General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Wow! The new slur against the anti-war faction on DU is "peace purists" [View all]Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Nevertheless, I am very skeptical of wars and the noble reasons given for them. They are usually avoidable and often waged for nefarious reason. All the crap about defending freedom and protecting America didn't disguise the fact that the war against Iraq was pure and simple colonial piracy.
OK, back us up against the wall, we're going to come out fighting. From the perspective of Britain and France, World War II could not be avoided. Yet all wars are stupid wars properly considered. Der Fuhrer's twisted dreams of tall, blue-eyed blond men as a dominant race ruling the world and exterminating inferiors should have been laughed at, not followed blindly.
If I personally decide the US should not send troops or strike Syria from the air, then does that mean I want Assad to remain in power? No. I'd like the Syrian people to overthrow the bastard and if they make a lamppost ornament out of him, I'll shed no tears. I would like to see Assad supplanted with a people's government that builds roads, office buildings and affordable houses; plans for Syria in a post-fossil fuel world; and doesn't meddle in Lebanon and supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As an American, I don't want to see my government engage in "nation building" largely to benefit not the American people but American artificial persons and the corporate royalists who hide behind corporate logos. Why should we even be asked to fight their imperialist wars?
America has had a very poor record in nation building endeavors. I don't think we can do for the Syrian people better than what they can do for themselves. I didn't do it for the Afghans or the Iraqis. Let's learn that lesson and not even try with Syrians or Iranians.