|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Why can't we contact our Congressional Representatives and tell them to just say no to Obama's rush to war with Syria? Is there really anything to gain by attacking Syria? Both sides of the civil war in Syria hate the U.S.?
Find your Representative's email address: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
The economic benefits for a country such as the United States to a war are well documented throughout history. Without getting into it too much, I will put it simply by saying, the rich do well from war, always have done and will continue to do well from the war machine while humans still walk to earth.
If the first 50,000 people killed was not a war crime by that Syrian regime, why is the killing of 350 people with gas a war crime?
Again, because they use the media to get the backing of the people, to start a war in order to sell lots of weapons to both sides. It is more than obvious. However, the people are not as dumb as they once were. Less and less people are supporting the each incoming war.
So what should be done about people committing war crimes like gassing?
Wouldn't it be suitable to have an international agency to deal with these (the UN are ineffective). There are plenty of countries who could easily deal with Syria. It should not be an American question. In the UK, they see it as a UK question, in Germany a german question.
Why can't the so called "leaders" work together to solve this issue? It shouldn't be America the terrible/ brave/ alone every time and truly its not. Its all just a big fanfare.
And parliament has just stopped the government's desire to go in and make war.
The English example is what gave me the idea of emailing our Representatives. I thought maybe that could stop that rush to war.
Talk about morality? No war is moral. And the U.S. does not have a moral foreign policy--not after killing 100,000 Iraqis just to get the oil ("It's our oil," people were saying at the time.)
Now people say, "It's our moral obligation." And I ask, why? The president of N. Korea machine gunned his girl friend, her family, friends, and coworkers yesterday when he had a little tiff with them. Is the U.S. obligated to bomb N. Korea, too, to show them a moral lesson?
It shouldn't be a Westerners' matter since our motivation is only geopolitical and economic.
Who gassed? The Takfiris or Assad? Whose interest is it? The loser of battles or the winner? The one that is supported by his people or the ones supported by Westerners? Stop ignoring the reality like an ingénue, if you can't why are you pretending to debate rationally?
You don't know the answer either so you are doing exactly the thing you are criticizing others for.
I accept our government's conclusion that the Assad regime is responsible for the gas attacks. What we should do about it is a question about which reasonable people can disagree. I'm not inclined to overlook the Assad's use of poison gas, but I'm not sure a military strike is the best alternative. Hard question.
What should be done with people droning civilians or torturing them in Guantanamo?
Fair questions, but not quite equivalent to poison gassing hundreds of women and children.
You made an interesting point.
It's all okay though, because Americans will only be murdered if they are out of the country, and they are on the approved kill list.
by My Esoteric3 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an...
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
The pundits are are attributing the huge drop to loss of faith in our government's inability to govern effectively.
by Jessie Watson5 weeks ago
Yesterday during the brief after the U.S. deployed missiles in Syria, General Mattis said something to the effect of "After reviewing Article II of the constitution, we are confident that the POTUS had legal...
by Missing Link4 years ago
Are we (the USA) really going to launch an unprovoked attack upon Syria? Really?Obama said a long time ago if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in Syria it would cross a line. The last thing...
by Real Life Stories5 years ago
New evidence suggests the USA covered up the massacre of 22k Polish. What do you think about this?The Associated Press has today revealed that the US was complicit in covering up the massacre of 22 thousand Polish...
by Dave McClure7 years ago
Not content with taking their Afghan war into Pakistan without seeking authorisation from the Pakistan government, the US has now decided to extend the Iraq operation into Syria, again without asking Damascus, risking...
Copyright © 2018 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.