Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
I really can't decide where I stand on this one...
|
I agree 100%.
On the one hand, this guy has killed tens of thousands of civilians with bullets. But we are only willing to attack when 1,000 more are killed with gas, and that's that much worse than killing a larger number of children with guns?
On the other hand, I do believe that the strong have the responsibility to protect the weak, and if no one else can save these kids, is it not worth doing? But then again, if we kill/remove Assad, there's no way of knowing that whoever replaces him, won't do the same thing to his political opponents?
It's a mess. That part of the world is a godawful mess. Very difficult to know what the right thing to do is. But when I was in the Marines, all I ever prayed for, was a worthwhile mission. Trying to save inncocent civilians is about as noble as it gets. But peace, at least lasting peace, doesn't seem to work in that part of the world.
I had a colonel who used to say, "as long as those people hate each other more than they love their own children, there can be no possible peace." I guess that just about sums it up.