Why do chemical weapons in Syria require US action?

[CHNOPS]

Honest question, for left, right, center or otherwise. Unless the region is destabilized in ways that threaten US concerns (read: Israel), I'm unclear how the fact of chemical weapons leads logically to the suggestion that we must act.

Can someone take a crack at explaining it?

 

[Sean]

Because Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the money makers for the US arms industry that they once were. Another trillion or so in procurement would be just peachy, kthx.

 

[Adre]

Some responses are so predictable you could write them yourself.

 

[pete]

there's a few reasons, surface and subsurface.

on the surface, the US will say it's required to stop a bad man (assad) from causing further harm to the innocent civilians of his own country. obama's seeking multinational support for action based on this.

the subsurface reasons are that instability in the middle east spells bad news for our stepson in the area, aka israel. hezbollah and al-queda are entrenched in syria, and both are inimical to israel and her interests. so this gives us an excuse to go in there and reduce or eliminate those two factions in the region.

the reasons for why we haven't done anything until now aren't as clear. obama's paralyzed by the fear of making a mistake, or repeating the mistakes of others. plus, he's not willing to cross russia, who are closely allied to syria.
i'm not so sure why russia cares so much, the history of those two goes back a ways, but i suspect it's because iran and syria are partners, and russia gets a lot of their oil imports from iran.

 

[Laurel]

Because Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the money makers for the US arms industry that they once were. Another trillion or so in procurement would be just peachy, kthx.

Yep..

 

[islandman]

Because we [the U.S.] should be against mass murder everywhere and not just where it fits our political agenda.

 

[trysail]

...and russia gets a lot of their oil imports from iran.

Fact check time.


Russia is currently the world's 2nd largest petroleum producer and is a net exporter.

Crude oil - production:
10.37 million bbl/day (2012 est.)
country comparison to the world: #2


Crude oil - exports:
4.69 million bbl/day (2012 est.)
country comparison to the world: #3


Source: CIA World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html​

 

[Busybody]

Because we [the U.S.] should be against mass murder everywhere and not just where it fits our political agenda.

why aren't we in Sudan where MUSLIMS are killing BLACKS by tens of thousands!

 

[pete]

Fact check time.

Russia is currently the world's 2nd largest petroleum producer and is a net exporter.

Crude oil - production:
10.37 million bbl/day (2012 est.)
country comparison to the world: #2

Crude oil - exports:
4.69 million bbl/day (2012 est.)
country comparison to the world: #3

Source: CIA World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html​

hey i already prefaced my opinion on that particular point with an "i'm not sure", FFS

 

[Sean Renaud]

Mostly because Obama said it was a thin red line. He did that because he doesn't want to appear weak.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Honest question, for left, right, center or otherwise. Unless the region is destabilized in ways that threaten US concerns (read: Israel), I'm unclear how the fact of chemical weapons leads logically to the suggestion that we must act.

Can someone take a crack at explaining it?

Technically, it doesn't although practically speaking virtually any regime change in Syria is potentially destabilizing re Israel.

The issue, it seems to me, is that successful foreign policy depends on a delicate balance of certainty and ambiguity. There should be any number of actions by our international rivals that we want them and the rest of the world to know that a forceful military response by the United States is forthcoming. Certainty.

There are likewise any number of actions by these same rivals that we want them and the rest of the world to know that, regardless of our rhetoric, no intentional escalation of the situation by the U. S. is forthcoming. Again, certainty.

Finally, there is a host of actions by our rivals between these two extremes where the response of the United States is by various degrees uncertain. That ambiguity is also intentional and serves our purposes well when executed properly.

In this case, I believe Obama declared a scenario of certainty that he now wishes he had couched in far more ambiguous terms. It is for this reason that we now must initiate a firm, military response which assures the world that we have the strength of our convictions.

All of the possible things that could go wrong with that decision are arguably no more potentially dangerous than that which can result from the President negligently upsetting that balance in the first place.

 

[Busybody]

Technically, it doesn't although practically speaking virtually any regime change in Syria is potentially destabilizing re Israel.

The issue, it seems to me, is that successful foreign policy depends on a delicate balance of certainty and ambiguity. There should be any number of actions by our international rivals that we want them and the rest of the world to know that a forceful military response by the United States is forthcoming. Certainty.

There are likewise any number of actions by these same rivals that we want them and the rest of the world to know that, regardless of our rhetoric, no intentional escalation of the situation by the U. S. is forthcoming. Again, certainty.

Finally, there is a host of actions by our rivals between these two extremes where the response of the United States is by various degrees uncertain. That ambiguity is also intentional and serves our purposes well when executed properly.

In this case, I believe Obama declared a scenario of certainty that he now wishes he had couched in far more ambiguous terms. It is for this reason that we now must initiate a firm, military response which assures the world that we have the strength of our convictions.

All of the possible things that could go wrong with that decision are arguably no more potentially dangerous than that which can result from the President negligently upsetting that balance in the first place.

the WH said they aren't going for regime change


rewrite the above

 

[warrior queen]

They don't require US action, they require WORLD action. Which is why the Western Allies are all discussing what to do.
Many years ago, the Allies made a decision (after mustard gas etc were used) that chemical weapons were never to be used again. Almost all the world agreed.
Now they finally have to stand up and do something.
Why not after Saddam gassed his people? Because back then, we didn't know about it till after the fact.
But this time, real-time images have made their way around the world, and the Allies have no choice but to show their reaolve and actually do something - lest they end up viewed as 'ineffectual' by several other powerful non-democratic nations (eg, China and Russia).

