I will enclose the link that I used for this posting at the end. In the early 30’s the people were just as tired of war as now, and so they railed against any involvement. Many refused to believe that there were ‘people’ being exterminated and at the same time, the corporations refused to stop selling oil and weapons to those countries that were hand in hand with Germany. So, just like then, we have the people and congress unwilling to enforce the ban on chemical warfare. No sane person ever wants war, but what good are sanctions and bans, if they are not enforced?
As my daughter put it, if you tell your toddler not to do something, do you allow it to happen without ‘enforcing’ your ‘rules’, what happens? Is this not in a way the same comparison? What good are rules and bans if there is no teeth to it? As it stands now, what many Americans don’t understand is that as commander in chief of the military forces, the president can without congressional approval implement a ‘limited’ strike against the offending country to uphold and enforce the ban on chemical and nuclear warfare.
I realize that my views differ from many Americans that want only to avoid all contact and thoughts of what is transpiring in the world and have no thought of ‘responsibility’ to enforce the ‘world-wide’ bans that most countries signed(Syria did not sign) After watching a few of the you-tube videos on CNN(don’t usually watch that very biased news station, but they did offer the best views of the videos) how can anyone condone what has happened there? What will it tell the worlds dictators if they find there is no ‘reprisal’ for ignoring the ban on chemical warfare?
There are no good and clear answers but if you as I do, feel that we have an obligation to enforce these bans, without involving ourselves in their civil war, then in my mind, we have a clear responsibility to protect those innocents by enforcing that ban.
Peace and may there someday be an end to the ‘despots’ that destroy their countries all in the name of power.