It sounds to me that while there is a horrific Civil war going on in Syria, every one is trying to get the rest of the world outraged at what is going on within Syrian boarders. But is this another thing where we are being fed lies, or exaggerated truths to inspire us to rush of an "be the hero?" After all, wasn't CNN just caught using actors to stage stories taking place in Syria?
The other option is being a new Rwanda, where we just stood by and let civilians be tortured, raped and massacred.
Which is worse?
Neither option is pretty, but do we have the resources to go into another country and anger further countries to right a wrong when we can't even right our own wrongs? We have a lot of our own problems where there are cases that you have mentioned, happening right here on United States Soil.
If the US is truly doing this for the right and noble reasons, then that's admirable, but not feasible in our current economical state.
The theory is that they can do one slap for the gas attack and that's it.
Otherwise the message is: we say don't gas people, but we don't really mean it.
If countries will ignore these abuses they should not sign declarations saying they won;t tolerate them.
I agree, they shouldn't go against declarations, and they shouldn't be treating their people this way. But some one else needs to step up. It isn't our responsibility to run the world. I'm not trying to shuck responsibility, but I'd love to live in a decade where my country isn't involved in war. I wonder what it's like
Where was the UN when they knew that either the Syrian government or 'rebels' had chemical weapons. I am fascinated that they didn't care until people were killed. Fortunately, our President has backed himself into a corner and the American people, Congress and world leaders are against US involvement. This is not our problem, regardless of how 'small' the impact that Sec. of State indicated. Not our business, and we need to stay out of it. Let the UN handle it.
Yes, we're being duped again. The hero role has been used with Afghanistan and Iraq too. It's either that or a ruse or both. We got into VietNam on a ruse - a fake attack on one of our boats in the Pacific, justified later by the hero role. Afghanistan was because Osama bin Laden had gone there, although we didn't go after him when we knew where his mountain hideout was. Many are still saying the collapse of those three buildings on 9/11 was our doing (Twin Towers and their neighbor that housed a CIA office).
Then there was the ruse used for Iraq - that they were somehow connected to 9/11. That was pretty weak, though, since 90% of the team was Saudi Arabian, so then they came up with WMDs, combined with Hussein's cruelty to his own citizens. That ruse worked. Now Syria's is the whole chemical warfare thing. Of course, chemical warfare has been used consistently since World War II (remember mustard gas?) . . . if it's even been proven yet that Syria did use it.
What's the real reason? I though it was access to oil first, then that we were upset at Iraq and Iran for accepting non-American dollars for oil (i.e. breaking their agreement and threatening the dollar value). Now I wonder if our real goal in the Middle East is to take out Israel's enemies?
oil is a good reasoning, or rather, a probable leaked reason. But I think your theory is an interesting one. That could very well be.
However, I'm still not understanding why we are picking fights with a country that is backed by Russia and China (or So I hear, though I could be wrong). I feel like we are the disobedient child whose parents are going through a divorce, and thus we're lashing out at other kids and picking fights without realizing who their big brothers are.
Could be a more up-to-date version of Iraq or Afghanistan, with western troops against eastern ones (as in the Cold War, if that had come to clashes). Vietnam was costly for the USA, but don't forget the Aussies were there as well, passing on their bushmen's skills to US troops - the Aussie troops at Tobruk in WWII scared the pants off the Germans, with their blood-curdling yells and bayonet charges. They even took 'knuckle-dusters' on patrol to 'rough up' any captives, encouraging them to talk - learned from the Aborigines. They're also in Afghanistan. Don't fancy being a Taliban fighter with them around.
We could send in the Aussies to sort out Assad and his men. The Anzacs (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) were in the desert at the time Lawrence of Arabia was fighting the Turks in WWI, no strangers to the climate. Any squabbles would soon be silenced with their no-nonsense approach!
There are so many lies, dissembling, distortions, dis-information and just plain nonsense bandied about whenever and wherever politics are at work, that it is truly difficult to decide where the real truth actually sits.
That said, if Syria did, in fact, use chemical weapons against its own citizens, they ARE in violation of a treaty they signed promising never to use such weapons, and every signatory of that treaty is a responsible party for enforcement thereof. So why is Great Britain bowing out?
On the other hand, where is it written that the USA must be the world's police force? I am sick of our non-stop involvement in other countries' internal issues. Yes, I'm in favor of democracy and human rights, but where does it end? When do we stop spending trillions of dollars on these kinds of actions, and use the money at home instead, to benefit our own citizens suffering from lack of medical care; insufficient food for children, and homelessness.
When to we take care of our own?
If anyone on this thread is strongly opposed to us being "parents" by bombing Syria, here is an anti-war petition you can sign.
No war is going to be a new Vietnam - that can only be achieved by reinstating a draft which politicians know damn well will cause so much outrage the country will convulse and they'll lose their backing to start petty fights in the first place. Instead they'll just keep sending the same now mentally fried individuals over again and again and again until they can't take it anymore and off themselves. Look, we're not here to be the world's nanny. You have any idea how many countries are in civil wars?? How many have terrible dictators?? That's probably half the world... and we should not be picking and choosing who to "help," that is NOT our job and shouldn't be any one else's either! That's wielding way too much power over foreign nations if someone does take on that goal. It's a new form of conquer. There's something more going on here... pressure from Israel? Something. We have yet to crack it.
You are contradicting yourself when on one hand you are saying that Syria is experiencing a civil war and on the other hand that we are fed lies! By stating that there is a civil war you are implying that the Syrian people are fighting each other whereas reality states that battalions of foreign fighters are penetrating Syrian boarders through Turkey, Jordan and Israel to butcher civilians.
We're fed lies as to the reasoning that we're attacking them. I don't know if they're in civil war or not, it's been what I've read so far on the subject.
Either way, does it justify us sticking our noses in it?
There is no justification for killing, especially by a supposedly Christian nation. In terms of lies, the government is working hard with other governments to transform and totally expand NAFTA in the Far East. They've already set up tribunals to overturn local laws that interfere with profits made by international corporations. Think that might be a reason for diversion? I have a link, if you want it.
by Reality Bytes5 years ago
Sovereign citizens are a loosely organized group of people who claim they are not subject to government laws...........from the linkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 … lnk2|64172I have been a Freeman On The...
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
The foreign policy establishment, for the most part including the New York Times editorial page, has called our military activities in Afghanistan a "necessary war," in contrast to our invasion of Iraq....
by GA Anderson2 years ago
Whether we want to or not?Pres, Obama's announcement - we will engage ISSA!Hold on folks, before you jump...If I had my druthers, the Iraq war would not have happened - I think it was a dumb move.When we left Iraq...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on...
by ryankett6 years ago
Firstly, let me point out that I am a full supporter of the continued efforts in Afghanistan. Whilst I am still slightly cynical of the possible underlying motives, there can be no doubt that the country under Taliban...
by Deforest3 years ago
An IPSOS poll stated that 63% of the American people are against. 22% are for. Which one are you?I am against.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.