NATO powers considering arming Syria as Cameron sends 350 troops to the border

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8659778.html

West considers action on Syria as America says it will arm rebels after nerve-gas attacks

Britain and US spell out catalogue of chemical weapons atrocities as the threat to supply arms to Assad’s enemies risks rift with Russians

Western nations took a big step on Friday towards supplying arms to Syrian opposition groups after the United States warned Bashar al-Assad’s regime it had crossed a “red line” by mounting deadly nerve-gas attacks against rebel fighters.

On Friday evening, David Cameron discussed the situation in Syria in an hour-long video conference with Mr Obama, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the French President François Hollande and the Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta ahead of the G8 summit.

Earlier, Britain and the US spelt out details of chemical weapons atrocities blamed on Syrian government troops and signalled the time had come to bolster support for moderate groups resisting Assad’s forces.

The deepening sense of crisis over the two-year civil war will eclipse the G8 summit of world leaders taking place next week in Northern Ireland.

It has been heightened by the Syrian army’s recent successes in reversing the gains of rebel fighters and signs that Assad’s soldiers are preparing a major offensive against the opposition-held city of Aleppo.

Ron Paul destroys pro-intervention in Syria argument in 19 seconds

Full video of Ron discussing Syria here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CgAP_gBEPQ

Our leaders are madmen - they make seem nice, talk well but then a mad man is capable of that. Just think about it - we are arming Al-Qaeda and involving ourselves in a war that isn't any of our concern and that is mainly a religious war in the Middle East between the Sunni islamic world (led by the Saudi Kingdom) and the Shia islamic world (led by the Iranian Islamic Republic).

Thoughts? should we involve ourselves in Syria?

[Chippiewill]

On a sidenote, ron paul's argument doesn't work as its pretty dependant on meta-level thinking which in turn can be countered by another argument based on meta-meta-level thinking. Gets pretty paradoxical chicken and egg after a while.

[FlyingJesus]

So Ron Paul is saying "he's gotten away with all sorts of other inhumane crimes, why would he do more?" not exactly the destruction of an argument

While I don't agree with most military involvements, this is a case where people are openly being abused in the most disgusting ways by their government - and deposing true despots is not the same as drawn-out oil operations. The use of chemical weapons (especially against one's own people) warrants action and saying "well it didn't happen to us" isn't reason enough to be apathetic when so many are suffering so clearly

[-:Undertaker:-]

So Ron Paul is saying "he's gotten away with all sorts of other inhumane crimes, why would he do more?" not exactly the destruction of an argument

While I don't agree with most military involvements, this is a case where people are openly being abused in the most disgusting ways by their government - and deposing true despots is not the same as drawn-out oil operations. The use of chemical weapons (especially against one's own people) warrants action and saying "well it didn't happen to us" isn't reason enough to be apathetic when so many are suffering so clearly

I don't see the big omg over chemical weapons. In the Syrian conflict there have been 100,000 deaths, so if Assad did use chemical weapons to kill 100 - I don't see why that is so shockingly bad that we could stand by and watch 99,900 die as a result of bullets and bombs but 100 to chemical weapons is so shockingly outrageous that it merits action. It's the same with the gassing of the Kurds in the 1990s - small numbers in comparison to say the Rwandan crisis where millions died, same for the Cambodian Pol Pot regime. Doesn't add up.

But anyway, I think you both (Chippiewill) miss the point of his argument. He is saying essentially why would Assad who is winning the war knowingly bring the United States into the conflict which would essentially be military suicide? even Gaddafi didn't dare use chemical stockpiles in large quantities in the dying days of his regime, because he knew if he had then US and NATO soldiers would be marching in on the ground. I can understand the logic if Assad were losing the war - then reports of him using chemical weapons as a last resort would be believable.

WMD again? it isn't fooling me, especially with the flawed logic as to why Assad would use them - not to mention there are reports the 'rebels' have used them.