It's all politics.... sure, they're all saying the right things about the victims too... but for the most part it's to keep the balance of power that has existed since the end of WWll.

My country is also involved and will likely send troops to be part of any allied response.
I'm not happy about it, but will support the decision my gov't takes on this. My reasons are less about power though, and more about the fact that I believe chemical weapons should never be used against civillians.

 

[Busybody]

They don't require US action, they require WORLD action. Which is why the Western Allies are all discussing what to do.
Many years ago, the Allies made a decision (after mustard gas etc were used) that chemical weapons were never to be used again. Almost all the world agreed.
Now they finally have to stand up and do something.
Why not after Saddam gassed his people? Because back then, we didn't know about it till after the fact.
But this time, real-time images have made their way around the world, and the Allies have no choice but to show their reaolve and actually do something - lest they end up viewed as 'ineffectual' by several other powerful non-democratic nations (eg, China and Russia).

It's all politics.... sure, they're all saying the right things about the victims too... but for the most part it's to keep the balance of power that has existed since the end of WWll.

My country is also involved and will likely send troops to be part of any allied response.
I'm not happy about it, but will support the decision my gov't takes on this. My reasons are less about power though, and more about the fact that I believe chemical weapons should never be used against civillians.

why?

its war

bad stuff happens in war

 

[warrior queen]

why?

its war

bad stuff happens in war

If I wasn't clear enough, then no amount of my explanations will ever make sense to you.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Aside from war is never good and should be avoided at all costs why are you happy about it? It seems like you agree with the reasons why they are doing it even if you acknowledge they are more doing it for pragmatic reasons and not out of the goodness of their hearts.

The way I figure it enough people do the wrong thing every day that I'm not going to lose any sleep over someone doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (if maintaining the balance that has kept any truly major wars from breaking out for seventy years can be considered the wrong reason. Pragmatism doesn't always mean bad.)

 

[Busybody]

If I wasn't clear enough, then no amount of my explanations will ever make sense to you.

Muslims are killing hundreds of thousands in Sudan.....why are we not there?



also

Why the ALLIES? WHO DIED AND MADE THEM GOD?

 

[Busybody]

Obama and Syria, “Monkey With A Hand Grenade”…

 

[islandman]

Must be a slow day on whichever Syria thread the RWCJ would typically post in.

 

[run_silent]

What if Obama could admit he was wrong about the red line and American response. Not that he will.

What if he said the US has been accused too many times of acting unilaterally. We turn the issue over to the UN. This is an African and middle eastern problem.

The US will not become involved until we are asked by the UN. Once asked we will consider if we want to be involved.

My opinion is the US has been used for the dirty work and then denounced by the very countries that were counting on us to do it.

I am not saying we become isolationist. What I am saying is first say to nations and regions that it is your problem deal with it. If you can't, then come to the UN and ask for our help.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't hate that plan.

 

[run_silent]

I don't hate that plan.

Oh admit it. You like it.

 

[Busybody]

What if Obama could admit he was wrong about the red line and American response. Not that he will.

What if he said the US has been accused too many times of acting unilaterally. We turn the issue over to the UN. This is an African and middle eastern problem.

The US will not become involved until we are asked by the UN. Once asked we will consider if we want to be involved.

My opinion is the US has been used for the dirty work and then denounced by the very countries that were counting on us to do it.

I am not saying we become isolationist. What I am saying is first say to nations and regions that it is your problem deal with it. If you can't, then come to the UN and ask for our help.

Dumb Idea

 

[Ishmael]

Technically, it doesn't although practically speaking virtually any regime change in Syria is potentially destabilizing re Israel.

The issue, it seems to me, is that successful foreign policy depends on a delicate balance of certainty and ambiguity. There should be any number of actions by our international rivals that we want them and the rest of the world to know that a forceful military response by the United States is forthcoming. Certainty.

There are likewise any number of actions by these same rivals that we want them and the rest of the world to know that, regardless of our rhetoric, no intentional escalation of the situation by the U. S. is forthcoming. Again, certainty.

Finally, there is a host of actions by our rivals between these two extremes where the response of the United States is by various degrees uncertain. That ambiguity is also intentional and serves our purposes well when executed properly.

In this case, I believe Obama declared a scenario of certainty that he now wishes he had couched in far more ambiguous terms. It is for this reason that we now must initiate a firm, military response which assures the world that we have the strength of our convictions.

All of the possible things that could go wrong with that decision are arguably no more potentially dangerous than that which can result from the President negligently upsetting that balance in the first place.

Precisely the case. He has shown himself to be ill prepared for international (and domestic) statesman craft, on several occasions.

The US has no vital interest at stake in Syria, or more precisely we didn't when this all fired up. Assad, as much of an asshole that he is, was a known factor and did represent a stabilizing influence. Russia and China both have taken a wiser course re. Syria.

Considering how well Libya and Egypt have worked out I think we can ill afford more mid-east entanglements of a military nature.

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh admit it. You like it.

That would require me to admit that someone had a good idea before me. This is the Lit GB. I would lose all face. It would be better if I were outed as woman. At least then I'd get an annual thread commemorating me and several threads when it happened. You're going to have to settle for a lack of hatred.