UN inspectors in new Syria mission as West prepares to strike
since it is flat everywhere why not? what do yall think personally, i am a nbc specialist oddly enough i been though nerve argents for training, i remember one guy decided that he couldn't stand having his his mopp gear on anymore and lifted his mask people ran into the room then they rushed to him in about 10 secs got him out shot him up with atropine and diazepam(valium) dude could of died but he has seizure problems for life. really nasty stuff this can be, but i say if anyone is using it ,it would have to be the terrorists. with the eyes of the world on the Syrian government assad would have a death wish and is way to smart for that.
As much as I agree that Chemical and Nuclear weapons should never be used, I still can't understand why we get involved in other Nation's messes? It is quite obvious that other nations do not want us meddling in their affairs. Not to mention that we could save a lot of money that could be put to good use here at home. I can't help but feel that if everyone got to ride a wave at least once, they would have a better view of the world. I know it changed my view.
2007: Joe Biden threatened to impeach George Bush if he attacked Iran without congressional approval. Obama agreed.
2013: Joe Biden and Barrack Obama are ready to attack Syria without congressional approval or UN approval.
Let the UN conduct their investigation so we can get "official" word on who actually used the chemical weapons. For all we know, it could be the FSA or even Al Qaeda. Once we get "official" word, then we can start planning our retaliation with our "allies" and the UN. This will lessen the backlash from any of Syria's homies like China, N. Korea and Russia (future threat alliance?) I mean, China can't get that pissed off if the UN is involved; unless they want to start a fight.
The United States should not be involved anyway, since we can't really afford a war to begin with! Plus, if we fight against the Assad regime, we'll be fighting alongside Al Qaeda militants. That doesn't seem right, does it? What happens when we take out the Assad regime? Do we spend billions of tax payer money to establish democracy and institute our Western principles? Or do you let Al Qaeda run the new Syria? I'll let you decide.
It's certianly an unfortunate situation, but things like this happen almost every single day in other parts of the world. This situation gets the press because chemical warfare was involved. I get it and it's messed up. The Assad family has it coming. I just hope the FSA beats us to the chase....
Right now, there are twelve people that are calling the shots against Syria. You voted for them and I hope you voted wisely. They decide our fate.
it may be out of the us hands due to un treaties and contracts (I could be wrong)...there may be no choice. we have to consider our allies in the region (Israel) and trickle affects on world economics and responses with Russia and rest of the world superpowers too by our decisions. I would prefer to stay out of this one as awful as the domestic chemical attacks are.
you do realize WE are the UN? So they will find whatever WE want them to.
You do realize that there are 193 total member states in the UN, right? In other words, the US makes up 1/193 of the UN, so it's not the "United States show" - it's the WORLD show and the UN is all about world peace. Anytime an infraction - like chemical warfare - occurs, the UN launches an investigation, rather than pulling the trigger prematurely based on an assumption. The consequences of the latter should not require any explanation. It's best to play it safe and wait for the UN to make the call.
"When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me." -Mark Twain
I have to go with the Assad regime being responsible for the chemical weapons, however stupid that might seem. The shelling of the site that they did immediately after agreeing to allow UN inspectors to visit the sight is just too clear of a sign that they're guilty of something. The bigger question is why? Are they just a bunch of sociopaths that want to eliminate all who stand in their path, regardless of the consequences? Or do they realize that they are drawing the West into the war by using chemical weapons?
My opinion is that the latter option is more likely. And if that's the case then, again, why? I think there are forces at work trying to further destabilize the region. Because you have to figure that the US/UN response will be similar to its response in every recent conflict. BOMBS. Lot's of BOMBS.
Obviously, it's not the most effective response but peaceful negotiations are looking less and less likely (especially since Obama decided to skip his visit with Putin a few weeks ago). And there's no way in heck the American public would approve of soldiers on the ground. "Strategic" strikes will be the only way to go. The Onion actually had a funny article about the topic yesterday.
So that's my opinion. US/UN intervention, if it takes the form of strategic strikes, will further escalate the war. That makes a lot of money for US and Russian weapons manufacturers. So everyone wins (except Syria).
Who are we going to attack? we gonna shock and awe their arses? We'll teach them a lesson by killing a ship load of civilians.
We have more chemical and biological weapon than we could ever use. How can we get all high and mighty about arabs killing arabs with banned weapons, we should find a way to cover up the fact we used DU arms. Not only effecting the civilian population but our soldiers. Our guys would find undamaged bullets and make necklaces.
Last edited by chicharronne; Aug 28, 2013 at 07:27 PM.
It sounds like a no win situation to me...
The reasoning for striking seems to be to lay down the law, that we won't be accepting chemical warfare from anyone (unless of course its our hypocritical selves). But, from what I a have read, striking is just going to bring on a whole lot of mess.