It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US should intervene to stop chemical weapons in Syria!

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:55 PM
Yep, you heard that from me.

March 19, 2013 - Sarin gas attack
August 13, 2013 - Nerve agents kill an estimated 1,300 people.

Every attack using chemical weapons have been traced back to the FSA, not the Syrian government. Assad is not stupid, he knows full well the Western powers are looking for any excuse to intervene. Syrian forces have been gaining the upper hand so he has no need to resort to such drastic measures as using chemical weapons.

Yes, I'm all for the US sending a few cruise missiles right in to the middle of those responsible.
C'mon Uncle Sam! It's time to end the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
Destroy those truly responsible for these horrific crimes against humanity.
Order strikes against the Free Syrian Army if you truly care about the use of chemical weapons Mr. Obama.
Anything else will reek of hypocrisy.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Maybe the US should send the cruise missiles at the people who organized selling the chemical weapons to the rebels in Syria?

Oh wait, the US state department probably organized chemical weapons sales, just like they organized the Iraqi restocking sales from 1988 forward. But at least in 1988 the US state department tried to hide the sale by shipping through the French and South Africa... go figure? (A big hi to Eddie and Pik -waves)

Cheers - Dave

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:03 PM
Don't think we should be sending anyone a cruise missile in Syria. If the global group of "anti-gas" countries really feel this is wrong they need to agree and act together on this.

With 100k dead already it seems disingenuous to say this pile of dead people is OK but this other pile is bad. Dead is dead. IMO.
edit on 4-9-2013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:06 PM
If we were to believe the rumors about where these chemical weapons originated from, then we would also need to attack Saudi Arabia

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:09 PM
So risk ww3 just to punnish someone?

Risk is not worth the pay off!

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:14 PM
So it's been established 100% that the FSA carried out the August gas attacks.

It's not "opinion" anymore i guess...?

Well done OP.
Wish I was as confident as you on the matter, all I have is opinion at this point.

edit on 4-9-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:17 PM
I don't think the Assad regime can be dismissed so easily .. after all, they have the most to gain.. but this is like the billionth such topic.. I'm involved in several.. so I'm not going to join another..

This topic is being beaten to death.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by miniatus

Don't worry about it. The Mod has stated its 100% fact so we need not discuss the issue of who did it anymore

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

That (based on recent findings) would mean that the us should bomb themselves essentially, and the Saudis. If the us fund the rebels and it was truly the rebels who did this then massive consequences must come to the us. Letsbe real here, it was a false flag and the west are responsible essentially. When this is proven it is the Ishtar should be punished. As you said Assad isn't stupid enough to have done this, which kinda implicates his enemies...

The glObalists want to take Syria and will do anything to achieve this...including supplying chemical weapons and then being outraged when they get used and use this as a means to invade. Horrible horrible people. Cheers

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:22 PM
I think we need to tell Russia to police their ally.

Look, Syria is Russia's biggest customer. Russia has ports in Syria, and Russia wants to make sure it's natural gas can get to Europe.

Russia, this guy is YOUR problem. It's in YOUR back yard. Stop being so stalwart/macho, lay off the vodka and take care of your own area of the world.

Good lord, it really IS that simple people!

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by MystikMushroom

The Russians (like the Americans) love to make money off the military machine.

The longer the civil war goes on the more cash Russia makes.

Oh but they're exempt from ridicule, cause...
edit on 4-9-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by miniatus
...This topic is being beaten to death.

Only if these threads dissipate our collective outrage in regards the propaganda and malfeasant warmongering being perpetrated on the world...otherwise let TRUE freedom, from hidden and illegal foreign policy, RING. Loudly and prolifically.

edit on 4-9-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:08 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

The thing as I see it, is we forget they are everywhere in a lot of countries. I think nailing Syria would have little effect on the rest of the world in attempting to use theirs. We talk about Syria this and Syria that....and we are forgetting something important. We are just spanking one kid, who may or may not be bad and do it again.

The other kids on the blocks are watching, but we know it wont have any effect on all of them, who will use them against us anyway prob.So, to just spank 'em once to send a message to all....its just to what end? To scare the rest of the chem weapons countries? Face it. Theyll watch what we do, and see how we react to this, but wont stop making them, nor be deterred in any way from using them.

We are focusing here on one location and should-we or shouldnt we. We seem to forget...they arent the ONLY ones with chem weapons. And to strike them to send a message to the world? The rest of the bad guys and terrorists could care less....and Im sure, will plan to use 'em against the rest of matter what we do to Syria.

If anything, now is a "smokescreen" this Syria situation, where we are forgetting or looking aside from all the other countries waiting in the wings. I see where striking is important....but I also see how it prob doesnt affect the rest of the rogue chemical weapons owners. Not in the least...and they would have no problem down the road seeing us suffer the effects of them .

Strike-spanking Syria is not much of a long-term wide-spread deterrent. You know??

