because there are well known and understood conventions prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. This isn't just about a cruel dictator killing his own people. If you do not stand up to the use of these weapons then you invite people to continue to use them. And if you do that, you invite something far more horrible than killing people with conventional weapons. That is why we have conventions against their use in the first place.

Chemical weapons are BAD because it harms the whole enviroment the same way a post nuclear attack does. It does not only effect the people but water, food, soil, air,etc.

Syria is not about chemical weapons, its about Russia, China, Iran and future/current pipelines. eggdog1234

[QUOTE="eggdog1234"]Syria is not about chemical weapons, its about Russia, China, Iran and future/current pipelines. Rhazakna

Drown me in knowledge then. I like to hear more about the Syrian conflict from different perspectives.

If our whole point of attacking Syria is to punish Assad for using chemical weapons on his people(Obama has called any action we take against Syria to be a punitive measure), are we then okay with allowing him to kill his own people in other ways? Isn't that hypocritical? "Well, we're okay that you kill your people, so long as you don't do it with chemical weapons!"

airshocker

let's not forget the fact a few years back when we were friends with iraq we helped them use chemical attacks on iranians.  That's the big hypocracy.  That, and the fact the UN inspectors who studied the recent chemical attack said retaliation would cause more harm

I vote for giving Assad permission to kill as many of his people he wants. When he kills enough of them, maybe Syria can be nice again and we all live together in peace.

If our whole point of attacking Syria is to punish Assad for using chemical weapons on his people(Obama has called any action we take against Syria to be a punitive measure), are we then okay with allowing him to kill his own people in other ways? Isn't that hypocritical? "Well, we're okay that you kill your people, so long as you don't do it with chemical weapons!"

airshocker

Seems like now he waits for OK from the congress to attack. That means attack could be a week + now if at any at all.Hiddai

[QUOTE="Hiddai"]Seems like now he waits for OK from the congress to attack. That means attack could be a week + now if at any at all.BossPerson

The point of attacking Syria is to weaken Iran and Russia's influence in the Middle East, considering the unconditional support for the rebels that might end up as bad or worse than Assad.

The United States won't go in because of chemical weapons,but mainly because of money and control of Syria's gov'nt.It's just coverd up more.I think if the U.S. was to go in,they would get their asses kicked.The British and Canadians won't support terrorists cause to take down the Syrian gov'nt,but the Americans would.The same terrorists that the Americans and allied world have been fighting for decades.The U.S.A. would just love a third world war,that would be the only thing to get the U.S. out of their economy.I could say alot more,but don't get me started.Fvcking Americans.:evil:.

Are people here seriously supporting these Al-Qaeda terrorists (FSA scumbags) and the muslim brotherhood?

These people are nothing, butt Sunni terrorists trying to eliminate an Alawhite leader. Rebels are using chemical weapons to harm innocent civilians, but are blaming the Assad regime for the mess. 

Obama backs off imminent military action against Syria

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/syria-crisis-usa-idINDEE97U05T20130831

It seems the American people DO NOT want anything to do with Syria. Most Americans voted against an intervention of Syria. 

 

Obama backs off imminent military action against Syria

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/syria-crisis-usa-idINDEE97U05T20130831

 

It seems the American people DO NOT want anything to do with Syria. Most Americans voted against an intervention of Syria. 

EYE-OF-HORUS999

Are people here seriously supporting these Al-Qaeda terrorists (FSA scumbags) and the muslim brotherhood?

These people are nothing, butt Sunni terrorists trying to eliminate an Alawhite leader. Rebels are using chemical weapons to harm innocent civilians, but are blaming the Assad regime for the mess. 

SwagSurf

[QUOTE="SwagSurf"]

Are people here seriously supporting these Al-Qaeda terrorists (FSA scumbags) and the muslim brotherhood?

These people are nothing, butt Sunni terrorists trying to eliminate an Alawhite leader. Rebels are using chemical weapons to harm innocent civilians, but are blaming the Assad regime for the mess. 

Person0

I do consider it hypocritical wheh considering the underpinnings of WHY we do not permit the use of chemical warfare. In this instance (Assad's games), the distinction is pretty arbitrary.

Are we getting the evidence of Assad's chemical attacks from the same source as we got the "intelligence" of Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons?

Are we getting the evidence of Assad's chemical attacks from the same source as we got the "intelligence" of Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons?

OrkHammer007

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Are we getting the evidence of Assad's chemical attacks from the same source as we got the "intelligence" of Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons?

Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Are we getting the evidence of Assad's chemical attacks from the same source as we got the "intelligence" of Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons?

OrkHammer007

This seems appropriate (from another thread)

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="eggdog1234"]Syria is not about chemical weapons, its about Russia, China, Iran and future/current pipelines. leviathan91

Drown me in knowledge then. I like to hear more about the Syrian conflict from different perspectives.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] And the petro-dollar. Anyone who thinks that the possible intervention is about chemical weapons, contact me. I have a great deal on a bridge we should really discuss.Rhazakna

Drown me in knowledge then. I like to hear more about the Syrian conflict from different perspectives.

So were the protests in march 2011 also fabricated? BossPerson

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] And the petro-dollar. Anyone who thinks that the possible intervention is about chemical weapons, contact me. I have a great deal on a bridge we should really discuss.Rhazakna

Drown me in knowledge then. I like to hear more about the Syrian conflict from different perspectives.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Drown me in knowledge then. I like to hear more about the Syrian conflict from different perspectives.

BossPerson

To be quite honest, I don't want civilians to die at all. Makes no difference to me whether chemical weapons are/aren't used.

To be quite honest, I don't want civilians to die at all. Makes no difference to me whether chemical weapons are/aren't used.

airshocker

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Drown me in knowledge then. I like to hear more about the Syrian conflict from different perspectives.

Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] War with Iran is off the table, so Syria became the new target as a proxy. I first heard about plans to go after Syria years ago (way before the beggining of the Civil War in 2011), and it's all unfolded quite close to how people said it would. The petro-dollar is one of the few things keeping the US economy afloat. Make no mistake, if the petro-dollar falls or is even altered too much, the American economy will not recover. Various Mid East states like Iran have been trying to get out from under the dominance of the PD for a long time now-that's one of the main reasons Iran is seen as such an enemy to the West. Invading Syria puts a ton of pressure on Iran, and secures an oil pipeline that will make sure the PD is maintained. It's also a strong move to show dominance against Russia and China, they might even both get involved. It's a huge clusterf*ck, and anyone who thinks this is over chemical weapons hasn't been paying attention to what's been happening between the US and Iran, or what special interests have been involved with American foreign policy, or the situation with the petro-dollar. Anyone who says the PD has nothing to do with this simply isn't aware of the situation that's been unfolding over the last many years in the Middle East. Rhazakna

We can get an idea of what the strike will be from leaks. china and russia wouldn't do anything over syria, its just posturing. we already give aid to the rebels. Russia is more worried about its naval base, china is more worried about setting a precedent of intervention and iran is more worried about losing influence. none of their main goals are about the petrobuck. well saudi arabia has been one of the biggest rebel supporters and they would love to expand their influence and reduce irans due to their religious differences, but that doesn't relate to the petro buck.