But, Stu, I thought you were a pacifist? Why have you changed now? I really am curious to know.
- And out of curiousity, you do believe Assad really did deploy the chemical weapons? Half the nutjobs on the internet think it was a hoax to drag us into Syria. What if they're right?
(I can't believe I just wrote that... must be the mind control kicking in)
I do believe it, they built their army for the sole purpose of keeping themselves in power.
I am not a pacifist. I also tend to believe that what gets reported of the events of the world is usually based in some fact. I agree that those facts are often not clear or deliberately manipulated. The US has a very mixed history when it comes to military engagements. Just a brief look at them shows that our economic interest, or more precisely the economic interest of the upper, ruling class, trumps just about everything else.
That said, we do and can continue to do a great deal of good in the world simply by keeping many places in the world going into complete chaos.
Syria is a horror show. It can and probably will get worse. I would actually support a Military campaign to seize the Syrian Army's chemical weapon's stock(or a large chunk of it) simply because if that Army were to falter and loose control of them, I have no doubt that those weapons would be used on Americans.
That is actually the best argument for doing nothing or in fact helping the Syrian Government win its war.
But Fuck that! Anyone using chemical weapons in any capacity should do so knowing that the US Military is going to Kill them .
We should have done so with Iraq in the Nineties but our government, which was being led by the hero of the GOP not only let it go but condoned it. ( I did not like that)
1. I don't think bombing Syria a few times would work. It's not like they'd be surprised at this point, and there will be civilian casualties. You don't throw a couple of rocks at a beehive to eradicate it, that just pisses them off and makes them swarm. I get the distinct impression we'd bomb a couple of sites (which have probably already been cleared of weaponry) and then have a swarming beehive with access to chemical weapons. Not a good idea as far as I can tell. Wipe them out completely or don't piss them off in the first place.
There are a relatively few people in command of the Syrian forces. Even a small scale strike would kill an uncomfortable percentage of them. Not to mention how damaging their air fields would put a real logistical hurt on them.
2. I don't believe we're not going to be dragged into some long-ass regime change thing; based on previous experience in the region. Civil war is not going to go away after military action.
At this point a partitioning of Syria is the best chance of reducing the bloodshed, those running the Syrian military won't agree to that as long as they think they can wipe out any opposition.
3. Also, it seems to me they ALL hate us in the middle east already, and military action would simply mean helping some questionable group who already hates us, and will be bombing us in a decade or so as a way of expressing their thanks. If I believed this would make the US safer and Syria more stable I might be more supportive, but I don't necessarily believe those things.
We hate them back.
4. I do think having several aircraft carriers parked at your front door might encourage a diplomatic solution. I hope this is the case.
I agree, and the Syrians do seem to be reacting diplomatically to the pressure that the US Navy is putting on them.
