This situation is not remotely similar to Hitler and the Nazis. If I remember correctly, Germany directly declared war on the US, so Germany was a threat to us. However, apples to apples, if Germany had no ability to harm the US in any way, and had used chemical weapons on its own people in a civil skirmish, yes, I would say the same thing. What difference does it make which country it is?
On the other hand, hypocritically, it does make a difference to US politicians and the government, because if China gassed, not 1000, but 100,000 of its own people I believe the US wouldn’t rattle one saber in response, and I’d wager that no one in this thread would be calling for strikes or a military response of any kind. It is awfully convenient to claim the moral high-ground when you (believe you) have little at stake.
I agree with this sentiment but always have to ask “Why is the U.S. the only country ever willing to do something about it?”
I know France has agreed to help but christ, there’s dozens of countries that see these same atrocities and they never lift a finger. What is Germany doing about it? How about Japan? Australia? Brazil? Canada? Spain? India? Austria?
Does the rest of the planet have the right idea to ignore human rights abuses “pffft…not our problem” or is the US overly nosey being the global police?
Or in other words, the U.S. is one of the only country capable of conducting extensive overseas military activities. The vast majority of other countries simply don’t have the ships, planes and trucks you need to do anything significant away from their home turf.
I can’t speak for the rest of the countries, but Canada will not get involved unless the mission has the support of the UN Security Council, which isn’t going to happen. It’s the same reason given for not getting involved in Iraq. I disagreed with the Iraq decision at the time, but in retrospect staying the hell out of that clusterfuck was a good thing.
It is not the place of the USA to attack a country because the USA doesn’t like what the other country is doing. Who get’s to decide what is okay from the other country to do and what is not?
I will support sanctions. I will support blockades. I will support humanitarian aid. I will not support an attack.
All attacking is going to do is prove that the US is no better than the terrorists we have been fighting. If we can’t get what we want through negotiations, we will try to get it through force and intimidation.
Get what you want? It’s about sending a message that chemical warfare, especially on your own citizens, will not be tolerated. I hope the US follows through. You have the equipment and the means. To hell with the Assad regime.
Well that’s one of the less unretarded things I’ve read in quite a while. Looks like a clear majority is in disagreement with the president. That seems to be the opposite of thinking “he can do no wrong.”
For what it’s worth I don’t think bombing is the answer anymore. Wars and the reasons we wage them have changed. Subtlety is more appropriate. Surgical, quiet assassination–even with a suicide agent–would be far more effective and far less disruptive to the hearts and minds of those we allegedly want to save. I mean, if we’re still claiming the right to “do something” we may as well do it without making a big mess in the process.
I, for one, find it bizarre that the overwhelming majority of people expressing an opinion on the issue have no idea what the issue actually is, and have settled either on believing that Obama wants to invade Syria, or that Obama wants to just fire a couple missiles at something in order to make a point.
Why can’t the countries around Syria do the heavy lifting? How about Saudi Arabia shaking a few billion and pay someone to do their dirty work, other than the U.S.?
Damn, that took me way too long to decipher. And here I am calling myself a Jester. Shouldda name-changed from Inigo Montoya to something more accurate like: Pachycephalosaurus (cuz I’m old and thick-headed).
