|International laws is the key word there not United States Laws. And the UN inspectors haven't even confirmed there was a chemical weapons attack that was from the Syrian government. The white house says so but won't show proof... |
Why doesn't the UN do something about it then instead of the united states? Since it is a international law it should fall onto the UN to uphold that law not the united states alone.
I already addressed your first paragraph in my last post, which you clearly must not have thoroughly read.
As for why the UN is not doing anything, I presume it's because they're waiting for the investigation to be complete, which could take two weeks (though possibly less).
The reason that many countries (e.g. the UK) have decided against action is because they expect the US to act, and they would prefer to let the US act then to act themselves.
What about all the circumstances where they were used in the past and we did nothing about? What is the difference now? Because the president set a red line and now we have to follow through with it so he can save face?
The fact that not all uses have been responded to is a fair point, but whatever happened in the past, Syria signed the Geneva Protocol in 1968, which unequivocally bans chemical warfare, and this is something they should be punished for. So to say "what's the difference now" seems silly. If a murderer wasn't punished 50 years ago, that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish murderer's today.
|Again like I said above international laws should be handled by the world as a whole, it is not the united states responisbility to uphold them. Also again chemical weapons have been used in the past after world war I and they weren't punished for it so what has changed now?|
I've already addressed this.
|In my opinion the strike is all about politics and nothing more. It is not about teaching Syria a lesson, it is not about human rights, or any of that. If it was about any of them we wouldn't have |
1) broadcasted our detailed plans for attack all over the internet and everywhere else so the enemy and anyone who wanted to could read it and know exactly what we are going to do. I am not making this up either you can read exactly what they want to do, where they are going to hit, ect. So the enemy is already moving everything like ammunition and military headquarters into dense civilian territory so we are less likely to use missiles on them.
2) We wouldn't be just lobbing a few missiles at a country because, lets be honest that won't do anything except piss them off. They will still have the chemical weapons and they still will be fighting the war.
Could you provide a link backing up your claim them make in 1)?
In response to 2), pissing them off is the point
. Whether or not they continue to fight the war isn't a concern of the US, and though they will still have chemical weapons, the idea is to prevent them from being used.
|Then them economist's are idiots in my opinion lol. But as you said that is a whole different discussion.|
John Maynard Keynes and Paul Krugman are not "idiots."
|I hardly see how launching missiles at a country is not going to war with them. But lets just say it isn't going to war I ask you then what is the point of using the missiles then? What will it accomplish? That is the whole problem with this whole thing is it accomplishes nothing. Or even if anything it will piss off the middle east even more and make them hate Westerners even more.|
Obama has made it clear he is going to make a focused attack that does not affect the Syrian civil war, or lead to a long term engagement.
|Again how are a few missiles going to punish him? Specially when we have already broadcasted where we are going to launch them said missiles? If we really wanted to punish him we would send in a seal team and take him out.|
The US has no justification for killing Assad. Missiles are much less risky than a Seal team, and just as effective considering the US's goals.
|But the problem with that justification is that launching missiles isn't going to somehow stop the threat of chemical weapons being used against us.|
I hold that it does by sending a strong warning, but even if you disagree with that, you have to realize that, as I have said in previous posts, not responding encourages the use of chemical weapons!
|We can just launch missiles at the chemical weapons and blow them up you know.|
No, we can't do that. Chemical weapons can't be disposed of with an explosion. Bombing their chemical weapons site would be an unimaginably stupid idea.
|If the reason why we were doing this is because of national defense and to make sure them chemical weapons don't get into the wrong hands we wouldn't be launching missiles at them. We would be sending in troops to get them missiles and take them away.|
I've said multiple times in previous posts why sending in troops is a bad idea (and one that would never pass in Congress).
And you can't just "take away" thousands of tons of chemical weapons. Doing so would be an incredibly complicated operation that would likely get the US involved in the Syrian civil war.
|Well then the US and other countries should be punished also since we have them to.|
The US has destroyed 90% of the chemical weapons it possessed in 1997. The remaining 10% are being disposed of, but it is a lengthy and difficult process to complete.