Striking Syria: Mixed messages | The Economist - 2 views
-
-
Stuart Suplick on 05 Sep 13Interesting how the division may also be socio-economic: the wealthy in non-rebel held areas may not like Assad, but don't want to "take one for the team" (or perhaps they just want to avoid becoming collateral damage). Other Syrians (more middle class(?)) in rebel-held areas are more sympathetic to the rebel cause.
-
-
-
Have news agencies been focusing too much on America's indecisiveness, and what it means for its PR? Shouldn't they focus more on how a strike can or will be a turning point, for better or worse, in the Syrian Civil War? Wouldn't such a discussion better help the general public and government officials make more informed and holistic decisions? Wouldn't it be ideal to have a greater emphasis on such a discussion by the help of the news agencies?
-
-
- ...5 more annotations...
-
-
I find it very interesting that the Damascenes' opinions on U.S. intervention seem to differ based on socio-economic status, but yet the majority of them all agree that Obama should be more decisive about his plans for or against invasion. In general, this article surfaces a lot of interesting points to ponder surrounding the conflict in Syria.
-
The article makes a very important point. U.S. engagement is not aimed at overthrowing Assad and establishing a new political government or regime, rather American involvement is serving as a deterrent for the prevention of chemical weapon usage by other countries. Such reasoning undercuts the moral virtue of American involvement in Syria and will serve to fuel greater anti-American sentiments in the region.