The president of the US wasn't elected to stop atrocities, nor is the US military
or the National Security Council there to do that. Their job is to protect the
interests of America. You might be willing to go to war, but you only get to go to war
when they order you.


The US was and is supporting the rebels to counter Iran's influence. And the
current talked about limited attack is about US credibility and sending a
message to certain countries. The attack is probably not gonna affect the war
significantly. If that was the purpose of an attack, Obama wouldn't wait for
Congressional approval.

A sudden fall of Assad might be very bad for the US and Israel.
They've watched them closely, bombed a nuclear reactor of Syria a few
years ago to keep them from having a nuclear program. But all in all
Syria was kept in check. Now there's a need to counter the growing
influence of Iran in that region, but a regime fall could be a major problem.


Assad is not a madman, the Syrian regime is just trying to exert every
option to stay into power. Chemical weapons are just another bullet
in the chamber.

There are precedents already when it comes to chemical warfare.
America used and allowed it. They've used Agent Orange in the
Vietnam war and they've allowed and indirectly supported Iraqi use
of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. It would be a different story
if Syria were to use chemical weapons against the US or US allies.
But they won't. (Well, they would be wise not to)


And the UN is run by the permanent members of the Security Council.
So if you want to blame the UN, blame them. What's in the interest
of one country can be totally opposed to the interest of another country,
so obviously you're getting stalemates there. The country who blocked
the most UN resolutions since the 60's (by far) is actually the US.

Spartacus, post: 101357, member: 1060 Wrote:Its not as if the "Assad and his regime" are the bad guys, and the "rebels" are the good guys. Thus, eliminating Assad does not solve the problem. The rebels have massacred the innocents as much as the regime has.

Rebels suspected of using chemical warfare
Rebels executing a child as a joke.
Islamist Rebels Attack Christian Village, Kill Priest Trying To Defend Nuns Inside Convent

This isn't a case of an "evil regime" narrative.Its a civil war. There's no good guys except probably the innocent civilians who die.

While it's true that it's a civil war by now, it needs to be said that it started
with the regime coming down hard on demonstrations. It has evolved into
a civil war by now for sure, but there's no doubt that the biggest factor
in this conflict is Assad and the regime doing everything they can to
keep into power.