1. Do we know for certain that Assad's regime used chemical weapons?

The answer is No.

We are pretty sure that chemical weapons of some kind were used. We don't know what, exactly, and it's not 100% clear how they were delivered. Even if it were clearly military, the FSA may have capability, given that they do have some senior former Syrian Army members and they have controlled various parts of the country.

It looks highly suspicious that the UN inspectors were barred for so long, and then shot at, and certainly as part of a pattern it looks very much like the Assad regime, or the army, did it. However, the rebels would have a strong motive (as they have been gradually losing the war) to make it look like it was Assad in order to bring external assistance in.

Why would the government use chemical weapons when the inspectors were so close by - perhaps it was a rogue section of the army rather than the regime itself.

2. What would military action be for?

This is the key question for any kind of intervention. Too often it's about how we should do 'something' (but hey, let's not risk our boys' lives so just send in some missiles, right?), but before you think about what to do, you have to work out what the objective is.

Are we, as in Libya, going to effectively try and disable the Syrian war machine to allow the rebels to fight on more equal terms? Are we going to try and stop the war and keep peace? Are we going to try and remove Assad ourselves? Is it just limited to taking out likely WMD sites?

And sorry, RJ and DEFIANT, but when you start shooting missiles, it's war.

3. What are we prepared to do if our initial plan fails?

It's happened before.

The question of 'who should/will lead' is pretty secondary. As in Libya, it seems that the Europeans - primarily the UK and France - are pressing. I am guessing that Obama does not want to be seen to lead the way in, and established the 'red line' simply to explain why act on Libya but not in Syria, which was fine until someone did use chemical weapons.

I was not in favour of intervention in Libya when it started. In hindsight it worked out ok, but I still think it was risky and could lead to problems down the line. One of those was making more risky interventions more likely.

Of course, Libya is not Syria. Yeah, superficially they are both Middle Eastern countries, but Syria has a lot more people in a smaller area for a start, which means that even well aimed cruise missiles are more likely to take out a bunch of civilians.

Danivon:

Is it just limited to taking out likely WMD sites?

It could be.

And sorry, RJ and DEFIANT, but when you start shooting missiles, it's war

Right, but the extent of it can be controlled. Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor and Syrian capabilities as well. That was pretty much the end of it. As I recollect, the US intervention in Kosovo was relatively successful with few negative repercussions for the U.S. Clinton's only regret was that he didn't act sooner.

Certainly wars vary. I don't see why you and Sass don't acknowledge that. Yes, Syria is not Libya; but that doesn't mean it has to be Iraq or Afghanistan either.

What are you going to say and recommend if we do nothing and Syria gasses 100,000 people? How many people did Hussein gas while we did nothing?

Sass,
It is my experience that when one starts losing an argument, they deflect to things like, you didn't use my countrie's name in the proper context. That seems to be exactly that is going on here, you are more focused on the context of your country name and less on the context of the argument.

Danivon,
Nice to debate you again.

However, you are right and wrong, sure when one launches a Tomahawk missile at your ass, yes it is war. That said, there is a big difference between launching missiles, taking out air defenses and putting boots on the ground. No one argues that the militants could be as bad as Assad, but he is the one using chemical weapons and first that is horrible in itself, if some of those militants get a hold of those weapons, that could be devastating for any western nation.

So from my point of view this is two fold, first we stop this clown from poisoining his own people and second destroy those caches of chemical weapons, which we can do. Doesn't matter who controls Syria from either faction they are both horrible. Unless we are willing to go in FULL force and colonize all we can do is limit the damage from these regimes to what they can do to us now or in the future. Don't forget Syria is a puppet for Iran.

It did not work out well in Libya, don't know if you saw our Ambassador getting killed in Libya and how is it working out so far in Egypt? This whole thing is a powder keg and this may be the ignition to set off the middle east. But to take no action is an action, so by sitting on the sidelines we do not in partial control the situation in Syria, it may blow without our input and in the meantime, children are dying the most horrible deaths you can imagine. Again what kind of people are we, civilized or just sit by and watch children die, who are you Danivon? There are two kinds of people, those to run to a crisis and those who run from crisis.

DEFIANT wrote:Really, that's just a pompous ass remark. who cares, england, united Kingdom, uk, great britain, the island, you know what I mean.

The people who live here care.

I will try and not hold you responsible, for United States, United States of America, US, USA, the states, america.

These are all - with the exception of the last - the exact same thing. Even 'America' is now also largely used to mean the USA rather than the whole continent.

On the other hand, England is a part (the largest part, but not all) of Great Britain. Great Britain is an island, and is itself a part (again the largest part, but not all) of the UK.

