I can not see a single reason for the USA to bomb Syria because of chemical weapons, even if Syria had them and had used them, I can not see how it makes sense legally or morally. I guess this shows my anti-war bias since some people probably think if a country uses WMD's then bombing them is necessary.
Steve James wrote:So, if we know that someone is committing genocide, is it immoral for us (or anyone) to do anything about it? Is this true just in the case of Assad in Syria, or is it a generallll rule.
Is genocide the reason? Do you really think so? What about ongoing and recent genocides in Africa and East-Asia
Steve James wrote:I can not see a single reason for the USA to bomb Syria because of chemical weapons, even if Syria had them and had used them, I can not see how it makes sense legally or morally. I guess this shows my anti-war bias since some people probably think if a country uses WMD's then bombing them is necessary.
So, if we know that someone is committing genocide, is it immoral for us (or anyone) to do anything about it? Is this true just in the case of Assad in Syria, or is it a generallll rule.
not the oil per se but the control of where/how it flows and of course the dollars that comes out of it is probably a main agenda....And there is something about that Ba'ath party that stings in the US eyesPeacedog wrote:
The disagreement with Assad being in power is a long term issue involving Syria’s continued efforts to undermine Lebanon, Israel and empower the Iranians.
The “war for oil” thing is really a bunch of crap in this context. Syria has negligible amounts, Lebanon and Israel effectively have none.
And none of this would destabilize Iraqi oil production significantly even if the US had stayed home altogether. Not to mention the US does not receive a significant percentage of its oil from the ME. Europe does as does Asia.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests