Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should U.S. bomb Syria because of chemical weapon use?

By Howard B. Owens
Dave Olsen

According to the NIT website: http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/chemical/
Syria has had chemical weapons since 1973 from Egypt and began producing their own in the 80's.

Think about it this way, the United States says it would take a "Red Line" incident such as a chemical atttack for us to get involved. The security around these weapons is purportedly not all that great. Who's to say the rebel forces or any other group who would like us to get in the middle of a civil war didn't get their hands on the stuff and deploy it. Now, Obama the chickenhawk doesn't want to back down. The thing is, the situation in Syria as with much of the middle east is so tangled, who really can sort it out? We need to stay as far away as we can from all the turmoil on the middle east. Yes, bad things will happen, we are not the world's police and we can't fix everything. Also, two wrongs have never made a right.

Saw this yesterday and found it enlightening, hope whoever reads this does as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/the-middle…

Aug 27, 2013, 9:28am Permalink
Jeff Allen

I did notice what few media outlets decided to address the idea that Syrian chemical agents may have come from Iraq immediately jumped to the narrative that Syria had CA before 2003. That in and of itself doesn't counter the claim. It is quite plausible that the satellite imagery of movements of materials from Iraq to Syria back then were just t-shirts and socks.

Aug 27, 2013, 10:04am Permalink
Gary Spencer

I said "NO" we should not get involved, however we all know that because the "red line" was crossed and Pres. Obama (as like many before him) feels the need to flex his muscles, I then say if we are going to do it, do it right, bomb the effin snot out of them and let Allah sort out the mess afterwards.

Aug 27, 2013, 10:48am Permalink
Dave Olsen

It could well have happened Jeff. We sold the shit to Iraq, and probably clandestinely to Syria so most likely that's why the media doesn't want to put that out there. I'm just saying that the situation is murky at best and there is a very good chance that we are being suckered in. Again. By whom is not important to me, I just want us to stay away.

James; Don't know, probably classified. I'm quite sure the official answer would be something similar to "If we had them, and I can neither confirm or deny that we do, but we would never use them in an attack." To that I ask: Then why have them? Of course hypocrisy by the Untied States is nothing new unfortunately and nothing I support.

Aug 27, 2013, 10:57am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Speaking of hypocrisy:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -Senator Barack Obama, 2007

I agree

Aug 27, 2013, 11:06am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Dave, my comment was not to cast aspersion only on the Obama administration, our foreign policy of arming one side of an overseas dispute only to find ourselves faced with having to deal with them years later has been going on for decades and has to stop. However, we are now confronted with the consequences of ultimatums laid out on the world stage. Drawing a red line is only as effective as ones willingness to enforce it.

Aug 27, 2013, 12:04pm Permalink
david spaulding

so let me get this straight, the use of chemical weapons on the other side of the world is bad, but the united states using conventional bombs on the other side is ok.....
feels very hypocritical to me as when all is said and done, people are dead.....
I am ashamed to say that the united states of America loves killing people...this country has been killing people ever since I've been able to understand....it's.no wonder to me why so many people and countries hate us.....

Aug 27, 2013, 12:11pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

In reference to the chart:

Since we got 0bama in power I would disagree with the USA supports Israel and downgrade it to a green arrow.

Aug 27, 2013, 12:40pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

And just so where I stand is clear.

We were right to attack Saddam.
The "Mission Accomplished" event was the end of one war.
Another war began against Al Qaeda on the same battlefield and that needs to be made clear.
We should have attacked in October 2002 not March of 2003.
The folks on the USS Abraham Lincoln got screwed into a 3 month extension on their deployment and aside form normal compensation, they were given a few days in Perth Australia.
Attacking Libya with ground troops was dumb.
Allowing the Taliban to exist is also dumb.
Israel destroying the nuke plant in Syria a few years ago was necessary and the right thing to do for the region.
Bombing Syria at this point is pointless. Which ever side wins we will not be appreciated for our efforts. (See Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan)
Egypt should lie in the bed they made without our help as well. The Muslim Brotherhood might as well be the political wing of Al Qaeda
Palestine is not a country, its a made up region. Israel should not be forced to give up what is theirs because of some angry Muslims.
We should work on our relationship with Saudi Arabia, trade technologies and defense for cheap oil and staging areas to keep the Suez Canal and Straight of Hormuz open.

