Forgot your password?

Should the U.S. bomb Syria?

Displaying poll results.
Absolutely not.
  14834 votes / 48%
No, but there's a reasonable case to be made.
  7002 votes / 23%
I'm not sure.
  2738 votes / 9%
Yes, but there's a reasonable case not to.
  2193 votes / 7%
Absolutely.
  1956 votes / 6%
Where is Syria?
  1690 votes / 5%
30413 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should the U.S. bomb Syria?

Comments Filter:
  • Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GIL_Dude (850471) on Monday September 09, 2013 @10:46AM (#44797355) Homepage
    Bombing even selected targets will just make innocent people pay for the actions of a few. There are a few people who were involved in ordering the chemical attacks. If anything were done, those few would be taken to international court (the Hague is it?) and charged with war crimes. That should be the extent of it. Oh, and someone should investigate the claims that the rebels also used chemicals several months ago. There might be some folks that need to be charged with war crimes there too.
    • Followed world politics much?

      Worked for Bin Lauden, Sadem Husein, etc. They won't show up any more than if you sued Barrack Obama because he fined you for not buying health insurance, or he caused your employer to cut your hours to under 30 hours/week.

    • Re:Absolutely not! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09, 2013 @10:55AM (#44797473)

      Exactly. If your solution to the problem of innocents being killed results in more innocents being killed, then your solution is invalid, and you become the aggressor rather than the hero. It doesn't matter whether you killed those innocents accidentally or deliberately, because the victim gets to decide the meaning of justice, not you. The bottom line is that the vicims of "collateral damage" (let's be real and call it manslaughter) don't give a damn what your agenda is. From that point on, you are the aggressor, not the hero.

    • by Xest (935314)

      I agree but how do you even do that? The US wont even sign up to the ICC let alone help enforce it.

      Getting someone like Assad to the ICC is impossible, you only have to look at Africa where countries like Kenya have instead voted to pull out crying "Oh it's so unfair, the ICC only targets Africans!" which is perhaps one of the weakest excuses ever given that to date the ICC has prosecuted more white Europeans (you know, that whole Yugoslavia thing) than anything else. Perhaps if Africa has a problem with th

      • The ICC is currently at the "bell the cat" stage. The U.S., Israel and Russia have signed, but not ratified it, and China and India haven't even signed, and are openly contemptuous of it. So, for any war larger than a limited civil war, the five countries most likely to be in the thick of it are not, and never will be, members of the Court.
    • by amiga3D (567632)

      I just don't get it. We want to kill Syrians because they're killing Syrians who are killing Syrians. Insanity it is.

    • by csumpi (2258986)
      $$$ That's what this is about. Sure, we'll kill a bunch of innocent people, help al-Qaeda, but hey, all the defense contractors will be flush with money, some of which will find its way back to the politicians that supported pressing the launch button.
  • Stop trying to play world police, warmongers.

    • Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by scubamage (727538) on Monday September 09, 2013 @10:55AM (#44797457)
      As a citizen of the US, I agree with you. Sadly, most of our populace is happy eating Mcdonalds and watching Snooki, so they're too apathetic to voice any opinions to our congress critters. At this point, I fear the military industrial complex is turning the cogs.
      • by Linzer (753270)

        I can certainly see your point. And yet, Syria now presents a major difference with, say, Iraq in 2002: the country is *already* at war. Entire cities nearly razed, thousands of victims, fighters and civilians alike, large-scale gas attacks, war crimes on both sides... Western strikes cannot make Syria cannot descend into chaos, because it's already there.

        So, while I doubt that an attack would make things any better, I can hardly see how it could make them worse. Iraq was by no means a nice place to live un

        • Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by war4peace (1628283) on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:00PM (#44798321)

          So why would you impose your Western point of view onto a population that is at most apathetic towards your existence?
          The "we care about their well-being and therefore we bomb their country" is old and wrinkled. The MOST I would agree with is total cessation of trading with said country. "We don't agree with your internal actions so we stop trading with you" is fine, it's your decision as a country. But dropping bombs onto their heads is despicable.

          Internal matters are internal matters.

