Syria

Out of context: Reply #92

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 253 Responses
  • colin_s0

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/0… is a good read

    i think the biggest problem right now is the complete lack of information coming from the white house / congress.

    the idea as cited in that memo of being a "limited" engagement makes sense. nobody wants another afghanistan / iraq.

    but the lack of evidence being shown on a government level for chemical weapon usage is a hard pill to swallow - i've seen the various evidence broadcast for such atrocities but the fact the UN hasn't declared anything yet is unnerving.

    again, georges i think you brought up the US' role in regime change and what not, i don't believe this should be a war the US needs to involve itself in.

    however, based on what we've (or rather, obama) already stated, i think assisting the rebellion without actually arming them isn't out of the interest of humanity. with a small engagement from airstrikes, the US could deal a blow to assad's militarism on innocent civilians without risking much at all in the way of US casualities or costs.

    now, if the US decides to go full-on invasion, that's a completely different discussion, and that's why i think there needs to be an open debate on this issue. that would be completely untenable as well as a ridiculous course of action.

    colin_s 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • Some my friend from th UN, human rights lawyers say an attack on Syria is illegal according to international law.yurimon
    • IF you analyze the chemical you can trace it exact place of manufacture. and link.yurimon
    • why would you assist al qaeda in syria and combat them in afghanistan?GeorgesIV
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread