Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FamousAJ" data-source="post: 2283059" data-attributes="member: 9545">How does POTUS decide who to attack and who to leave alone? There's warlords in Africa that have unabashedly been doing as bad or worse for years without repurcussion. Assad uses chemical weapons and we decide to punish. The cliche' "if you don't know your history, you're doomed to repeat it" is patently false. Anyone with a passing knowledge of World War I knows that war is often the result of a lot of people sitting around thinking "war is inevitable" without really having any explanation for why. Germany and England kept building gigantic navies. The result was two powerful countries sitting on massive fleets and nothing to do with them. The result of all of this nonsense now is a growing momentum towards war with Syria, built up by a few hawks slowly dragging everyone into the fold without any new evidence that Assad is responsible for the attack.Even if Kerry et al are right, how many lives will an American attack actually save? I'm pretty sure that if Assad did, in fact, use chemical weapons as is the charge, he's probably not dumb enough to do it again given the response it's gotten. Pragmatically, what exactly will it accomplish by attacking the country? Punishment? Is that our job? Protecting innocent lives I'm ok with; taking unilateral responsibility to punish, against the wishes of the U.N. whose job it is to do such things, doesn't really paint our country in a good light.</blockquote>

Verification