Syria - is it about chemical weapons or leaders

I feel that we are seeing removal of the Syrian leadership as a primary function of theses war threats, not the chemical weapons, despite what is being stated.

Why isn't the plan more along these lines:

1. Syria, we are going to enter your country to destroy the chemical arsenal. We will be sending teams in to do it. Hopefully this action is backed by the world.

2. If we meet resistance or are attacked in this process, we will bring the full force of the military against the leadership of the country to assure that these weapons and your military is destroyed.

I suppose some will says the leadership will surely attack, If so then it becomes the same thing being spoken of now. But is it certain that Syria will not give up those weapons? At least give them the option of letting go of these weapons. Has then been posed but already vetoed by Syria?

Surely they know an offensive attack is going to do great damage and result in a restructuring or change leadership. Do they actually believe they will prevail?

Maybe I am giving them credit for rational thinking that just s not there?

That would still leave the possibility of chemical weapons in the hands of the rebels, most of whom are not even Syrian. They have already shown the world how barbaric they can be. Unfortunately the western leaders choose to ignore the atrocities they have done to innocents. There is no easy solution. First and foremost the fighting needs to stop (this includes any western interventions ie. no military interventions by the west). The foreign rebels then need to be ejected from the country. Then the UN needs to monitor a round of elections so the Syrian people themselves could choose their own future.

How does blowing up the leadership remove the weapons from the rebels?

Maybe when the first airstrike / missile hits, the leadership lets loose with chemicals anyway. Is someone going to seize these weapons as soon as the shooting starts? How does an air type war eliminate the chemical weapons?

Looks to me like its a political chess match in the ME.

Originally posted by roadgravel
How does blowing up the leadership remove the weapons from the rebels?

Maybe when the first airstrike / missile hits, the leadership lets loose with chemicals anyway. Is someone going to seize these weapons as soon as the shooting starts? How does an air type war eliminate the chemical weapons?

Thats exactly why we dont intervene with weapons. We dont 'blow up' anyone. That is never the answer.

reply to post by greavsie1971

Thats exactly why we dont intervene with weapons. We dont 'blow up' anyone. That is never the answer.

That does seem to be the US government plan is. I have this feeling that if Congress is asked, they will allow that action.

reply to post by roadgravel


It really all seems to boil down to, who owns the monetary system. The people via a ruler, dictator, president, etc. And who owns the monetary system after a "Revolution". The puppet in charge has little to do with it, it seems, as long as he does what the banks want him to, otherwise he is turned into a "Evil" dictator that must be removed for the sake of global peace, for what ever reason that can be created.

I'll put my money SA helping get the Qatar pipeline going if the US takes care of Syria. A win for both SA and the US.

Although I wouldn't put it past SA reneging on part of the pipeline deal later. SA seems to have told Russia they have some control over it and wanted to use it for bargaining with them.

Who will believe who in this political mess.

ATS Thread - Syria - It's about Oil Pipelines and Religion
I put this together this morning. It's got some valuable info on what has been going on over there.