Thursday, September 5, 2013

Question of the Day

Okay, I think you know where I stand.  It’s your turn.

Should we authorize a military mission in Syria?

Make your case.

12 barks and woofs on “Question of the Day

  1. I haven’t been shown a compelling reason why we have to and how it will improve things there. So I’m inclined to say no.

  2. You know where I stand. If not Syria then perhaps Pakistan? Or North Korea? Or some small African nation hoping to make an impression on its citizens? I’m for doing more about the refugees and leaning on the diplomacy if there’s now such an option, but some sort of spanking should make the world take notice that a treaty isn’t just for words and no consequences.

  3. I am on the fence here. I am so tired of war but I have also seen what gassing people does to them. Would bombing them make a difference? If the president does this on his own, ok. I am gonna say no.

  4. No. It is a civil war in a place where everyone’s favorite target is any guy with an American flag on his fatigues. If we start with cop-clean up after the likes of Assad we will never be done. He could be tried in absentia in the World Court. If the UN wants t treat him as a war criminal after their investigation is complete…let a LARGE coalition of UN members go in and clean his clock. This unilateral crap is for the birds. We cannot afford more war. Either in money or blood.

  5. It’s a Gordian knot and there’s no Alexander available to cut it. In a fantasy world, a team of Seals would go in, kidnap Assad and the rebel leader(s), take them to the Hague, and charge them with international crimes against humanity. No other solution is possible without severe repercussions.

  6. As Nick Kristoff wrote today, “So all of you who argue against taking military action, what would you suggest be done instead? Wring your hands? More and more slaughter to stand by and witness? Take it to the World Court as more of the above continues? What’s your advice?” Do nothing now or ever? “Not our business” we said prior to finally giving Britain Lend-Lease help toward the end of the Battle of Britain and they were close to starvation. We have a long history of isolationism. Maybe it’s happening again.

  7. No. I’m not persuaded it would do any good, and it will probably only exacerbate the problem. There is no good that we can do there unless it would be to pour our efforts into helping the refugees. Neither side in this civil war deserves our help: Assad for obvious reasons that don’t even have to include nerve gas; nor any of the many factions that seek to overthrow him – they all hate us and will turn against us if they win.

Comments are closed.