"
The best thing we can do is commit to holding war criminals accountable, expand humanitarian aid for refugees,
and maintain constant diplomatic pressure for a negotiated end to the conflict."
How do they propose to "hold war criminals accountable" without some form of retaliation? Smacking them in the face with words?
How do they propose to "expand humanitarian aid for refugees" without first giving them some form of protection from another gas attack?
How do they propose the refugees receive protection from another gas attack, unless key military sites are destroyed?
What exactly is "diplomatic pressure" to a ruthless dictator, and when has that scenario ever worked in the past?
I am not a war-monger nor do I feel the U.S. should be the world's watchdog, but I don't think that any civilized nation should just sit back and
ho-humly watch a power-hungry mad dog kill innocent civilians.
HOW THE WORLD HEARD THE NEWS
It started as another night of heavy shelling for the beleaguered residents of what remains of Ghouta, a swathe of suburbs to the east of Damascus which is currently under the control of the rebel Free Syrian Army.
Then, at around 3am on the morning of August 21st, a stream of highly-distressed civilians began arriving at local hospitals. Many of the men, women, and children were foaming at the mouth, and shaking uncontrollably.
Their eyes were glazed, and their pupils contracted. Most panicked as they struggled to breathe. Despite the best efforts of doctors, many suffocated – slowly and in great pain.
‘The look of horror in victims’ eyes was what affected us most,’ said Dr Majid Abu Ali, a Syrian GP who treated almost 700 victims. ‘All of us have been dealing with war victims for the past two years, but nothing could have prepared us for this.
The situation was quite terrifying.’
www.dailymail.co.uk/news]www.dailymail.co.uk/news
Surprisingly, UK is against any retaliation, the French are siding with the U.S....