          Finally, if some US states decide they want to revolt and civil war ensues and a party uses chemical weapons in a situation - what would you say about the UK, Russia, China starting to bomb USA ground because hey, "you used gas and we need to show you the light at the end of the tunnel by force".

          Whenever someone thinks "we should bomb them for this reason!" - they should be ready to stand by the "they should bomb us for the same reason" approach. With this in mind... should the USA bomb Syria for this reason?

          • As a US citizen, if the US government used gas on its civilians, I would certainly want any other country that could to bomb them into the ground. Why would you want otherwise?
          • Finally, if some US states decide they want to revolt and civil war ensues and a party uses chemical weapons in a situation - what would you say about the UK, Russia, China starting to bomb USA ground because hey, "you used gas and we need to show you the light at the end of the tunnel by force".

            I am an American. If my state seceded from the union and the union used gas against my state, I would certainly hope the rest of the world would intervene. My only problem with such intervention is that it does not stop there: The interventionists usually stay and set up the local power structures to favor themselves. In such a case, all hope is lost. Either I get gassed or give up sovereignty. Better to be dead than not free...

            So if the intervention was just bombs and no soldiers on the ground, I would be

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ichthus (72442)
        I think you're way off base here. I'd bet the majority of our populace is against "intervention." And, it looks like congress is as well. This all seems to be isolated to the executive branch -- the same ones who fucked up Benghazi.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Benghazi? Oh you mean that totally made up crisis created by the republicans in an effort to create a controversy for the administration.

          If the republicans really cared that much they would have limited the US engagement to Afghanistan, not entered into an unneeded war in Iraq, and not perpetuate the idea that the US was having a war against Muslims which created the tensions that led up to Benghazi in the first place.

          On the other hand if the republicans really care that much about Benghazi then why the f

      • Re:No. (Score:5, Funny)

        by rossz (67331) <ogre&geekbiker,net> on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @01:59AM (#44805381) Homepage Journal

        Can we just bomb Snooki, please?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:01AM (#44797539)

    The situation is complicated: Syria shares a huge border with Turkey, our most important NATO ally in the region. Israel is not that far away. Oil runs through and under Syria, most of it not actually bound for the US. We also kind of set a precedent in Libya that if rebels cry enough, and more importantly bleed enough, they can call in international support for free*. (Terms and conditions may apply.) Chemical weapons have also been used, but by whom is an open question.

    The civil war in Syria has been a clusterfuck from the start. What began as peaceful protesters getting shot by security forces burgeoned into a full-blown revolution, with the Syrian army so hopelessly incompetent it can't even keep the equally incompetent rebels out of Damascus but equally powerful enough to keep them from winning. It's been a war of attrition for over two years now and shows no signs of stopping. The war would have ended a year ago if the rebels hadn't been given weapons by the West -- rebels that have been acknowleged to have links to every terrorist group you'd care to mention (this is more and less of a problem than you'd think: the terrorists also happen to be the only civilians in the Middle East trained to fight). Meanwhile Russia is giving Syria weapons too, so the whole thing is devolving into one of those Cold War African brush wars that were just proxy battles for foreign powers. It's kind of funny Obama decides now is the time to have moral outrage over the issue when Syria is not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which means they can do whatever they want with the stuff. They're not breaking the law with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate: everyone agrees how terrible nerve gas is but no one acted to stop Syria before they acquired one of the world's largest stockpiles of the stuff.

    On a humanitarian front, things have been equally terrible: refugees have been overwhelming nearby countries and that's really pissing them off. The suffering has been tremendous.

    Everyone agrees that the civil war has to end and soon, but no one is willing to do something to decisively end the stalemate. The US is proposing to resolve the question with military action, but as Congress has remarked, what good is an airstrike going to do if your end goal is regime change? They know that this is going to turn into something even bigger than Iraq, and even worse: Syria has allies. No one has really given diplomacy a chance, and all sides seem interested in letting Syria bleed even more while they hem and haw at the prospect of getting involved. The Saudis are even offering money to get this over with before oil prices rise to the point everyone switches to green power.

    Now that the US has proposed military action it can't back down without being completely humiliated on the world stage, and Congress is very much aware of the decline of American influence. I would not be surprised if the airstrikes are authorized, with the condition that no troops be sent to the area. Turkey is more than willing to take the fight to the Syrians, I say let them: give aid to the French, Turkish and Israeli forces and just let them have at it.

