So, for the curious, I think the bombing campaign is a bad idea

[Recursion]

Lest people assume I am my caricature, I do not in fact think the bombing campaign in Syria is a good idea. I think it is a bad idea.

I hope it ends swiftly with as few people killed as possible. As a vet, I've seen what US bombs can do, and I don't wish that on anyone.

[leftstreet]

1. DURec

[cali]

2. thanks. I don't think it's a good idea either.

a few thoughts: I think it will be a very long campaign. It will be expensive. It will kill civilians- probably more civilians than ISIS fighters. I just read that 70 ISIS fighters were killed in the bombardment. It will damage infrastructures in cities like Raqqa and Aleppo. I fear that it will create more antipathy for the U.S. and increase recruitment for ISIS. I also wonder about how effective it can be. ISIS has known for a couple of weeks that this would happen. I suspect that they weren't just sitting around waiting to be hit.

[morningfog]

3. TO all the back-slappers, chest-thumpers and high fivers: We are killing innocent people.

Right now, we are killing innocent people. Imagine you, your mother, your father, your son, your daughter being blown up by a foreign bomb. I cannot support this.

[woo me with science]

4. It's still possible to find work

that does not require a caricature and the sacrifice of conscience and human decency.

[SheilaT]

5. I simply don't get why

we're going off to bomb yet another country. What's the point? What do they really hope to accomplish?

You can't really bomb some population into submission. You can wreak enough destruction and death to make it easier to waltz in and occupy them, but it's not likely you'll win their hearts and minds with bombing.

Think about Pearl Harbor. A huge proportion, possibly a majority, of Americans wanted to have nothing to do with the new war in Europe that started in 1939. Various others, including Roosevelt, could see that we were going to have to join that war, but couldn't rush things. The Japanese, if I understand my history correctly, thought that by bombing us they'd make it clear there was no point in trying to fight them, and would remain on the sidelines. Boy, were they wrong.

[m-lekktor]

6. as a navy vet i feel the same.

people who never experienced bombs falling all around them shouldn't be so quick to support this crap ESPECIALLY if they are doing it purely for partisan reasons, IE, it's ok when a DEM president does it.

how many times do we do the SAME thing which never works over and over and over before we realize???

[bigwillq]

7. I don't think it's a good idea either

We need to stop being a bully, and stop bombing countries that we don't agree with. I hope for the best, but it seems like it will be nothing but a disaster, and likely will not solve anything. We just need to stay out of the Middle East, imo.

[CrispyQ]

8. You are not alone in your thoughts.

I am sick of perpetual war.

[mountain grammy]

9. Sadly, I agree, and am grateful my Congressman agrees with me.

I am goddam sick of war.. we're causing as much misery as the crazies we are fighting.

[snooper2]

10. Fundies that behead seven year old girls deserve to be bombed-

[Recursion]

11. Possibly, but people are often standing next to them

I have called in mortar strikes. A mortar round will flatten a rowhouse and shatter every window within 100 yards. A mortar barrage consists of 64 of those. I've called both of those in, in the hopes that they would kill the person shooting at me. It's not a moment of pride for me, but I can't pretend I wouldn't do it again.

An artillery barrage consists of 128 rounds that are 64 times as powerful. An air strike is that much more powerful again. Just like in 2003, I don't see a legitimate military objective here.

[Schema Thing]

12. "just like in 2003"? no comparison

You may think the military objective is not compelling enough for the risk, but surely you see a legitimate objective that goes way beyond any shred of legitimacy the Iraq war had, yes?

[Recursion]

13. Negative. I think this is a better mission profile than in 2003, certainly

Don't get me wrong: Obama is simply incapable of ordering us on a clusterfuck of GWB size. This is a case where I disagree with the C-in-C; 2003 was a case of the C-in-C being a fucking idiot. Yes, there are huge differences.