Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody, Bush was acting on a perceived threat. It was a preventative action.
-spence
|
Isn't destroying Assad's stuff a preventative action? Aren't Assad's weapons a perceived threat?
Do you perceive chemical weapons to be a greater threat than radical, jihadist Islam?
WMD have been owned by nations for more than 60 years. Doesn't it depend on the rational makeup of the owners more than the weapons? Isn't the ideology and conviction of the owners the far greater threat than the weapons?
If so, why do we support and supply the "rebels" who will most likely be co-opted by jihadist types whose ideology and conviction is world domination, not merely domination of a state? Do we really think that Assad would use his weapons against us if we left him alone? Do we think he has a mission to bring down the evil West?
Why are we so willing to use force against a local tyrant, but support those who wish to destroy us? I don't know if it is possible to rid the world of chemical weapons if the ability to produce them exists. I would rather rid us of those who wish us harm and destruction by any means possible, chemical or otherwise.
Threaded Mode