    • I wish there was a modding method which would go ABOVE 5.

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      The cork will clearly be out of the bottle if Al Qaeda lay their hands on Sarin and distribute it to their network of Death-Cultists.

      The Syrian government clearly has chemical weapons, but they are so far maintaining control over them (who actually made the attack still seems in question, which needs to be resolved factually, not emotionally).

      The keystone is Assad and his supporters. Once he is no longer in charge it's all a crapshoot and we've seen how badly that can go in Iraq. Regardless if we have boo

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      The situation is really not that complicated:
      1. The US is a NATO ally of Turkey, a close ally of Israel, and friendly with Jordan, as well as controlling the puppet government in Iraq. In other words, Syria is nearly surrounded.
      2. Russia is a close ally of the Assad government.
      3. Turkey and Israel really really want the US to remove Assad for them and replace him with a friendly regime.
      4. Any overt action on the part of the US would force Russia into the fray on the other side, potentially kicking off WW II

    • by LainTouko (926420)
      There is a key difference between Libya and Syria, beyond the geopolitical considerations of Syria being a big part of the Israel-Arab enmity. Libya ended up being a struggle between nearly all the people of the country and a bunch of foreign mercenaries, nobody really supported the previous government. Syria is just a standard civil war.
    • by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:28PM (#44800533) Journal

      Syria needs help, not a beating. What you said is fine as far as it goes, but you don't talk about why civil war has erupted in Syria. If we don't understand or care about the causes, then whatever action we take, if any, is very unlikely to accomplish anything good.

      Syria has had severe drought since 2006, possibly caused by Climate Change. They turned to irrigation from wells to wait out the dry spell, but that didn't buy them enough time. The water level dropped too low for more pumping. Crop failures are around 75% to 85%. Farmers had to do something. Many left their land and poured into the cities, where there were no jobs to be had. The Syrian government has done a terrible job of handling the crisis. Early in the drought, they sold a bunch of surplus wheat they had stored, wheat that they now desperately need to feed themselves. They treated farmers simply asking for help as subversive troublemakers, and have arrested many. That treatment is what touched off the violence.

      For an outsider like the US to come in and start moralizing over chemical weapons, threatening to lob a few bombs, is no help at all. The Assad government should get the boot, but that's the least of Syria's problems. They're vicious and incompetent, but they didn't cause the mess though they certainly aggravated it immensely. Suppose the US could surgically strike so well that we completely destroy all the chemical weapons Syria has, without killing anyone, and we did that. The civil war would barely notice, and would rage on. Same if US strikes managed to kill Assad and break his government's hold on power. And same if we established a No Fly Zone. What the world should do is either take over, send lots of food to stabilize things, then get to work on more permanent solutions, or the world should mind its own business. Apart from the likely insurmountable problem of coming to a consensus on how to run Syria, the first course of action is very costly, so it's not happening. Trying to stop the violence with threats or even action is not going to work.

      Regardless of what the world does in Syria, one problem we all should address is Climate Change.

      • FIne, but ..... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by King_TJ (85913) on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @10:19AM (#44807683) Journal

        As you even admit in your post, the drought in Syria was POSSIBLY caused by Climate Change. That's a theory, but there's no way to be sure. It could also just be one of the droughts that has plagued nations for centuries, at random times and places?

        I'd agree with most of what you said, except your summary seems completely misplaced to me..... Turning the Syria crisis into just another reason the world needs to address Climate Change? Umm, no. For starters, Syria clearly mishandled the situation with their crops and farmers in a MASSIVE way. There's no excuse for creating a Civil War over the fact that there's a water shortage. Treating farmers coming to the cities for assistance as subversives and arresting them?? Yeah, THAT would really fly in most civilized parts of the world!

        Climate Change or not, countries will have hardships and natural disasters .... It's just part of life. If they're incapable of handling them in an appropriate manner, they should expect uprisings and overthrows.

