America needs to take a deep breath and a bath. The US government has reacted to Syria like a kid reacts to a cool box at the store with a vast array of colors on it. They jump at first sight and immediately decide they want it. But if they pay closer attention to that box, they would realize its just prunes and nothing exciting.
The United States could very easily be on the brink of war, and it is still completely unclear whether or not we will launch a military strike on Syria. I could be writing this now, and this time next week there be missiles detonated in Damascus. Its scary to think about.
In a climate very different from 2003 before the Iraq invasion, many people are opposed to the military strike in Syria. Here is a collection of snippets from various different WordPress users expressing their concern for Syria, their people, and the future.
What is happening in Syria is a civil war. No attacks or confrontations have occurred, yet, with neighboring countries, but by the US getting involved in what up to know has been a bloody and even unfair regional war – a civil war – it will turn into an international war that could easily evolve into WWIII.
i admit i look at syria and i wring my hands and cry silently because i. just. don’t. know. i want assad to be stopped, but at what cost? i just. don’t. know.
From Politicswestchesterview (14 questions for U.S. Congress)
How many Syrians are you comfortable with killing and wounding in a US attack?
Is it your belief that the US and its allies have never used chemical weapons* or sold them to others who have used them?
Will you vote for funds to eventually rebuild US embassies and other US-related buildings in the Middle East if they are destroyed, and to compensate any US victims or their survivors?
I think those chemical attacks were an abomination and whoever was responsible for those attacks should be held accountable. But I think this should be done through the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, not the United States. Especially since it’s likely that the U.S. would be doing this totally alone.
I think the idea of launching a few days of air strikes will salve the conscience of many of our leaders, but will likely be ineffective at anything other than a public relations sense
From C.S. Burks, Esq.
So we’re not going to war ‘in the classic sense’, we’re just going to lob cruise missiles into Syria.
I guess it doesn’t matter that lobbing the aforementioned cruise missiles will be aiding Al-Qaeda-backed rebels.
There are others, though, that do support a strike on Syria
From High Plains Blogger
I still believe a strike must occur. Barack Obama drew that “red line” when he said using the chemicals would violate all “international norms.” The president reportedly is considering a limited strike aimed solely at military targets. Whether our forces can pull this off without inflicting civilian casualties remains to be seen.
It is undeniable now that The Assad regime has used poison SARIN gas against their own people. Regardless of your political affiliation, it is obvious and most imperative, that the USA respond in no uncertain terms against this shameful atrocity.
What are the pros and cons of each? Where do you stand? The debate needs to happen. This is a critical time in our nation.