Ok, I'm seeing some liberal pages contemplating the "complexities" of war, suggesting that maybe it's better to attack Syria, and kill x-amount of people, in order to save xx-amount of people; asking the question if it is worth it to lose some lives to save more. From a humanitarian perspective, that might seem like a good option. But, there are lots of humanitarian crises going on in the world at any given time. Darfur in the Sudan; the Congo, Rwanda, Somalia...are we going to help all of those countries too? Look, my opinion is, I don't think we should get involved in the Syria conflict. I'm sure whatever is going on there, it's probably terrible and sad. But there is a limit to how much we can sacrifice our own country to "stabilize" other regions, whatever that means. I do not wish to commit ourselves to another conflict overseas. I simply cannot justify interfering in international affairs such as these when we are not looking out for our own backyard. We have too many problems that are not being addressed. Too many of our own who are hungry, poor, unsheltered, sick, unemployed, unable to be employed, forgotten veterans, abandoned animals and overrun shelters, etc etc. How is that we have money to afford to go to war but not to feed our own people?? I think it was foolish for Obama to have laid down the imaginary red line and I hope that congress votes no to the war and gives him an opportunity to back away from it. Reading comments on other blogs it seems that actually many democrats and republicans actually agree that they don't want a war on Syria, although for different reasons. I think we should let someone else play the hero this time. In the end, if we are forced to intervene because of politics, (because let's face it, that's the only true interest of anyone in our govt), it should be an extremely limited, one time, drone strike. No boots on the ground under any circumstances. No long term commitment. Because this is not our mess.
