posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 01:37 PM
I feel that we are seeing removal of the Syrian leadership as a primary function of theses war threats, not the chemical weapons, despite what is
Why isn't the plan more along these lines:
1. Syria, we are going to enter your country to destroy the chemical arsenal. We will be sending teams in to do it. Hopefully this action is backed by
2. If we meet resistance or are attacked in this process, we will bring the full force of the military against the leadership of the country to assure
that these weapons and your military is destroyed.
I suppose some will says the leadership will surely attack, If so then it becomes the same thing being spoken of now. But is it certain that Syria
will not give up those weapons? At least give them the option of letting go of these weapons. Has then been posed but already vetoed by Syria?
Surely they know an offensive attack is going to do great damage and result in a restructuring or change leadership. Do they actually believe they
Maybe I am giving them credit for rational thinking that just s not there?
edit on 8/31/2013 by roadgravel because: typo