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals
An odd way to put it but right on.

I was thinking about how in sane this all is and how everyone is implying that Obama is so stupid. What if the Congress says no and Obama says OK have it YOUR way and does nothing, what an unbelievable opportunity for a false flag here in the U.S. Gas a city somewhere. Could you imagine the fall out the GOP would take, they would be finished for good.

Obama could then blame the false flag on Assad and still bomb the hell out Syria to make way for his Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Quada.

One fell swoop, takes America by storm in 2014 to finish his agenda and set the stage for the MB to take the middle east. ...............hay, just a thought.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:19 PM
As much as I want to say we should intervene, I'm against the idea for a couple reasons.

First, it's one thing to go before the united council and get permission to do this, but to instead bring the idea before congress and head out solo with their approval (seemed kind of pointless, as it looked like most of congress was onboard with the idea already).

Second, what happened is tragic, yes, regardless of who fired the shots. It sickens me that anyone would think firing the chemical weapons into any sort of crowd is a good thing, at the same time, was this done to spite the USA? No. This was done in a county that is in the middle of yet another civil uprising, where it is expected that at least one group is going to slaughter another - Instead of acting like Big Brother and breaking up the fight, I regret to say that we should let them handle it themselves, unless one of our allies is purposely attacked.

Third, imagine how much another "intervention" could cost the US - I mean, Russia is already on the defensive (despite what congress said), and one false move on our side could lead to guns or sanctions against us - Plus, that money could be used to work on strengthening our own borders, which don't seem to have enough security as it is (or, maybe that money could be spent on a solution to the Japan nuclear spill crisis - rather see it go towards protecting the environment than wasting it away on the start of another world policing act).

Finally, can't we declare an "emergency vote", and let the American people decide if they want to do this? At least, I would think a "true" democracy would consider this, as that would show the government actually listens to us "little people".

Just some food for thought.


PS: Didn't we let Egypt's uprising alone? There was bloodshed there too, but it seems to me the US was only watching the situation, and not having an active role.
edit on 4/9/2013 by fossilera because: Everytime I misplace a comma an angel loses it's wings...or was it the other way around?

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Bang on Op

Personally I think people at the top should come clean about this whole fiasco, it doesn't take a genius to know who most likely used these weapons.

Maher al-Assad has been suspected to have ordered the August attack but do you believe that?

Everyone should be working together to fix Syria, not arguing about who done what. That is the main point at the end of the day, something needs to be done because too many people have been killed, maimed or displaced.

Terrorist in one nation, freedom fighting rebel in another
This situation sucks and we are screwed if it carries on, more specifically Syrians are really screwed.

So yeah, intervene. Everyone should who is responsible enough... Before someone decides to gas a highly populated area on a large scale.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

It's hard to argue with that.
If karma is real the US is due for much, much more than we can ever imagine.
Add all the damage we've done overseas in our imperialistic fling since WW2 and there would hardly be a building left standing in America.
Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Libya, Bosnia, Iran,Somalia, Guatemala, San Salvador, Haiti, etc. etc. etc.
All totaled an amazing amount of destruction.
We turned to the dark side long ago for foreign policy objectives

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by fossilera

PS: Didn't we let Egypt's uprising alone? There was bloodshed there too, but it seems to me the US was only watching the situation, and not having an active role.

The big difference their was MSM coverage, nobody could go around claiming this or that and scream "evil dictator" because the news was all over it. The Egyptian troops were being watched by millions essentially.

They were brutal but within human rights, in Syria it has been claimed many a time that Syrian Armed Forces have committed crimes against humanity. In essence nobody had the right to intervene in Egypt. MSM also did well to paint the Egyptian military as protectors of the constitution and the populace, you are no longer a protester when you pick up a rock, a knife or a gun.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:13 PM
Those who know me well know that I'm not a fan of war at all, I much prefer peace. I'm really ranting because I know what inevitably follows the war drums the MSM is beating. I don't really want us to shoot missiles at anyone, but if our government absolutely insists we have to blow up somebody it might as well be those committing atrocities fighting a proxy war against a legitimate and stable government in the Mideast.

You can call Assad a dictator it's true, he inherited the position from his father. Given the vacuum of power after WW2 and the redrawing of National boundaries in the Middle East the Assad regime has been no better or worse than those of the countries around Syria. Either it's been chaos or you have a very strong repressive government to keep revolutionaries in check, that's how things are over there. Syria is rather moderate all things considered, a bit like Lebanon before the invasion by Israel (and the Islamic jihadists).

Its been a complicated scene over there for a long time but in the end we really have no business backing any side fighting in Syria.

This is my first and only rant on ATS.
This whole mess has the hair on my neck standing up.

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:45 PM
Maybe we should stay out of it, and fix things at home. Not fix other people's problems in other countries that dont affect us

Maybe we should let them sort out thier own crap?

Oh thats right they have something we need

new topics

top topics


log in