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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should Syria not be punished for using chemical weapons because Russia and China don't care.... [View all]Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)36. OK, let's discuss.
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?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Should Syria not be punished for using chemical weapons because Russia and China don't care.... [View all]
Barack_America
Aug 2013
OP
Those innocent civilians should definitely be punished by indiscriminate drones and airstrikes
NoOneMan
Aug 2013
#1
it doesnt matter whether you are endorsing force to stop what is already happening, you know
seabeyond
Aug 2013
#14
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
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
What would you suggest be done if chemical weapons were used by the rebels instead? -- n/t
mazzarro
Aug 2013
#28
If someone commits a crime and the jury acquits, should you capture and imprison the person?
stevenleser
Aug 2013
#12
"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
"Punish your own damn regime for the genocides they've perpetrated around the world."
EX500rider
Aug 2013
#26