(11 Sep 13, 04:39AM)#M|A#Wolf Wrote: I have no idea how Americans are agreeing with Obama on this, once more, another Middle-Eastern country the US wants to invade.
Firstly, Obama doesn't have the power to necessarily invade Syria, as he needs congressional approval for any military activity that will last longer than 60 days. Tomahawk missiles can still be launched up Assad's ass, however, a full-scale invasion of Syria is impossible due to the overwhelming opposition of the American public towards any military involvement in Syria. Also, any conclusive evidence of the Assad regime's involvement in the recent chemical attack in Damascus, that the Americans apparently possess, has not been presented to the public.
(11 Sep 13, 04:02AM)DrauL Wrote: I think it's not my problem.
Secondly, the isolationist era has long since past, and as much as Americans and the rest of the world are, correctly, distrustful of their government's motives, the mantle of world protector has passed onto the United States. The United Nations is far too ineffective of a governing body to commit to any action in Syria. One needs to only look to the atrocities of World War 1, the Iran-Iraq war, etc. to understand that chemical warfare is immoral and unlawful by nature and should not be tolerated by the international community.
Currently, the issue isn't necessarily whether or not the Assad government was involved in the attack. Rather, the United States and its 'allies' wish to dissuade and deter the Assad regime from employing the use of chemical weapons in the future. As Mael said, it is hopeful that Assad's complicity in Obama's request to give up his chemical weapon cache will deny any hope of an American strike in Syria into the near future, as Obama will no longer have a valid casus belli.