Saturday, December 31, 2005
Resolved: Starting a war with Syria
is was a smart idea
You were talking so big about how smart and patriotic you were that I felt sure you wanted to lead off.... show us benighted heathens what a Real American looks like and all.
You should probably say something before readers start to think that you're a cowardly little weasel who can't defend the trash that pours out of his bing mouth.
Not that they'd be wrong.
The War Party would have us believe that the measure of patriotism is the willingness to make war on those nations that Bush Administration designates as villains. They demand that we remedy one mistake (the illegal invasion of a nation) with another. They are wrong in general, and wrong about warring on Syria.
They should concede the obvious: there are more tyrannies than we have military might to conquer. We must pick our battles carefully. The question is not whether Syria is deserving of military attack, but what benefits and risks the United States would incur by doing so.
One argument in favor of invading Syria, which my esteemed colleague Mr. Whinger is too frightened to make himself, is that attacking Syria would help us put down the so-called insurgency in Iraq. This was the same argument made for attacking Cambodia in the Vietnam War. The strategy failed then and would fail now. Another argument is that because Syria has—according to Mr. Whinger— provided support to terrorists, attacking Syria would weaken terrorism.
Both arguments are false. First, Syria has collaborated with the US against al Qaida. Second, as we learned in Cambodia, destabilizing governments increases the power of terrorists.
Your turn, Mr. Whinger.
The United States is engaged in a global war on terror. As a war, it is a conflict in which national survival is potentially at stake. Suspensions of civil liberties and denial of due process is normal. It is a global, so battles rage over national borders, wherever the enemy is. And since the opponents are terrorists, there is often confusion about the precise location of the battlefield.
We engaged and defeated Al Qaida in Afghanistan, bringing peace and prosperity to that nation. However, one member of Al Qaida, Abu al-Zarqawi, was in Iraq, plotting with Saddam Hussein. Because we knew that Saddam Hussein was therefore involved in the attacks of 9/11, and because we had reason to believe that he was about to use nuclear weapons against the United States, we had to strike Iraq preventively. Our forces are winning that front in the war. Yet al Qaida is a devious enemy, now in control of the Syrian and Iranian governments, who are arming, training, and giving sanctuary to terrorists.
Therefore, striking Syria will bring the global war against terror nearer to a successful conclusion. Anyone who doesn't agree and wholeheartedly support this strategy is a traitor.
Next: Guess the number of fallacies in the jar!
Now you are pretending to argue both sides of a case that doesn't exist.
Seeya, won't be back
You claim that "a case doesn't exist."
In fact, some cowardly little dweeb posted insults against the patriotism of members of Mercury Rising on this issue. You can read his post at the URL linked in the main article.
But, like you, he's hit and run. Just yammer an insult and scamper off like a monkey.
If you want to make the case that invading Syria is in the national interest of the United States, make it.
You know you would get your a-- metaphorically kicked from here to Damascus.
And that's why you "won't be back."
So, Brian -- or whatever name you choose this week -- want to tell us why starting a war with Syria is a smart idea?
More blogs about politics.