A couple days ago, President Barack Obama decided that he was going to take military forces against Syria. Since what I've heard, Syria made a set of bombs that "they were going to test on their own people." If I am wrong, please let me know.

Anyway, Do you think Obama made the right choice? Why or why not?

In Syria there is the government, the dictator and the army, and there are the rebels, Free Army. According to US and mostly United Nations reports, the Syrian government has been using chemical weapons(nerve gas) on the rebels. Obama has handed to Congress the decision to strike Syria with US missiles as a punishment for commiting the War Crime of using chem. weapons and the act of genocide. Obama has handed the decision to Congress, not allowed the strike. I hope this clarifies.

Oh, and Congress has pretty much ruled out sending soldiers for the strike. It's a missile strike. Google News and the Sydney Morning Herald are good sources.

Assuming the Syrian government was the one that ordered the use of chemical weapons on their citizens, then I feel an attack on Syria is justified. I see a lot of people quoting "legitimate" reasons for going to war, and claiming that the US meets none of them (such as the target nation being a threat, and all other options having been exhausted). It's a clever piece of rhetoric, but it's assuming that I agree with the prerequisites for war. The fact of the matter is that rules were made prohibiting chemical warfare. Rules have to be enforced, or they are not rules at all. Some say that Syria never agreed to be a part of the system that prohibits such weapons, but that to me is the same as a person on trial for murder claiming "I never consented to these anti-murder laws!" An example needs to be set, and it needs to be shown that governments cannot get away with such things. The only prevention for a government gaining too much power and misusing it is a) civil war/revolution, b) international supremacy. The only thing more powerful than one government is a body of governments.

I don't know enough about this to say much about going to war, but I can say that Obama certainly made the wrong choice when he declared a red line. It put the US in a position where it could be manipulated very easily.

I dont have much to add, but I would of loved to have heard Christopher Hitchen's opinion on this one.

Oh so first the US funds the whole thing then thy want throw in missile strikes. This is all gonna end up just like Iraq, Syria going down the drain. The US are funding the rebels right? Sending them weapons and shit. Here's something you should know your media doesn't tell you about: The rebels are just terrorists. I'm not saying the government is any good either, but these so called rebels don't really care about Syria. They just want to take over, and probably split up the whole nation into states in between each other. Then the US will ask for there money back from the rebels, and Syria, or the smaller states it might become into, will be economically fucked, not that they already aren't any great either.
This whole thing isn't a revolution towards the better or anything. It's just a disgusting war between powers who both want to rule over, with innocents getting in the middle and killed, because they're either rebels from the governments point of view or publicly speak their mind which disagrees with these terrorist's visions. And when the whole thing is over, no one will win. The whole nation will be wrecked.
Just to conclude things, the US should get the fuck out of there, neither perform missile strikes nor fund any one.

The whole nation is going to be wrecked regardless. It's been painfully obvious for a long time that no one in the middle-east has the capacity to forgive and forget and resolve their differences. There are obviously many causes. The US is simultaneously a part of the problem and a part of the solution.

Quote from Cronos

The whole nation is going to be wrecked regardless. It's been painfully obvious for a long time that no one in the middle-east has the capacity to forgive and forget and resolve their differences. There are obviously many causes. The US is simultaneously a part of the problem and a part of the solution.

Syria is already finished the way I see it. Things can only go downhill from here, or stay the way they are. The US coming in won't really create a solution, just more issues will arise. Unless something really big happens that is.
Statement I want to add, it's off the main topic but related: These rebels in Syria are the same people in Egypt, the pro-morsi protesters. They're all part of the Muslim Brotherhood which is affiliated to Al-Qaeda, but ironically western media supports them akeeps highlighting how the army is killing them, while really it's the other way around.

Quote from Myself

I don't know enough about this to say much about going to war, but I can say that Obama certainly made the wrong choice when he declared a red line. It put the US in a position where it could be manipulated very easily.

The use of chemical weaponry is forbidden according to international law and has been for over a century. Obama didn't establish a red line, that was established as far back as 1899 after the first world war.

The international coalition that established that protocol is responsible for enforcing it when it's violated, otherwise it's completely meaningless. This isn't solely America's responsibility, but that's what the situation is becoming due to our allies' unwillingness to do anything about this.

Quote from Salt

These rebels in Syria are the same people in Egypt, the pro-morsi protesters. They're all part of the Muslim Brotherhood which is affiliated to Al-Qaeda, but ironically western media supports them akeeps highlighting how the army is killing them, while really it's the other way around.

That's not true. You're describing the mujahideen and the Al-Nursa Front, which do have Al Qaeda affiliations, but the Muslim Brotherhood isn't intrinsically affiliated with Al-Qaeda and they only comprise a portion of the Free Syrian Army, which is largely non secular.

Quote from Exilement

The use of chemical weaponry is forbidden according to international law and has been for over a century. Obama didn't establish a red line, that was established as far back as 1899 after the first world war.

