If Syria is bombed, what should be the goal?

[Renew Deal]

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Destroying known chemical weapons sites
	1 (50%)
	Influencing the outcome of the war
	0 (0%)
	Although statements are made about punishment for chemical weapons use, conventional Syrian military capabilities should be degraded
	0 (0%)
	Attacking Al Queda and other enemies of the US
	0 (0%)
	Targetting and killing Assad
	0 (0%)
	Some of the above
	0 (0%)
	Not Sure
	0 (0%)
	Other
	1 (50%)
	All of the above
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NoOneMan]

1. Punish Innocents for being Gassed

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I noticed that option was missing. Odd as it is the most likely outcome.

[elleng]

2. 'Clark said if the mission in Syria is to prevent the Assad regime from using chemical weapons

there are two ways to do it: One is destroying the weapons, which is risky because an explosion can spread toxic elements. The other is to punish the Assad regime by "taking something valuable" by hitting communications infrastructure, intelligence, air defenses or radars.

"The thing is there is no assurance that the punishment will necessarily prevent him from using chemical weapons," said Clark. "Again, it may, it may not."

Clark said that going into Kosovo, politicians said they expected a short mission. But Clark knew that it was more than likely an "indeterminate" mission.

"Had I said that, it would have acted to dissuade NATO's determination," Clark said. What's more, "they didn't want to hear it."

"When you start something like this you have to be prepared for an indeterminate length if you have a political objective," Clark said.
However, if the objective is punishment, it can be over quickly with a few missile strikes.'

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216155784/retired-gen-wesley-clark-talks-about-precedents-and-syria

[Renew Deal]

4. I was wondering about the "toxic elements" part of it

What happens to the chemicals if they are bombed? Do they spread? Do they have to be incinerated (fire bombed) to prevent exposure?

[hrmjustin]

3. To be honest I have no idea!

[bowens43]

5. You forgot to include boosting Obama's already inflated ego

[Renew Deal]

6. "Other"

[dawg]

8. Public relations and looking sufficiently tough.

Oh. I'm sorry. You asked what *should* be the goal. I messed up and gave you the actual reasons.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Regardless of what anyone thinks the goal SHOULD be, I believe the goal

of the Obama admin is to simply respond to the use of WMD's with a retaliatory strike that hurts. Simply put, you (and any other group that gets this idea) won't get away with this, we won't let you. Everything about it is open to question and doubt, but I can't see Obama, Kerry, Biden, etc. turning it into Iraq 2--installing a new leader, rebuilding, and so forth.

[Union Scribe]

10. So what happens when you blow up chemical weapons?

I'm sure that couldn't have unintended consequences.

[Harmony Blue]

12. And if you don't who guards them

and who is in control of the stockpile?

[Arctic Dave]

11. Help Assad oust the jihadist.

AQ having a sanctuary seems dumb.

[RedCappedBandit]

13. One of the most loaded polls I've seen.

[HardTimes99]

14. Deluding ourselves that we have any moral standing left? - nt

[Johonny]

15. to prove that America is ready for some football

any other reason would be unproductive and bound to lead to a shortfall of expectations.