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.
What will happen when the USA strike Syria could mean nuclear war with Russia?
Then the Russians will back off. Putin does not want a war that will destroy his country over Syria. He doesn't care about Syria. Not enough to go to war with the US and all of NATO.
How could USA, the UK, and France attacking Syria start WWIII?
There was NO attack on Syria. It was a response to what America considers uncivilized behavior.
Why does the US want to unseat Assad in Syria?
The question is very similar to why the US wanted to unseat Saddam Hussain, why the US wanted to interfere in Yemen, Libya and Egypt. So, to understand what is happening in Syria, one has to look at the pattern of the US foreign policy.The US has a very bad habit of interfering in other nation's affairs and toppling governments in the name of freedom and democracy. In reality, the main reason is to make a subservient client state/nation that would be loyal to the US. So, it is like, whoever has a dissenting view point and a small economy, is a target of US imperialistic ambitions of control and influence. The main US argument against Assad is that he is a dictator and has no regards for human rights. Well, so who will decide who has respect for human rights or who is a dictator?? Who has given the US or NATO the right to certify who is a nice guy or a bad guy?? Who gave the NATO the right to kill Gaddafi in Libya?? And after all this, the US media starts to make a world opinion that suits the US foreign policy. Ref: Putin: Libya coalition has no right to kill GaddafiThe US is going after Assad because Assad is unwilling to toe the American line. If in reality the US was against dictators then before going for Assad, they would have gone for the Saudi Kings and the Generals of Pakistan, both of whom have terrible human rights record and are dictators in their own way. But, Obama will not do that, rather he will bend down 90 degrees and kiss the hands of the Saudi king. Obama will still sell F16s and give money to the Pakistanis. WHY? Refs: Amnesty InternationalSaudi Arabia: Five worst human rights abuses in the reign of King AbdullahHuman rights violations in PoK: NGO report had raised red flag over torture, repression in 2006 - FirstpostFor the US, like there are "good" terrorist and bad terrorist, there are good dictators and bad dictators. I think a Syria with Assad and without the free Syrian army would have been in a much better position to fight ISIS. Syria, with all its problems, would have been much more stable if the US had NOT intervened and, according to me, helped in the creation of the "free" Syrian army(rebels) to topple the Assad govt. The rebels and the ISIS are fighting almost like allies to finish off Assad with US help. It is because of the Russians that Assad has still survived. Ref: US Created Free Syrian Army to Fight Proxy War to Topple Assad
Should we reject all Muslim refugees from Syria?
Although we all want to help the struggling refugees we can't let them in. There is a chance that some of the refugees could be terrorists. Even though a majority of them are innocent people, we can't take that chance. Especially with big holidays and things like Black Friday coming up. I was watching the Rachel Maddow show for kicks the other day and a reporter said that there is a rigorous screening process and that the country would not let any known militants in. There are two problems with this. First, there is no set screening process at this time. Second, obviously they won't let any KNOWN militants in. It's the ones that are unknown and coming in secret that are dangerous. So my answer is yes, they shouldn't let any refugees in.
What would happen if the entire world attacked the US?
Let’s note the scenario posed by the question - “The rest of the world attacks the US”. This is not the USA attacking the rest of the world or invading the rest of the world. This is not about the US’s past or future (things will change by 2040 or even 2030, how is anyone’s guess).The scenario posed is of the rest of the world attacking the USA today in 2017 which means an invasion of the US homelands.The USA would defeat any invasion of its lands.But the USA would not be able to break a blockade or invade “the rest of the world”The US navy can crush literally all the other navies of the world combined —you see this below? It’s a carrier strike group:Carrier battle group - WikipediaThe US has 11 of these massive groups.How many does the rest of the world have, combined? 5 (I’m discounting helicopter carriers) and those don’t have the same number of shipsList of aircraft carriers in service - WikipediaThe US airforce can destroy the Canadian and Mexican — and assuming the rest of the world manages to transport their aircrafts to these two countries before the USN sinks them, the USAF can easily defend against both.The US has enough oil, metals, ammunition, food etc. to hold off indefinitely on any and all blockades.The US army and Marines can easily defend its land borders and would probably conquer Canada with no issue.Nuclear weapons? Suicidal for both sides, plus the USA has THAAD and a strict area to defend, not the whole worldIn short, the World army would be stopped somewhere in Mexico and be in a massive stalemate.Next, there would be internal fights in the anti-US coalition and the seige would lift quickly.The USA today in 2017 is like Rome in 100 AD - unstoppable, unbeatable and supremely powerful.
Why does the US, UK not want Russia to conduct airstrikes in Syria when they have been doing the same?
Syria is not a two-sided war - it is an N-sided war. Russia has been striking groups that The US and UK regard as good guys - or at least less bad guys. The Kurds, and less extreme Islamist groups not affiliated to ISIS. The West regards Assad as somewhat of a bad guy, whose unpleasantness provided the first spark of the inferno now blazing. While not positively attacking him, they believe that there can be no solution while he remains in power. They hope, in a rather unfocussed way, that a not-too-unpleasant alternative regime will emerge from the less extreme non-ISIS groups. Meanwhile, Russia sees Assad as the legitimate ruler, and the only possibility of peace is the restoration of the legitimate (friendly to Russia) government. They are attacking all groups not supportive of the Assad government. Which means that should they alternative government the West hopes for appears, it will become a major target for Russia.