Most countries are knowingly contaminating the planet in one way or another, I don't think chemical warfare should be picked on solely for this reason.

The first paragraph is basically a narrow view on the motives of the Syrian regime and Muslims in general. The regime is all about consolidating what it has, rather than an expansionist one. Whenever Syria has attempted to wage war before, it has always needed to be part of an Arab pact and even then its successes were extremely limited.

No, I don't.

Then this is hardly a debate, if you're not willing to expand on certain points raised.

Chemical weapons are made to kill immediately or severely disable a person physically (I know of one that would raise painful blisters all over the body such that wearing clothing was impossible causing the afflicted person to die of exposure). The kind of poisoning you're talking about is like someone smoking--yeah, it's stupid and unhealthy and sooner or later these is going to be reckoning--but chemical weapons are especially bad because they are MEANT to f-uck you up and and fast and those who resort to them are not interested in negotiating or they wouldn't have them in the first place.

I don't care which country over there rules whom, I don't care which is expansionist. One is as bad as the other so it makes no difference. I don't care if they beat and torture people and throw acid on women for not wearing their veils. All of that is just fine with me. Just stay away from the chemical weapons, bio weapons, nukes--I don't trust those people. I was stationed over there in the service and I do not trust those people.

I've talked my damned head off already. Nothing I've said has been addressed so I'm done.

I wasn't suggesting that chemical weapons didn't do any of these above horrors, just that your earlier reason for stating that they shouldn't be used was a weak one.

This basically explains why you're not objective about the whole situation, as you've already had your fingers burnt.

You've only been on here for a couple of pages!

I mean, in order to make the argument successfully, you kinda do.

Assad's regime isn't acting on religious motives. This is ultimately a struggle for self-preservation. So the crazy Muslims card isn't exactly appropriate here. It would actually be more accurate to make the accusation of religious extremism against some of the people who are fighting against him.

You know what? I'm going to change my stance. Let's not intervene in Syria no matter what happens over there. Not our fight. You're absolutely right, I was absolutely wrong. I bow out.

You need a chill pill.


Does anyone feel this situation with Syria is going to improve?

No, it's not going to improve.

What kind of sucks though is that Obama is leaving it up to Congress to decide whether we go in or not. I don't feel like Obama is skilled enough to get the supporters to back it in congress behind the scenes. Also there are international allies that also feel that military action should be done but they just say it behind closed doors. They don't want to openly come out and say they support it. They just want the US to go ahead and do what the US does and when/if things go wrong they can just sit on the sidelines and say "phew we are so glad that we didn't openly back them and it's great that they can take all the hate for this."



I know people just love to hate Obama for every little thing but he makes some good points.