Syrian Crisis: Whom To Believe

[HelpLuperza]

*Disclaimer for non-history buffs*: Ok so I tend to often over-assume my audience are history nerds just like the lady in this xckd comic. If you need me to explain at anything let me know. Also for you skim readers out there, my key question is--What are the economic reasons for or against getting involved in the Syrian conflict?

I feel the reasons so far given by the news(1) and in the forums(2) for not going to war, have been are, my opinion, weak compared the potential arguments people could be making for and against this war. They are weak when examined in the light of the US's history of wars and conflicts.
Historically, the US since the beginning major battles or conflicts for at least one really stupid reason (ex. American Revolution); however, it is often more more than one reason. (3)
Personally, I don't want to go to war with Syria. If only to help you guys develop stronger debate-hardened reasons for opposing the war, I am at least for the sake of this thread going to pretend to be the opposition in support of the war. Instead, I would like to look at the reasons Assad and Syrian Opposition have against/for US involvement.

So lets go back first to the original premise of this debate:
Four points of view on the matter of who used the chem weapons.

One thing that eludes me is why would Assad use the chems and why do people keep believing it so blindly. Did he ran out of lead or missiles? Did he watch too much James Bond and decided to be a classic villain and launched toxins into populace just for the fun of it?

This topic is concerned about-- Did Assad use chemical weapons or did someone else? Why? Should America be going to war based on the current chemical weapons evidence presented? Should America be going to war Assad based on chemical weapons?
To understand the prowar stance, one needs to go back an first understand what are chemical weapons and then look at the evidence they have presented.

Chemical Weapon Evidence

Historically speaking, Chemical weapons are deeply feared and according to some reporters rarely used. However, what certain NPR journalists or "expert" richard price won't tell you is the deeper reason of why they are feared because they don't look at history. To do this you have to ask yourself first what are chemical weapons?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jozozH09XSs
extra footage:
For those of you who didn't get the Sarin gas XKCD joke above immediately, Nottingham Science did a great video about what Chemical Weapons are. Watching the video should help you understand better the US argument:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...t-on-syria.pdf

Here is a list of the main points the president is trying to make: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ur-big-points/

• His goal with strikes is to uphold the norm against chemical weapons – not steer the war
• His long-term goal in Syria is to seek a political solution, not to topple Assad
• He wants an international coalition but he’ll go without one
• Even though strikes are unpopular with Americans, it’s still “the right thing to do.”

Behind both this articles, though is a subtext of the fear of chemical weapons. After watching the video above, it should be clear that chemical weapons were, at the signing of the Genava Convention, feared because they cause symptoms similar to human disease and famine. In fact, the british chemist who help to make chemical warfare popular said, "there is the possibility — quite simple to conceive — of filling a shell with germs of bacilli, which would fill the enemy's atmosphere with dreadful diseases, poison their water supply, or set up an epidemic more deadly than any battle in the history of the world." He knew full well back then that the weapons he were proposing would possibly cause civilian causalities. Contrary to popular belief chemical weapons have beens used often World War 1 and World War II
. Moreoever, across the scope of the both world war I and world war II, gas actually only made up a small percentage of the total causalities (4% in WWI). However, if one looks at the top reasons for death during World I and World II, one will find at the top of the list disease, famine, and human rights violations. Instead of the actual death toll from chemical weapons, it is thus the fact that chemical weapons are one of the most direct causes of disease, sickness, and famine that makes them so feared. This is a trend is consistent with when you see in other examples of when chemical weapons are except with each chemical weapon attack, the death due to the chemical weapons themselves has risen. This rise basically means, that humanity is more efficient using chemical weapons to kill people and detecting chemical weapon attacks than America were during WWI.

So the argument goes America wants stop chemical weapons like the ones the CIA says Assad is using simply because Americans wants to enforce the internationally mandate to reduce the amount of causalities due to military direct famine, disease, sickness as much as possible.

You just got to insert very sad sounding human rights/human morality argument here. I will play the worlds smallest patriotic violin the background.

_________________________________________

What are the other reasons should War or not go to War? Could they be economic?

