So yeah, now many people think : "there's no Assad or Chemical Weapons" in Syria, it's just a lure & a trap for Americans to fall right in or a even a pretext for a war, but I can't pronounce on that myself. I can quote the one who said that, but I'm just too lazy to. Do you agree with it or not?
There's "no Assad or Chemical Weapons" in Syria
- Thread starter Naiwen
- Start date
I think there are chemical weapons being used, but I don't think we should be involved.
It's a terrible act to use chemical weapons against your own people, no one denies that. Assad is a brutal dictator. But there's a reason other nations aren't jumping to fight like the US would like to. The rebels, if they win, would be just as bad for the United States as Assad's government is.
Finally, and to cut this post short, we have no business getting involved. As a member of the United Nations, we should abide by their governing rules. The only way we can take action is if a) the Security Council votes and approves it or b) we are directly attacked or threatened. Neither of which has happened, A likely will not happen even though we haven't even tried and B is unlikely on the sole fact that this is a Syrian CIVIL WAR and there is NO reason for either side to attack an outside nation.
It's a terrible act to use chemical weapons against your own people, no one denies that. Assad is a brutal dictator. But there's a reason other nations aren't jumping to fight like the US would like to. The rebels, if they win, would be just as bad for the United States as Assad's government is.
Finally, and to cut this post short, we have no business getting involved. As a member of the United Nations, we should abide by their governing rules. The only way we can take action is if a) the Security Council votes and approves it or b) we are directly attacked or threatened. Neither of which has happened, A likely will not happen even though we haven't even tried and B is unlikely on the sole fact that this is a Syrian CIVIL WAR and there is NO reason for either side to attack an outside nation.
Ah, thank you.
To be honest, action has to be taken because think about all of the innocent people being killed. And if the Syrians keep becoming asylum seekers then refugee's in other neighboring countries or countries in that region, the citizens of those other countries will then start rioting because of certain reasons like their jobs may not be good pay because their employers can find refugee's that are willing to do more for less than what they're getting.. Like the Dust Bowl in the USA in the 1930's. That won't be good now will it?
To be honest, action has to be taken because think about all of the innocent people being killed. And if the Syrians keep becoming asylum seekers then refugee's in other neighboring countries or countries in that region, the citizens of those other countries will then start rioting because of certain reasons like their jobs may not be good pay because their employers can find refugee's that are willing to do more for less than what they're getting.. Like the Dust Bowl in the USA in the 1930's. That won't be good now will it?
Dreadlord, I'll give you that action should be taken. The world should not sit idle while this goes on. But at the same time, the United States is not the world's police force and we should not be forced to or even volunteer to go into this alone. Any punitive strikes or other force should come from a unified body (isn't that what the UN is set to provide for?) and not a single nation.
Geoffrey said:
Yes, I agree that it's wrong for the United States to go into every war alone, If possible one big worldwide task force should be formed. A nation pitches in a certain amount of military soldiers & equipment. The UN have to be able to make decisions and not just rely on the US to take military action.
bravesfan10
Acquaintance
First we know that chemical weapons were used...but do we really know who used them.
2nd....if we attack assad(sp?) then it makes it look like we are helping the same people who we have been fighting against...
3. we also got to look at the long term effects...will Iran attack Israel? will we be hit with another 9/11? How many innocent will be killed?( not necessarily by us) but also in what they will see as a retalitory attack. Will Russia defend Syria? could an attack on Syria lead to WWIII?
2nd....if we attack assad(sp?) then it makes it look like we are helping the same people who we have been fighting against...
3. we also got to look at the long term effects...will Iran attack Israel? will we be hit with another 9/11? How many innocent will be killed?( not necessarily by us) but also in what they will see as a retalitory attack. Will Russia defend Syria? could an attack on Syria lead to WWIII?
bravesfan10
Acquaintance
So question is, is it really Syria who lauched them, if not, then who? Maybe Russia?[/quote]
I think it was someone in Syria...but the question is which side? Did Assad do it or did the rebels do it in hopes tha we would start in intervene.
I think it was someone in Syria...but the question is which side? Did Assad do it or did the rebels do it in hopes tha we would start in intervene.
Naiwen said:
It's not a question of Syria or another country. It's a question of who within Syria used the chemical weapons. Assad or the rebels? Everyone seems pretty certain that it was Assad, but as I already said, the rebels are just as bad.
Yep, USA should get both parties to "parler" & solve this in peace & not threatening the country. No one could gain anything by doing this, not even the US itself in the long-term. Just more dead soldiers & economical crisis for the people (gas price going up), worse than now. I'm of course, assuming Obama cares about Americans' future & fate.
Affiliates
