by Professor » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:22 pm
But, Em, obviously the world DOESN'T care. At least, not enough to intervene. Perhaps we (as a human race) should care more. But, the international community is basically saying, "Assad is a monster who gassed innocent civilians! He needs to be brought to justice!! America, sick 'em!!!"
Frankly, I'm a little tired of being the world's peace enforcement arm. If the world is so gung ho on punishing Assad and making sure it doesn't happen, then let them step up! Nobody is talking full-scale war on the Syrian military machine. We're talking strategic strikes on select targets. Almost any first-world country is capable of that. Italy, Germany, France, UK, Spain, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. Any of those countries have the military ability to carry out selected strikes on a few chemical weapons sites.
This is a sectarian civil war. By international definition, until there is a UN resolution authorizing force, any military intervention is illegal under international law. The fact that chemical weapons were used may make some people willing to break that law in order to intervene, but it is still against the law.
I’ve made the argument that the money spent on war would be better spent at home. But, even if nary a single additional dime was spent at home, I still would not advocate intervention. By intervening, America stands to lose much more. American bombs/missiles WILL kill civilians. Those civilians WILL include women and children.
What is the end game here? Not just preventing Assad from using Chemical weapons, but the real end game. That the rebels win? So much AlQ there, do we suppose that by helping them that they will suddenly say, “Hey, you know, the Great Satan really isn’t that bad after all.” No way will that happen.