Arguing Against LImited Strikes on the Assad Regime

Submitted by Judith (United States), Aug 28, 2013 at 12:47

It could not be said better. This is what occurred to me exactly this morning with talking heads on my T.V. discussing so-called precision strikes, etc. and how to affect the best outcome if this administration decides to strike. The "pres" did in fact draw a line in the sand with his talking points on WMD's. Guess for his pride and his so-called credibility (is that possible at this juncture or would that be an oxymoron?) he may need to do something. That would be tragic! You can never half-way fight with Syria and he will because he does not know what to do. With several factions trying to control Syria there is no guarantee who will win out or who was involved in the chemical attacks.

I am sorry for the good people who have been killed or hurt, but we cannot change anything in their world. We can only make things worse for Israel. Did we win in Afghanistan? Did we win in Iraq? Iraq now sides with Iran. The Taliban is still in Afghanistan. alQaida still exists without Osama.

Some countries may come to help and for sure some will come to harm and in the end where will it end? More dead bodies and a temporary government in Syria which will in turn probably be over-turned in time. I say stand down. The fools in Washington are scaring me.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".