Hopefully not. What kind of terrible, evil, pathetic country would attack a sovereign nation just to send a message to another nation that "this is what we'll do to you if you try to develop weapons that we've had (and used to massacre hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians) for 70 years"?
Fusioncode said:
I'm pretty sure the Constitution requires Congress' approval before going to war. |
It sure was nice of Obama to give that nod to the Constitution. I just remember when he was talking about attacking Syria over the weekend. He used the phrase "my military", said HE was still considering whether to use "[his] military". Worst president ever.
Buy the day this story look alot like the Gulf War.
media manipulation, and horrible event filmed in the US boarder ....
the2real4mafol said:
With all the suffering they caused back in Vietnam, they really should of backed away from other countrie's affairs years ago. It's like conflict has become a drug to American presidents and congress, they feel they need at least one war to feel acomplished. Nothing else matters to them. The huge public opposition at home and abroad never matters to them and despite the economy being in such a state that don't seem to matter to them either. Syria is no one's business. The civil war will end itself if it had the chance. And so what if Assad forces used chemical weapons? Currently it is nothing more than an allegation and is not really a reason for an escalated war even if it happened. War used to be a final resort, it should be treated as such. War also used to be a reaction to an actual threat. Syria is not a threat to the United States, it's more of a threat to itself than anything. And to make it worse if the US went in, it would fight along with Al Qaeda and other rebels despite what is happening in Afghanistan. it makes no sense. Finally, what if Assad's opposition used chemical weapons? I'm sure war would escalate anyway. |
How is this like Vietnam?
What I am scared by is how everyone thinks all wars are the same. Eh? What the hell happened to looking at individual cases and analysing them? Vietnam was a terrible war, but it was all about one state invading another. Yes, it was highly complex, but as always, America ignored these facts and jumped in there to defend the "good guys".
Now with this, the world has stood back have they not? Everyone has learnt after Iraq and Libya that some coutnries are highly volatile and there is no "right side" to be on. So why are you acting like they are getting involved straight away?
Now have you not read anything about chemical weapons? Do you not know what a world ban nor what a wmd is? I outlined this in my first post, yet you have ignored it. Why?
So now Obama is fighting to end the civil war?! Erm what the hell? This conflict has proven one thing - Western news is fucking useless as 99% of people seem to be utterly misinformed. He has clealry said numerous times that they are not fighting to helps rebels or end the war. He is attacking Assad for using wmd/commiting war crimes/breaking a world agreement to keep such foul weapons locked away and never to be used.
The world thinking chemical weapons are ok to use is a threat to everyone. The reason no one uses them is fear of this happening - the world stomping all over you for being one sick nation.
As I've mentioned before to others...and I'm amazed I have to spell this out every time; if the rebels have chemical weapons...then holy shit help us as we are fucked. This means that Assad has lost control of his assets, the rebels have also got their hands on serious deployment capabilites, and of course, finally have wmds. Now if that is not reason enough to take out the other 1000 tons of chemical weapons, then I don't know what is.
The US will attack Syria to divert attention from the fact that they are spying and hacking the whole world.
PDF said:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/irans-moderate-new-president-still-supports-assad/278361/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-us-un-inspection-kerry
iran is on Syria side but less has to do with Syria. They are no real threat to US or US interests. Iran wants to become a regional hegemony. That's a real problem and so far despite US threats they continue to seek nukes. If the US won't even back up its word against Syria why would they against a much more powerful foe with Iran?
This is not the first time chemical weapons have been used. In the past we did nothing to stop Iraq from using them on Iran. We would be doing nothing if it was clear just the rebels alone were using chemical weapons. A lot more is at stake than the use of chemical weapons. |
So so wrong.
First off, it is highly debatable which is worse. Nuclear weapons are very hard and expensive to produce, and then the delivery method is also complex. Also remember that a new state would make a simple atomic bomb rather than a hydrogen bomb, thus the explosion is only a few kilotons.
Chemical weapons, on the other hand, are very easy and compartively cheap to produce. Combined with being very easy to deliver and light/any weight you want, they are a far more realistic threat. Also, for terrorism, they are the perfect weapon seeing that they are odourless, colourless, and carried through the air. If you dropped the same weight of nerve agents as you did the mass of a nuclear warhead (~ 4 tons), you could wipe out a city within minutes if dispersed correctly (which would be realtively easy to do). So why you think nerve agents only kill small amounts of people is beyond me. Why it killed only thousands (only thousands?!) in Syria will be due to small use and low density. Just look what happened when it was dropped in the Tokyo underground.
Also, to say it is something states use on their own people....erm, what the holy hell are you blathering about? They were used in WW1 and in the Iraq-Iran war....You just made that up didn't you.
