General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I get the desire not to engage in full-scale war...but we're okay with chemical weapons? [View all]KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...I applaud the stands you've taken and the deliberations you've gone through; despite all the DU "experts" who already know everything and impart their "wisdom" from on high. While this administration is trying to present this action as being similar to Bill Clinton's mission in Kosovo, it's looking and sounding more like dubya's run up to Iraq and that's where the real rub is right now. And sadly, more innocent people will die as Assad does whatever it takes to hold onto power. He's making daddy's massacre at Homs look like an amateur and must now feel emboldened as his adversaries remain split on how to deal with him.
This is a very complex war in a country we truly know little about and because of that I'm extremely cautious about supporting any military action; especially if its a unilateral action. No matter how strategic the bombing, innocents will die and without some kind of coordination and possible "boots on the ground", Assad, just like Hussein, could hold out and continue to wage genocide on his own people. Unless, just like in Kuwait, you had soldiers from Arab League countries as part of a coalition...and this is what gave that war a bit of legitimacy. The US going alone makes it look like we're world's policemen and justifies all those "hair on fire" types who see this administration as just as brutish as the previous regime.
I'm one who hopes that President Obama is playing Teddy Roosevelt here...carrying the big stick and using it to try to get some kind of negotiations going. I'm more hopeful of his trip to Moscow next week than I am of a dozen cruise missile strikes and that we don't resort to any type of military action. It's a shame as so many people have needlessly died but our influence in Syria is minimal and we can't go it alone...
Cheers...