Should the us attack syria?
Can I get fries with that hot dog. (No). We have no direct US interest at stake here. Obama can say he is acting because of the treaty to not use chemical weapons. However that don't wash. Over the past 3 years Assad has used chemical weapons 18 different times against sections of Damascus. So Obama is playing a dangerous game to now try and use that issue. We have no allie support. 189 signatures on the treaty to not use Chemical weapons in 1925. We have a whopping less than 1 percent of those countries saying they support retaliation.. Syrian Opposition forces have even said. DO NOT retaliate. So what in the sam hell are we doing.
Do You Think USA is going to attack Syria?
Obama's will to attack Syria is wrong from the point of view of international law. Here's why: How High are High Officials: Analyzing Obama’s Speech on Syria
Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs on Syria in 2016 alone. Who gives the US the permission to drop bombs on any nation? How would the US feel if it happened here?
Countries don’t need permission to attack another. Other countries may intervene as a result of the attack, but Obama bombed Syria with support of the international community behind him as well. The real question is when did our great nation get a vote on whether we wish to bomb them.As for the second part of the nation, the argument of “What if it happened to us” is a weak argument. That’s like saying “You wouldn’t want to be shot, so how could we justify fighting and shooting Nazi soldiers in WWII?”. It also implies that we have somehow never seen domestic hardship. We’ve had our times of hardship. A great symbol of liberty, the Executive Mansion, was once burned to the ground by General Cockburn of Britain in 1814. Baltimore was close to meeting the same fate two weeks later, only to be prevented by brave Americans at Fort McHenry. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Charles Town (Charleston) and Savannah were once occupied by the British in the Revolution, contrary to the wishes of (most of) the populous. They were thankfully liberated by men like Nathaniel Greene and George Washington, but occupation is the definition of a war brought close to home. In the Texan Revolution, Texan men were slaughtered at the Alamo and dead Texans burned at Goliad. The Civil War decimated the South of this nation, and caused fear and devastation in some of the North as well. We may not have had a war close to home recently, but we have had them in the past. And that should show that we should not have qualms of bringing a war close to another nation’s home if justified.
Will Obama's attack on Syria include peace-seeking missiles?
good one
Are we going to war with Syria?
Do you think the president would call on this attack on Syria with their chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction? Do you think if we did go to war that the president is making a wise choice in sending us there? Think about it. He ended the war on Iraq because he said it was time to put an end to it. He finally brings back our troops to the states and what does he do? He goes out and threatens to start a war with Syria (which most people say will cause WW3). What are your thoughts on this and do you think the president really would engage an attack on Syria?
Wasn't Obama going to strike Syria after crossing the 'red line' but Congress prevented him?
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons died in Congress.Before it passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republicans had already imposed limitations.In the evening on Tuesday September 3, Senator Bob Corker, the committee's ranking Republican member, announced that he and Chairman Menendez had reached a compromise agreement on the language and limitations in the bill.[37] The restrictions included a prohibition of "boots on the ground," a limit to the length of the intervention, and reporting requirements on the vetting of Syrian opposition groups.[37]
Why did the USA, France and the UK attack Syria (2018)?
Because they believed that inaction would encourage further use of chemical weapons.There are procedures for taking action under UN mandates however Russia will automatically veto any action against its ally. However it is arguable that military action can be taken in another country to protect the population from the government. That is the line taken by France, UK and the US.These attacks have been going on for years because no action has been taken and continued inaction signals tacit approval of the use of chemical weapons.These attacks were not in support of the rebels, ISIS, radical islamists or whatever. They targeted specific sites known to be connected to the production or storage of chemical weapons. Weapons that the Assad regime say do not exist. 'Almost 1,500 killed in chemical weapons attacks' in SyriaDespite the usual initial Russian denial (why?) another chemical attack did occur. Now they say false flag by British agents. (wtf?) Last week Douma is fully liberated now there is snipers making inspection unsafe. Even if Assad decided to go out with a bang and there was a signed confession and a video of him riding a chemical barrel bomb like Major Kong in Dr Strangelove the Russians would still say false flag,