- Posted September 3, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Are chemical weapons a ‘red line’?
Are chemical weapons a red line?
Are Chemical weapons a red line? Should the West intervene if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against it's people.
To this I say yes chemicals are a red line if they weren't a red line then no action would of been taken. No the west should not intervene.
While "red lines" have been effective as deterrents, they're not necessarily effective diplomacy tactics, especially when there is no strategy or end goal effectively communicated. In recent days, what has been most clearly and repeatedly communicated publicly by Obama is his deliberate - some say too deliberate - decision-making process in terms of how to react the alleged Syrian chemical attack.
With the protest of millions around the world the president needs to listen to citizens when they are sending him a message telling him that we do not want another World War III We want peace. We want our troops home safe. If Obama enacts the war on Syria he will be the only 1 left as other countries do not want to get involved. All around the world there are protests going on against the war on Syria. I urge everyone to contact your congressmen and urge them to vote NO on the war on Syria. If you can't do that get involved with protests or get a protest going on in the city you live in. I recently did a protest in Newark Ohio called Newark/Heath Anti Syria War Rally.