I think that the United States should sit back and watch how it plays out for once. If the United States gets involved, then even more lives would be lost.
I think that the United States should sit back and watch how it plays out for once.
That would be nice, and arming rebels isn't always the best plan, but on top of the estimated 100K+ deaths that occurred during the present inaction, Obama basically made a policy promise similar to the kind that lead to Vietnam. For that war, the government vowed to intervene if communism was spreading, which it did, and the US got involved. Obama drew the line on the use of chemical weapons, which were used. Flip-flopping on that claim/threat/promise would cost a lot of political credibility, as well as making America seem like an "all bark, no bite" nation.
The chemical weapons were certainly a big slap to the face, but why should the United States care. Let the United Nations handle it. If all things turn for the worst, we could sanction Syria off from the rest of the world like North Korea; While providing supplies to the citizens of course. Why should we be the country that has to be in everyone's face? All he other countries have agreed that military action against Syria would not solve anything.
Obama drew the line on the use of chemical weapons, which were used. Flip-flopping on that claim/threat/promise would cost a lot of political credibility, as well as making America seem like an "all bark, no bite" nation.
I understand this is mainly the reason Obama wants to "unish" Syria by making a few attacks that will do more bad than good (makes as much sense as hitting a wasps nest).
But, we still lack convincing proof that Assad is responsible for the chemical attacks. Carla del Ponte claims since long that they have evidence that the rebels were using them before. Now it seems the most recent attack could well come from someone in the Syria military, but we don't know who.
However also understand that Assad said he wouldn't be using chemical weapons, unless another country intervenes. What did the US do? Send military people to Syria and train the rebels. So if it was actually Assad, we could argue that it could as well be the US fault.
---
Now, I don't understand how the big country leaders are suddenly so darn offuscated about the use of chemical weapons, when thousands of people were already killed looong before. I mean, dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are quite dirty and kill many people, so do nukes. And it just seems hypocritical to say "We (Us, UN and stuff) prohibited the use of chemical weapons" and go play police and spank their rear ends, so that Syria learns to be a good, moral country and kill their people with "normal" weapons.
We should have intervened long ago, or not at all.
Because the UN is such an exemplar body for solving the world's problems. /sarcasm
Just let them kill each other off. The US gains nothing by going in; it's just a cluster ***** of bad situations and worst case scenarios. If anything, Assad is the lesser of all evils since he atleast managed to keep his borders secure and didn't do much to bother Israel.
But, we still lack convincing proof that Assad is responsible for the chemical attacks. Carla del Ponte claims since long that they have evidence that the rebels were using them before. Now it seems the most recent attack could well come from someone in the Syria military, but we don't know who
How? With there stolen guns? These rebels are mostly Normal citizenes called to arm. They are no rocket engeineers. Do activated these things you need to know how to use it. Its not a dynite stick you set on fire and Boom.
What i found annoying is the comments of both USAians anti-war supporters and USA haters.
The haters are niether Arabic butthurt ("Its USS fault! Anything is there fault" or Smuggish european ("They want oil!", But the realy annoying one are the anti-war peoples. I mean, dont you read the news? "USA shouldnt start another war" - USA didnt start a war for the past 80 years i belive. Name one and get 100 Danielo points. "Its an ileagal war" - So only when they see in there own eyes a forigen solider killing the president, and even then only if he show and ID and a DNA test to prrove he is from another country its ok? I swwar, i even saw a conspiracy claiming USA did the chemicals attack to get Syria oil (BTW, Syria dont have that much oil).
And for last "Why USA have to be the world police/stick it nose everywher?" Because someone have to. And the UN is awsome at blaming Israel and even use sanctions. They are good at saying "Thats bad!" But when in Uganda a genocide going on, it take them 4 years to end the "invastigation".
And above all, USA is the main power in the world. If they want to remine so, they have to enforce there strength over these who try to dig under it and under what it represent.
For summary, If USA attack a while ago, peoples whould clime Assad didnt used chemicals and so on. Now they have the proof. Befor he could have lied. Now he cant.
What I find hilarious is the flip flopping politicians are doing.
"Oh god, we'll never start another war like Bush did! We've learned our lesson with Iraq!"
Then...
