I don't see how the United States authorizing additional strikes on school children and their families accomplishes any of the unspecified military objectives in regards to U.S. taxpayer relief.
They already toppled a regime after killing hundreds of innocent children, and then another one took its place.
What would change with another round of taxpayer-funded child murders?
"Do the same thing, harder" isn't really a gamble. It more like the gambler's fallacy. A string of losses does not mean you're due for a win.
An actual gamble would be something radical, like a nuclear weapon or sending in ground troops. Those might actually worth -- the US has far more power than it has currently applied. It hasn't applied it because it will have devastating consequences and will almost certainly turn out badly. But at least that's an unknown, rather than more of the same.
4 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 15.3 ms ] threadThey already toppled a regime after killing hundreds of innocent children, and then another one took its place.
What would change with another round of taxpayer-funded child murders?
An actual gamble would be something radical, like a nuclear weapon or sending in ground troops. Those might actually worth -- the US has far more power than it has currently applied. It hasn't applied it because it will have devastating consequences and will almost certainly turn out badly. But at least that's an unknown, rather than more of the same.