Question about Syria [View all]
I myself am torn on the Syria question. I don't like the idea of the US policing the world and again intervening militarily, but I am concerned about Assad's brutality and use of chemical weapons on his own people. I have a question for folks here. I wasn't around DU when the Obama administration started bombing Libya. Was DU as outraged about that intervention? If not, why is Syria so different?
Like for Libya, the administration says they will not commit ground troops. From what I've read, they plan to use cruise missiles to attack airfields and refueling stations for Assad's air force to impair his ability to deliver chemical weapons. Cruise missiles are shot from battleships and do not involve entering Syrian airspace. If they adhere to that, the impact on American service people is minimal. Certainly Syrians will die, but 100,000 have already died. It is possible that attacking air installations might actually reduce Assad's ability to inflict casualties. Is your fear that the administration is not being forthright and will instead be engaged in a protracted ground war? My understanding is that the authorization from congress, according to Barbara Boxer, will include a prohibition on using ground troops. But even if the US keeps to those parameters, it will kill people with those cruise missiles. Bombs kill and civilians will die. But not intervening doesn't mean peace or an absence of killing either, since people are dying there at this very moment. While I'm torn, I see that most of you are not. You have clear cut views on the issue, and I'm wondering what makes this different from Libya for you?
= new reply since forum marked as read