    • While Syria is not a signatory of the CWC, they are a signatory of the Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare). So they're prohibited from using chemical and biological agents, but not prohibited from producing, storing or transferring. So yes, they are breaking international law by using such weapons.
  • by AntiBasic (83586) on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:02AM (#44797551)

    They warned us that if I voted for McCain or Romney, we'd see an increasingly warmongering, jingoistic administration out to bomb Islamic nations that have never attacked us... and they were right!

    • by barlevg (2111272)
      I don't remember Romney as coming across particularly hawkish apart from this line [huffingtonpost.com], which now just sounds rather prescient.

      I was also surprised to find out that Obama was indeed once considered to be the "anti-war" candidate [nytimes.com], but the truth is that foreign policy really took a backseat to domestic issues in the last two elections.
    • by Z00L00K (682162)

      It's great to have an external enemy if you have domestic problems, but this is over in the area of being ridiculous.

      Especially since there's already problems knowing who's good and who's bad.

      It's not worth it to take action there, the only thing that shall be done is watch them to avoid surprises. If you shall bomb - then drop food bombs instead. That could be really confusing even for Putin since he won't be able to know how to answer that.

    • by Xest (935314)

      To be fair if you'd voted for either of those two the bombs would've started falling on Syria about 2 years ago (Well, less if it was Romney ofc). The fact it's taking this long is a testament to the fact Obama is at very least slightly less hotheaded than those two.

    • They warned us that if I voted for McCain or Romney, we'd see an increasingly warmongering, jingoistic administration out to bomb Islamic nations that have never attacked us... and they were right!

      They warned my Dad if he voted for Goldwater, we'd go to war. And they were right back then, too.

      Unfortunately, this war also seems to have bipartisan support. They always seem like better ideas beforehand. Fortunately, it also has bipartisan opposition. Somehow, I'm actually on the same side as my Teabagger US Rep. That's a first. And my fundie father-in-law. Another first.

      Wait, I gotta take back the US Rep first thing, he was with me on the NSA vote, too. That's two truffles.

      I'm somewhat concerned that th

    • Re:They warned us (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday September 09, 2013 @06:23PM (#44803317) Homepage Journal
      Thank God we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in charge of such things.
  • by SoupGuru (723634) on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:34AM (#44797929)

    If you gas 400 children and many more other innocent adults, people should be lining up around the block to smack you in the mouth. Other nations should be ashamed of themselves for looking the other way.

    Does it suck to get involved? Absolutely. Do we have a clear side we can support? Nope. Will it be messy? Absolutely.

    I guess I feel an obligation and a duty to make sure no backwater leader feels weapons of mass destruction are an OK response to a regional conflict.

    It's always somebody else's problem until it's not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How is it that the method of killing merits a greater response than the quantity of those killed? North Korea, for instance, kills tens of thousands of innocents per year and imprisions hundreds of thousands (most of whom die a slow and painful death of starvation and disease). I guess Kim is safe so long as he doesn't gas a few hundred?

      • by joe_frisch (1366229) on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:56AM (#44798261)

        The problem with chemical weapons is that they are the start of a slippery slope. Sarin -> VX -> (bio or nuclear). Chemical vs conventional is an arbitrary line, but one that is pretty well accepted internationally.

        IF the UN weapons inspectors decide that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons use, then I think a punitive strike is reasonable. The goal would not be to help the rebels (I don't want the US involved in a civil war), but to punish the regime for using illegal weapons. I say this with the understanding that a US strike would not make things better - that isn't the goal, the goal is to prevent them from becoming worse in the future.

        IF the UN weapons inspectors do not conclude that the Assad regime was responsible, then I would not support a strike.

        If there is no strong response to the use of chemical weapons, then I would expect to see them used again and more extensively.

        Some people will object that past US actions show that we are no better. I won't argue with that, but form where we are now (absent time machine) we need to figure out what the best response is NOW. With Russia blocking any UN action, I don't see any other way to discourage future use of chemical weapons, and eventually worse.

        BTW: I support military action against ANY country that uses WMDs, even those that are nominally our allies.

        BTW: I do NOT support drone strikes, invasions, target killings etc by the US or allies. If I knew how to stop them I would.

        • IF the UN weapons inspectors decide that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons use

          I seem to recall reading last week that the UN inspectors were there only to determine whether chemical weapons were used, and NOT to determine who used them.

