If the government AND the rebels are both using chemical weapons of mass destruction then ...
Shouldn't the world just leave that country alone to it's on devices??? "Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve gas agent, sarin, according to a leading United Nations investigator."
Obama talked about the "red line" yet - I question if the US should enter Syria.
Naturally people would want to try to prevent a war involving chemical warfare... it's not safe for anyone in the country or any other country nearby. It affects the trade routes, the human population and can damage the world in every conceivable form.
Leaving it alone may seem like a good idea, but it's truly not. Do I think the US should invade? No. I think the UN should step in.. it shouldn't be just one country to try to stop it, but the whole world.
Chemical weapons or traditional weapons, murder is murder. I think if this was really a good world, all nations would step in and stop whatever injustice is out there. But the truth is , every country is concerned only with its own benefits. Right and wrong are measured by benefits not virtues.
This is horrible and what I am hearing is we will be helping the wrong ones and what if we do? Why would the government who has been winning start using chemical weapons. I am not sure at all we should do anything if we can't be sure it is the right thing.
by Sooner28 5 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 … 99310.htmlOn the front page of the Huffington Post, the caption reads: George W. Obama. I find this to be refreshing, and I am glad the left is beginning to see Obama is just as bad as Bush on civil liberties. Now that the illusion based...
by Deforest 5 years ago
Given it was not proven that the Syrian government was involved in the Ghouta attack, why would they have to dismantle their chemical arsenal whereas few miles away a greater danger is shadowing the whole middle east (Israel's arsenal) without measures to be taken? In a futuristic peaceful vision...
by Miss Info 7 years ago
Why is it okay for the US to harbor weapons of mass destruction, but not okay for any other country?We all know that the US is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, why is this okay for the US, but not tolerated (or condoned) for any other country in the world? Shouldn't other...
by LAURENS WRIGHT 5 years ago
What are your views about Chemical Weapons In Syria ?Do you think that Syria is a threat to the US? Do you think that the US should declare war on Syria? Do you think that the US is trying to make a message? Do you believe that the US is leading the citizens for support of a...
by Suzette Walker 5 years ago
What should President Obama do to help the Syrian rebels now that Assad has used sarin against them?Assad has used sarin (a chemical weapon) several times against his own people - this has recently been certified by Obama and Congress. What should be the U.S. response to this...
by My Esoteric 5 years ago
Let's say Israel hadn't bombed the Syrian nuclear program into oblivion decades ago, or the world lets Iran develop nuclear capability and they ship some suitcase nukes to Assad, or North Korea sneaked some in. In any case, what I am posing is what if Assad had tactical nukes. Now,...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|