Eshoo, Lofgren seek more answers before Syria vote
Original post made on Sep 3, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 3, 2013, 11:15 AM
on Sep 3, 2013 at 2:28 pm
You would think that by now we realized that the controlled surgical strike is a complete fiction. When you start bombing a country, the aftermath is unpredictable and getting sucked into ever increasing conflict is a definite possibility. The 5 wars we are in now are draining our financial resources; we may win on the battlefield(s) and crumble internally for lack of good schooling, adequate infrastructure, and reasonable health care.
And why are we morally insulted by the use of chemical weapons? We hardly even blinked at 100,000 machetted to death in Africa? 3000 children die every day from hunger around the world. Are those deaths somehow more acceptable because they brought about by horrendous violence or just plain global neglect? We need a moral compass that isn't oriented to oil. Apparently if Syria were in southern Africa we wouldn't be bothered at all.
on Sep 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Whether the US steps in depends on a lot more than the raw number of deaths. We have to consider the stability of the region, our current military capacity, our allies, the likelihood of future deaths, the chance of success, etc.
Having said that, I think most of those factors weigh against military action in Syria. Punishing a dictator without overthrowing him never worked well in the past. The situation is truly horrific in Syria, but I don't see how a volley of US cruise missiles would make it better.
on Sep 3, 2013 at 5:52 pm
It seems to me that no one outside of the Government wants to "do something" about Syria.
Seriously, everyone I talk to about thinks this is someone else's problem to deal with. Not ours.
But our President and seemingly most of congress appear to think differently.
Who exactly are they representing these days? Makes you wonder.