- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 127,354
- Likes
- 147,883
- Points
- 115
Is your argument that that it is only a military-strike-worthy atrocity if a weaker country does it?
If we strike Syria, it could lead to a nuclear war, too.
Go Blazers
First let me be clear, I am not in favor of a US led strike on Syria. I would rather see the UN make the decision of some sort of military intervention with the US supporting it. I think that would lessen the chance of it escalating into a nuclear war. But more importantly in the future I would like the US to support world policing actions when they are needed instead of leading them.
To answer your military-strike-worthy question, these types of actions should always be decided on a case by case, country by country basis. It seems obvious to me that what would work in one country might not work for a different country no matter the size of that country. If we can get a country to stop gassing their own citizens without bombing the shit out of them we should do it. Seems like you are looking for some uniform one size fits all policy or basing what we should do in Syria on that type of policy. I don't see how that is feasible or practical.
