Syria has been going on for two years, and I’ve been posting about it as much as I can. I look up news stories on them every day. As an individual, obviously I can only do so much with social media and talking with people I know.
Recently, however, it seems that Syria has finally taken center stage with the use of chemical weapons. There is now serious conversation about whether or not to get involved.
The discussion I’ve noticed revolves around the question: why now? I hear the bleeding heart hippies say that, over the past two years, Syrians have been suffering no differently than they were 18 months ago, 15 months ago, or 1 month ago.
I also hear the cold hearted conservatives arguing about the “parameters of war,” and the specific nature of weapons used up to this point, versus the indiscriminate nature of chemical weapons. And then, of course, the argument of why have weapons and war at all.
My first question is to the bleeding hearts: what about Egypt? Do we need to get involved with Egypt’s civil war? When should we have gotten involved with Egypt? What about Sudan? What about North Korea? What about our own country? Don’t you think there’s enough problems here to deal with? How many countries should we get involved in? And once we’re in them, can we set a real date to end the war? Is it possible to go in only for a few months or years, and leave if it’s not resolved? Better late than never, don’t you think?
My next question is to the cold hearted: what budget do we have for this? Can we afford to be there for however long it takes? Isn’t it a violation of sovereignty? What does their civil war have to do directly with us? How can involvement in Syria be any more successful than Iraq or Afghanistan?
I have more to say, but I also have work to do. Since I’m at work.