Send in bombers because we'll look weak if we don't? No, that's not a good enough reason for war action. Send in bombers because we'll lose credibility if we don't? We need to bomb Syria to sustain our National pride? Bunk! Is it a question of morality? We should strike Syria because Assad allegedly ordered using chemical weapons? Why not because he ordered using bullets to kill his inconvenient protestors? U.S. bombs are a more righteous kill? Who's morality? I think the Quakers and Mennonites (along with a few others) would find bombing for "morality" oxymoronic.
Oh, I stand corrected. "Bombs" is old school. Today well call them "missiles". Patriot missiles to be specific. We are to fire missiles toward Syria over chemical weapons that may have been supported by the U.K. or supplied by Russia? (What sanctions can we implement toward these complicit nations? Oh? We're not? huh) Well then, back to what I was saying. Where is the proof that if we don't destroy these chemical weapons, Syria will deploy them upon the United States?
Sarin gas is a heinous weapon. There's a good reason chemical weapons have been banned internationally since WWI. President Obama's "red line" statement was made with good intentions, but that doesn't mean we have to send in bombs (uh, missiles) this week, month or year. We can take the time to investigate and discuss this action.
After this week's White House meeting was over, senators and congressional members weighed in on their views toward Assad's Syria. Sadly, I saw both Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner agree on a "limited" and "proportional" strike on Syria.
Pelosi:
President Obama didn't draw the red line, Humanity drew it decades ago.Boehner:
The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability and capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated.