This Modern World: And Away We Go -- - Nothing Says "We Care" Like A Tomahawk Missile Strike

[cheapdate]

109. I agree with most all of your points

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

regarding the downside risks of strikes against the Assad government in Syria. These are the reasons why I am not in favor of strikes.

I don't agree with your position that it's patently obvious that a powerful strike against major military assets of the Syrian regime (i.e. "sending a message&quot in retribution for their purported use of chemical weapons would have no influence on Assad's future decisions regarding the use of chemical weapons. This flies in the face of basic human experience (you touch a fire, you get burned, so you don't touch a fire.)

Assuming that this conflict continues (which of course it will) and the Assad government and it's bases of power become increasingly threatened (which they may) it's easily conceivable that they (the Assad government) may turn to chemical weapons more frequently anytime Damascus is threatened, especially if they know they can do so without fear of any reprisal or repercussions.

But if they know for certain that the price of doing so will be a punishing attack by the combined air and naval forces of the United States and other allies against their own government and military, I say that's certain to temper their enthusiasm.

Also, weakening Assad through a limited strike isn't going to bring him down -- it's not designed to. But if there is any chance whatsoever of Assad ever going to the negotiating table to negotiate a settlement with the rebels, this (strikes) will surely increase the chances of that happening.