Originally posted by Lord Vulkas Mormonus

---

So I'm just curious, what here is different between this and the war in Iraq?

In both, we had confirmed knowledge of the use of chemical weapons in the past. The difference here is that Iraq would not let UN inspectors in, while Syria is. Also, we knew for sure that it was Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons in Iraq, in Syria we believe it was Hassad. Evidence is very strong that it was him, but it's still not 100%.

Both nations have very few links to having harmed us, except that there is some amount of evidence of an Iraqi politician being present for the planning of 9/11.

An attack against both nations would mean a lot of diplomatic problems for the US, only for Iraq is was more problems with Iran and some other middle eastern countries. Here it's China and Russia that will be very angry with us.

Both wars will be taking place while America is hurting economically. Only now we'll be doing it with a lot of budget cuts in the military.

Both nations have links to Al Qaeda, only now we'd be fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda.

Now, I understand that we cannot allow the use of Chemical weapons. However, is the solution really to invade them? Furthermore, the way we'd attack will most likely be through the use of missiles and drone strikes, which have a high amount of collateral damage.

And just the final question, why on earth didn't we invade them two years ago when it happened, why are we only just now getting around to it? It seems like invading a country in such a way that we will have a lot of civilian casualties for something that happened two years ago, and aren't even 100% sure was done by the government is pretty odd.

Like I said before though, I honestly think that this is more about the politcs than it is about stopping the use of chemical weapons. If it was about the chemical weapons, we would have invaded two years ago, not now when OBama and the NSA is getting all sorts of backlash about other things.

---