Why does Obama care about the use of chemical weapons in Syria?

Why does Obama care if Bashar Hafez al-Assad uses chemical weapons on his people? Is it the death of innocent people. Countries kill their own people all the time. Remember the genocide in Rwanda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

How about the Holocaust in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge killed 20% of their own people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

There are people dying in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China etc etc etc . . There are many countries that kill there citizens I don't see the US attacking them?

Is it the chemical weapons that bother Obama? If Assad used conventional weapons and killed the same number of people would that make it okay?

Why are we getting involved in Syria?

 

.

U.S. is getting involved in Syria for the same reason they got involved
in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Iran, etc. Yinon Plan. Check it out sometime.

.

 

Actually the US did get involved in Cambodia. Firstly the USAF bombed the crap out of the country when NVA and NLF Vietnamese forces were making incursions into Cambodia. And then later when the Khmer Rouge picked a fight with Vietnam, the US gave aid to the Khmer Rouge.

People die all over the world.

US and Vietnamese relations have never been better these last few decades, so why should the US attack Vietnam?



A little research goes a long way.

 

Because the rule is no one can use WMD. The way you enforce that rule is by caring every single time it is used. Otherwise a precedent of looking the other way will cause a proliferation of their use.

- - - Updated - - -

Clash of civilizations?

 

And that is a specific US policy that dates back before Obama was even born

 

Clash of civilizations?[/QUOTE]


Zionist balkanization of the Middle East

.

 

I agree. While it is deplorable for chemical weapons to be used it is not more terrible than torturing hundreds of people through other means and that is happening around the world in various countries. We do not have an imperative reason to be involved in Syria and we must stay out of it.

 

It is the only one that can work. I think Ike started it. The Escalation Deterrant basically if the country is like Syria and MAD doesnt work. It has kept the world safe from WMD use for the most part.

 

Yeah I have no issue with it at all. And as you say it is a policy that has by and large worked in the past. And many countries pony up with the US when such incidents occur.

 

What irks me to no end is the left supports the President. When Bush decided to attack Iraq over WMD. At the very beginning of the war, the Left was against it. Bush said that Iraq had WMDs and we had to attack. The Left denounced it before the war started. After it was discovered that Iraq did not have WMDs it was fashionable to say that they were against it. Like when the Democratic candidates use to say that they were against the war with Iraq before they were for it. Or they were for it before they were against it. Depending of course who the audience they were happen to be talking to.

So this very same crowd that attacked Bush, is for Obama's attack.

 

Really? Then why did the world do nothing when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds?

 

Agreed. Obama uses drones to assassinate American citizens without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Barack "Idi Amin" Obama tramples our constitution all the time why does he care what a fellow dictator does?

 

He doesn't. He's just a lackey.

 

Yes and on top of all of that the administration requested to inspect through the UN and then after Assad agreed they decided they would just say that Assad used chemical weapons without the inspection. I guess it is no surprise that the main stream media is not pressing the administration on its need to make its case before Congress for a vote and before the American people.

We need to stay out of Syria. We have no compelling reason to get involved that is an imperative to national security.

 

The US wants to do for Syria what it did for Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

 

I think has been roundly considered a mistake though. Especially now considering there was the second Iraq war.

 

I wanted to like your post but the like button says I have used it too many times within 24 hours and can't use it anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

I wanted to like your post but the like button says I have used it too many times within 24 hours and can't use it anymore.

 

I wanted to like your post but the like button says I have used it too many times within 24 hours and can't use it anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

And why were so many against GWB's war in Iraq? I've been asking these questions all day but not getting many answers so the best I can figure out is:
GWB attacks Iraq = bad
BHO attacks Syria= GOOD

 

There were no chem weapons used.

Listen to Waterhead SkullnBones Kerry speech and you will realize this truth, by his pathetic appeal to youtube videos and telling anyone who questions the reality of those videos to "check their conscious".

They already faked a chem attack in Syria earlier this year with some foaming-out-the-mouth laugh.