""We have to attack Syria! They've used chemical weapons and stuff! Sure, they pose no threat to the US, and we get nothing ou of it, and it'll be really expensive, and we'll wind up supporting terrorists, and this will piss of the Russians and Iranians but... Think of the children!"
How? With there stolen guns? These rebels are mostly Normal citizenes called to arm. They are no rocket engeineers. Do activated these things you need to know how to use it. Its not a dynite stick you set on fire and Boom.
Who's to say they didn't get help?
And for last "Why USA have to be the world police/stick it nose everywher?" Because someone have to.
Is that so? Any attack will only make the whole situation worse.
And above all, USA is the main power in the world. If they want to remine so, they have to enforce there strength over these who try to dig under it and under what it represent.
Assad was good for the US, because he kept the region relatively stable. With the rebels come the extremists. Who are the US supporting? The rebels. If they're trying to enforce their strength, they're doing a piss-poor job. Also, it was stupid to talk about attacking before the UN published their report. Now the wests position is weakened, the governments have no support from the people, their determination crumbles. Great job.
Now they have the proof.
But what proof? Claims? Del Ponte's claims that it was the rebels are at least as trustworthy as some political minister's propaganda.
Assad was good for the US, because he kept the region relatively stable.
Crushing dissenters will do that.
Is that so? Any attack will only make the whole situation worse.
Leaving it alone doesn't seem to be working. Maybe sanctions and other legal stuff would do better long-term than a strike, but the UN is such a hassle: They're currently trying to plan to set up a time for a meeting to discuss how to end the war. If they manage to meet, then as soon as something against the current government is proposed, Russia says "nope" and it's a stalemate.
You know, you're right on all points there. I'm not trying to defend Assad; his government has killed thousands of people, as did his family (mostly his father) before in other occasions. I... I don't know what to do of that situation. I mean of course it can't go on as it does, but can we really just attack like that and hope that Assad will be all, "omgosh the Americans mean what they say, let's stop all the attacks and talk"?? No, that won't happen. Obama's "unishment", probably together with France, will at best give a reason for Assad's regime to fight back, at worst, all hell will break lose in the region with wars, and terrorists in Europe and America, and if all goes well, the US will hit chemical weapons, which would be catastrophical for the region.
And yeah, the UN should finally get rid of this 'constant member' veto, it's always Russia and China blocking anyway...
I belive that deep in, france want to get control again over Syria. And it can be the best. Many Syrians speak french and maybe, just maybe, a french occupation will end good.
Afcours most chanses are for suicide bombing by Al-quaida and friend.
And about the "the rebels did it" - who in hell helped them? To launch a rocket/fly a missle? The CIA? FBI? NSA? NFL? who? I dont belive anyone tried to make a conspiracy to make USA to attack. This all attack have put USA in a nasty place. If anything, it was a clever move by Assad. Like CzechoSlovakia all over again.
And yeah, the UN should finally get rid of this 'constant member' veto, it's always Russia and China blocking anyway...
Without USA veto, the arab league could make the UN sanction Israel again and again, like they always try. But Russia does enjoy this ability too much.
The US has no reason to send our strong men and women to go and die somewhere on the other side of the world. If they're worry about an attack on them, they can go on defense, but they should back away. We don't need our people dying for no REAL reason.
And yeah, the UN should finally get rid of this 'constant member' veto, it's always Russia and China blocking anyway...
It makes more sense to have the strongest players shake hands on a poor compromise instead of getting mad and throwing punches.
maybe, just maybe, a french occupation will end good.
Few nations enjoy being satellites. It would just put France in Assad's position, dealing with extremists on every corner and whatnot, but with many more against 'western imperialism', so it might go the same as Vietnam.
I dont belive anyone tried to make a conspiracy to make USA to attack.
Agreed. If that were the case, it would've happened over a year ago.
Without USA veto, the arab league could make the UN sanction Israel again and again, like they always try. But Russia does enjoy this ability too much.
An inherent trait of pure democracy is that two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner won't go well for the sheep.
The US has no reason to send our strong men and women to go and die somewhere on the other side of the world.
The current plan is for some tactical missile strikes, not an invasion. No soldiers, at least not on the US side, dying in this case.
