Do you now support military action against Syria's government?
- Thread starter Diamond
- Start date
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
By whom, to what degree, and with what objectives? No-one would complain about, say, the limited enforcement of specific no-fly zones, or the interception of missiles. Pointless poll without more detail.
Please don't hurt the caring, philanthropic, humanitarian Asma Assad. She's really nice to suffering children.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
i'd support massive retaliation and targetted assasination against the guilty party - not for what it would or would not achieve in Syria (which i believe to be beyond any political process and locked in a cycle of utterly unrestricted civil warfare upon which outside intervention, either happening or not happening, would have no effect..) - but purely to establish the price of other states/groups using Chemical weapons on a civilian population.
if the 'international community' - and yes, i'm aware of how flawed and nebulous that concept is - does not impose a price on the use of such weapons then it crosses, imv, a very thick red line with regards to all the previously accepted rules like the Geneva and Hague Conventions (which, respectively, govern the conduct of war, and the legalities of the war itself), and the Geneva Protocols on the use of Chemical and Biological weapons: its saying that the rules aren't the rules anymore, that if you ignore them then there's no sanction.
this view is not about Syria or the respective virtues - of which there are few - of the opposing sides, its purely about the future: if its ok to use CW in Syria, then its ok to use CW anywhere. that is not, i'd suggest, a future it would be wise to chose purely because action against whichever side happens to be guilty in this instance carries downsides.
if the 'international community' - and yes, i'm aware of how flawed and nebulous that concept is - does not impose a price on the use of such weapons then it crosses, imv, a very thick red line with regards to all the previously accepted rules like the Geneva and Hague Conventions (which, respectively, govern the conduct of war, and the legalities of the war itself), and the Geneva Protocols on the use of Chemical and Biological weapons: its saying that the rules aren't the rules anymore, that if you ignore them then there's no sanction.
this view is not about Syria or the respective virtues - of which there are few - of the opposing sides, its purely about the future: if its ok to use CW in Syria, then its ok to use CW anywhere. that is not, i'd suggest, a future it would be wise to chose purely because action against whichever side happens to be guilty in this instance carries downsides.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
there is no sense in joining the losing side. again.
Manter
Lunch Mob
<<snort>>
JHE
.
1. Who is the guilty party?
2. Is it worse to murder lots of people by means of chemical weapons than to murder lots of people by means of other sorts of weapons?
All very good points. I suspect that you're fundamentally right - the precedential power of this chemical attack is the most dangerous factor in the long run.
As things stand, Assad has "cleared the way" for the common use of chemical weapons in conflict.
She's 'The Rose Of The Desert' 
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Assad's regime has been pretty terrible even when it was on the west's side. Killing him and putting in a government that wasn't so evil would be a good idea.
Unfortunately it is a lot harder than it looks. Couldn't do it in Iraq. So in the abstract yes ,but, unless there is a better plan than one written on a napkin in an Indian restaurant after a lot of beer. Don't do it.
Unfortunately it is a lot harder than it looks. Couldn't do it in Iraq. So in the abstract yes ,but, unless there is a better plan than one written on a napkin in an Indian restaurant after a lot of beer. Don't do it.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
1. the cynical might suggest that that for the purposes of deterence, who really did it isn't that important - all that really matters is that others states/groups see that the 'international community' utterly destroys any party it suspects of using C/BW. (in this instance i personally think that its more likely that its the government than the rebels, but only because of the difficulty of producing significant casualties with non-persistant CW - both sides are, imv, equally morally capable of doing it, its just that the government side has more of the systems capable of doing it. i'm happy however to be convinced by evidence that it was the other side.
2. apparently it is: i'm unconvinced by any moral argument, but i am convinced that the existance of weapons of limited complexity and small size that - if used innovatively - could kill tens of thousands in one go is not a good thing. outlawing their existance is a waste of time, ensuring that those who hold them know that their use would be spectacularly self-defeating isn't.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
For well trained and equipped troops chemical weapons are an annoyance. Difficult to defend a civilian population against them especially if the threat is from terrorists.
So its probably a good idea to respond with overwhelming force against anyone using them.
So its probably a good idea to respond with overwhelming force against anyone using them.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I haven't made up my mind yet.
- The regime seems pretty hateful so one could consider overwhelming force to rid the country of them, but what would come after?
- It could be possible to arm the rebels, but do we trust the groups involved with the rebels with our latest weaponry which they might turn on us.
- How much carnage will there be if we just let the situation continue without intervention and will we be complicit in the carnage because we did not intervene?
- The West's recent interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were not exactly clean or easy, in fact could they be considered as successes or not is a question. Why would this be better?
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
It's time for Assad to go. By whatever means.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Another middle eastern state turned into violent chaos.
Intervention to make the chaos worse helped so much all the other times.
Intervention to make the chaos worse helped so much all the other times.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Good luck in getting an answer. The question is a mess stuffed full of assumptions.
cyprusclean
Member
They said that about all the other mid east dictators, and look what happened. Even worse.
cyprusclean
Member
The early predictions of the Syrian revolution have proven to be unfounded. We know that our journalist's constant comparisons with the speedy downfalls of Ben Ali's Tunisia and Mubarak's Egypt were irrelevant in a country as complex as Syria.
Numbering 50,000 men, the Free Syrian Army, a self-declared non-sectarian group of early army defectors, remains the largest opposition group in the country. But during the past year other factions have entered the fray. If their numbers, as well as their political views are anything to go by, the possibility of a united front seems remote.
The Syrian Liberation Front, numbering 37,000 fighters, and the Syrian Islamic Front, numbering 13,000 fighters, operate in Syria's southeast and northeast respectively. Both of these groups espouse an Islamist ideology, in contrast to the self-declared non-sectarianism of the Free Syrian Army.
However the real challenge to the unity of the Syrian opposition lies in Jabhat al-Nusra, to whom thousands of Free Syrian army fighters have apparently defected. Numbering only 5,000 fighters as of January, but now perhaps many more, al-Nusra's core fighters come from Iraq's post-war insurgency and have recently pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...intelligence-briefing-on-the-assad-resistance
Numbering 50,000 men, the Free Syrian Army, a self-declared non-sectarian group of early army defectors, remains the largest opposition group in the country. But during the past year other factions have entered the fray. If their numbers, as well as their political views are anything to go by, the possibility of a united front seems remote.
The Syrian Liberation Front, numbering 37,000 fighters, and the Syrian Islamic Front, numbering 13,000 fighters, operate in Syria's southeast and northeast respectively. Both of these groups espouse an Islamist ideology, in contrast to the self-declared non-sectarianism of the Free Syrian Army.
However the real challenge to the unity of the Syrian opposition lies in Jabhat al-Nusra, to whom thousands of Free Syrian army fighters have apparently defected. Numbering only 5,000 fighters as of January, but now perhaps many more, al-Nusra's core fighters come from Iraq's post-war insurgency and have recently pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...intelligence-briefing-on-the-assad-resistance
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
