Wednesday, September 4, 2013
As I write this post, the situation in Syria is in the news.
If you read this a few days after it was written, there may be a U.S. involvement in that civil war by then. I hope not.
Since an attack hasn't happened yet, as of today, I have the luxury of sitting back and analyzing why the U.S. should or should not get involved. In my view, there are better reasons not to get involved than to go ahead and get involved. Here are the points that are running through my mind right now:
1. The Obama administration (and others) believe there was a chemical weapons attack on the rebel forces in Syria. They believe this attack was done by the Syrian government forces.
2. The Obama administration (and others) seem to believe that this chemical attack requires a response by the U.S. military.
Apparently Obama feels outraged that some sort of moral line has been crossed. Hundreds of dead children were wrapped up and placed in long lines in a warehouse for the cameras. As Bush the elder might have said, "This will not stand." Ok. And I'm thinking that if hundreds of dead children had been killed instead by machine gun fire, and wrapped in white linen and placed in long lines in a warehouse for the TV cameras, then a moral line would not have been crossed? - a moral line that hadn't been crossed by the killing of 100,000 people before the gas attack? And I'm thinking, Obama cares for these children. His heart breaks. He must put a stop to it. Well then, why the hell doesn't this child-mourning morally outraged man stop the killing of thousands of AMERICAN babies every year? Is it ok to hold Syrian tyrants accountable with military action, but not ok to hold teenagers accountable for not getting pregnant?
I know, I know - I am the only one who thinks these kinds of crazy thoughts.
Obama feels that chemical weapons are a step too far, and some action must be taken to let the tyrants know we won't stand for the killing of people in THIS way. Do you think Obama's limited missile-only three or four day "lesson" (guaranteed not to kill any people, btw) is going to make these dictators quake in their boots, learn their lesson to never try that chemical crap again? Do you? I'm thinking Assad and his boys are not exactly fouling their trousers at the thought.
And I'm also thinking, do we have any of those "bunker buster" bombs left over from Iraq and Afghanistan? Because, if we do, maybe we could use them to set Iran's nuclear weapons program back a couple of decades. I think I could get behind something like that because I can clearly see a benefit to America by doing so. A few melons on the mullahs, eh? Then watch the "Syrian situation" quickly take care of itself. A miracle.
Tell me what the benefit to America will be by wasting some very expensive missiles on Assad? Such a little tantrum will change nothing. And don't say it is the moral thing to do because a line has been crossed and, by god, we just can't let 'em cross them red lines. Because American society has been so corrupted over the years that it finds NOTHING immoral anymore. It is outrageous to hear the war-boy politicians crying MORALITY! MORALITY! while they go about their daily business of taking bribes and screwing the American public.
Two-faced septic-tank bottom feeders.
Give me the Pharisees any day.