DeletedUser34
So we all know Syria has been in the news a lot lately. Something came to my attention that kind of made me do a double take. Everyone keeps making a big issue about why we are letting the regime get away with the horrific crimes against their people. But really what can we do? The UN (wonderful power that it is) hands are tied. If the US goes against the UN and intervenes, does this then become another Iraq?
But THAT isn't my question. Robert King is one of the few reporters that has actually made it into the villages getting pummeled. He posted a video blog, and in it he states that the media is basically ignoring the plight of the people. He then goes on to say "the rebellion wants us to bomb the regime. They don't want boots on the ground, but they want us to supply them weapons so that they have a chance". *before you ask me to cite this, I can't. But I can tell you, and Hellstromm can verify the accuracy of it, as I have cleared this with him before posting. Something about pitchforks and such
Here is my question, if it is as bad as they want the world to think it is (though I agree it is) do they have the right to expect us to just hand them weapons and not put boots on the ground as well? Is it fair for them to expect us to bail them out, but not good enough to assist? We have done this with Iran, and Afghanistan, and look how well that worked out. My personal opinion is if things are that bad, they would welcome the aid, so if they are being picky, they get what they get. Our weapons, we should have a say so in how they are used so they can't be used to bite us 25 years later.
But THAT isn't my question. Robert King is one of the few reporters that has actually made it into the villages getting pummeled. He posted a video blog, and in it he states that the media is basically ignoring the plight of the people. He then goes on to say "the rebellion wants us to bomb the regime. They don't want boots on the ground, but they want us to supply them weapons so that they have a chance". *before you ask me to cite this, I can't. But I can tell you, and Hellstromm can verify the accuracy of it, as I have cleared this with him before posting. Something about pitchforks and such
Here is my question, if it is as bad as they want the world to think it is (though I agree it is) do they have the right to expect us to just hand them weapons and not put boots on the ground as well? Is it fair for them to expect us to bail them out, but not good enough to assist? We have done this with Iran, and Afghanistan, and look how well that worked out. My personal opinion is if things are that bad, they would welcome the aid, so if they are being picky, they get what they get. Our weapons, we should have a say so in how they are used so they can't be used to bite us 25 years later.
Last edited by a moderator: