Against military action in Syria


Starting another war to protect president Obama's foreign policy "credibility?" Seriously?

It would be like breaking up a barroom fight between a drunken husband and wife. Your magnanimous intent, in the end, is rewarded with both of them turning on you.

This could change an intra-civilization battle, to ultimately inter-civilization war, western versus eastern.

Expecting a tribal mentality to grasp the concept of western democracy is rather like handing the U.S. Constitution to five-year-olds fighting in a sandbox to resolve whose daddy is tougher, or more holy.

Want a preview of coming attractions? Egypt.

The idea is a playground of potential for unintended consequences, just to name few:

Precipitously destabilizing the region.

Unsecuring the stockpiles of chemical weapons.

The euphemism "limited war?" There's an old saying in boxing, everybody's got a plan, until they get hit.

I believe there is no up-side to this dangerous strategy based on a anachronistic imperialist moral imperative.

I believe without the affirmation by the United Nations, since it is not a defense against an attack of the U.S., under international law which the U.S. often (selectively) invokes, is an act of unprovoked aggression/war.

Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan as precedent, while history may not necessarily repeat itself, it sure rhymes a lot.

Michael Kominsky


Bellingham Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service