So, lets not invade Syria. Lets get those nine countries to go do it. I'm done putting our boys and girls into the fight whenever something happens. Why can't someone else step up for once?
So, lets not invade Syria. Lets get those nine countries to go do it. I'm done putting our boys and girls into the fight whenever something happens. Why can't someone else step up for once?
Because we send something like 45% of the world total military expenditures, and some 10(?) times the amount on the next country.
This is war to keep the petrol dollar the standard. Nothing more. Without it....your life savings is worth a gallon of milk.
Good thing I sunk my life savings into a dairy farm then.
No, really. I don't care if I'm the jerk here, but unless the UN pledges it's full support, I don't want even a single dollar spent on action. By moving without UN support, we're wasting money and lives all to feed the stereotype of of Team America: World Police.
Would we show the world that chemical weapons will not be tolerated? Yes. But without full military backing from a plethora of nations, it only demonstrates that there's "that one guy" that'll back up his words. The world needs more than that one guy.
Then nothing will ever get done on anything.Iran, Israel/Palestine, Syria, Rawanda... There is always at least one country with a hidden agenda.
The UN is a joke.
That does not justify it always being America.
If you want someone to pound a roof nail in, you choose the guy with a standard hammer instead of the one with a pebble. We get "chosen" because we invest in the resources.
If you want someone to pound a roof nail in, you choose the guy with a standard hammer instead of the one with a pebble. We get "chosen" because we invest in the resources.
You are undeniably correct. Leaving you to make the next conclusion:
1. ElRoach0 is an idiot that didn't think his post through
2. ElRoach0 was illustrating a troubling flaw with the UN as a whole
YOU DECIDE
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-john-kerry
America (Kerry) gives Syria 1 week to hand over all of their chemical weapons or face an attack.
Who said it has to be one or the other?
Edit:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/us-says-14-more-nations-join-statement-on-syria/
14 more nations have signed on in support of America's stance on Syria. Notable signees are Germany and Qatar and UAE (arab nations)
So, it's not that they're supporting an American strike against Syria. They're just on board blaming Assad for the use of the weapons. I can handle this.
25 nations all believing it was Assad. I'm happy to see that. But I still hope before we make a strike, we present all the evidence at the UN, and ask other nations, specifically the 24 other countries listed, to pledge their military support alongside ours. At that point, make a clear and quantifiable goal, along with a timeline that will dictate success/failure in this operation.
If you want someone to pound a roof nail in, you choose the guy with a standard hammer instead of the one with a pebble. We get "chosen" because we invest in the resources.