Death, destruction, chaos and mayhem are already at their nation. We're helping potential victims (and the rebels) be safe from a chemical attack.
When can we be done? How much American blood is enough?
Wish I knew. I've been waiting on Star Trek for a while.
So...war without end. Without any reason to suspect end, without any plan to end....that didn't serve us well last time and it won't serve us well this time.
I think we should do more than bomb chemical weapons facilities. I also think we should establish no-fly zones to put an end to Assad's well-known tactic of bombing populated areas, and arm and train secular rebels to both help them defeat Assad but also to marginalize the Islamist and Salafist groups.I hope you're right about Syria - although, I do fail to understand how the US bombing of a few strategic facilities and weapons installations in Syria is going to bring an end to the civil war, leave alone bring a viable democracy.
It's taken a decade in Iraq, over $1 trillion in American currency, thousands of American lives, countless Iraqi lives, and even now Iraq has the most fragile of democracies and certainly lingering civil-war like tensions between factions. The Iraqi people, like Syrians, are well educated, intelligent, and generally sectarian in their outlook to government and governance, and still religious tensions spoil the mix for those who just want to survive and thrive. Clearly, Syria is far better poised to recover than Afghanistan ever will be, but still, I don't see any great improvement there for a couple of decades at best.
Are Americans prepared to own Syria for a couple of decades too?
I was young, dumb, and stupid, and I rode the "Let's go bomb Saddam!" bandwagon a decade ago. Christ, to think that the anti-war liberals turned out to be right all along...
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
Its not inconsistent because they are two different situations. In one case, WMD's were used as an excuse to justify a war for other geopolitical reasons with no precipitating events taking place. In the other case chemical weapons are actually being used and are reported to have killed about 1,000 people.I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
If someone were in favor of full scale invasion and subsequent nation building but opposed to lobbing some missiles they're "ideologically inconsistent"?I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?