Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Red Lines and Morality

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.


  1. I don't know....

    A book could be written...but still I couldn't solve the Syria problem; stop further atrocities from happening there, or elsewhere....

    I don't know....

  2. I don't care about the red lines (they are just an invention to try to convince the UN, just like the WMD). Assad is a bad man (like Saddam and Gadaffi) so a few precise bombs on his HQ will help. So no bombing tapestries over the whole country for months and months, and certainly no invasion, just wipe out the presidential palace. You must hit them where it hurts (their luxury life style).

  3. Mr Poo-tin is not in accordance. He says, and I think he might just be right, "Assad's mad, bad, and dangerous to know, but he's probably less mad, bad, and dangerous than those who'd replace him."
    Or that's what I think he's saying, but he talks in a funny language I don't understand.

    As for chem weapons, well, I agree with you, dead people are dead people, and it's a bit disingenuous only getting upset about the ones killed one way, while those killed by conventional bombs, bullets, and bangs seem acceptable somehow.

  4. Mr. Poontang is in accordance. With me, at least. He doesn't want Obama to be stupid and bomb Syria, and neither do I.

    Incidentally, when you finally get to Texas, (very soon, I hope). one of the very first things you'll want to do is stop giving a damn about what the Ruskies say. :)

    Well, that may not be true for you, so never mind that.

    Biological weapons I would care about, I suppose, if they let smallpox loose on the world again.

    But "war" and "morality" should not be said in the same sentence.



Related Posts with Thumbnails