[FlyingJesus]

Chemical weapons cause ridiculous amounts of agony before death, or if death isn't the outcome then lifelong disabling and potential for mutation depending on what's used
No-one's just been watching these events unfold without taking any notice of it
WMD and chemical weapons are not the same thing

I think you're missing the point that these sorts of people don't care what America thinks because they genuinely believe themselves to be in charge of everyone's life, and why on earth you'd think that chemical weapons could only be a last resort for a losing officer rather than the reason that governing forces are winning is beyond me

[-:Undertaker:-]

Chemical weapons cause ridiculous amounts of agony before death

Not really. If the dose is potent enough or the exact agent a strong one then death comes more or less instantly Besides, being shot or having shrapnel puncture your body from an explosion is possibly the most painful thing that could happen to you - and thats what happens in every single war with even the most conventional of weapons (explosives and guns).

or if death isn't the outcome then lifelong disabling and potential for mutation depending on what's used

Exactly the same applies to conventional weapons.

chemical weapons are not the same thing

Exactly the same, and indeed the same as Iraq - remember Colin Powell holding up that little vasé at the UN?

I think you're missing the point that these sorts of people don't care what America thinks because they genuinely believe themselves to be in charge of everyone's life

Indeed. But why is Assad fighting? to preserve the Ba'ath regime.

If using chemical weapons leads to direct or indirect US involvement, that will mean the end of the regime.

So unless Assad is on a suicide mission, or as Paul said, is an idiot, he's not going to use chemical weapons unless as a last minute resort in a moment of madness as the regime collapses around him. But that's not happening, so it doesnt add up.

and why on earth you'd think that chemical weapons could only be a last resort for a losing officer rather than the reason that governing forces are winning is beyond me

The Assad forces are winning because they might have used chemical weapons on 100 people? this is the same kind of fairytale nonsense we were told back in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. The Assad forces are winning because they have large scale support in Syria - especially from minority groups who know who these 'rebels' consist of - and also have a well trained army and a good supply of weapons coming in from Russia.

Assad doesn't need to use chemical weapons at this moment and again, why would he if that means bringing in the worlds most powerful military power?

[dbgtz]

Wasn't it the rebels that had been proven to use chemical warfare, not the government?

Either way, looks like more money down the drain and more rather pointless deaths.

[FlyingJesus]

Both chemical weapons and conventional bullets can cause agony and mutilation rather than straight death, yes, but the difference in likelihood is the reason that certain things are globally banned even in the most bloody of warfare. I don't recall any vases being held up but once again, chemical weapons and WMDs are not the same thing no matter what Iraq stories you want to bring up

The entire argument revolves around the idea that Assad is going to play by the rules until he's losing. If that were ever the case protests and uprisings wouldn't have started in the first place, so you and your friend who loves liberty until it gets in the way of what he wants can sit around saying "BUT SURELY HE WOULDN'T!" all you like but the fact remains that bad people tend to do bad things even when it seems unnecessary

[Chippiewill]

But anyway, I think you both (Chippiewill) miss the point of his argument. He is saying essentially why would Assad who is winning the war knowingly bring the United States into the conflict which would essentially be military suicide? even Gaddafi didn't dare use chemical stockpiles in large quantities in the dying days of his regime, because he knew if he had then US and NATO soldiers would be marching in on the ground. I can understand the logic if Assad were losing the war - then reports of him using chemical weapons as a last resort would be believable.

You clearly missed my point. Obviously Assad realised that Ron Paul would make this argument and distract everyone from the real truth that he indeed did use the gas.

My point is that meta arguments are a complete pile of **** as they're countered by equally **** meta arguments.

[GommeInc]

Isn't arming the rebels only going to cause more deaths and destruction in Syria? Arming the opposition very rarely works, if ever! Mediation would be a better option. Chucking more arms into the mix just won't work, the people using the weaponry cannot be entirely trusted with the weaponry, and the Assad regime will only up their assault killing hundreds of thousands more and displacing millions. Getting NATO involved will only cause more problems, no one likes the dodgy west interfering.