Russia and U.S. skeptical about chemical weapons use in Syria

[WethePeopleUS]

Russia, U.S. critical of chemical weapons in Syria | Russia Beyond The Headlines

Apparently the chemical weapon that was detonated in Aleppo, Syria has raised international tensions. While Russia has supported the Assad regime through this entire civil war, they are ordering an impartial international investigation ASAP. Washington has stated that the Assad regime using chemical weapons would give them the green light for intervention. Russia has stated that this is a ploy by Westerners and the opposition to allow for military intervention.
NATO has already started to gear up for intervention, as well as European countries.

Should the U.S. get involved?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let NATO handle it.

 

[varelse]

Let NATO handle it.

Aren't we NATO?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Let NATO handle it.

Aren't we NATO?

Yup. We should stay the hell out of there. If we go in that will be the last straw that turns me against Obama.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let NATO handle it.

Aren't we NATO?

Yup. We should stay the hell out of there. If we go in that will be the last straw that turns me against Obama.

We do not have to participate with military troops IF NATO acts. It is not a defensive situation so our obligations under the treaty are not enforceable.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Aren't we NATO?

Yup. We should stay the hell out of there. If we go in that will be the last straw that turns me against Obama.

We do not have to participate with military troops IF NATO acts. It is not a defensive situation so our obligations under the treaty are not enforceable.

But if NATO acts don't we by default act as well?

 

[tjvh]

Should the U.S. get involved? Nope.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Yup. We should stay the hell out of there. If we go in that will be the last straw that turns me against Obama.

We do not have to participate with military troops IF NATO acts. It is not a defensive situation so our obligations under the treaty are not enforceable.

But if NATO acts don't we by default act as well?

Our involvement in NATO has been limited under Obama. When NATO intervened in Libya, the U.S. only launched 128 cruise missiles at strategic military sites to allow the rebels to advance and take over the country. I imagine the U.S. would have the same limited involvement in Syria. We don't want to get involved in Syria, when we have to deal with Iran and North Korea.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Let NATO handle it.

Aren't we NATO?

Yup. We should stay the hell out of there. If we go in that will be the last straw that turns me against Obama.

Obama would be obligated to support NATO if they intervene. However, our involvement could be very limited, and we don't have to put troops on the ground.

It would be nice for some European countries to step up and take an active role in some of this.