Have your say: Barack Obama outlines reasons for military action against Syrian regime
United States president Barack Obama has vowed to pursue a diplomatic initiative from Russia over Syria's chemical weapons use, but voiced scepticism about it and urged Americans to support his threat to use military force.
- "The main reason chemical weapons are banned is because their use allows a combatant to kill the resident population of his enemy while leaving the infrastructure intact for his future beneficial use. All weapons maim and kill, but horrible as conventional and nuclear weapons are, there are consequences to their use for both sides in an armed conflict, which deter the use of disproportionate force and increase the incentives to sue for peace. This deterrence is absent when chemical weapons are used." - martincd via comments
- I am constantly astounded by the wilful ignorance and pacifist platitudes of people discussing Syria. The logic is simple: chemical weapons are abhorrent, Syria used them to kill hundreds of civilians including children and we can't stand by in tacit approval. Anything less would equate to moral cowardice.
- "The use of chemical agents in Syria is repugnant and unacceptable, but how does that give America the moral right to appoint itself sole judge, jury and executioner? If its armed response takes the usual form, there will be no judge or jury, simply missiles falling from the sky. And the result will be more civilians dead, not less." - fregon via comments
- "So it's OK for children to be writhing in pain due to "conventional weapons" but not chemical weapons! Why is there an international war law against chemical weapons and not "conventional weapons"? Are chemical weapons that much worse than "conventional weapons"? Is the perception that death by chemical weapons slow and bombs swift and so OK? How many people have been left writhing in pain from "conventional weapons" while guys debate whether to use even more "conventional weapons"?" - davycrox via comments
- Personally I support military action in Syria, although it's imperative to have a specific idea of what that action will entail. I disagree with the President that Assad would be bold enough to use them again if there was no consequence, considering that Russia is shielding him and would likely leave him to his fate should they be used again, but rather because the international community must set the precedent that chemical weapons use is unacceptable and will lead to consequences.
- "They should have bombed Assad's palace as soon as they had concrete evidence of who was behind the strike. It doesn't even matter if he wasn't there, it would be a clear signal that using chemical weapons is a freaking no go area." - tkioz via comments
- Potential need, yes. Certainly the use of chemcial weapons should not be tolerated, it's the problem of mission creap and other unintended international effects (see: Iran's response) that are more difficult to determine. Obviously Obama does not want another repeat of Iraq and will be doing everything he can to avoid a similar outcome, so I hestitantly support him.