The international coalition that established that protocol is responsible for enforcing it when it's violated, otherwise it's completely meaningless. This isn't solely America's responsibility, but that's what the situation is becoming due to our allies' unwillingness to do anything about this.



That's not true. You're describing the mujahideen and the Al-Nursa Front, which do have Al Qaeda affiliations, but the Muslim Brotherhood isn't intrinsically affiliated with Al-Qaeda and they only comprise a portion of the Free Syrian Army, which is largely non secular.

They might not be directly affiliated, but they have the same ideals and most definitely support them.


I also have to say how it disgusts me how they're using Islam as there slogan.
The free syrian army also might not be directly related to the Brotherhood, but they all again have similar ideals and methods.

I'm confused, you said "They're all part of the Muslim Brotherhood" and now you're saying the MB only has similar ideals to the Free Syrian Army? What does that have to do with anything? How does that make what I said any less incorrect?

How does having a few ideological similarities to Al-Qaeda mean the two groups are affiliated? The MB and Al-Qaeda are enemies, not affiliates, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote from Exilement

but that's what the situation is becoming due to our allies' unwillingness to do anything about this.

We would have been willing but democracy fucked us up. Our government wanted to go ahead. The opposition wanted us to wait until the evidence was concrete. So the decision was made that we'd have a vote straight away to support "action in principle," so that we could get the wheels in motion, and a vote later to decide whether the evidence was sufficient for a strike. Then stupidity occurred, and the people who didn't think there was enough evidence yet voted against the action-in-principle motion instead of waiting until the evidence was actually gathered and voicing their opinions at the second vote.


So yeah, sorry. We're not unwilling, we're just fucking morons.




I support a strike in principle and as far as I can tell the people who've seen the evidence think it's sufficient to go ahead. I trust their judgement.

Quote from Cronos

I dont have much to add, but I would of loved to have heard Christopher Hitchen's opinion on this one.

I feel exactly the same. I actually started watching a lot of Hitchens's videos again since all this in Syria kicked off (or, at least, since it became big in the media), and have bought one of his books, and intend to buy more once I've finished this one. I did this because I want to try and figure out what he would say, if it's possible to induce such a conclusion. He was very pro Iraq intervention, even though that was for a multifaceted reason (such as his believing--rightly so--that the original issue was Hussein being left in power in 1991). So I believe he would probably be pro Syrian Intervention too, if anything on purely humanitarian grounds. I saw in an article someone mention that Hitchens once spoke about the resultant Sunni/Shia conflicts that arose "because" of the Iraqi intervention, and said that they were inevitable under the regime prior to the intervention. The article went on to say that if we couldn't quell the Iraqi conflicts that had been unleashed by the intervention (regardless of their inevitability), then there's no chance that we can with Syria, especially with no troops on the ground. It then went on to conclude that this is a war that we therefore should not involve ourselves in. What annoyed me is that it was using Hitchens as a supporter to this claim. The article forgets that Hitchens supported the Iraqi intervention, and defended it even as the terror escalated once Saddam was removed from power.

Quote from Zed

We would have been willing but democracy fucked us up. Our government wanted to go ahead. The opposition wanted us to wait until the evidence was concrete. So the decision was made that we'd have a vote straight away to support "action in principle," so that we could get the wheels in motion, and a vote later to decide whether the evidence was sufficient for a strike. Then stupidity occurred, and the people who didn't think there was enough evidence yet voted against the action-in-principle motion instead of waiting until the evidence was actually gathered and voicing their opinions at the second vote.


So yeah, sorry. We're not unwilling, we're just fucking morons.

I agree there. I try not to get into serious discussions with my mom, because I always end up annoyed, but lately she's been saying stuff like "Cameron's an idiot for blaming Miliband for not attacking Syria", and defends those that voted no on the vote. She (and I assume others like her) don't realise that the vote Cameron proposed wasn't a "let's fucking bomb them regardless of evidence FUCK YEAH WESTERN ALLIES BOOM", it was exactly how you stated it, an "action in principle" vote. These people fucking represent us too. What idiots.

Actually, come to think of it, is there any possibility that some of those "no" voters actually disagreed in principle, and didn't just misunderstand what the vote actually was?

I support a strike in principle and as far as I can tell the people who've seen the evidence think it's sufficient to go ahead. I trust their judgement.

I support a strike in principle, provided the evidence is sufficient.

What's everyone's opinion on the evidence that the Syrian government was the one to issue the chemical attacks? I understand some of the evidence has been declassified (I'm so grateful there's some transparency in this, probably due to the whole Iraqi WMD fuck-up), but there's debate on the strength of that evidence. Thoughts? Personally, I don't have enough confidence in the capability or motivations of those in the government evaluating the evidence to say that I will 100% agree with them, without questioning the evidence myself.

Quote from Exilement

The use of chemical weaponry is forbidden according to international law and has been for over a century. Obama didn't establish a red line, that was established as far back as 1899 after the first world war.

I am aware of this, but he still mentioned them specifically which means when they were eventually used it was an even bigger deal that it may have been otherwise and the response it garnered became much more predictable.