Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» If Syria uses chemical weapons again do we Tomahawk again? If North Korea does another missile test it's our move. What should it be? Why?
The air strike was pointless, that base is up and running again. An $80m PR exercise. Enough with the air strikes, they almost always miss the guilty and cause tremendous collateral damage. Remember Libya? They missed Gaddafi but killed his infant daughter. Drop paratroops into Damascus and GET ASSAD. Alive by preference (drag him to The Hague in chains and try him for crimes against humanity), kill him if you have to. PDRK is different, Jong Un at present is impregnable. China is vacillating on her "problem child" and could well solve that one - by slapping an oil embargo on them and stopping buying their coal.
Collateral damage is to be expected and is part of going to war and having strikes. That's why it should only be reserved for extreme cases when there is no other options. The sad truth is for a war to be quick and effective many civilians are going to die and saying to focus only on military bases only makes the idea of going to war more palatable. Which is sad.
Most of the evidence seems to suggest it was islamic rebels who launched the gas attack. Either way the best recourse is for us to keep our hands out of it and just let go as it will. The truth is it's none of our or any of the West's business what is going on and we have no place to fight Assad. Besides, if he falls, the vacuum is most certainly going to be filled by something much worse for everyone. It's so none of our business and against everyone's best interests to get involved.
Eyewitness accounts (from survivors of the attack) say otherwise. The rebels haven't got access to sarin, it was supplied to the Syrian government by the Soviet Union - and obviously Assad didn't get rid of all of it (if indeed he got rid of ANY). The gas canisters were dropped from aircraft - the rebels don't have any of those, either. If the civil war continues, it's quite possible that IS will win which is the worst possible outcome. The other rebel groups are in a loose coalition and actually had a de facto government of their own until Assad bombed the crap out if it.
Ughhh... Wrong. ISIS and Al Queda backed rebels have used it before.
Eyewitness accounts? That means nothing. That can be faked so easily. Might want to notice how many of the video and photo documentations show workers handling victims with no protective gear on other than a paper respirator which is fishy as all freaking hell since that means they are being exposed to lethal amounts of the chemical. The whole thing is sketchy as all hell and very little adds up to the claimed story. But hell,, WE NEEDS TO GO TO MORE WAR. We can even start the war with Russia Hillary wanted by getting involved in this silly thing. WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!.
I didn't say your conclusion is obviously wrong. I said there is too many things that don't add up and it's fishy as hell with too many inconsistencies, holes, and problems in the accounts. What I said is wrong is that none of the rebels have access to chemical weapons or sarin. The ISIS backed factions of rebels have used them before. You said they don't have them or access and that's wrong.
It's not an obvious conclusion given the big picture and either way it doesn't change the fact we and the west have no business getting involved and removing Assad is only going to bring us into a bigger war and most likely put a worse government in place of him. Most likely the take over by an Islamic State government. Getting involved in Syria is a stupid idea all the way around. Especially when none of our interests are at stake minding our own business but are in jeopardy by not minding our own. The only ones who benefit by intervention are warhawk neo-cons and the military-industrial complex.
Slartibartfast 