General Discussion

chervilant

(8,267 posts)

49. Why no "It needs a response."

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:52 PM

Sep 2013

for Myanmar? Why no "It needs a response." for the Democratic Republic of Congo? Why no "It needs a response." in Rwanda? In Somalia? In East Timor?

Might that be because there are no economic benefits to be had in those countries? Might it be for other, less "noble" reasons? Skins too dark, perhaps? Ideologies out of sync?

Yes, sarin is an horrific weapon. Our species has become quite enamored of such weapons, and certainly not loathe to use them. I think the US is on thin moral ground with regards to intervening in Syria.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

136 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No. I've seen the recent videos. Sarin gas attacks on civilians. It needs a response. [View all] pinto Sep 2013 OP

Disarm Assad and let Al-Qaeda take over? jsr Sep 2013 #1

Disarm sarin gas capabilities as much as possible. pinto Sep 2013 #5

The more of Assad's weapons we destroy, the more we help the rebels. neverforget Sep 2013 #19

I wonder how Assad's forces are responding to the threats? Adsos Letter Sep 2013 #39

Al-Qaeda? BlueinOhio Sep 2013 #100

The al-Nusra front is one of the "opposition" factions Scootaloo Sep 2013 #110

Here is a primer . .. markpkessinger Sep 2013 #131

Al-Qaeda? BlueinOhio Sep 2013 #104

You go right ahead and respond, just please leave us out of it. n/t Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #2

Well said. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #33

! SammyWinstonJack Sep 2013 #116

No attack. Period. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #3

Good point. Yet there already is a regional war. My advocacy is the sarin use capabilty. pinto Sep 2013 #8

100,000 civilians dead and 2,000,000 displaced from the larger conflict DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #12

Yeah, I know about the total death toll. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #42

that's my point as well. If we intervene it'll have to be further down the road. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #22

Removing chemical weapons = 70,000 troops on the ground. dkf Sep 2013 #4

No, I'm advocating disarming the use of sarin gas in Syria. Not 70,000 troops. pinto Sep 2013 #10

I think the statement was being made that disarming Assad of his chemical weapons would require MNBrewer Sep 2013 #14

I assume the idea is disabling delivery systems, not stockpiles. pinto Sep 2013 #27

The mobile delivery systems... MNBrewer Sep 2013 #37

Doable, I'd guess. pinto Sep 2013 #43

Delivery Systems ?? The US would have to destroy every artillery piece (and there are thousands) warrant46 Sep 2013 #52

The Arab League should take it to the UN leftstreet Sep 2013 #6

Post removed Post removed Sep 2013 #7

So that got a bit nasty? Agschmid Sep 2013 #11

Good thing, too. sibelian Sep 2013 #13

What's your idea on a response to the gas use? We need options. pinto Sep 2013 #15

Excuse me, but he just gave you several options. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #36

Thanks. pinto Sep 2013 #64

spend the weekend poring the last week's postings.. frylock Sep 2013 #60

Something besides kneejerk "bomb the fuck out of them" insanity. 99Forever Sep 2013 #71

Well put warrant46 Sep 2013 #58

... alcibiades_mystery Sep 2013 #9

That doesn't seem possible without boots on the ground cali Sep 2013 #16

Shoulder-fire anti aircraft missiles to take down Assad's helicopters. He already has trouble KittyWampus Sep 2013 #20

how would that cripple his ability to use chemical weapons? cali Sep 2013 #28

Read this: Cleita Sep 2013 #29

Sounds so simple...but how do you disarm an unwilling opponent..targeted sanctions requires lumpy Sep 2013 #75

Military intervention should be tried at last resort after every other means have Cleita Sep 2013 #86

The US has not been supplying Assad with weapons, only the rebels (that is a mistake and should lumpy Sep 2013 #92

I never said we are supplying Assad with weapons. Russia is though and we are Cleita Sep 2013 #93

Yes, the claim is that Russia is supplying Assad with weapons. However you said that WE lumpy Sep 2013 #98

It's too soon, IMO. Wait until Assad does it again. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #17

or Bandar Bush...or some mercenary hired by Qatar..or.... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #24

This has been suggested, actually disarming both camps because there really are Cleita Sep 2013 #18

Bring in UN Weapons Inspectors to Tag and destroy, deactivate or remove the CW's. KoKo Sep 2013 #45

I know the PNAC agenda is foremost with our leaders. We are going to have to make them think Cleita Sep 2013 #48

Putin said at the G-20 he wanted to wait for UN Inspectors... We need the KoKo Sep 2013 #62

Exactly, you and I are on the same page with this. It's definitely a job for the UN, no matter Cleita Sep 2013 #66

Putin and Assad are allies in a sense. They are close trading/political buddies. I guess Putin lumpy Sep 2013 #79

Well you can if you want to. I'm only giving him credit for not Cleita Sep 2013 #87

His name is Kruschev. Doesn't look like I spelled it correctly -maybe Khruschev? Raksha Sep 2013 #133

Yes, it would be ideal if UN members woud take this seriously and become partners to agree lumpy Sep 2013 #101

I like that idea. MNBrewer Sep 2013 #50

Read Ko Ko's suggestion just above. Cleita Sep 2013 #69

Some of these ideas suggested are very impractical and require military action, unless Assad lumpy Sep 2013 #85

If all you can see is a military solution then we are screwed. eom Cleita Sep 2013 #89

Hey, we are screwn anyway one looks at it. I would like to see the use of chemical weapons lumpy Sep 2013 #95

but it's oh so Very Practical and Sensible frylock Sep 2013 #113

Good points. Not sure what will work at this time. Convoluted, sad situation. pinto Sep 2013 #118

