For the first time I agree with our President Obama. It is wise to wait and see, instead of rushing now and making a mess. As usual, nothing good would come out from this “leading from behind”, like we saw in Libya, where the entire depots of ammunition, weapons and gas bombs were left without any control and many of them were sold by Qatar to who knows to whom and probably landed in the hands of Al Qaida or any other group involved in the Benghazi attack on our embassy.
Only now the truth is emerging and maybe the rebels are the ones who killed those poor Syrian women and children with Kaddafi’s gas bombs, just to attract the attention of the United States, as they have no chance of winning against Assad who has the support of Russia, Iran, and the Hezbollah. I believe we should still investigate who really carried out these killings. Otherwise I cannot see any logic, why Assad’s people would have killed the civilians, women and children with gas. Do we know for sure who initiated this entire episode? It is astonishing that we didn’t interfere when Assad killed one hundred thousand from his population. What is the difference, dying from bombs and bullets or dying with gas?
In this case we are better off waiting for the truth to emerge before committing to another mess, which could plunge the United State into another Iraq-like war problem and make it spend money we don’t have. As for Assad and his government they cannot escape, after the killing more than hundred thousand innocent Syrian people. Sooner or later they have to take responsibility for this mass killing.
Emile Tubiana
Attaquer Assad ? In French
Pour une fois je suis d’accord avec notre Président Obama. Il vaut mieux attendre que faire encore une bêtise. Comme d’habitude rien de bien n’en sortira de sa façon de mener par l’arrière (voir la Libye). Toutes les armes de Kadhafi et ses dépôts de gaz ont été vendus à savoir à qui et sont certainement aussi dans les mains des rebelles syriens et peut-être même de l’AlQaida et tout autre groupe, comme celui qui a attaqué l’ambassade américaine de Benghazi.
A se demander si ceux-là n’ont pas fait les tueries au gaz pour attirer une action américaine, car les rebelles seuls n’avaient aucune chance de succès contre Assad, qui a le soutien des Russes, des Iraniens et d’Hezballah. Peut-être qu’on accuse Assad à défaut. Il faut d’abord trouver qui a vraiment fait ces tueries au gaz. Il est étonnant que les Etats Unis n’aient pas intervenu lorsqu’Assad a tue cent mille Syriens. Quelle est la différence entre être tué par des bombes ou des balles ou par le gaz ?
Dans ce cas il vaut mieux que les Américains ne rentrent pas leur nez là-dedans et risquent de s’engager à une guerre comme celle de l’Irak avec des fonds dont ils ne disposent pas. Il vaut mieux attendre le résultat des recherches, car tout peut changer. Quant a Assad et son gouvernement, ils n’ont pas ou s’échapper après avoir tué cent mille Syriens innocents. Tôt ou tard ils devront être tenus responsables pour ces tueries de masse.
Emile Tubiana
Love ya!
jane
Regardless of what Obama does, he will be damned. However, after World War I, the world realized that chemical weapons were indiscriminate killers and far outside the boundaries of the game of civilized warfare––if you could ever call warfare, civilized. The Geneva Convention and other world organizations like the United Nations severely condemn chemical and biological warfare. These agents were not used (except in concentration camps) by the Axis during World War II, as far as I know. Nuclear warfare as
the group of banished forms, although it has been used as a threat to prevent warfare since first use in Japan. I find the use of napalm and bombing that creates firestorms like those in Dresden in World War II to also be particularly heinous. Some people are now considering drone warfare to join the ranks.
I wouldn't be surprised if Israel doesn't make a move. Thereby, taking Obama off the hook.
Ron