If no one stops Syria for doing this, then it is gloves off for the worlds shit countries to produce chemical weapons as the reason they are not made is due to this fear of punishment from the rest of the world. Now if you think mad countries should be allowed to produce wmds then you lack any foresight.
At the time, Iraq had a massive army and the Wests army did not have the skill to just quickly knock out chemical facilites nor, and this is the critical part, gather evidence of it happening. Evidence only came to light at the end of the war. Yet now, due to social media, satellites etc, we can observe these events as they unfold. Also, the weapons were used on the front line, which yes, would still be condemed, is very different from dropping them on a suburb.
Well it looks pretty imminent that the United States is going to attack Syria.
PDF said:
1. I just watched Secretary of State Kerry make the argument that if we don't attack we are inviting Iran to get Nuclear weapons. So I was right. 2. Both nuclear weapons and Chemical weapons are very bad, we can agree on that. However the difference is important. We won't attack a a country that has the bomb but we will attack one with chemical weapons. That should indicate the difference in threat level. Chemical weapons in war and even in terror attacks are difficult. Conventional bombs are much more effective for terroists. You need either large amounts of the perfect setting like a subway for them to really be effective. 3. The time chemical weapons were used in wars between countries is over. It's not WW1 or even the 80's anymore. Conventional weapons are just if not even more effective. You need such large amounts to be able to use it effectively. Realistically the only time it is effective in modern times is to use it on your own people or possible a war between third world countires. It is no threat to the US or US interests. - I got that from experts on the issue. I am taking a WMD proliferation class and no one is really worried about chemical weapons anymore. 4. If we don't stop Syria the whole world will get Chemical weapons. Thats the same arguement people use for Nukes. The difference is there is a strong reason to get nuclear weapons and that is for deterrance. Chemical weapons do not give security like nuclear weapons do. Plus Syria has had chemical weapons for a while and we knew about it and did nothing. This did not cause others to get chemical weapons. 5. I agree sending a message that chemical weapons should not be used is one of the reasons we are attacking but as John Kerry explained not stepping in now gives Iran free passage to Nuclear weapons. We have to look at the bigger picture for the region. |
Never said nuclear weapons are not wmds.
If a country has nukes, it is far more militraily advanced than a country that can not produce nukes. As I have said, chemical weapons are very easy to produce, nukes are not.
Large amounts? Yes, because 900ml in Tokyo to injure 6000 people was a large amount...oh wait. Also if it is used by an army - air distribution is far easier than a nuke.
It is not used because: a) banned b) banned c) countries no longer fight each other due to economics. When is the last time two major states fought each other in the last 20 years? Your class must be a joke if it has not said chemical weapons are not a threat due to lack of production, extreme control, oh - and no research into it either. If VX gas was accidently made 50 years ago, then what the holy hell could be made today? This is why it is banned.
Limiting countries getting wmds is a good idea seeing that most countries are not stable and would have poor control over their assets. In the modern world, you do not need a deterent - you need a strong economy. No one fears Russia for its army...but its gas and oil supply to the EU. The same goes for China and its exports. Nukes and chemical weapons are relics of an age where strength was bought through hard power, not soft.
Syrias had chemical weapons before the disarmament laws came into affect, thus it would be politcally bad to force people to disarm. However, as Syria had never used the no had any aggressive intentions, no one cared. Let them have it if they behave. Now they are not behaving and they need their stick to be taken from them.
Middle East or not, if someone breaks world treaties on weapon control, they have to be punished. Even if Syria was 5000 miles away from Iran, the same message would get to them, although it is partially a bluff from America as Iran certainly won't use nukes on its own country which would give them less credibility than with Syria
I don't think this will happen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''You tend to think that there is a big gap between F1 and everything else. F1 is where all the fantastic drivers are, so you just don't know how good you are until you get there''.
Jean Alesi
PDF said:
We are getting a little off topic. You were already wrong. The Syrian attacks do have to do with sending a message to iran as John Kerry has made very clear. If nuclear weapons are outdated weapons of the past and provide no deterrence please explain Iran and North Korea pursuit to get them. Nuclear weapons are still the ultimate deterrence and far stronger than any economic relation can ever provide. Not that there is no such thing as economic deterrence, it just provide assured destruction like nuclear weapons do. Countries without the economic strength or Great Powers protecting them will seek their own protection and a nuke is a good way to do that. |
Yes, a nuke is easy to get than a strong economy...but how you managed to get that to translate into "more of a deterrent" is a it of a mystery. As I said, look at China, Japan, and Russia. No one fears them due to their army (Japan doesn't own one), but people fear what would happen if trade stopped. Also it is far easier for a nation to stop trade than to start firing nukes everywhere as one is a simple economic move - the other is flat out war.
But the message of attacking Syria to tell Iran not to build weapons is a secondary result. Attacking Syria is to tell the world that you can not do this.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
