https://time.com/5788258/violence-in-syria-stokes-fears-of-a-coming-bloodbath-will-trump-act/
Trump hasn’t been shy in vocalizing his aversion to overseas entanglements, but Middle East experts and human rights officials stress
that there’s a middle road between refusing to act and engaging in
open-ended U.S. military and diplomatic interventions of the kind seen
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“At the very least, the Administration has to come
out and say it’s unacceptable to have one million people being uprooted
because of a military offensive in which war crimes are routinely being
carried out,” says Philippe Nassif, Amnesty International USA’s advocacy
director for the Middle East and North Africa. “It’s shameful. Every
diplomatic tool should be used to talk to the Russians, Syrians and
Turks to deescalate and protect these people fleeing from violence. None
of that is happening.”
It raises an important question - yes, the US is the world's policeman but what is its level of responsibility? As longas Assad restricts himself to conventional methods of mass slaughter and avoids chemical or biological means, does the US need to intervene? If they do, does it mean every time some dictator anywhere on the planet does the same thing that the US has to send in troops?
ReplyDeletereread the article - you missed the answer to your question
ReplyDelete