KAH, on 09 December 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:
Assad's forces dropping those weapons like it was poisonous gas?
I mean, I would not like to think about being around deadly chemical weapons at the same time I'm being targetted by NATO air craft.
Of course, that would entail a lot of chemical weapons around the country without anyone in charge of them, which is not exactly ideal either...
1. Targeting Assad only works if his location is known.
2. If Assad sees his end is near, he only needs to target a single city.
Noroldis, on 09 December 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:
Not quite. Vietnam was a case of a people wanting to free themselves from exploitative colonialism and being willing to die to achieve that goal (the same reason why the American colonies rebelled against the British), and the US opposing that people on morally wrong grounds. More and more people in the US came to realize the latter, which is partly why popular opposition to the war built up.
Total BS. North Vietnam was a Soviet puppet-state, intent on absorbing South Vietnam, which, arguably was a puppet-state of the US. Unfortunately, our military was led by a prima donna and was more interested in PR and faking boddy counts, than in actually destroying the enemy.
So because there's not an immediate, tangible material benefit for the US in Syria, it should not lift even one finger to help an oppressed people free themselves from a tyrant willing to slaughter them by the tens of thousands to maintain his bloody grip on power?
You are trying to sell the idea of having the US help people, who, in the end, will hate the US, anyway. I see that idea as irrational.