Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
36. OK, let's discuss.
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 05:53 PM
Aug 2013

You said.

I'd like to have a honest discussion on this topic. Just to summarize my position, I believe the use of chemical weapons has to be punished, period. I'm still waiting to hear the evidence collected by the West that leads them to believe Assad did. I do not hold much hope of the UN being able to determine fault, for the reasons listed above.


So how do we punish Assad and not remove him from power? President Obama has said we are not going for Regime Change.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827

So we aren't going to punish the man who we say issued the orders, we're going to punish him by killing the guards, technicians, and workers at chemical weapons storage and manufacturing plants.

Now, there is no doubt that when we bomb those plants, we're going to be releasing Chemical Weapons into the air, probably killing a number of people down wind.

So we're going to Punish Assad for using Chemical weapons on the Syrian People. We're going to punish him, by bombing people who work at the plants, and gassing the people who live downwind. Assad himself isn't going to be harmed one bit, and it will probably reduce, but not eliminate current stocks of weapons, and certainly won't prevent him from making more.

Obviously this isn't much of a punishment. But perhaps we can help the Rebels, who are essentially a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an extremist group that has raped, pillaged, and murdered people who don't agree with their extremist religious ideology. MB is supported by AQ, the Terrorist Organization (if you could call it that) we have been fighting for twelve years.

So by helping rid the world of a bad guy, we put other bad guys who may be worse, in charge. Because we won't have a hand in this, we aren't going for Regime Change, we can't do much of anything to effect the outcome.

So even if Assad is punished by the Rebels who may be strengthened by our actions, we are not likely to find any improvement for the people of Syria. In fact, things may well get worse as they did in Egypt under the same Muslim Brotherhood groups.

So tell me again why we're doing this? Because from here, I don't see much sense in this. We're going to bomb a bad guy because the bad guy bombed other bad guys (allegedly) with chemical weapons. You see, there aren't any good guys involved in this fight. The MB backed Rebels have committed other atrocities on people.

So why do we have to bomb again? Oh yes, Assad who isn't going to be targeted, that would be Regime Change which we've said we're not going to do, needs to be punished. That is like your neighbor doing something to anger you, and you respond by walking past your neighbors house, to a home on the next street in which the neighbor's cousin lives, and punching the cousin to teach the neighbor a lesson.

Logically, your arguments are at best flawed. Morally, your arguments are very weak. Are you sure you want us to bomb Libya?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Those innocent civilians should definitely be punished by indiscriminate drones and airstrikes NoOneMan Aug 2013 #1
If an opinion is all the power I have, I'd still like to have it. Barack_America Aug 2013 #4
so, you do not have an answer? or just an insultive rant that has no point? seabeyond Aug 2013 #8
No, I don't have an answer. Im not going to bother NoOneMan Aug 2013 #11
it doesnt matter whether you are endorsing force to stop what is already happening, you know seabeyond Aug 2013 #14
So only more murder will stop murder? NoOneMan Aug 2013 #18
so you really are not a reflective, but impulsive poster. got it. take care of that garden. nt seabeyond Aug 2013 #21
If by not advocating murder and rape (to solve such) means Im not reflective, sure NoOneMan Aug 2013 #35
no... i am referring more to ignoring what i say and postulating what you want to argue. nt seabeyond Aug 2013 #37
So you are good with going back to Bush-style cowboy diplomacy quinnox Aug 2013 #2
I honestly don't see how the UN CAN act here. Barack_America Aug 2013 #15
well, too bad so sad. That is what the U.N. is all about. If one of the big powers says no, that is quinnox Aug 2013 #19
So use of chemical weapons is okay, if you can bribe the right country to protect you? Barack_America Aug 2013 #25
Without proof ... GeorgeGist Aug 2013 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #5
Bullshit post. Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #6
That's different. He did not gas them. RC Aug 2013 #10
Not so much Assad prohibits them from determining fault. dipsydoodle Aug 2013 #7
Why not let the UN do it's job? Rex Aug 2013 #9
If chemical weapons were used by Assad"s forces, Assad is to blame. Barack_America Aug 2013 #24
What would you suggest be done if chemical weapons were used by the rebels instead? -- n/t mazzarro Aug 2013 #28
Then that rebel faction should be removed from the pageant. Barack_America Aug 2013 #29
If someone commits a crime and the jury acquits, should you capture and imprison the person? stevenleser Aug 2013 #12
Staying out of this one Aerows Aug 2013 #22
Amen nt snappyturtle Aug 2013 #31
The problem here is that it's the same 5 damned jurors every time. Barack_America Aug 2013 #23
"a regular majority to pass general legislation and a super majority for things like military action Douglas Carpenter Aug 2013 #44
i guess no one has an opinion on whether one takes the position of allowing chemical weapon use or seabeyond Aug 2013 #13
The US has used chemical weapons by proxy when we gave them to Iraq. Aerows Aug 2013 #20
The US isn't the final arbiter of what is and what is not right Aerows Aug 2013 #16
Sorry, killers don't get to play school principal. JackRiddler Aug 2013 #17
"Punish your own damn regime for the genocides they've perpetrated around the world." EX500rider Aug 2013 #26
Defining away your crimes by legalism. JackRiddler Aug 2013 #30
I didn't say anything was fine. EX500rider Aug 2013 #33
Even by the restrictive definition of genocide JackRiddler Aug 2013 #40
This post is perfect. I've been meaning to mention depleted uranium. snappyturtle Aug 2013 #34
This may qualify even by the definition of genocide... JackRiddler Aug 2013 #39
Yes. Depleted uranium will continue to do damage for years. snappyturtle Aug 2013 #42
Oh that is just BULL HOCKEY Peacetrain Aug 2013 #27
Why should only these few "great powers" count? David__77 Aug 2013 #32
OK, let's discuss. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #36
There are many ways to skin a cat! Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #38
The people who used the chemical weapons should be punished Bradical79 Aug 2013 #41
We've dropped Agent Orange, Napalm, White Phosphorus and uranium. magical thyme Aug 2013 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should Syria not be punis...»Reply #36