Should the USA strike Syria for Using Chemical Weapons?

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Sec. Kerry and the President of the USA want the people to look at the evidence and think and determine for themselves what happened in Syria and what we should do about it. They put the vote to strike Syria to our representatives in Congress and it's passed the Senate. The final part of the vote is in the House of Representatives on Monday September 9th and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has already thrown his weight behind the vote which means it will likely pass and the USA will lead the strike on Syria.

I've found on different forums that most people have already made up their minds about Syria and just want to talk in order to be heard by people that agree with them. So I figure since this is MENA and some of us are involved with Syria one way or another be is family in Syria, or members of our families helping with the refugee crisis, ect that we should put it to a vote ourselves. If you want to discuss it you may also do that but this is really to see what action people want.

This is my first poll post in awhile under the new layout. I can't tell in preview if the poll is working. Here are the options for the vote encase this doesn't work.

Should the USA Strike Syria for Using Chemical Weapons?

Yes, Chemical Weapon Use Justifies Striking Syria

No, a Military Strike is Not the Answer

A Humanitarian Response is Proportionate to a Humanitarian Crisis

I don't know what is best.

Other (Explain)

Edited September 6, 2013 by ॐ

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Oh and by humanitarian response that means humanitarian aid other than arming rebels with weapons and bombing Syria.

Edited September 6, 2013 by ॐ

[sandinista! 1,816]

I voted for the 2nd option, but am strongly in favor of NGO humanitarian aid. This is where I've been contributing.

Www.mercycorps.org/Syria

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

It's not even been established if the Syrian government in fact was responsible for chemical weapons attacks - there are many questions about exactly what happened.

However, we do know that Syrian rebels were caught with sarin gas just across the border in Turkey. We also know that Syrians living in one of the villages targeted (who are affiliated with the rebels) say that al Nusra Front (a terror group associated with al Qaeda that has joined the attempt to overthrow the Assad regime) was behind the attack.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

My biggest concern about this is we don't have the UN report back on the chemical weapons investigation to confirm anything and go ahead with a decision on the proper course of action for who exactly to punish or rather "give our warning shot" to. Our administration is 100% sure yet seeks Congressional approval and says our credibility is on the line. I also find that the whole credibility line they're feeding us is a bunch of BS. If the world doesn't know by now that the US has the most powerful military and can use it anytime they damn well wish then they're in some serious denial and they're never going to realize it. If we truly want to be seen as credible then we better freaking get our facts straight and have the UN investigation back it up this time before rushing off to administer justice as if we're the world's policemen just like our big eff up in Iraq.

Yes innocent children died and no one is denying it's deplorable but the pictures released almost immediately on social media reeked of propaganda. It made me question what is the purpose of showing those images to the world and who's behind them. Who took the time to compose the pictures of those babies bodies lined up so carefully? I've also read unconfirmed reports that rebels admitted to an AP journalist that they accidentally set off the chemical weapons that Assad is being blamed for. They were given the weapon by Saudi royalty. They say exactly who gave it to them and when. That many of these rebels didn't know what the weapon was they were dealing with. That there were 17-18 of them in a tunnel when they set the chemical weapon off and most of those rebels died instantly.

However, setting chemical weapons off by accident isn't likely because the technology is sophisticated. It's something people using them have to be trained in to actually be effective in being able to deploy. People can't just set them off by accident. If rebels had these weapons they'd have to be trained to use them. Also experts haven't ruled out the possibility rebels did have them and deployed them. This was discussed on Charlie Rose.

Charlie Rose did two segments on Syria recently. The topic covers the first half hour of each show and discussed the rebels, the weapons, the reactions.

Syria discussion 1

Syria discussion 2

Then there is the recent 4 hour US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing that happened on September 3rd if anyone wants to watch it. It has all the administrations hard hitters being grilled by the Senators for the Authorization of Use of Force in Syria.

LINK to Hearing

The Witnesses

The Honorable John F. Kerry

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

The Honorable Chuck Hagel

Secretary of Defense

U.S. Department of Defense

Washington, DC

General Martin E. Dempsey

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Joint Staff Pentagon

Washington, DC

Also Kerry's portrait on Syria's rebels is at odds with intelligence reports and what journalists in the region have been reporting. He's claiming the moderate opposition are the largest group. However, everything else for months has been reporting there are thousands of opposition groups in Syria with different interests and that's part of the problem because they don't fall under one umbrella and come to an agreement on things. That the strongest group is the al-Nusra Front because they're AQ fighters. Even the Charlie Rose segments I linked backs up that the al-Nusra Front are the biggest opposition group fighting in Syria besides the article I link below discussing the rebel groups in Syria.

There are at least 1,200 different Syrian rebel groups and that Islamic extremists, notably the Nusra Front, were well-placed to expand their influence. Article

Edited September 7, 2013 by ॐ

[amysaid 9]

Maybe we should forget about bombing Syria and bomb Japan instead for this radioactive mess we're all in for now?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The OP's opinions seems to have morphed between composing the premise of this poll and her latest post..... wonders never cease....

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I watched Obama's speech tonight with my husband and neighbors. It appears that even though no one here voted for the (other) option in the poll it's the one that wins.

Obama is going to pursue the diplomatic option Putin proposed for Syria to turn over all chemical weapons to the international community to be destroyed. My first thought is "Win one for Obama and the international community!", and my first question is whose paying for that? In the US Senate hearing they estimated it will take 7500 troops on the ground to secure the chemical weapons in Syria.

Obama is keeping the military force in the sea there to keep the pressure on Assad and has asked Congress to postpone their vote for a military strike.

Getting rid of the chemical weapons is the whole point. This solution proposed by Syria's Russian allies seems to be the most intelligent, peaceful, and ideal solution. I hope that it does work.

The video of the speech isn't available yet but you can read the full transcript here: LINK

Edited September 11, 2013 by ॐ