Syria: Assad-regime apparently willing to surrender & destroy chemical weapons

[Eraserhead]

Hard to tell if this is sincere or just delaying tactics by the Russians, but at least it seems our threats are working. If only the True Leftists and the teabaggers would stop competing to see who could most thoroughly undermine our foreign policy...

Without the general public's "undermining" of the administration's policy, the US would have been forced to bomb Syria (whether Obama really wanted to or not) and this deal never would have been reached.

[Eraserhead]

I really don't think this will fix it. I hope I'm wrong.

And even if it does fix the chemical weapons problem... there's still the fact that the Assad regime has killed over 100,000 of its own people by "ordinary" means. The method of mass murder should not matter when a government is being judged. We should still intervene, Assad should still go.

So should we should start intervening everywhere in the world where people are being killed then?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I really don't think this will fix it. I hope I'm wrong.

And even if it does fix the chemical weapons problem... there's still the fact that the Assad regime has killed over 100,000 of its own people by "ordinary" means. The method of mass murder should not matter when a government is being judged. We should still intervene, Assad should still go.

So should we should start intervening everywhere in the world where people are being killed then?

If you look at the top wars here, we're already involved in most of them. But not necessarily for humanitarian reasons.

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

[Silent Hunter]

I really don't think this will fix it. I hope I'm wrong.

And even if it does fix the chemical weapons problem... there's still the fact that the Assad regime has killed over 100,000 of its own people by "ordinary" means. The method of mass murder should not matter when a government is being judged. We should still intervene, Assad should still go.

So should we should start intervening everywhere in the world where people are being killed then?

Not everywhere, but in the worst cases. Rwanda and Cambodia could have been prevented.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I really don't think this will fix it. I hope I'm wrong.

And even if it does fix the chemical weapons problem... there's still the fact that the Assad regime has killed over 100,000 of its own people by "ordinary" means. The method of mass murder should not matter when a government is being judged. We should still intervene, Assad should still go.

So should we should start intervening everywhere in the world where people are being killed then?

Not everywhere, but in the worst cases. Rwanda and Cambodia could have been prevented.

Rwanda, maybe.  Depends on whether you consider cutting the death toll to around a tenth (at the most optimistic) of what it was to be prevention. But Cambodia?  There was practically no news out of Cambodia, and what there was could be taken as the usual political reeducation stories at first.  The idea that the Khmer Rouge would turn out to be as senselessly brutal and self-genocidal as they were was not something that anyone could have expected until it had already happened.