So What? They Used Chemical Weapons. It is War. Why Is It Our Business?

[Stuart G]

War is ...well ..War.
Countries and leaders do unmentionable things during war.
So do soldiers. It is what it is. It is not new.
Why should anyone be surprised?
If the U.S attacks Syria, it is an act of war.
Syria could attack the U.S. That is what war is.
I believe war should always be avoided, if possible.
Always, if possible..

[Loudly]

1. The damnable Bush years have discredited rightful outrage concerning WMDs.

[Stuart G]

8. Of course we are outraged ...at what was done to people.

War is an outrage. Do we need another war? If we attack Syria.. What does that mean? Answer that please..

[Loudly]

20. Why do we punish murderers generally? Vengeance and deterrence.

[riqster]

2. Women get raped in war. Children are slaughtered in war. Do you also say "so what" to that?

People die in arson-related fires. People get mugged on the street. Little old ladies get bilked of their life savings.

Where do you draw the line? Do you see a time where intervention is called for? Or do you say, no matter what evil is done to our fellow humans, "so what"?

[Stuart G]

7. No, I do not say ..."so what"...that is what it is

Where is the line? Good Point. Here is the line..

Is it in our national interest to prevent a dictator from killing those who are opposed to him. A dictator who is ruthless, vicious and in an area 8000 miles away? Did we do this in China when people stood up at Tianamen Square? Ruthless killing is what war is, and what rebellion is. Chemical Weapons? Did we prevent the dictator in Chile from killing thousands who were opposed? That was evil..
But for us to go to war against Syria ..well..it is war.. At least call it what it is ..not intervention, not trying to stop a dictator, but we, the United States will be at war if we attack this country..and everyone in this country needs to know it if that is what happens..

[randome]

11. Funny how our society is supposed to be altruistic in so many ways (most of which I agree with.)...

...but when it comes to the possibility of war to stop atrocities from occurring, all we care about is ourselves, i.e. the 'national interest'.

War is abominable on all levels. That doesn't mean we ignore what is happening around us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[riqster]

15. With respect, you DID say "So what":

"So What? They Used Chemical Weapons. It is War. Why Is It Our Business?"

I understand the need to avoid yet another war in the Middle East. However, I also understand that our shared humanity does not stop at some arbitrarily drawn international border.

People are being killed, and you say "so what", unless we can assist with no risk to ourselves. But if it poses a risk to us, ohnonono, we must not intervene. "So what" if children die an excruciating death, you say, we must not risk a hair on our own pointed little American heads.

Christ on a trampoline.

[Stuart G]

16. Yes, you are correct.

I did say, "So What".. I was wrong to deny that.

I guess I meant that I thought that in spite of loss life, is this war in Syria our business.
The risk I believe is very big. Assad is very evil. The situation there is very fluid. Perhaps my opening thread made too little of this situation. That many have died. I recall clearly the moral stature of those in Washington who said after the Pueblo incident, that we
must really engage in Viet Nam. and we did. Now this is not the Pueblo, it is something else. I am not sure that we must get into
this war. Is it really our business? Our country has been in many wars. Is a direct war with Syria necessary? Now?

[riqster]

18. If the alternative is the tacit endorsement of war crimes,

Then the moral choice is clear to me. Inaction can be as despicable as action.

[madokie]

3. War is an admission of failure

[pampango]

4. Governments have the right to use chemical (biological, nuclear?) weapons on their citizens in order

to stay in power? Does sovereignty lie in a country's people or in its government?

[leveymg]

6. Do states have a right to arm rebels to wage religious wars of extermination against other states?

Don't we call that terrorism when it's directed at us or against one of our "allies"?

[pampango]

10. I'll answer yours, if you'll answer mine. No. Yes.

The use of chemical weapons violates international law, so no one has the right to use them under any circumstances.

If, hypothetically, Syria supplied weapons to "rebels" who took control of a neighborhood in an Israeli border town (as part of a "religious war of extermination&quot , the Israeli government would not have the right to use chemical weapons on that neighborhood.

Also hypothetically, if a foreign country provided weapons to, say, a "patriot" 'rebel' group in the mountains of Idaho for an attack on the "secular, humanist" government in Washington, the US government could not use chemical weapons.

[leveymg]

12. 1) No. 2) Yes, but sovereignty within the states system is contingent

1) Self-explanatory - If both sides have used chemical weapons, as appears to have occurred, we should not aid one side by selective retaliatory bombing of the other.

2) Sovereignty is a concept that has evolved along with modern conceptions of government and international law. Under the present system of multilateral institutions, treaties, and laws administered by member organizations -- e.g., the UN, International Court of Justice, OAS, WTO, etc.-- states are sovereign entities, while non-state actors (VOLAGs, observers, etc.) are not sovereign but under some circumstances have a right to represent national groups attendant to their recognition as stateless or another special status.

Personally, and in the U.S., I agree with Madison and Jefferson that under the 10th Amendment, all powers not reserved to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and the People.

[madrchsod]

5. the carter/reagan doctrine.

we have to protect-control the oil and gas pipelines and fields.

[Stuart G]

9. If the oil and gas piplines are the issue..or what if the issue is innocents being killed?

Then is it ok to go to war with Syria?
War has consequences. almost always unforeseen consequences.
Endgames that do not end the game.

For example. At the end of World War I, collective thought at the peace conference was to blame Germany...
so, the end game helped to cause another war, worse than the first....Iraq I???how could there be an Iraq II?

Sure, Assad needs to go. Are there other ways besides war...that is open war? We attack him, then maybe he will respond and somehow do something to us..an unexpected endgame....

[madrchsod]

21. god no it`s not ok.

the problem is the syrian king is a war criminal but how does the rest of the parties involved want to deal with him .

we sold chemical weapons to saddam then several years later we attacked him for threatening to go to euros. we armed the afghans to fight the soviets then they turn now they are killing our troops and their own people.

every one of these wars are based on the ability of our government to convince americans to pay for this policy with our money and blood. we have gained nothing from the money spent and the deaths and injury to everyone involved.

i think obama is weighing the situation and looking at every option of avoiding war. thank the voters of this country who elected a president that does not have to prove to his father that he is a bigger man than him.

[geek tragedy]

13. No, chemical weapons are not part of war. They are explicitly banned for any combatant

in any circumstance. It's a per se war crime to use them.

[Stuart G]

14. War crime yes, Does that mean we attack Syria?

If we attack Syria, in response to a war crime..and kill their soldiers. Does that justify starting a war with them?
If Syria kills our soldiers and sailors in retaliation of our killing their soldiers..is that war? do we want to start a war
with Syria over this? Because that is what it is. The outcome is never clear, although it seems to be. There are too
many examples of war gone wrong to list them. but...If we attack Assad's forces, then we are starting a war with Syria.
It may seem like it will be easy and short..but that is not necessarily true. .

[Boom Sound 416]

17. You're saying avoid war or wars

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. you are full of empathy and compassion. Good on you.