Tell Bandar Bush to cut the bullshit.... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #21

I don't know much about Bandar Bush- like to know more, can you fill me in. lumpy Sep 2013 #97

Start here: Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #99

Thanks, will do. lumpy Sep 2013 #103

Figure out how to get a general to depose Assad. Restart negotiations. At least pretend KittyWampus Sep 2013 #23

You realize your "leave it up to the Syrians" means ethnic cleansing. Jesus Malverde Sep 2013 #25

Do you trust the rest of the people to secure and not use the chemical weapons afterwards? cleanhippie Sep 2013 #26

Hence, the stated intent of not advocating regime change. Keep the Syrian military intact. Jettison KittyWampus Sep 2013 #30

Is it proven beyond reasonable doubt that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons? cleanhippie Sep 2013 #34

No. pinto Sep 2013 #31

So what would attacking Syria acually accomplish? cleanhippie Sep 2013 #35

I think disabling the Assad regime's ability to gas their citizens is a good thing. pinto Sep 2013 #46

But you have no idea how to do it. MNBrewer Sep 2013 #51

Yeah. That's the crux of it. (aside) I really like the global debate on this. pinto Sep 2013 #65

And then what? cleanhippie Sep 2013 #56

I don't know. pinto Sep 2013 #67

Me either. Thats why I am against attacking Syria. I only see negative consequences. cleanhippie Sep 2013 #72

Iranian leaders said so, restated for political purpose, but their people know: freshwest Sep 2013 #134

But who attacked? No responsability has been established. ocpagu Sep 2013 #32

If you know, what side are the residents on in Ghouta ? Other wise don't bother. lumpy Sep 2013 #96

Understandable, up to a point tkmorris Sep 2013 #38

Maybe we can all chip in. ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2013 #40

Let another nation police the world abelenkpe Sep 2013 #41

Of the six possible sanctions allowed by the Syria Accountability Act, only two have been Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #44

We have a natural response to seeing people suffer bhikkhu Sep 2013 #47

Why no "It needs a response." chervilant Sep 2013 #49

Why. did someone use biological/chemical weapons on their own civilians in those countries? n/t EX500rider Sep 2013 #55

So, the type of weapons chervilant Sep 2013 #59

Yes it is... EX500rider Sep 2013 #81

How ironic. chervilant Sep 2013 #111

What kind of response would prevent any future use of chemical weapons in Syria? cleanhippie Sep 2013 #73

Regime force degradation... EX500rider Sep 2013 #83

Sounds like what we did to Saddam before a million+ civilians starved under sanctions NoOneMan Sep 2013 #88

YOu have a strange concept of "good" MNBrewer Sep 2013 #107

Saving a greater number of people from dying can be considered a "good" n/t EX500rider Sep 2013 #108

Hypothetically saving a greater number of people from dying can be considered a hypothetical MNBrewer Sep 2013 #114

In a discussion about what might happen if... EX500rider Sep 2013 #135

Some hypotheses have more reasonable assumptions built into them than others. MNBrewer Sep 2013 #136

I see your point. Yet I don't think it's about ethnicity or race. Or regional civil wars in general. pinto Sep 2013 #122

Don't we have enough problems right here? liberal N proud Sep 2013 #53

I think we need to send forks so our rebels can more effectively eat human hearts NoOneMan Sep 2013 #54

so all the rebel forces are running around eating human hearts? cali Sep 2013 #61

Ask this guy: NoOneMan Sep 2013 #63

I'm fully aware of that incident. And I'm fully aware that cali Sep 2013 #68

I don't think reality is ever that black and white NoOneMan Sep 2013 #70

It's no secret how the civil war started cali Sep 2013 #76

Yes, I am a Syrian paid propaganda officer NoOneMan Sep 2013 #80

Mmm.... MNBrewer Sep 2013 #74

I agree. polly7 Sep 2013 #82

CBC just did a piece about a woman whose son signed up for the fight NoOneMan Sep 2013 #84

I've wondered all along if this is a golden polly7 Sep 2013 #124

I've seen the videos from Iraq, they demand a response. It was another term TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #57

Wow, I guess propaganda can be really effective Taitertots Sep 2013 #77

Russia will just re-arm them LittleBlue Sep 2013 #78

Part of any agreement between outside nations who have been Cleita Sep 2013 #90

very good points. liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #91

To the point ! +1000 nt Sand Wind Sep 2013 #94

I'm against cancer Aerows Sep 2013 #102

Hey! See your point. It's a tough call and a dicey situation. To use your analogy - pinto Sep 2013 #132

Yes you are right, and that will end it, Assad won't try to respond to our response right? Valhallakey Sep 2013 #105

A response Not Sure Sep 2013 #106

Of course it needs a response. I expect the UN to step up to the plate and kestrel91316 Sep 2013 #109

Where were you for the two years of slaughter, exactly? Scootaloo Sep 2013 #112

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #115

"It needs a response." Post something on Facebook. Katashi_itto Sep 2013 #117

LOL. That's probably been done a thousand times. pinto Sep 2013 #119

! Katashi_itto Sep 2013 #120

... pinto Sep 2013 #123

going to the UN is the best response joshcryer Sep 2013 #121

Does Assad obey Cryptoad Sep 2013 #126

up to Russia joshcryer Sep 2013 #127

I think Obama has the right plan BootinUp Sep 2013 #125

You would need boots on the ground to affect Assad's ability to use chemical weapons. Dash87 Sep 2013 #128

So when are we going to bomb North Korea? I'm sure doc03 Sep 2013 #129

I've no idea if, when or where we'd "bomb North Korea". pinto Sep 2013 #130