          So I don't think there's much chance of them deciding Assad did it, when they're already saying "not our job to determine who did it".

      • by istartedi (132515) on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:55PM (#44799127) Journal

        How is it that the method of killing merits a greater response than the quantity of those killed?

        Your question is tantamount to "Why should war have rules?".

        The rule against chemical weapons is simply a subset of "rules of war". These include rules for the treatment of POWs. Because of these standards, a lot of GIs came home from the European theater who otherwise wouldn't have. Likewise, it would have been a lot more convenient for the US to just neglect or gun down Axis POWs, or napalm the whole area during mop-up operations rather than accept surrenders. Etc, etc.

        So. If war has rules, either you enforce them or war has no rules. Most reasonable powers, even some unreasonable powers like North Korea realize that a no-holds-barred street fight could lead to something like 20% survival rate with a bunch of unhealthy people trying to rebuild after victory vs. 90% survival after victory.

        Aside from the cold rational incentive to follow rules of war, they are also deeply rooted in something like chivalry. At least, that's what the West calls it. The East and other areas have different names and different codes that historically allowed different things. For example, Japanese didn't view surrender as honorable during the WW2 era, and that caused a lot of problems. I'm not picking on Japan here. I'm simply pointing it out as an obvious difference between different cultures having different rules. I'm sure there are some rules the Japanese had for conduct in war that were kind and gentle in some way. One of the most universal rules of war used to be "don't kill women and children". Modern technology has made that impractical as an absolute; but the nature of chemical weapons is such that they can't be easily confined to the target zone.

        Anyway, to answer your original question. It's because war has rules designed to limit its scope in various ways, and chemical weapons are outside those limits.

        • by SoupGuru (723634) on Monday September 09, 2013 @01:47PM (#44799991)

          I saw some forum poster (probably at Fark) summarize it thusly:

          The guys that made it out of WWI after the air bursting artillery, watching wave after wave of fellow humans get mowed down by machine guns, soggy trenches, bayoneting a few people, the screams of people dying on the wire in no-man's land, trench foot, disease, gangrene... the guys that made it through all that drew the line and said chemical weapons were too barbaric.

        • by Bucc5062 (856482)

          I'm not feeling like you really answered that question. You are correct the Wars can have rules or "Conventions", but they are not always held to the strict standard and they tend to be between warring nations, not a warring nation.

          As I have learned here, Syria did not sign the CW Ban Treaty thus they are not obligated to be held to an international rule they did not sign. If they used CW against another country there is a more compelling argument for action, a declaration of War and the establishment (or

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dywolf (2673597)

      (the anti american /. crowd can sharpen their mod knives, it's ok, I've got karma to burn)

      This is my view as well. We used to take a moral stance against bad guys. Lately all we care about is ourselves. The ultimate hypocrisy is the large numbers of right wingers and conservative who were all jumped up to go into Iraq because of his "WMDs", because of how he treated his people, because it "was the right thing to do", etc etc. Simply put, America does not, or didnt use to, abide bullies.

      And now, they are com

    • by Goldsmith (561202) on Monday September 09, 2013 @02:17PM (#44800401)

      Who was it that used chemical weapons in Syria? Back (3 months ago) when UN weapons inspectors were allowed to determine things like that, their conclusion was that it was the rebels (there have been many chemical weapons attacks there).

      There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons as well, but the only proven cases were uses against the Syrian government.

      Ok, so we're going to bomb someone who was the victim of a chemical weapons attack because we think he retaliated in kind? This after Syrian allies went to the UN to get help rounding up the people we know used chemical weapons... and we blocked it. If there's truth to this narrative (which is significantly more documented by the UN and Russia than our government's story), we're way in the wrong here.

    • Assad(or someone else, who knows) uses sarine in Syria, resulting in few thousand casualityes - mass murder, world is screaming for blood!

      USA uses "agent orange" in Vietnam, quoteing wikipedia for results:

      Agent Orange or Herbicide Orange (HO) is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange

      And USA gets treated as last bastion of justice and freedom

      Seems to me that chemical warfare is not the problem, but who is doing it.