Aug 27, 2013, 12:55pm Permalink
James Renfrew

In answer to my own question, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on chemical weapons. I grant you that Wikipedia may not be the best source, but it's an entry point, at least:

"The U.S. stored its chemical weapons at eight U.S. Army installations within the Continental United States (CONUS). The stockpiles were maintained in exclusion zones[25] at the following Department of Army installations (the percentages shown are reflections of amount by weight): Tooele Army Depot (TEAD), Utah (42.3% of total stockpile); Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA), Arkansas (12%); Umatilla Depot Activity (UMDA), Oregon (11.6%); Pueblo Depot Activity (PUDA), Colorado (9.9%); Anniston Army Depot (ANAD), Alabama (7.1%); Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland (5%); Newport Army Ammunition Plant (NAAP), Indiana (3.9%); and Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD), Kentucky (1.6%). The remaining 6.6% was located on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Currently stockpiles have been eliminated at Johnston Atoll, APG, and NAAP. Stockpiles are nearly eliminated at ANAD, UMDA,[26] PBA, and TEAD with completion scheduled for fiscal year (FY) 2012.[27] PUDA will begin elimination during FY 2015, and complete in FY 2017.[28] BGAD will be last to complete this elimination which tentative dates have not been set.
The U.S. policy on the use of chemical weapons is to reserve the right to retaliate. First use, or preemptive use, is a violation of stated policy. Only the president of the United States can authorize the first retaliatory use.[ Official policy now reflects the likelihood of chemical weapons being used as a terrorist weapon."

US foreign policy seems to distinguish between first use and retaliatory use of chemical weapons. Even if you accept this distinction, possession of chemical weapons carries its own risks. I believe there was an accidental release of nerve gas in Utah many years ago. I also just read in Wikipedia that a US ship, the John Harvey, in Bari Harbor, Italy, during WW2, was bombed by German forces, causing a load of 2000 mustard gas bombs to detonate. At least 683 (not counting Italian citizens) were injured, and 83 killed. There was a cover-up of the details until the 1980's.

I don't see any evidence that the US has given or sold chemical weapons to other states. If I am wrong about that, see my next comment.

What has always stuck with me about chemical weapons comes from WW1 when the mustard gas would drift in unpredictable ways as the wind shifted. The side that launched the cannisters could end up inflicting casualties on their own. And the results of exposure to the weapons is indeed horrible. As was learned in WW1 you don't have to breathe the fumes to be injured for life, if you survive at all.

Aug 27, 2013, 1:40pm Permalink
david spaulding

peter, no I do not know the difference in human suffering.....care to elaborate and explain it to me?........are saying....chemical weapons= slow death and conventional weapons= quick death ?........

Aug 27, 2013, 2:01pm Permalink
Jason Crater

Palestine is not a country, its a made up region. Israel should not be forced to give up what is theirs because of some angry Muslims.

-I laughed. You know Israel is a made up region, right?

Aug 27, 2013, 2:03pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

James: I agree with everything you wrote except the part about where we never sold chemical agents. Read the Riegel Report. We sold it to Iraq in the 80's because we wanted them to defeat the Iranians who were using weapons Reagan sold them to finance his unconstitutional support of the contras in Nicaragua. Saddam then used them on our American Soldiers during the first Gulf War. As to the Italian incident, we only count our dead and wounded, the rest don't matter I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report

http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html

Gulf War syndrome is real.