It's reasonable to conflate Great Britain with the UK, as the main difference is Northern Ireland, where some of the people identify with Ireland and others with Britain.

But it's very jarring to see 'England' referred to as if it is the whole country.

There are two kinds of people, those to run to a crisis and those who run from crisis.

sorry Defiant but I'm not sure we know where you stand on this yourself? You stated something must be done ...by someone else. Seems to me you are the kind of person who wants to run away from a crisis while yelling for help from others. (a THIRD kind of person?)

...and England/UK
That's like someone calling Americans "Californians", you know the difference, it's easier to type two letters than it is seven letters, why not use the correct terms? Yes we know what you mean but it's kind of ignorant to use the wrong wording now isn't it?

Defiant:

I wasn't aware that we were having an argument, since we both seem to think that there should be no military action. I was just correcting your erroneous assumption that anything at all is going to happen without American leadership, which in large part seems to stem from a complete misunderstanding of British politics (not to mention British military capabilities).

RJ:

Certainly wars vary. I don't see why you and Sass don't acknowledge that. Yes, Syria is not Libya; but that doesn't mean it has to be Iraq or Afghanistan either.

What are you going to say and recommend if we do nothing and Syria gasses 100,000 people? How many people did Hussein gas while we did nothing?

Of course wars vary. I'm not saying that intervention in Syria would inevitably become another Afghanistan, but it's likely to get us into something that we can't easily get out of again.

Syria is not our fight. I don't accept that the West has a responsibility to intervene every time a madman harms his own people. Assad has already killed 100000 of his own people. Kim Jong Il starved well over a million of his own people to death. Is it somehow more morally reprehensible to kill them with gas ? Chemical weapons are just another form of weaponry, and the outcome is the same.

In my view military intervention should only be used where there's a clear strategic imperative or a sufficiently strong moral duty imposed by historical ties. I'm not convinced that either case applies where Syria is concerned. Iraq was slightly different in that there's always going to a strategic imperative in the case of one of the world's major oil producers. This doesn't necessarily make it morally right of course, but it's a reason to get involved. I'm struggling to see an equivalent reason to intervene in Syria.

Sassenach wrote:

I'm not advocating that we go to war. I'm advocating air strikes and cruise missiles.

That sounds a lot like going to war to me.

Me too. Can you imagine if some nation floated a navy off of the coast of the USA and then did a few air strikes and launched a few cruise missiles onto our shores? Would that not be called an act of war? Sounds like someone might have a double-standard.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

Is it just limited to taking out likely WMD sites?

It could be.

Sure. As long as we know where they are. But is that all it should be in your opinion?

Ray Jay wrote:And sorry, RJ and DEFIANT, but when you start shooting missiles, it's war

Right, but the extent of it can be controlled. Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor and Syrian capabilities as well. That was pretty much the end of it.

The most important word in that first sentence is 'can'. I remain to be convinced that is really true all the time, and of course the real issue is whether it 'will' be controlled.

Ray Jay wrote:As I recollect, the US intervention in Kosovo was relatively successful with few negative repercussions for the U.S. Clinton's only regret was that he didn't act sooner.

Generally it was successful. But the US did accidentally bomb the Chinese Embassy.

Ray Jay wrote:Certainly wars vary. I don't see why you and Sass don't acknowledge that. Yes, Syria is not Libya; but that doesn't mean it has to be Iraq or Afghanistan either.

I think I am acknowledging it, thanks. I don't think it would be Iraq, or Afghanistan, but it is likely to be different from Libya. Because every war is different, they are also unpredictable ahead of time.

Ray Jay wrote:What are you going to say and recommend if we do nothing and Syria gasses 100,000 people? How many people did Hussein gas while we did nothing?

Well, as most of the people he was gassing were Iranian soldiers, we didn't do nothing. We (the West) supported him, having sold Iraq the materials they used for their chemical weapons programme. After Halabja, the US government actually blamed Iran for the attack. It wasn't until some time after the first Gulf War that the US changed their position on who did it.

oh good grief, Tom, it is like saying the contiguous states, one would get the jist of the term.

And no, not running from the fight, just want someone else to take the fight once, we are always the country that seems to lead with vast majority of men, equipment, money and all paid for my us.
Why doesn't GB(reminds me of my Green Bay Packers) bring one of its aircraft carriers down and launch strikes from it and take control of Syrian situation. Everybody is good at saying yes, lets go do it, but, oh hey US can you use all those nice weapons you have because it is the most efficient way to handle this, and we don't have to build them and maintain them.

