Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
As much as Nancy Pelosi is indeed a dumb cunt, I think in this case they actually found, or claim to have found, residues from chemical weaponry at the site. Even if it is fabricated, the evidence is much more compelling (existent) than preceded Iraq.
|
And they have shown no evidence displaying who released the chemical weapons. The strongman in charge who is winning the civil war? Or the Al-Qaeda-linked rebels that are hoping to draw the US into helping them? The former seems less likely, though I'd only throw the odds at maybe 2:1 in favor of the rebels. The claim they'll show proof it was Assad's government, but the longer we go without such proof, the more it seems they're hoping that aspect goes away.
Now, let's say we follow the president's plan of launching limited strikes on Assad in order to weaken his regime. Will that work? Unlikely. It will only solidify support as about the only thing Muslims hate more than other Muslims is foreigners interfering with their Muslim v Muslim bloodbaths. If we decide we need to stop the violence, we better be damn well ready to put a quarter million troops or more into the country. Half-assing our way through wars hasn't worked for the past 50 years and it isn't going to work now.
Finally, I saw Kerry saying this isn't a war. He defined it using some bullshit language such as "limited strike intended to reduce the enemy's ability to attack". But we're considering dropping bombs and launching missiles. That's war. If the government of Canada suddenly started launching cruise missiles (probably powered by maple syrup) at Washington DC, you can be pretty damn sure we'd consider it an act of war.