Can someone explain to me how it makes sense to "punish Syria" for killing people with poison gas by killing more people?

It does not make sense but it may make national policy.

Often two different and even contradictory things.

It’s lunacy and should NOT be policy!

@Sunny2

Unfortunately, or fortunately, you do not set national policy

I understand it is hard to endorse the bombing of another country, but we cannot allow their government to do this kind of thing without some reprisal. I expect our government to bomb Syria’s airstrips and planes. We will wreck a lot of stuff they need to deploy that gas.

You might as well ask what is there about any war that makes any kind of sense at all.

From what I’ve read, the reasoning goes that chemical weapons are especially reprehensible because they are way better at killing civilians than soldiers. The enforcement of “worldwide rules of war,” as silly as that phrase sounds, has actually kind of worked when it comes to the ban on chemical weapons, so far. The hawks argue that not striking back to punish Assad would wreck this tenuous agreement and set a dangerous precedent of permissiveness. Sending the missiles, on the other hand, would be a way to maintain the line in the sand.

I agree with @filmfann and @wildpotato about the reasons for punishing Syria (“We cannot allow their government to do this kind of thing without some reprisal”). What I don’t understand is why the action has to be led by the U.S. Syria’s use of chemical weapons is an extended middle finger to the entire international community, the majority of which long ago agreed chemical weapons were forbidden. It should be a united international community that undertakes this action.

Evidently some idiots decided there should be rules for killing people. If you break the rules for killing people we’ll come and kill more people. Or what YARNLADY said.

It doesn’t.

No new news under the sun.
Big egos, cockfights, and all that war jazz. Of course it makes no sense, does war ever make sense?
It’s all male ego, always has been.

You think your bomb ( read: cock) is BIG..well… we will make a BIGGER bomb ( because our cock is bigger than yours. )
Such simple psychology.
Next question?

Makes no sense.

If it is really a problem, don’t punish them. Simply eliminate them from our civilized milieu.

But that would involve moral certainty. Moral certainty does not currently exist in the US.

So, on that basis it makes no sense.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room That is my whole problem with this issue as well. If this was a UN thing I could get behind it.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room, @uberbatman The reasoning I have heard for the lack of UN support is that Russia’s self-interest prevents it from being anything but obstructive.

@wildpotato so the interests of one country stops the whole UN from working properly?

Essentially saying that hey, the UN doesn’t work so we, the US, will just police the world ourselves.

@uberbatman Russia has veto power on the UN Arms Council. They can block just about anything.

The US is a codependent control freak.

No. I would have to be a politician and I am not.

IMHO I would thing the best stragegy here, if you wanted to teach the power elite of Syria a lesson would be to kill the ones who you believe ordered the attack and let the survivors then try to figure out what the message was you were trying to relate.

It will take upwards of 75,000 troops on the ground to secure the chemical agents in Syria. All dropping bombs or lobbing missiles will do is bust open the containers, poisoning the people in the place it is stored instead of the people it is being shot at.

Obama should be held to the same standard he set for the previous administration. If he wouldn’t vote to let Bush do it, then he should not do it himself.

If the Syrian government is guilty of using chemical weapons on their own people then Assad should be dead or dying. No one else, just him. I cannot believe we do not have someone capable of killing an individual without collateral damage.

It is pure politics.
In reality, the american government never cared, cares or will care about the use of chemical weapons. (see: iran-iraq war. iraq used chemical weapons against iranian troops and civilians, the amis knew it in full, yet supported saddam.)

The hypocrisy here is fucking stifling.

I understand the desire by some to want to do something. Sometimes just doing something is worse than doing nothing. And there are other options to explore, like arming the Free Syrian Army or something. But continuing to pretend we have any historical record against chemical weapon use is silly. And we know how continuing to simply bomb shit unilaterally correctly plays in the minds of those we consider to be our enemies. Maybe it’s time to back up and make the international case to do something other than symbolic bombing. But what do I know.

Disclaimer: I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Why don’t you ask the Jews that were rescued from the holocaust… Or the people of Kosovo who were saved from being included in the mass graves…

So what will happen if they do strike Syria? What will happen then?

Support him because you think he deserves some unachieved level of respect, or because you cant think beyond what the media tells you, whatever, but don’t pretend like any of you give a flying fuck about anyone in Syria. Pissing on them would be less disgraceful at this point.

I agree with @ragingloli; it’s pure politics. The US doesn’t always intervene when there are “atrocities”. Look at Darfur and the Rwanda genocide; the US didn’t do shit. But that’s because Africa is not valuable and no one cares what happens there. But the Middle East is a different story.

What will happen? I just read that they are about to strike? Will there be a retaliation against America?

Putin said that he will assist Syria, so if the US does indeed strike, then this is just a reigniting of the Cold War.

Ideally, the people responsible would get arrested and tried at the international court.