Do you support military action against Syria?

I'd like to doubt it, but human beings are prone to some irrational inexplicable shit.

While trying to guess the mind of a megalomaniacal dictator is always tricky, the thinking is that while the regime seems to be gaining the upper hand now, if it wants to survive long term the war needs to end NOW. The only thing the Assad's have going for them is that they are a small sect in a very diverse country so can play the role as impartial arbiter. It might already be too late to save that, and the regime might have to rely on naked force, but either way the conflict stretching on and with continued heavy casualties survival is less and less likely (Pyrrhic Victory).

Assad might have thought that due to the timing (basically the anniversary of the Red Line Speech), the presence of UN weapons inspectors and the fact that it looked like the tide was turning for the regime that no one would being he was actually behind it.

So Assad gets to use his WMD, scaring the shit out of his enemies but is able to get away. Not only that, but the non-fundy opposition sees that the West doesn't do jack shit and fades away. Once it is only jihadists, no way will the West support them, Assad has free reign to do what he wants and crushes the Islamists Homs style. Level their cities. Bring the war to a quick end and hope regime survives.

This had been my position until recently. I saw nothing better for the United States in the region than a Syria consumed with internal turmoil. But the chems changed the calculus. They are a particularly horrific form of killing, that even Hitler refused to use in battle. The United States and international community have consistently said no to these weapons and for good reason, if we don't respond, that ends the taboo.

So we should hit Assad and hit him hard. Command and control, munitions, air force. Take it all out, then dare him to have another go with the chems. And if that doesn't work, then we go after him personally with special forces. But we don't invade, there is no need for that. Our goal should be punishment, followed by a return to prior status quo.

I don't know... as a result of that decision, there's at least ONE country in the region that isn't run by repressive theocrats or the criminally insane.

Heh. So WF's warmonger coalition consists of: Dayton, Ancalagon, 14th Doctor, and gul.

You mean martyr them? They're sorta known for that whole martyrdom thing, y'know. Makes 'em feel like rock stars. And what does it gain them? Free use of our military to take out their enemy. If you're the kinda person who thinks a party means firing rocket launchers at offices and screaming, "Uh LAAAAAAHHHHHHHH WHACKBUTT!" then that'd probably seem like a pretty solid bargain.

Obama will support a Muslim fundamentalist uprising anywhere in the world and has made that clear. Isn't it ironic that the winner of the nobel peace prize is asking for war, when he got in office by criticizing bush for going to war unilaterally without the full support of the international community, even though he had over whelming support in congress. Saddam gassed the shit out of the Curds and that was not good enough for the liberals, so why is Syria? America has not lost a damn thing in Syria and a Muslim coup is not going to make it a better place. Better they stay with a stable government and let them weed out the Muslim traitors in their own country.

Are you drunk?

Majority of Americans approve of sending Congress to Syria.

Now if we could just follow that up with the president and the supreme court we might have a good thing going on.

This is an internal Syrian matter. It doesn't concern us; we should withdraw completely from their conflicts.

He reminds me of that Iraqi propaganda minister. EP, the voice of pro-Assad Syria!

This. I don't want another occupation and if a strike is needed, it needs to be effective enough to get the job done the first time around.

Excellent points except they're all wrong because your basic premise is wrong. Assad didn't use the WP's. The rebels did.

Huh. Now were would Syria have gotten it's hands on chemical weapons?

Since when has that mattered to the local Confederate apologist? Or anybody else for that matter? Nobody trusts anything, yet is prepared to swallow even the most wild claims. The contorted twists of logic required to come to the conclusion that Vladimir Putin is trustworthy on this or anything else is farcial, but sadly all too common.

Is it a day ending in y?

I can't support this action as one, I don't buy that this was the Syrian government.

Two, I don't want us supporting Al Qaeda. There is no way around the fact that any action here would help their elements in the fighting.

Third, I don't support us getting in a fight in which we're saying we really aren't going to fight. What do we do when someone gets shot down? Syria would be a very sophisticated air defense network to penetrate. No boots on the ground? So any pilot is just supposed to run to Israel or be captured, with no hope of rescue? No thanks.

The Russians, kinda, sorta.

Some of the compounds used to make chemical weapons are commonly found in insecticides, so they could have been legitimately shipped to Syria by any number of nations.

Is there anyone here who can make a case for why Syrian intervention is in America's best interests? What dog do we have in this fight?

And please don't fall back on humanitarian interests. America turns a blind eye to a lot of human injustice & tragedy in the world. I don't subscribe to the notion of America as the world's policeman. If slaughtering your own citizenry with chemical weapons isn't heinous enough to inspire any other nation to take unilateral action against Syria, then why the hell should we care?

Because nobody else can. But let's throw out 80 years of consensus, I'm sure DOW Chemical is drooling at the prospect of increased sales to every shithead dictator out there.

Bull. Saudi Arabia could. France, Britain could.

But the question I'm asking isn't whether we can, it's why we should. Chemical weapons being really bad just isn't enough for me. Who cares whether people are gassed vs. shot in the head? It all ends in you being dead.

Chemical weapons are a weapon of terror.

How might Saudi Arabia take out Syrian military targets?

Regardless of the weapons they have bought, tell me when the Saudis ever conducted any kind of large military operation significantly beyond their borders?

If President Obama had not made such a big deal of his "red line" regarding the use of chemical weapons, perhaps the U.S. could walk away from it. But since he put it out there it has to be backed up.

If not, I can easily see it becoming open season around the world for every local dictator to take a crack at American interests and citizens because they think they can get away with.

To me it is much like the broken windows theory of law enforcement. Let Syria get clean away with the use of chemical weapons and all hell will break lose.

Where's the option that the United States just put some boots on the ground and invade Syria applying justice as needed?

Like Superman the United States stands unopposed in the World with the most powerful army ever seen, but also like Superman you shoot yourself in the foot constantly by not applying that power.

The United States should effectively invade and annex Syria making it an example to the World that it will not allow more injustices to exist.

With this the U.S.A would establish a permanent presence in the Middle East and this permanent presence would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for all the World unless someone decides to mess with you.

To bring about an intervention to topple Assad.

Not saying that's what happened, but if it was, in fact, Assad, then it was a catastrophically stupid move.

Remember, Bin Ladin thought that all someone had to do was a kill a handful of US Marines and we'd go home. That didn't turn out too well for him in the end.

Even though I personally am against intervention (because the opposition that will take over if we hurt the Assad regime enough to destabilize it is at least as bad, if not worse, and intervention is useless if we do not take out their capacity to use chemical weapons), I think a case could be made.

1) Both American and French intelligence claim to have clear proof that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons (despite the claims of a known scoundrel like Putin, and the few posters who actually agree with him).

2) If the international community does not react, that will send a clear signal to lots of other unsavory countries that the production, stockpiling and even use of chemical weapons will bring nothing stronger than a formal complaint, with perhaps some economic sanctions, from other countries.

3) If chemical weapons are stored in enough places, terrorists will get their hands on some of them sooner or later.

4) While chemical weapons are not very useful militarily, they would be devastating in the hands of terrorists. Imagine suicide chemical bombers in a subway, a mall, or a school.

Thus, it can easily be argued that even though there is no immediate threat to America from the situation in Syria, allowing the possession and use of chemical weapons to go unpunished has a good chance of causing severe problems later on.