Re: U.S. Talks Tough on Syria, Ramps Up Attack Planning
posted at 8/27/2013 12:13 PM EDT
In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
First of all, chemical weapons in Iraq were used a quarter of a century before we invaded.
Second, Iraq wasn't in an open civil war. No because saddam had disarmed the shiites and was systematically troturing and enslaving them.
Third, WMD's were an excuse for the invasion with no verifiable evidence, and it proved to be a fool's errand.
Read the documents published by wikileaks which verifys that there were WMD's, yellow cake was found and weapons were shipped to syria to await the heat to die down (sanctions) so that saddam with his baathist bretheren in syria could restart the program.
Fourth, only the neo-con idiots were the ones squawking about WMD's to Syria. That was another irresponsible and unsubstantiated attempt at covering their abject failure in Iraq. The WMD's that the US gave Iraq were a quarter of a century old and unstable, unusable and impotent. ^^^^ just babble and a partisan rant with no meaning or substance.
Finally, there is no 'right' answer but there are some compelling reasons to at least provide stand-off military support such as cruise missles, indirect fire etc.
What will cruise missles and a few bombs accomplish besides more civilian casualties and more bad relations between us and other countries? really what??
With the weapons available today, intervention does not have to include boots on the ground.
weapons like carpet bombing or like using guided missles in civilian population centers?
Syria is a mess and if, we were going to get involved we should have done it long ago, to do so now is senseless and reactionary to save face only.