True. They don't believe the President has laid out the reasons why the USA would have an interest in Syria. They think he is being frivolous with national interests.
But, in the same breath each Republican stated, "He has pointed to the release of Sarin as a Red Line causing 150 deaths. But, what about the other 97,000 dead?"
If the USA has no national interests in Syria, then what are they complaining about? Deaths mean nothing if the USA national interests aren't involved evidently.
13 June 2013 Last updated at 17:47 ET
But, the point was "What is the USA interests in helping Syria?" It is a loaded question. If President Obama aims high he might even be trapped into invading.
But, my answer is simply, "Ask Jordan."
But, in the same breath each Republican stated, "He has pointed to the release of Sarin as a Red Line causing 150 deaths. But, what about the other 97,000 dead?"
If the USA has no national interests in Syria, then what are they complaining about? Deaths mean nothing if the USA national interests aren't involved evidently.
13 June 2013 Last updated at 17:47 ET
At least 93,000 people (click here for video) have been killed in Syria since
the start of the conflict, according to the latest United Nations
figures.
But it says these statistics are an underestimate as it believes many deaths have not been reported.
Paul Wood reports.
"...more of the regime's troops have been killed than civilians or even rebels."
Hm.
The civil war in Syria began on March 15, 2011. It has been over 2 years this struggle has continued. During that time the rebels have made incredible sacrifices, but, they have made incredible progress. Many refugees have been accommodated by USA allies in the region. We are all grateful for the loyalty other nations in the region have shown toward those displaced because of violence.
But, let's put this into context outside of the war theater. The First World would expect deaths within any civil war. Let's just say there are 100,000 dead in those 2 years. That would mean 50,000 dead per year.
The First World country of the USA now experiences 30,000 dead per year by gun violence and that is without a civil war.
50,000 dead in Syria is about 0.25% of the country's population. 30,000 dead in the USA is 0.001% of the USA population. I suppose both are acceptable statistics all considering.
But it says these statistics are an underestimate as it believes many deaths have not been reported.
Paul Wood reports.
"...more of the regime's troops have been killed than civilians or even rebels."
Hm.
The civil war in Syria began on March 15, 2011. It has been over 2 years this struggle has continued. During that time the rebels have made incredible sacrifices, but, they have made incredible progress. Many refugees have been accommodated by USA allies in the region. We are all grateful for the loyalty other nations in the region have shown toward those displaced because of violence.
But, let's put this into context outside of the war theater. The First World would expect deaths within any civil war. Let's just say there are 100,000 dead in those 2 years. That would mean 50,000 dead per year.
The First World country of the USA now experiences 30,000 dead per year by gun violence and that is without a civil war.
50,000 dead in Syria is about 0.25% of the country's population. 30,000 dead in the USA is 0.001% of the USA population. I suppose both are acceptable statistics all considering.
But, the point was "What is the USA interests in helping Syria?" It is a loaded question. If President Obama aims high he might even be trapped into invading.
But, my answer is simply, "Ask Jordan."
