Quote:
Originally Posted by butthead aka 216
i know weapon sellin has been goin on forever and we have battled against ppl who were usin our weapons before.
but because its happened before, does that make it smart?? i dont like any idea that involves us givin al quaeda more weapons.
what are we really achieving with strikes?? probably not goin to shift the war or really impact it that greatly. it looks like its more of a warning shot to let ppl know we aint cool with chemical weapons. and what if assad calls our bluff and says 'lol whatever usa, watch this huge chemical attack' and attacks syrian ppl again. do we just keep sending unlimited strikes??
|
The main point that is trying to be accomplished is to show that chemical weapons which are already on whatever ban list of weapons that the UN has shouldn't be allowed to used in any capacity. They already called our bluff by using it in the first place. They are trying to say f
uck you we used it. Your move. There are other international countries that agree with the strike that we are getting ready to do but they don't want to come out and say they are and back up what they already agreed to.