| spurgeonryan said: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-attack-health-idUSBRE97M0HP20130823 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
Shouldn't we send over 100,000 soldiers after bombing the Hell out of the area like we did in Iraq? Or does the U.S have nothing to gain this time, and no Corrupt President to push Congress to go for it? I mean..out of Fairness. If we attack one country just from rumors, then why not take any huge action with this? Can America really do one but not the other? Does it work that way? |
It wasn't even rumors. It was an outright lie. Not having a corrupt president deadset on invading the country before he even BECAME president helps. But even Bush could not have justified an invasion of Iraq without 9/11 and the hysteria that came with it. 9/11 is, unfortunately, what allowed the Iraqi invasion to happen.