Now use chemical weapons or violations of the Genava convention a good reason to war? I think everyone here can all say that no chemical weapons by themselves is a stupid reason to enter into a conflict. Its also kind of stupid because if thats the reason America should have entered the war when the first possibly human rights violation occurred. However, remember America always go to war for at least one really stupid trigger reason(3), like the assassination of some random Archduke. While it is stupid, it is historically justified (3).

Historically humanity has gone to war for religions, nationalistic, geographic (land grab), social, political allegiance, and especially economic reasons for war. In fact, if you think about it every major historical has economic reasons behind its occurrence.
So why would not this conflict have economic cause for us to get involved or not get involved? Think for a moment about the nonUS-actors in this conflict--Assad, the rebels, Hezbollah, Russia, Europe, the Arab League.
What stake do they have in the war? What economic reasons do they have in this civil war? Heck are Turkey, Israel, and especially France all are getting involved militarily in the Syrian conflict independent of the US's actions. Why are Turkey, Israel, and France interested in Syria civil war? Could they have economic reasons? If, so what are they?
Also what is the economic relationship between us and the other actors in this civil war. Do America have a trade relationship with Syria? or do America have a major trade relationship with any of the non-Syria actors?

What are the US's economic reasons for and against getting into the Syrian conflict? Why?

To make your arguments against war stronger, I encourage you all to think really deeply about this final question as it more than just "all about oil" as Figment mention. I tried to help you guys with the questions preceding it. In fact, I can tell you right now the original oil argument for Iraq was about oil, just not oil prices or oil that ever goes to us. (cough France cough)


1) Code Pink's "Blood on Hands" argument and Town Hall "not our war" argument in particular. These sound bite just make me cringe.
2) Hamma, you, really should explain your opinion with references. Your arguments have merit, but you need to back your arguments.
3) If you guys need me to explain these trends, I can.

[Baneblade]

I don't care if Assad used chemical weapons. We still need to stay out of it.

[Figment]

So principally you want to stay out of it.


Okay. You're kinda asking for a slippery slope argument here. Which is exactly what Obama is using btw.


So how do you all feel about this slippery slope?




And another scenario. What if Assad falls. What will happen to these chemical weapons then? If Assad was willing to use them already and he's pretty much being considered by Russia as the mildest case scenario... Then what?




In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure what the best course of action is, the scenarios are far less clear than Iraq. Of course, Iraq primarily went wrong due to the Bush administration disbanding the Iraqi army and all other security services instead of phasing the bad apples out.

[Baneblade]

We had even less reason to go into Iraq. As for Assad and the chemical weapons, so what? They came from somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Damascus. It's another one of those interfering-in-other-nation's-business things.

[Figment]

I don't think you're pretty sure. I'm pretty sure you're determined to oppose any act of war though and you're just not interested in hearing the arguments used (or find them weak).


But if there's so much indication that the rebels are responsible themselves, where is the evidence for that? You can't trust a government that actively runs a Gestapo that tortures children (even before the civil war) when they say "we didn't do it".

[ChipMHazard]

If the Obama administration is capable of presenting clear evidence to the UN security council then I would favor direct action the Syrian government. For the simply reason that the ban on use of chemical weapons has to be enforced otherwise it serves no purpose.
At this point I agree with President Putin in that if the Obama administration has sufficient proof then they should show it to the international community.

[Figment]

What do you feel of the proposed plan for Assad to hand in any and all chemical weapons in their possession?

A. Would he go for it?
B. Why wouldn't he if he's not going to use them anyway?
C. Would it mean he'd actually hand in everything? ie. Can he be trusted?
D. Would he need to face trial at the ICC?

[GeoGnome]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

At this point I agree with President Putin in that if the Obama administration has sufficient proof then they should show it to the international community.

This, for the most part.

I have read from numerous sources that the report presented with "Clear" evidence that Assad ordered a chemical weapon strike, is incited and completely circumstantial. There is no clear evidence it was Assad, as there are rumors the rebels have access to rudimentary chemical weaponry themselves. There is just no clear number for the people who died (Obama administration said 1,400, Doctors without borders said 400)!

