Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon
UK already backed out of getting involved
The US wants to get involved but with just a few limited strikes or something along those lines but are being hesitant about that as well.
In the end they are probably not going to do anything and just show Syria that it's okay to use chemical attacks against civilians because other countries are tired of always getting involved and then terrorist groups will roll with this and decide that chemical attacks are the way to go.
Expect to see more chemical attacks happening because everyone's whining about "oh the west shouldn't get involved"
|
Right, because as it stands terrorist groups are totally against chemical attacks and indiscriminate violence...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Circe
I'd support some kind of intervention if it involved trying to end the violence and find some kind of amicable conclusion but in the current state of sweeping in and bombing Assad into submission I'm against it. We seem to be far too keen to excuse the rebels of their own horrific war crimes because of the arbitrary line we draw on chemical weapons and I don't think supporting them unconditionally is going to make the situation any better afterwards.
|
Not to mention that 'the rebels' are not a single cohesive group, and you can expect to the inevitable power struggle play out once the regime falls.