Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I support authorizing the President to use military force in Syria (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's a relevant reference to Iraq: (10+ / 0-)

    The US invaded Iraq in a war of aggression precisely due to claimed "weapons of mass destruction" -- chemical weapons.

    We didn't just use cruise missiles, we used practically everything in our arsenal outside of nuclear weapons. We used white phosphorus.  We killed nearly a million people and leveled entire cities, let alone destroying the infrastructure which still is not functioning well 10 years later.

    We hunted Saddam Hussein down like a dog and watched our Iraqi puppet government hang him.

    We destroyed their palaces and watched their museums and national heritage be looted and destroyed. Anything that Iraqis may have cared about before the war lay in ruins after.

    Now.

    Having done all that on account of chemical weapons, could you explain to me how a couple hundred cruise missiles lobbed over Syria, killing Syrian people, will send any stronger message to Assad than the occupation and widespread destruction through the entire country directly to his east?  

    Syria borders Iraq. He's well aware of the US military power.

    He apparently doesn't care.

    So, why should the US government kill more people in Syria than are going to die already? What can we do without invading that will truly make a difference?

    Make no mistake, Assad should be held accountable, just as the brutal killers of Bosnia and Kosovo have been held accountable.  But we should not institute collective punishment on the people of Syria.

    It was Assad, not the Syrian people, who did this.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 12:34:56 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site