All of this coupled with the fact that the Syrians do not want us there, Russia does not want us there, China doesn't want us there, Great Britain does not want us there, and the majority of Americans Don't want us there.

There is no support, there is no support. We should not go.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Figment

What do you feel of the proposed plan for Assad to hand in any and all chemical weapons in their possession?

A. Would he go for it?
B. Why wouldn't he if he's not going to use them anyway?
C. Would it mean he'd actually hand in everything? ie. Can he be trusted?
D. Would he need to face trial at the ICC?

The Syrian government has agreed to the suggestion, probably because of the Russian government. Obviously it's all just promises at this point.
Can President Assad be trusted to hand in everything? Probably not, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up keeping a small stockpile.
Should he be put on trial? Only if there's enough evidence to warrant it.

[Figment]

Come to think of it, did Syria actually break the treaty or were they not in it in the first place?

So would it actually be a crime if they're not part of the same agreed set of rules of engagement for national armies?

(Though I'm guessing that is a bit weird to argue "well we allow war crimes so it's okay" is not really a good argument not to go to trial.)

[ChipMHazard]

I don't see their name on the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_Convention
So they might not be a part of it. I read something about the Russians wanting the Syrian government to also sign the treaty when they give up their weapons.

As to how these conventions work, I have no idea. I've wondered the same thing myself
One would think that a treaty would only apply to those whom have signed it, but I guess that would't make much sense if you're to prevent something from happening worldwide. Is the convention supposed to force the members to actively stop the use of chemical weapons by others?

Edit: Found this http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/ That should explain how it works.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

I don't think you're pretty sure. I'm pretty sure you're determined to oppose any act of war though and you're just not interested in hearing the arguments used (or find them weak).

I think the US spends too much time and money involving itself in the affairs of other nations. We are the meddlesome teenager who just hasn't figured out yet that things only get worse when you stick your nose where it doesn't belong. So it doesn't even matter if going into Syria is justified... because nobody there has asked us to, and nobody there will be better off for it.

[Sirisian]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria

Interesting turn of events.

[ChipMHazard]

So the Obama administration is still using the video and pictures as evidence that President Assad used chemical weapons. I'm sorry Mr. President but that's just not good enough. I didn't believe Mr. McDonough when he used them as proof and I don't believe President Obama when he makes claims without any evidence to back it up. From what I can see it's just a silly argumentum ad passiones. If they have actual evidence then show it to the UN.

I guess it's all going to come down as to whether or not the Syrian government is going to go with the Russian deal.

[Figment]

What really needs to be shown is evidence where the attack came from. :/

Radar footage, launch sites on satellite, sources from within the Syrian authority, that sort of thing. :/

At the same time, for those against the strike, I'd like to see thorough evidence that the opposition did it as well. There seem to be a lot of people just picking sides after FIRST deciding if a strike by the USA should be done or not, rather than looking at what actually happened: they don't care, look at Baneblade for instance. Justification and evidence is irrelevant as his ultimate opinion won't be affected by it, but rather what he accepts as truth (bias) is, because it would weaken the opposing view, regardless of the truth.

No offense Baneblade, it's entirely understandable, I just see this happening a lot (also in dutch discussions) on this particular issue and I'm not quite sure if most people who support non-intervention are even aware that they're choosing sides based on their disgruntlement with US policies.


The facts:

1. We know something - probably Sarin - has been used.
2. We know for certain that Assad has access to those weapons.
3. We suspect that militias have potentially gained access to some of those weapons.
4. We know both Assad and militias attack civilians of the opposing side.
5. We know both Assad and militias don't mind killing children, torturing enemies and commit acts of insane cruelty.
6. We know Assad has delivery systems (rocketry).
7. We don't know if the militias have delivery systems or simply opened barrels of gas or something.
8. We know Assad deliberately stalled and hindered UN inspections from reaching the site in question.
9. We know Assad's forces bombarded the area afterwards, which can be seen as an attempt to destroy evidence on site.

But nothing has been validated that confirms anything solidly. At the moment, I don't see which side has the moral high ground, since all sides have sunk to such barbaric levels, it's just insane.

Personally, I'd say attacks on both Assad and any foreign militias are warranted... >.>