Donald Trump on attacking syria for gas attacks

First of all I shall link a article which legitimises the idea that a passive solution was also valid: telegraph. Co. Uk/news/2016/04/12/syria-war-crimes-investigators-amass-strongest-evidence-since-nu if you don't feel like this is a reputable source you can find similar articles from the NPR a less mainstream media source: . https://www. Npr. Org/2018/04/12/601951535/could-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-be-tried-as-a-war-criminal? T=1534358193042 I hope that you can read both of these but if you can't I will summarise their contents. There is currently enough evidence to charge Assad with war crimes over the 7 years, He is currently being defended by Russia who have vetoed the decision to bring him to court. By provoking the Russians we make it more and more likely that they will continue to defend him and he will never answer for his crimes. The state of Syria is not a person and it cannot make its own decisions, Instead it is the individuals responsible for these crimes who must be punished. By failing to punish individuals, It shows others that it is safe to order these attacks. Assad has not suffered at all form these attacks, The war will still end the same way and he is still going to live free and protected. It is important for many reasons to start to work with the Russians, They have done many things which deserve condemnation (the Crimea and the Ukraine), But it makes no sense to restart a cold war. As long as we continue to automatically standoff with the Russians Assad will never be brought to justice. The airstrikes were a short term solution to the problem but run the risk of putting Assad beyond out reach. I think we can simply rule out the answer of increased action, Because short of assassinating Assad (a world leader) or invading and imprisoning him (as in Libya with Gaddafi) this would (while certainly a very efficient show of force and action) only worsen the lives of Syrians. I must also criticise the way trump launched the strikes. I remember after the mustard gas strikes in Syria, Trump literally came onto stage and said that they would retaliate. I must add that this was about 3 days before the west did respond. This brought condemnation from the rest of NATO (namely the UK and France) and made it far more dangerous for us to carry out strikes. This overwhelming display of incompetence followed by a sudden surge in American involvement before returning to normal levels, Showed that Trump was not qualified to deal with the situation and gives the west (the USA is the symbolic leader of the free world) the appearance of being disorganised and weak the opposite of what we had wanted. I would finally like to draw attention to the fact that Syria is a repeat offender in this area and airstrikes have proven ineffective as a deterrent so a new approach must be taken. A good example would be the Israeli destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility, However they more likely than not maintain a program according to the IAEA. In Aleppo the government used chlorine gas 8 times during the siege. I will link a article detailing the regimes consistent use of chemical weapons, Which they have done so over 140 times. . https://www. Baladi-news. Com/en/news/details/17851/How_Many_times_Did_Assad_Use_Chemical_Weapons Conventional military retaliation has failed to send the desired message. This article was published last year in April since then there have been many more attacks. This fox news article (people who would praise Trump had his actions prevented further attacks) we can see that there has simply not be a resolution. Http://www. Foxnews. Com/world/2018/04/10/timeline-chemical-weapons-attacks-in-syria. Html In particular this "April 6, 2017: The U. S. Fires cruise missiles into Syria in retaliation for the Khan Sheikhoun attack, In the first direct American assault on the Syrian government. " this came before the Douma chemical attack, Which is the one we have been focusing on. Bombings while a quick and physical retaliation don't actually act as a major deterrent. By the way having seen your comment I would be quite happy to adjust the length of the debate by forfeiting the final two rounds, Meaning that I would post one more round and you would post two.