Letter: Cautions over attack in Syria

Demonstrators protest against U.S. intervention in Syria in

Demonstrators protest against U.S. intervention in Syria in Chicago, Illinois. (Sept. 7, 2013) Photo Credit: Getty Images

advertisement | advertise on newsday

We must always protect our country from attack and danger, but let's not look for opportunities to use our strength for other reasons ["Chemicals confirmed," News, Sept. 17].

We have become a nation that goes to war too easily, and it's not really to our advantage. We could have done ourselves a great favor by not going to war in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq.

When we were attacked on 9/11, we properly responded by dealing with those enemies in Afghanistan, but it would have been a good idea to have done our job and then to have gotten out. We appear to be "helping" very often where it is not at all appreciated.

Gerald Levine, East Islip

advertisement | advertise on newsday


The president says we should bomb Syria because the government is using chemical weapons. Suppose we found credible evidence that not only the Syrian government but also the rebels were using chemical weapons? Would we be obliged to bomb them also?

I am not a historian, but I think it would be the first time we ever simultaneously attacked both sides of an ongoing war.

Stephen M. Picca, Massapequa


Newsday.com now uses Facebook for our comment boards. Please read our guidelines and connect your Facebook account to comment.

You also may be interested in: