So it's a cowards war? I've been looking ALL OVER the internet, but I can't find any 'good' reason why they're doing this.
We have no business interfering with Syria's affairs, but that doesn't mean we can't offer our support in the form of missiles and supplies. It's a much better alternative than landing soldiers in, only to have them be killed by both sides of the conflict. Attacking strategic locations with no unnecessary deaths seems like a good plan. Otherwise it would be another Iraq War.
Er... no. They weren't the same war. Also, the US financed Ho Chi Min. And Bin Laden. Frankly, your country is spectacularly bad at choosing who to bankroll.
Not so much that, in as much the Us backing whichever terrorist or dictator goves them the boggest advantage that particular day. Ho Chi Minh was foghting the Japanese during WWII: He gets money. Bin Laden was foghting the USSR in Afghanistan: He gets money. Preety much American Foreign Policy for the last 70 years or so.
Nerdsoft - who is the super power at the end of the day? Right. So ill say they are doing quite well with choosing allies. In the last 100 years at least.
Firing missiles into Syria WON'T end the war over there. If there's no intent on stopping the war, then there's no reason to fire missiles.
"Shouldn't we go ahead and try to end the war?", you may ask. What happens next? Which dictator will take Assad's place? Unless we know who intends to take Assad's place, it's asinine to think we'll accomplish anything by getting involved in the war.
Remember when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? I know where he can shove it.
It seems we just might. Russia proposed that Syria give up their chemical weapons, to which they seem to be agreeing. Probably won't change much, as Hahiha said, 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.
what? he did? for what reason? being 1 of the very few american presidents that didn't start a war? (yet) if he deserves a peace prize then i deserve a peace prize... who bought this prize for him? there must be something fishy there. obama is not a bad guy but he certainly doesn't deserve a peace prize.
I'll admit, President Obama is actually handling the situation like a real leader. Unlike Bush, he doesn't launch strikes against other countries without trying diplomacy and he is asking congress for their opinion on the matter. I doubt Syria will simply hand over their chemical weapons like that though, even with Russia pressuring them. I have a feeling they'll try everything they can to prevent handing over their chemical weapons, and force our hand. Not sure if this has been discussed before, but what makes chemical weapons so much more hated than simply spraying the crowd with bullets? Wouldn't chemical weapons, if lethal enough, be more humane? It would most likely kill them quickly and disperse the crowd. It must be better than having a bullet pierce your chest and cause one of your lungs to fill with blood or something like that.
Unlike Bush, he doesn't launch strikes against other countries without trying diplomacy and he is asking congress for their opinion on the matter.
Bush did get overwhelming congressional approval to do stuff [see Patriot Act and AUMF]. The difference is, Bush had a lot of support due to what happened because everyone wanted something done. Obama was pretty much alone on this because it's a foreign thing in a civil war that doesn't impact us nationally, (perhaps a touch emotionally, but not enough to start another war), so he knew he'd be politically screwed without support. And his goal wasn't even to stop the violence, just to slap them on the wrist and make the fight a little more fair. Further, helping the rebels could empower extremists and create another Afghanistan.
I doubt Syria will simply hand over their chemical weapons like that though, even with Russia pressuring them. I have a feeling they'll try everything they can to prevent handing over their chemical weapons, and force our hand.
Nah, they'll give 'em up. If they don't, they'd be forcing Russia's hand first, and they really don't want that. Russia will likely reimburse them with strong conventional weapons that are deemed 'ok'.
Not sure if this has been discussed before, but what makes chemical weapons so much more hated than simply spraying the crowd with bullets? Wouldn't chemical weapons, if lethal enough, be more humane? It would most likely kill them quickly and disperse the crowd.
I think it's that bullets are more direct, instant, and accurate, while chemicals can linger and be dangerous over time and harm indiscriminately. And the ones that are commonly used usually cause slow, painful deaths and injuries for psychological and morale purposes.
