Syria (Page 4)

Hey CD, how's it going. 

I'll speak up and say that I do commend the President for taking a step in the right direction.  Ultimately we'll see what happens in the long run because I think there's a pretty good chance that congress will vote no.

My personal opinion is that Obama has no desire whatsoever to get into a conflict with Syria, but he took some hawkish advice and drew a "red line" that painted himself into a corner.  When the "red line" was crossed he either looks weak by not acting or he's a war monger, lose lose.

If it were only that simple.  There's nobody in this thread that wouldn't stop and help someone who is injured.

However, to put the "help" in the context of Syra you would kill the guy who ran them off the road and possibly his family, and when you're done doing that the family of the original kid who was injured will come to your house and kill your family.  This is a civil war between two factions of people who are sworn to destroy us and everything we stand for.
The rebels (who we would be helping) are far more radical than the current regime.

Ya... great example. I most certainly would ignore sovereign borders and kill people to help the cyclist.

fine I'll rephrase. You see someone beating a cyclist to death at the side of the road, and everyone is driving by, do you drive by too?

Still completely different scenario because we're both in the same country and there IS a police force that is responsible for their safety.  I would personally call 911, stop and tell the dude to stop beating him and the police are on their way.  I wouldn't engage in the physical altercation unless I had no other choice because I have a wife and kids that expect me to come home.  I also have no clue what the context of the altercation is, perhaps the guy on top doing the beating is the good guy and was defending himself from the crazy cyclist. 

Instead of creating caveats why don't you (or someone) answer the thrust of the question. When you're in a situation where you see someone being beaten to death, and no one around is helping. There are no police or by the time they got there he'd be dead. What do you do?

That is the situation we are in. Innocent people are dying. The rest of the world is too afraid to save them. We are the only ones who will do something.

This is such a fun game... here's one for you.... If a guy in California killed a kid.... would you fly across country 2 weeks later to bomb his house?

Are you a munitions expert?

No it's a terrible idea. You can't use conventional munitions, you'd need something that gets extremely hot, over 2k degrees. I gave the example I did because it's such a dilemma. Cant's see anything like that happening without a major coalition in place.

It's a HORRIBLE idea to bomb chemical munition dumps....and No, I'm not a 'munitions expert' either.  But I DID sleep in a Holiday Inn Express once.   Neurotoxns, rocket fuel, high explosives and detonation usually don't play well together. 

Seriously, there is a big question about what exactly we DO bomb?  Assad is allegedly moving equipment into residential areas i.e. schools, apartment complexes etc.   What is "Command and Control" if we can't target the SOB, himself?

Bro.....you gotta admit....you WANT to.  Hell, if time and money and prison weren't in the mix I'd be happy to fly around the country and bomb the house of every adult who killed a kid.

Sorry, just had to answer this question.  If the people beating each other to death both want me dead, I let them beat each other to death.  

Didn't want to further the quote mess but I agree with NXS on the chemical weapon part.

What is it about chemical weapons that gets everyone in an outrage? Whether you are killed with a chemical weapon or a conventional bomb you are still dead. 

Why didn't we get involved in Rwanda? How about Darfur? How about any other number of situations that involved mass casualties and civilian lives lost? 

Estimates are that Assad has killed over 100,000 of his own people, but now all of a sudden these 2,500 are so much more important that the others because they were killed with a chemical weapon. Doesn't make sense to me.

I wish I could hear a viable argument from someone who advocates getting involved on what the end result will and/or should be. This guy on the news this morning was adamant about "regime change" but only as far as getting rid of Assad. When questioned on what happens after he had absolutely nothing. 

I don't think we should get involved at all, especially not without a viable plan and end result. Also I don't make a distinction between boots on the ground and lobbing missiles from a boat, an act of war is an act of war. What if our bombs kill 25 kids? 250 kids? 2,500 kids? Is that justified to achieve the result of another country without a leader subject to the whims of whoever has the most guns? How many people/kids will die in that situation? 

Chemical weapons are different because they are indiscriminate, and because they primarily affect civilians, who, unlike soldiers, normally do not possess protective gear. Plus the world has decided that they are special and should never be used. Dead is still dead, but that's why chemical weapons are treated differently.

I agree with you that we should act according to our national interests. We didn't intervene in Darfur, Rwanda, etc. because there was nothing there we wanted. For my example of WWII we probably would have continued to let Europe burn had we not been attacked on December 7.

If I were President I would do everything humanly possible to remove chemical weapons from both parties and then let the FSA and Syrian Army go kill each other. Dropping a few bombs or firing off a few cruise missiles to teach Assad a "lesson" is meaningless, and arming the rebels is plain idiotic. My fear is that what will instead happen is that both parties will either feel secure that the world doesn't care about chemical weapons, or, after we strike, adopt a use-it-or-lose it mentality and either kill more of each other or attack our allies in the region.

Did you read my post?  I think I described exactly what I'd do.  Here, I'll copy and paste it again for you:

I would personally call 911, stop and tell the dude to stop beating him and the police are on their way.  I wouldn't engage in the physical altercation unless I had no other choice because I have a wife and kids that expect me to come home.  I also have no clue what the context of the altercation is, perhaps the guy on top doing the beating is the good guy and was defending himself from the crazy cyclist.

My job isn't to protect people from being beaten to death in a situation I know nothing about.  I carry a firearm to protect myself and my family from getting into a situation where I am beaten to death.  I don't carry one to protect others, they can carry one for themselves if they so choose to.

This is the attitude that leads to things like the Holocaust. You are selfish. As a human being you have a responsiblity to care for other human beings around you. If I see some woman getting raped I don't say, welllll I have a family to get back to and she could have carried a gun to protect herself, I better sit this one out. No, I would help her. There are people in this world that cannot protect themselves, and it is the duty of strong people around them to protect them. Otherwise we are just animals.

I've been called worse. 

So, are you joining the military when you get off work today?  I wouldn't want you to be accused of being selfish as well.

Also, I'd like to see the list of other countries you plan to invade when you get done with Syria.  You're going to be a busy fella because there are a lot of people being killed all over the world.

As someone stated previously, we (the U.S.) knew about it but decided to do nothing because it wasn't our problem.

The difference is the use of chemical weapons. Whether you like it or not, that is a line that the neighborhood kids drew in the sand, and when someone steps over it there should be consequences.