InVOLuntary
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2012
- Messages
- 61,506
- Likes
- 146,644
I say the chances are highly unlikely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
Either we need to step out of the Syrian civil war and allow Assad to take back the country or we need to act decisively to remove him from power.
Sometimes the ruthless dictator is better for overall regional stability. We messed with Egypt and Libya and opened the door for extremists to get a foothold. We took Sadam out in Iraq and again opened the door for extremists. Assad is a bad man and needs to be removed but not without a clear competent government to fill the void. ISIS is already establishing themselves there and we really don't need them expanding their influence. It's a very tenuous situation and really a darned if you do and darned if you don't situation. If we hadn't retaliated we would be seen as weak and lose more influence. If we do we are meddling in others' affairs. I wouldn't want to have to make those decisions.
Retaliate against what? Americans were not gassed. We should just stay out of it if it doesnt effect us. That is not weakness that is pragmatic. Only reason we are bombing everything in sight is that Trump likes toys.
Governments chose to stay out of it when Hitler was marching across Europe too. He didn't attack Americans but we eventually had to engage. I'm not saying Assad is Hitler but like it or not, the stability of the Middle East affects the entire world. If leaders there are gassing their people it will eventually affect us in one way or another.
Also, like it or not, most of the rest of the world takes their lead from us. Sometimes you have to take action because everyone knows what is happening is wrong but the alpha has to set the tone and example. I don't know what the right answer is. I don't want American Soldiers on the ground but we cannot simply isolate ourselves either. There has to be a middle ground.
American isolationism has never worked out. WWI and WWII are both proof of that.
No one wants American sons and daughters going into combat, but the fact is...we either fight these battles now on their soil, or later on ours.
911 happened because of the policy you are supporting, think about that.
911 happened because of the policy you are supporting, think about that.
911 happened because Radical Islamists believe if you're not Muslim, then you're an infidel and should die. The US is not the only place to experience cowardly terrorist attacks from these Radical Islamists.
The problems in Syria have become global problems...with all the refuges who have to be taken in, housed, and cared for. There is an affect to the US in what Assad is doing, and it's not a positive one.
If you guys dont think our meddling in the middle east over the last 4 decades ultimately led to 911 im done.
Have you got evidence to support this opinion? You act like it's a well-known fact, when it is anything but. Did our activity there contribute to it? I would say that is probable. However, we did not create the Islamic extremist groups who murder innocents and hide behind their martyrs like the cowards that they are.