During the G20 Summit talks about Syria continued and Putin continued to stress that the US not intervene in the issue in Syria. In addition, this past week after Obama asked approval from Congress to intervene in the issue I noticed that there were several stories about how Obama wanted to share the blame, but I find that this was a good stance for Obama to take. If he went ahead with the order to engage in Syria conflict without Congressional approval and it went downhill he would be blamed; however, this issue is clearly a major international crisis where Congress should, and did, agree to take a stance against Assad and the Syrian cruelty. Today on BBC news Secretary of State, Kerry, spoke out about his stance on the Syrian conflict and noted that there will be a bigger risk if the US does not take action. Even though Russia urges for peace talks and Assad said that if the US attacks militarily we should be prepared for retaliation Kerry finds that it would be a greater risk to allow Assad to continue using chemical weapons. In addition, during the Summit Syrian leaders denied any knowledge of chemical weapons and stated that the weapons were not used on the population. This conflict urges the question of, on the international stage if someone does not intervene when a country uses chemical weapons then what will happen next???
*Ultimately my answer for this question would be that other countries will see that the use of chemical weapons was frowned upon but there was no reprimand so it will enable the use of chemical weapons.
What do you think?
Kerry's article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24016844
I may have read your post wrong, but you said "however, this issue is clearly a major international crisis where Congress should, and did, agree to take a stance against Assad and the Syrian cruelty." Congress has not yet voted on this issue. I do not agree with Kerry's stance on this issue, especially when he says that there will be a bigger risk if the US does not intervene. But what happens when we do intervene? Assad has already come out and said that if the US invades Syria he will use every type of means he has to retaliate against the US. This does not mean that Syria by themselves will attack us; it means that Syria, terrorist groups, Iran, and other enemy groups. This is not our war to get involved in. the only danger to the US is if we do attack Syria. We currently are not the police of the world (to a certain extent we are). However, if we do attack Syria then why not invade every other country and take over? Let's just go ahead and invade North Korea, Iran, Egypt, and other countries where there is violence against their people. In short, I disagree with your opinion that it is our responsibility to get involved in this situation. But I do respect your opinion on the matter.
ReplyDelete