      • by gmuslera (3436)

        Not just agent orange. US used too Napalm, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, drones and even killing for fun in civilian populations since WWII. They care so much about human rights that put children in guantanamo and tortured them. And the people behind all those almost genocidal operations have a bunch of medals, are still in command with big salaries (or have big returements) , schools/libraries/etc named after them and so on.

        Over that, you have to question the motivations and the accuracy of the informa

  • Poll Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cro Magnon (467622) on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:02PM (#44798365) Homepage Journal

    You realize that the "Where's Syria" option isn't exclusive with any of the others. :)

  • Generally my sympathies are with the rebels. But they have been proving themselves to not be terribly noble. The key factor to keep in mind is that this is no longer a civil war. This is a religious war. Religious wars tend to be nasty nasty nasty. Basically this would be like taking sides in a divorce between two alcoholic parents who are both (rightfully) accusing the other of being abusive to the kids.

    My suggestion would focus support on the refugees and finding out if any zones of sanity had formed
  • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:10PM (#44798481) Homepage Journal
    Obama has already pretty much declared that we aren't going to bomb Syria. Not in words, but in actions. He handed over the issue to Congress, as Congress was demanding--thus insuring that the current intractable gridlock will prevent him from having to take an unpopular action. Don't forget that Congress already had a full agenda planned out with their manufactured crises (filibuster for the Continuing Resolution, and of course the Debt Ceiling), they don't have time to deal with a real crisis.
    • by cheetah (9485) on Monday September 09, 2013 @12:50PM (#44799051)

      "Gridlock" isn't the issue here, the public isn't behind this action. It's looking increasingly likely that this resolution will be defeated in the Senate(which is controlled the Presidents party).

      The House leadership has already said they will not bring a vote until after the Senate has voted. If the Senate votes "no" the House won't even bring this resolution up for a vote(as it will already be dead at that point).

      Far from being "Gridlock" this is looking like this will be VERY direct action from the Congress. It just won't be what the President says that he wants. I do agree with you, his actions really suggests that he doesn't want to do this at all... and it's baffling to me why he would spend the political capital to try to push this issue when he really doesn't want to bomb them.

      • by jandrese (485)
        The alternative is basically telling Assad: Oh sure, we don't really care, go ahead and gas your civilians all you like. Basically a repeat of the Iraq attack in 1988 that Bush Sr. and the rest of the world did nothing about.
        • by JustNiz (692889)

          Not that I support the Syrian gov, but its really not clear that it wasn't actually the rebels that deployed Sarin, rather the Syrian government.

          Sarin is very easy to make in a basement compared to other nerve agents, but is at least 10x less effective and has a much shorter life compared to stuff most militarys would ultimately have access to.

          If the government/military really wanted to release nerve gas, they would probably be much more likely to use something like Vx rather than Sarin (unless they were tr

  • Although the use of Sarin against civilians in Syria is evil incarnate, one needs to look at where this might go. There are many possibilities, but the one that may be most frighting goes something like this.

    The US unilaterally attacks Syria with conventional bombs and missiles. Syria attacks Israel with conventional weapons, which has been mentioned as a possibility. Israel retaliates with conventional weapons, but with much greater force. Syria again attacks Israel with more force and this escalatio
  • this is all just an excuse to trigger a fight with Iran, which is what the US gov have been trying to find for ages.

  • Normally I'm all in favor of supporting revolutions against unjust regimes, and Assad's regime is clearly evil enough to be worth deposing. Libya? Egypt? We should have done more to help.

    The problem with Syria is that the rebels seem equally evil. It seems to be more about sectarianism than equality, and the fact that one side is supported by Russia and the other by several terrorist groups certainly doesn't help.

    Had we come in earlier, supporting the rebels while the movement could still be turned towards

  • Fucking Obama (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gatkinso (15975) on Monday September 09, 2013 @04:33PM (#44802267)

    I voted for this jack ass so that this sort of shit (my country bombing other countries) would stop.

    Silly me.

  • by night_flyer (453866) on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @08:16AM (#44806589) Homepage

    and we do nothing... chems are used (we still don't know who) ,killing less than 1500 and we must "stop" him?

    why would Assad, while winning the war risk getting the international community involved by using chems?

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

 



Forgot your password?
Working...