[Guy_Fawkes]

People just want to have a stable safe life, they probably don't care who gets that for them. I'm worried that the citizens huddling in the refugee camps are not going to be the ones in power, rather its going to be the most charismatic militant. Does anyone think the current government of Syria should remain in power?

[jeff744]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

People just want to have a stable safe life, they probably don't care who gets that for them. I'm worried that the citizens huddling in the refugee camps are not going to be the ones in power, rather its going to be the most charismatic militant. Does anyone think the current government of Syria should remain in power?

And once they have that stable life they tend to report anything that disrupts it to the authorities so they can keep it. They probably don't feel like having Sharia law enforced to the letter causing frequent stonings for no good reason. The current government was as bad as any militant Islam faction, they just killed innocent people in the name of stopping militant Islam instead of for it.

[Guy_Fawkes]

I think we need to identify those responsible for attacks on civilians, and really we still do not have hard proof that there were chemical attacks. Once the investigations are finished and we can pick out the culprits, then we can start talking about helping the population restructure the government. Also to get rid of the chemical weapons, you cant just bomb the caches unless you plan on a lengthy, expensive and dangerous clean up.

[jeff744]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I think we need to identify those responsible for attacks on civilians, and really we still do not have hard proof that there were chemical attacks. Once the investigations are finished and we can pick out the culprits, then can start talking about helping the population restructure the government. Also to get rid of the chemical weapons, you cant just bomb the caches unless you plan on a lengthy, expensive and dangerous clean up.

I wouldn't even try to suggest that, chem weapons are something you don't bomb unless they are above ground and you have a MOAB to incinerate them instantly, same with bio. What bombing could do is take out Assad's air power and tanks, without those his regime would be crippled. And heck, if we get a chance why not try to bomb a general or two too to disrupt the ranks.

[Canadian_Mind]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I fully agree with him - nations that commit atrocities (against their own citizens or others) need to be punished. Let's just make sure this actually happened and this isn't another 'Niger Yellow Cake' load of BS like Iraq was.

Then we do it exactly what we did in Libya (use airpower and not troops).

Liberal supporter supporting conservative government support of action in the middle east while conservative supporters cry foul?

What the fuck?

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I fully agree with him - nations that commit atrocities (against their own citizens or others) need to be punished. Let's just make sure this actually happened and this isn't another 'Niger Yellow Cake' load of BS like Iraq was.

Then we do it exactly what we did in Libya (use airpower and not troops).

Agreed.

The World can't sit back while Countries gas their own people.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I fully agree with him - nations that commit atrocities (against their own citizens or others) need to be punished. Let's just make sure this actually happened and this isn't another 'Niger Yellow Cake' load of BS like Iraq was.

Then we do it exactly what we did in Libya (use airpower and not troops).

Agreed.

The World can't sit back while Countries gas their own people.

Yeah, so let's throw in our two cents and bomb them conventionally instead.
You know, cuz todays bombs are so accurate and "smart" they never end up killing innocent civilians. But hey, at least the "lucky ones" won't have to suffer anymore potential gas attacks since they'll already be dead.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I fully agree with him - nations that commit atrocities (against their own citizens or others) need to be punished. Let's just make sure this actually happened and this isn't another 'Niger Yellow Cake' load of BS like Iraq was.

Then we do it exactly what we did in Libya (use airpower and not troops).

Agreed.

The World can't sit back while Countries gas their own people.

Yeah, so let's throw in our two cents and bomb them conventionally instead.
You know, cuz todays bombs are so accurate and "smart" they never end up killing innocent civilians. But hey, at least the "lucky ones" won't have to suffer anymore potential gas attacks since they'll already be dead.

15,000 Iraqi Kurds would disagree that we should sit by and do nothing. We sat by when Saddam used gas on Iranian soldiers, and that emboldend him to gas his own people.

[BartSimpson]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

So what are we going to do about it besides wag our finger?

Insist that the US do something about it?

[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

So what are we going to do about it besides wag our finger?

Insist that the US do something about it?

It's crazy, isn't it? I reminds me of the old mantra: "Why doesn't the government do something about it?" from the same idiots who don't like to pay their taxes.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

So what are we going to do about it besides wag our finger?

Insist that the US do something about it?

Better, insist that the UN do something and, likewise, insist that the US do nothing without the support of the international community.

[peck420]

Wait, has actual evidence been publicly submitted?

Did I miss it?

Maybe the Arab League should do something...maybe even Russia. One at least knows who the players are...and maybe even the rules of the game. The other supplied the chemicals, let them clean their own mess up.

Canada? The US? Nope. We don't know the players, we don't understand the game, but we insist on playing...and will likely cry foul when we lose.

Nope, nyet, nine....I could go all day. We need to take a big step back and stay the fuck out of Syria. It is a mess we do not need to make bigger.

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I fully agree with him - nations that commit atrocities (against their own citizens or others) need to be punished. Let's just make sure this actually happened and this isn't another 'Niger Yellow Cake' load of BS like Iraq was.

Then we do it exactly what we did in Libya (use airpower and not troops).

Agreed.

The World can't sit back while Countries gas their own people.

Yeah, so let's throw in our two cents and bomb them conventionally instead.
You know, cuz todays bombs are so accurate and "smart" they never end up killing innocent civilians. But hey, at least the "lucky ones" won't have to suffer anymore potential gas attacks since they'll already be dead.

Yes, there will be collateral damage, and yes, we might even put a nasty regime in Assad's place after all is said and done.

But that doesn't mean we should sit by and watch atrocities occur.

If we want to be the 'good guy' then we have to stand up and fight for the little guy, no matter what.

If the successor to Assad turns out to be just as bad, then we can deal with it then. But we shouldn't base our foreign policy on IFs. Deal with what we know now - not what may or may not happen down the road.

I supported using airpower in Kosovo and Libya, and I would support this too, as long as chemical weapons use has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (and as long as we don't commit troops on the ground). That means certifiable proof of its use by the Assad regime, verified by multiple sources, not just the USA.

[OnTheIce]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Yeah, so let's throw in our two cents and bomb them conventionally instead.
You know, cuz todays bombs are so accurate and "smart" they never end up killing innocent civilians. But hey, at least the "lucky ones" won't have to suffer anymore potential gas attacks since they'll already be dead.

I'm pretty sure most civilians don't hang out and live within military compounds.

Will there be collateral damage? Perhaps, but I'd bet that collateral damage would be far less harmful to the people than having their government gas their own people.

This government has gassed and killed 400 children alone. I guess we'll just let them off with a finger-wag and a stern talking to. Works wonders.

[Guy_Fawkes]

You assume the government has done this, no investigation has been concluded. Also with recent accounts saying the rebels are the ones who gasses people it puts more doubt in my mine of who exactly is responsible.