"The problem here is that we can't just attack countries because they annoy us." - Brigit Stakelum in reference to the possibilities of military action in Syria.
Brigit, I wholeheartedly agree with you. We most definitely should not "just attack countries because they annoy us." That would be a gross misuse of American military force and would be contrary to the beliefs upon which this country was founded. However, now please correct me if I am mistaken, I didn't mention anywhere in my post that we should "just attack countries because they annoy us."
Before I go any further, let me point one thing out. The only thing someone like Bashar al-Assad understands is force. If President Obama draws a red line at chemical weapons use, which he did, and then stands by and does nothing as Assad gasses his own people, than other countries will perceive weakness. And that right there is the salient point. If you want to ignore the fact that Sarin Gas is a cruel, inhumane, and savage weapon, and that its very use is a crime against humanity, than please, remember this; if we allow our enemies to perceive us as weak, they will pounce.
So my point here is, if we don't apply at least some military force to Bashar al-Assads regime, then I believe that we are showing that our word means nothing, and the only outcome that that can produce is other countries seeing weakness. The only effective deterrent to stop the other little tyrants all over the world from challenging us is force. And if someone like Assad questions our force, than it must be applied, swiftly and judiciously, or we risk our reputation as a world power, as well as our own National Security.
