Some Thoughts on Syria from an Average American
I don't know all the details of the Syrian conflict. I know the rebels don't like the leadership because the guy is some kind of evil dictator. The rebels are trying to overthrow the government, because that's what rebels do, and the dictator doesn't like it. Why would he? So he is (alledgedly, probably) throwing chemical weapons at the rebels while hurting a lot of innocent people in the process and forcing thousands of people from their homes. Is that all correct so far?
And the US is possibly (probably) going to get involved in this b/c a while ago Obama said he wouldn't get involved unless the dictator started using chemical weapons. So they've sent in UN weapons inspectors to find out if the weapons are chemical or just regular exploding weapons. I guess. Because if they are just regular exploding weapons, we aren't obligated to help, or we don't care as much, or it's not as big of a threat to us, I guess. (should I have used semicolons in that sentence?)
Now it seems like the US government, or just the Presidential administration, is so sure the the dictator is using chemical weapons, it's considering taking action before the UN inspections have concluded. A large number of members of Congress have signed a letter asking to be allowed to vote on whether to take action in Syria, which is theoretically how it is supposed to work anyway, but Obama is thinking of not even waiting for that to happen.
I've read that the action we would be taking in Syria would be nothing like the war in Iraq, because we aren't out to oust the dictator in Syria. The point of Iraq was getting rid of Saddam. So the point in Syria is only to scare the guy a bit, so he stops using chemical weapons. Well, let me ask a question. Say you know a couple who lives across town from you are abusing their children. You don't want to tell the couple they can't be parents anymore, you just want them to start acting better. Is the solution really to go over to their house and knock a few holes in the walls and shout "There'll be more of this if you don't stop hurting those kids!" Is that really going to solve anything? NO. The parents will just wait for you to leave, and beat the kids worse than ever. The only solution is to take the children out of the home (which isn't feasible when you're talking thousands of citizens of a country) or put the parents in prison where they can no longer hurt anyone. And that second option is exactly what we tried to do in Iraq.
I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't understand all the details and ramifications. I want the US to wait for the UN inspectors to finish, because being informed is a good thing. I want Congress to be able to vote, because we have these laws and protocols for a reason. What I wish is that I had any faith in the abilities of our leaders to make reasoned and prudent decisions based on what is best both for our country and Syria.
And here I was hoping I could raise my son in a time when we weren't at war.
And the US is possibly (probably) going to get involved in this b/c a while ago Obama said he wouldn't get involved unless the dictator started using chemical weapons. So they've sent in UN weapons inspectors to find out if the weapons are chemical or just regular exploding weapons. I guess. Because if they are just regular exploding weapons, we aren't obligated to help, or we don't care as much, or it's not as big of a threat to us, I guess. (should I have used semicolons in that sentence?)
Now it seems like the US government, or just the Presidential administration, is so sure the the dictator is using chemical weapons, it's considering taking action before the UN inspections have concluded. A large number of members of Congress have signed a letter asking to be allowed to vote on whether to take action in Syria, which is theoretically how it is supposed to work anyway, but Obama is thinking of not even waiting for that to happen.
I've read that the action we would be taking in Syria would be nothing like the war in Iraq, because we aren't out to oust the dictator in Syria. The point of Iraq was getting rid of Saddam. So the point in Syria is only to scare the guy a bit, so he stops using chemical weapons. Well, let me ask a question. Say you know a couple who lives across town from you are abusing their children. You don't want to tell the couple they can't be parents anymore, you just want them to start acting better. Is the solution really to go over to their house and knock a few holes in the walls and shout "There'll be more of this if you don't stop hurting those kids!" Is that really going to solve anything? NO. The parents will just wait for you to leave, and beat the kids worse than ever. The only solution is to take the children out of the home (which isn't feasible when you're talking thousands of citizens of a country) or put the parents in prison where they can no longer hurt anyone. And that second option is exactly what we tried to do in Iraq.
I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't understand all the details and ramifications. I want the US to wait for the UN inspectors to finish, because being informed is a good thing. I want Congress to be able to vote, because we have these laws and protocols for a reason. What I wish is that I had any faith in the abilities of our leaders to make reasoned and prudent decisions based on what is best both for our country and Syria.
And here I was hoping I could raise my son in a time when we weren't at war.