Danivon,
I believe action should be taken, limited, stop the slaughter of children from WMD and destroy the WMD stockpile, what happens after that is up to them. That is in the national interest of the West because if those WMD make it to the terrorists that puts the West in danger, and you are as much of the West as we are. You are right I don't know the capabilities of the GB military because we rarely see them, show us here so we can see it. You sure see ours all the time.
I didn't say argument to you, it was a debate, argument was with Sass.
Hell, even the French just said the regime has to be punished, make this an Anglo-French(correct Sass?) led operation, we'll lay in support.

DEFIANT wrote:However, you are right and wrong, sure when one launches a Tomahawk missile at your ass, yes it is war. That said, there is a big difference between launching missiles, taking out air defenses and putting boots on the ground.

Of course there a different scale, but let's not kid ourselves that an act of war is not one just because it doesn't risk the lives of our troops directly.

No one argues that the militants could be as bad as Assad, but he is the one using chemical weapons and first that is horrible in itself, if some of those militants get a hold of those weapons, that could be devastating for any western nation.

How do you know that it is Assad? Last I knew, we had a very strong suspicion but no real proof.

So from my point of view this is two fold, first we stop this clown from poisoining his own people and second destroy those caches of chemical weapons, which we can do.

This assumes that we know where the caches are, and that they can't be moved.

Doesn't matter who controls Syria from either faction they are both horrible. Unless we are willing to go in FULL force and colonize all we can do is limit the damage from these regimes to what they can do to us now or in the future. Don't forget Syria is a puppet for Iran.

Syria is not a puppet for Iran, but is an ally. And it may well matter who runs Syria, if that impacts who runs Lebanon, and what their attitude (and actions) are regarding Israel and Iraq.

This whole thing is a powder keg and this may be the ignition to set off the middle east. But to take no action is an action, so by sitting on the sidelines we do not in partial control the situation in Syria, it may blow without our input...

Syria may well set things off, but then again so could Western intervention, particularly of the military kind.

and in the meantime, children are dying the most horrible deaths you can imagine. Again what kind of people are we, civilized or just sit by and watch children die, who are you Danivon? There are two kinds of people, those to run to a crisis and those who run from crisis.

Emotional blackmail plus a clichéd homily? My, you are pulling all the stops out.

I take it then, that if there's to be fighting, you are volunteering. Oh, no, you are saying that Europe should do it and your country (and you, I guess) stay out of it. I guess there's a third kind of person - those who push others into a crisis.

"Well, as most of the people he was gassing were Iranian soldiers, we didn't do nothing. We (the West) supported him, having sold Iraq the materials they used for their chemical weapons programme. After Halabja, the US government actually blamed Iran for the attack. It wasn't until some time after the first Gulf War that the US changed their position on who did it. "

You are right here, technically we did not physically drop the gas here but we did look the other way. Now if these clowns want to gas each other's soldiers, let'em, its the willful attack on the innocent especially children that has to stop. Do you agree with this at least, or do you think we stay out of it, not matter what, let hell reach all the innocent in Syria.

I have to learn how to cut and paste to certain responses.

First Danivon, let me say, YES it is time for someone else to lead in this crisis, we(the US) have done enough for a while. No I have never fought in a war and the greatest hardship for a leader of nation is to send soldiers in harm's way. That's why i feel so strong that someone else take the lead, it to me always seems the US takes the bulk for the hits and costs. Nobody ever seems to have a problem with the US sending troops or resources to take on a crisis but sure know how to bitch when we suggest someone else take the lead for once.

Yes Danivon, Syria could set it off, we could set it off by reacting, or by not reacting, the difference is if we react, at least we can try and control the situation, always better to be on offense then defense.

Why doesn't GB(reminds me of my Green Bay Packers) bring one of its aircraft carriers down and launch strikes from it and take control of Syrian situation.

Because we lack the military capability to do so and because the political will isn't there.

The US is the leader of the Western alliance and you have way more military power than the rest of the allies combined. What that means is that you guys call the shots. If Obama doesn't want this war to happen then it won't, but if he does then he can usually count on Britain at least to tag along, and in certain cases the French are also willing to get involved. Realistically though, our involvement is mostly just symbolic.

Sass,
That is my whole argument here. You guys don't invest into military, you depend on the states to do that with no support to our military costs, I have a severe problem with that. There will be point sometime that GB can be threatened, what are you going to do? Especially if the US says we can't help this time.

And I believe if we sit this one out, you guys are still going to do something, both leaders in France and GB say something has to be done and if your citizens continue to watch children die, there will be an uproar for something to be done. Pictures are now just coming out from gassing. The more we ignore it, the more it will happen and the more pictures will come out. Sit with your head in the sand, saying it doesn't bother us will eventually catch up with you. If it doesn't, are we really any better than Assad?