Comments:Wikinews interviews Dr Thomas Scotto and Dr Steve Hewitt about potential US military intervention in Syria
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Potential US military intervention in Syria||1||22:39, 4 September 2013|
In as much as it is very wrong for the government of Syria to use chemical weapons against its own people (if it is actually true), I think the US is the last country that should be talking of military intervention. The world has not forgotten the pain such a military intervention inflicted on innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq when George Bush launched his so-called search for weapons of mass destruction only for the world to finally find out he was just interested in ousting Saddam Hussein. Innocent people were the ultimate sufferers in all of that. I do not think the best solution to this problem is another so-called military intervention. Obama and his government are just trying to use this event as an excuse for their desire to oust Bashar al-Assad from power. Of course, so many innocent civilians are going to be the ultimate losers if such a step is taken. The US should stop creating enemies for itself (thereby putting the lives of its citizens in danger) by meddling unnecessarily in other countries affairs. I am very sure there are diplomatic ways of dealing with such a situation without military intervention (ostensibly, the only conflict resolution strategy the US seems to know). Iraq and Afghanistan are yet to recover from the damage caused to them when the US decided military intervention would be the best solution to the so-called problem in those countries. The world does not need any of these wars. And where is the UN by the way?
If the Syrian government is using chemical weapons against its own people, that doesn't seem remotely something one could deal with effectively by diplomatic means. Too light a response would harm the future (as would too heavy, or a mistargeted, response, obviously).