OK

    The spotlight is on Syria, Bashar Al-Assad, war crimes - the big question: "Did Assad use chemical weapons on civilians?"

    The spotlight is on Syria, Bashar Al-Assad, war crimes - the big question: "Did Assad use chemical weapons on civilians?"

     I believe in countries standing up for human rights and using chemical weapons on civilians is obviously a heinous crime.  Any decent human being would come to the conclusion that Assad is a bastard.  However, there is a larger issue here.  For instance, if the United States intervenes in the current Syrian civil war, what will become of the country afterwards?  If Assad is defeated, what kind of government do the rebels have in mind?  Reports have shown that the Syrian rebels are not the saints of the Middle East - they are made up multiple factions of radicals, some of which are supported by Al-Qaeda.  The US claims that the intervention would be for humanitarian purposes but our history shows otherwise.  Over the past thirty years the US has developed a foreign policy based on what we can gain by exploitation, usually in the interest of the global oil trade.  President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2002 under the guise of humanitarianism claiming that Sadaam Hussein had the capacity for creating a weapon of mass destruction.
     "We understand Former President.  The real question is did he use them?"
     We can ask the same question to our current president.  Assad may have performed the attack on his people.  But did he.

    Here's a better question: why would Assad authorize an attack that he probably knew would gain some attention internationally?  The rebels have not been gaining much ground in Syria and Assad doesn't seems to be in too much danger of being ousted; compared to Hosni Mubarak (the ousted Egyptian president/dictator), Assad has managed to keep relative control over his rebellion.  So, why would he commit this blatant act of excessive aggression on a non-militarized force and risk the possibility of western intervention on a basis of humanitarianism?  Doesn't it seem Assad is putting himself in some unwanted spotlight?  What about the possibility that the rebels (or a rebel-affiliate) called performed the attack in an attempt to blame Assad and get the West involved?
     I do not believe that the US should be the sole police force of the world, as it as apparently appointed itself to be.  Humanitarian crimes require international cooperation.  There ways to denounce despots like Bashar Al-Assad without militarily force; economic pressure from several nations (embargos, trade sanctions, etc.) tends to work fairly well.  I don't want violent crimes to go unpunished but I also don't want the US involving itself a foreign conflict in a way that would just cause more destruction and death.  Bombing for peace is as effective as fucking for virginity.

     A civil conflict within the Middle East needs to stay a civil conflict, meaning within the Middle East.  In regards to the current case of the Syrian Civil War, I don't think the US should get involved.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.