Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

by indophile Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:35 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

If Assad using chemical weapons is the basis for intervention, I still can't figure out why he would use chemical weapons when he is "winning" on the ground against the rebels. Where is the need to resort to chemical weapons? It could be another Iraq WMD type justification.

by pravalika nanda Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:03 pm

so you think that it's more likely that Syrian rebels started the chemical warfare and we're pretending that assad did it in order to gain entry into Syria? that is possible but no matter which side is using chemical weapons it wouldn't be unwise for the ban ki moon people to step in. but I am totally against the americans getting involved in this endless arab shit. people in America are tired, they are starving, the total unemployed and underemployed is at 17%, our cities are going bankrupt, medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are getting healthcare and picking up scripts from the pharmacies but physicians and pharmacists are getting their reimbursements late. our taxes are going up. we can't afford to intervene in Syria.

anyhow, those arabs better start taking care of themselves. those guys will never become democracies cuz they are retards, they're uncivilized, uneducated and uncultured. life is good/stable with dictators in that part of the world. for a nation to adopt democracy the people must have educated minds, arabs aren't like that.

by indophile Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:12 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:so you think that it's more likely that Syrian rebels started the chemical warfare and we're pretending that assad did it in order to gain entry into Syria?

Chemistry is one thing and weaponzing nerve gas or some other deadly agent is another thing. I doubt if the rebels have the capability to weaponize deadly agents for large scale usage - like killing some 300 people. I am more inclined to believe that chemical weapons are not in play yet, especially with the experience of WMD in Iraq. That said, there is no such thing as only a little intervention. just teaching them a lesson with some cruise missile strikes, etc., just as there is no such thing as "just a little pregnant." It will escalate like it always did. Even Vietnam started out as a little intervention and so did Afghanistan.

by goodcitizn Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:40 pm

The U.S. cannot be selective in genocide cases involving chemical weapons or other brutal slayings. Why Syria now and not others before?

Darfur, Sudan
Sri Lanka
Tibet
Cambodia
Iraqi Kurds
Laos
Indonesia
Ethiopia
Somalia
Rwanda
Burundi
Uganda
Dem Rep of Congo
Bosnia
West New Guinea
etc

America is better off preventing gun-related deaths of its own population in its own backyard first.

by Sponsored content

Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

Re: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

Re: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

Re: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

Re: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress