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
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: No. I've seen the recent videos. Sarin gas attacks on civilians. It needs a response. [View all]cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)56. And then what?
I'm not being obtuse, but what comes after that? There will still be chemical weapons there, there will still be people who will use them there, there will still be a war going on, there will still be civilians getting killed.
What would attacking accomplish that not attacking won't?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
136 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
No. I've seen the recent videos. Sarin gas attacks on civilians. It needs a response. [View all]
pinto
Sep 2013
OP
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
that's my point as well. If we intervene it'll have to be further down the road.
KittyWampus
Sep 2013
#22
I think the statement was being made that disarming Assad of his chemical weapons would require
MNBrewer
Sep 2013
#14
Delivery Systems ?? The US would have to destroy every artillery piece (and there are thousands)
warrant46
Sep 2013
#52
Shoulder-fire anti aircraft missiles to take down Assad's helicopters. He already has trouble
KittyWampus
Sep 2013
#20
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
Yes, the claim is that Russia is supplying Assad with weapons. However you said that WE
lumpy
Sep 2013
#98
I know the PNAC agenda is foremost with our leaders. We are going to have to make them think
Cleita
Sep 2013
#48
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
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
Some of these ideas suggested are very impractical and require military action, unless Assad
lumpy
Sep 2013
#85
Hey, we are screwn anyway one looks at it. I would like to see the use of chemical weapons
lumpy
Sep 2013
#95
Figure out how to get a general to depose Assad. Restart negotiations. At least pretend
KittyWampus
Sep 2013
#23
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
I think disabling the Assad regime's ability to gas their citizens is a good thing.
pinto
Sep 2013
#46
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
Of the six possible sanctions allowed by the Syria Accountability Act, only two have been
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#44
Why. did someone use biological/chemical weapons on their own civilians in those countries? n/t
EX500rider
Sep 2013
#55
What kind of response would prevent any future use of chemical weapons in Syria?
cleanhippie
Sep 2013
#73
Sounds like what we did to Saddam before a million+ civilians starved under sanctions
NoOneMan
Sep 2013
#88
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
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
I think we need to send forks so our rebels can more effectively eat human hearts
NoOneMan
Sep 2013
#54
I've seen the videos from Iraq, they demand a response. It was another term
TheKentuckian
Sep 2013
#57
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
Of course it needs a response. I expect the UN to step up to the plate and
kestrel91316
Sep 2013
#109