Friday, August 30, 2013

My thinking on Syria: 8/30/2013

I have been around for a few wars.  I was born during the Second World War, collected Korean War cards when I was 8, read about and viewed photos of the war in Vietnam in Paris Match before we American were shown how bloody it was in our own news magazines and stayed up all night watching the first war against Iraq called Desert Storm.

Now we are being told that we have to do something because the regime in Syria has used chemical weapons against its own civilian population, and that we have a moral obligation to do something because chemical weapons are inhuman.  War is inhuman.

My problem is what do we hope to accomplish?  This will not produce a regime change I don't think. Perhaps more innocent civilians will die as a result of our missile strike?  Besides the corporations that make the missiles, who else is going to gain?  What if we do more damage than good?

It is tough to watch photos and videos of dead children.  Assad should go, but what will follow will be any better?

At this point, I guess President Obama thinks he has to do something, but I would like him to reconsider what the downside might be.  Missiles will not bring back those children and adults that died from chemical weapons (poisonous gas), and our actions are going to be criticized if the slightest thing goes wrong.

Personally, I think we should sit this one out.  Perhaps the British have it right this time.

1 comment:

winslow said...

If our "leaders" (decision-makers) or their children were given MK-40's and had to go to the front lines of any conflict, there would be much fewer "declarations" of war. It is much easier to send someone else.