So I am open to convincing arguments either way. I am leaning towards staying out of it completely.
This doesn't help me want to go in...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ml?ESRC=dod.nl
I know we don't want to blow up chem weapons stockpiles. But if WE don't control them, and ASSAD doesn't control them, who does?
So we fire those missiles at what? Assad's troops, and war assets?
The risk vs. reward on this is screwed up, IMO. I've read the U.S. reports available (unfortunately, I don't have them on a tab right now to link) and they don't say much except WE know Assad (or someone he is ultimately responsible for) did the deed.
1,400 dead, or 350, let's not do this. I've read this thread, and I am still not convinced this is the right choice. And, it's a little late anyway, unless the goal is to force Assad's troops out of areas where we believe chem weapons are, or might be, in which case we give them to a large group of young, unemployed, angry, religiously diverse men and boys some of whom are sure to be linked to terrorist groups who hate our guts like nothing else on earth.
Let me ask this. What course of action is SURE to lead to no further action on our part? If we are talking strictly about chemical weapon deterrence. Because I don't see anything now but heavy involvement for some time to come.
Bookmarks