I hate how it’s implicitly assumed that bombing Syria will help the Syrians, and the argument is simplified to whether we should “help” them or not. Uh, hey guys, don’t know if you heard or not but bombs kill people. You can call this “limited” warfare all you want but that’s a fact. John Kerry said this isn’t war in the “classical sense”… Tell me, how does a bomb feel when it’s not being used in the classical sense? Does the fact that Obama is a Democrat mean the bombs will be peace bombs that make Syrian children go *poof* in benevolent explosions? Humanitarian war doesn’t exist outside of propaganda. War is war.
So, wouldn’t sending aid to Syrian refugees be more helpful? You know, as opposed to what has been done so far, which is sending arms to rebels, further escalating warfare. But instead of actual aid, the plan is to bomb Syrian chemical weapon facilities, which experts have warned will be a catastrophe for the environment AND civilians, a cure worse than the disease. It’s either that or aimless gesture bombing. Either way Assad has promised to respond with full force, which can very possibly lead to us getting bogged down in yet another middle eastern boots-on-the-ground war. We’re also risking the fact that Russia recently stationed warships in Syrian waters in preparation for the war, acting very protective of Assad, and vocally opposing U.S intervention.