Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Would the act of bombing Syrian military targets be an act of war by the United States upon the existing Syria government? If it is not an act of war, then what is it? If it is an act of war, would the Syrian government be justified in retaliating? If not, why not?
 These concepts of "limited military action" or "punishment" morally confuse me. What is to be concretely gained by the action?

When the agents of Al-Qaeda attacked us on Sept 11. 2001, we considered it an act of war not only by that terrorist group but also by the government of Afghanistan giving sanctuary to the group. What are our options if Assad uses chemical weapons following our "limited" bombing? We need to be thinking several steps ahead of our good intentions.  What does it take for us to learn there is no war without consequences, without sacrifice?

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?