Books Music Programming History Purchase Interviews
Let me declare my bias before I say anything: I don't think the United States should have attacked Iraq, and I think once the Taliban fell, we should have gotten the hell out of Afghanistan.
I'm not an isolationist, I just think there needs to be a compelling national interest for the United States before we jack some motherfuckers up.
Realistically, since the debacle in Vietnam, the American military has been beefed up to the point that there isn't a country on earth that can beat us, so that's not a concern.  I mean, there is zero chance Syria is going to come kick our asses. But how and when we use that power is important. Was the chemical weapon attack in Syria important enough to us that we needed to intervene? Certainly, it sucked for the people who got attacked by the chemicals and whatnot, but lots of people are killed by crooked regimes all over the world all the time and we don't intervene. 
I dunno. Congress seems to be supporting the strike, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of it, and on and on, but still. We are not the world's police force, and our military is not the world's paddle. 
And I think Western attacks and wars in the middle east never seem to end well for us. All they seem to do is create new terrorist groups who are upset that we're fucking with them. 
I'm going to withhold judgment. Maybe this was a righteous strike. I certainly hope so. 
But my gut tells me this might have been a horrible idea. I hope I'm wrong.
RantsMilitary