Aug 27, 2013, 2:20pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

My good friend Terry Paine, who comments on here occasionally commented today about how if McCain or Bush was President & talking about doing this, there would be lefty protesters all over the place. The hypocrisy of the Obama supporters is astounding. War is bad, killing is wrong and foreign interventions almost always turn out bad, as another friend of mine Peter pointed out. (Not his point, but I'm using it anyway). It shouldn't matter what party he or she belongs to or what ideology he or she espouses.

Aug 27, 2013, 2:37pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

For Example:
“The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to [war] without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment....The Constitution is clear. And so am I.”
Senator Joe Biden, in 2007.

Aug 27, 2013, 2:42pm Permalink
david spaulding

so if people are being killed by "illegal" weapons , the answer of the united states is to kill more people with "legal" weapons...kind of like "move over you chemical weapon users, the U.S. will show you how it's done.......BOMB BOMB BOMB

Aug 27, 2013, 5:05pm Permalink
RICHARD L. HALE

I, not only say no, but HELL NO !! Let the animals kill each other. The children? Sad, but the ones that are left, will probably grow up and hate us anyway.

It doesn't make sense to send our children over there, to die for their children. Enough is enough. Washington is running out of room for War Memorials.

Aug 27, 2013, 11:08pm Permalink
James Renfrew

I heard the Israeli Ambassador in Washington make this exact statement in 1971. The only problem is that not a single Palestinian would agree with it. Sort of like, "that place where your family has lived for generations and holds property title is no longer yours because another group says it is theirs. Don't worry, you can become citizens of a country that you never lived in, and that probably doesn't want you.". Not much traction for that idea in 1971, or in 2013.

Aug 27, 2013, 11:40pm Permalink
James Renfrew

In which case my final comment fits. When chemical weapons are produced, stockpiled, distributed, given or sold, they have a way of drifting in the wrong direction, and I'm not just talking about the wind. As long as they exist, some crazy person will figure that using them will give an advantage and do a lot of harm in many unforeseen directions.

Interesting Riegel Report - I had forgotten about this sale of chemical weapons during 1980-1988 (Gee, who was president then?), one of the many tentacles of Iran-Contra I suppose - but there is a tragic irony here that Saddam Hussein's only weapons of mass destruction were given to him by the US, and then became part of the pretext for the invasion of Iraq. If these are the chemical weapons now used by the Syrian government - well, once they exist there's no way to predict where they will turn up. And they are horrible. Just having them is horrible.

Aug 27, 2013, 11:58pm Permalink
John Stone

The main-stream media is just following their 'marching orders'. They have been told to do a build-up to the bombing of Damascus, but have to place particular emphasis on how this idea is somehow troubling to their Nobel Peace-Prize holding war-monger, 0bama.
(Did anybody pay attention to Kerry's speech where he specifically said that they were only going to determine whether or not chem weapons had been used, but were NOT going to try to determine WHO had used them? Things that make ya go 'Hmmmmm'.)
Fact of the matter is that the likely users of these chemicals are the al Queda led rebels that 0bama insists on arming. All Obie is really looking for is the pretense to destroy Damascus. Kerry said it... It doesn't matter whether or not Assad used em or not... 0bomba just wants to bomb Damascus!
Any Christians want to explain why?

Aug 28, 2013, 8:57am Permalink
Mark Brudz

It is funny, in 2007 Joe Biden, then Senator Now Vice President Said

"I submit to you that engaging in a military operation with out congressional approval is unconstitutional unless the US was attacked or an attack on the US is imminent. I will push for impeachment if the President does otherwise."

That same year, Senator Obama said,
"That any use of force by the president without an imminent threat to the United States is unconstitutional."

The Israeli Defense Minister said yesterday, "Lobbing missiles into Syria will effectively light a match to an already smoldering powder keg and potentially ignite the region"

Retired US Army General Bob Scales said yesterday, "I have spoken to several retired and active military commanders and not one believes that a missile strike at this point is point is either tactically nor Strategically sound policy,"

Kind of makes me wonder about the rationale here.......

Aug 28, 2013, 11:38pm Permalink

Authentically Local