Sen. John McCain was again warmongering
on Fox TV news this morning. He went on at great length with his usual rabble
rousing, without a word of dissent from the Fox News
reporter/commentator.
I now judge Sen. McCain as probably the most dangerous man in America, possibly exceeding even Pres. Obama.
McCain says the US objective should be to unseat Syrian Pres. Assad. He says Pres. Assad has killed 80,000 of his own people. McCain does not say why any president would consider killing 80,000 of his own innocent people. Perhaps the 80,000 were rebels, or it may not even be 80,000. It is difficult to trust word-of-mouth reports. Many times they are filled with lies or exaggerations. But, let's say that Pres. Assad's government forces may have killed 80,000 rebels. For comparison, government forces in the American Civil War killed 94,000 rebels.
McCain doesn't really say why he prefers rebels over government forces in the Syrian Civil War, but he says that merely supplying Syrian rebels with weapons is insufficient. He is now pushing for a no-fly zone. He says no American boots on the ground.
May I now suggest how a country falls into a war?
One first beats the drum for a particular side to obtain a preference for one side of the other by public opinion. In the case of the Syrian war, the drum has already been beaten such that many warmongers in the US government are already on the side of the rebels for no known reason. They actually know nothing about the rebels. The people may be a little smarter. We don't know how they feel about rebels versus government forces in Syria, but we do know that the majority of the American public is opposed to becoming involved in the war.
Continuing the scenario: After enough support is generated in leadership circles, the requested no-fly zone is set up, wherein American planes patrol the Syrian air space. This is done at great cost.
After an indeterminate time, one of the American planes is shot down by a shoulder launched missile from the ground. It is not known whether the launcher was Syrian government or Syrian rebel, but it is assumed to be Syrian government. This then requires boots on the ground in order to control the missile launchers, who are so mobile that they cannot be attacked from the air. At that point, we are involved in a full scale war, e.g.. Iraq, e.g.. Afghanistan.
McCain also says we must become involved to stabilize the Middle East. In other words, we should be the Middle East policeman. Can we afford this? