The Washington Times says the Obama administration has concluded that Syrian President
Bashar Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons against the opposition seeking
to overthrow him. It goes on to say that the Obama Administration has not
determined how it will respond and that the US Congress was also being notified of the chemical weapons
determination on Thursday in classified documents sent to Capitol
Hill.
The Times also reminded us that Obama has said repeatedly that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and constitute a "game changer" for US policy on Syria..
This last Times reminder seems to be a challenge to the Obama administration that because of his previous statement, he is now compelled to do something drastic.
I hope Pres. Obama doesn't fall for this old "knock the chip off my shoulder" ruse. He made a previous stupid statement, and it would only be more stupid to live by it merely because he said it.
We have a number of war mongers in our government, of which Sen. McCain is probably primary. As I said previously, because he was a prisoner of war for several years does not make him an expert on war. He is an expert on being a prisoner.
We have already busted our guts on ridiculous wars in Iraq, Desert Storm for Kuwait, and a years-old war in Afghanistan. All for what purpose? Save the world for Democracy? Help the downtrodden? Reduce our threat of terrorism? All ridiculous! Just look at the individual cases and tell me what we have accomplished other than spending a tremendous amount of money and sacrificing a great number of American soldiers' lives.
War is a terrible thing. It is extremely costly, both in money and lives. There are times when it is necessary, such as defense against an invading enemy, but we don't have that case from any of the above, nor with Syria. Who cares whether Russia and Iran support the Assad government? What do we know about the rebels in this Syrian civil war? But more importantly, what difference does it makes to us? Just because we like the sound of "revolt" or because one side uses chemical weapons as opposed to bombs and bullets, does that give us some logical reason to become involved?
Show me what I think is a good reason why we should spend one nickel or one life in supporting one side of the other in the Syrian conflict, and perhaps I will change my mind. It has been said that the majority of the US populace appears to be opposed to any involvement in Syria, but a politico said a popular opinion is not necessarily the correct one. In my judgment, it is the correct one in this case. Tell me why it is incorrect.
The Times also reminded us that Obama has said repeatedly that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and constitute a "game changer" for US policy on Syria..
This last Times reminder seems to be a challenge to the Obama administration that because of his previous statement, he is now compelled to do something drastic.
I hope Pres. Obama doesn't fall for this old "knock the chip off my shoulder" ruse. He made a previous stupid statement, and it would only be more stupid to live by it merely because he said it.
We have a number of war mongers in our government, of which Sen. McCain is probably primary. As I said previously, because he was a prisoner of war for several years does not make him an expert on war. He is an expert on being a prisoner.
We have already busted our guts on ridiculous wars in Iraq, Desert Storm for Kuwait, and a years-old war in Afghanistan. All for what purpose? Save the world for Democracy? Help the downtrodden? Reduce our threat of terrorism? All ridiculous! Just look at the individual cases and tell me what we have accomplished other than spending a tremendous amount of money and sacrificing a great number of American soldiers' lives.
War is a terrible thing. It is extremely costly, both in money and lives. There are times when it is necessary, such as defense against an invading enemy, but we don't have that case from any of the above, nor with Syria. Who cares whether Russia and Iran support the Assad government? What do we know about the rebels in this Syrian civil war? But more importantly, what difference does it makes to us? Just because we like the sound of "revolt" or because one side uses chemical weapons as opposed to bombs and bullets, does that give us some logical reason to become involved?
Show me what I think is a good reason why we should spend one nickel or one life in supporting one side of the other in the Syrian conflict, and perhaps I will change my mind. It has been said that the majority of the US populace appears to be opposed to any involvement in Syria, but a politico said a popular opinion is not necessarily the correct one. In my judgment, it is the correct one in this case. Tell me why it is incorrect.
The main reason this Administration would consider dispatching troops and or American resources to Syriaa is to deflect attention away from his failing domestic agenda and all the daily corruption exposures. Anytime sworn enemies are killing each other, and none of our troops are involved is a good day for America. I just hope neither side runs out of bullets.
ReplyDelete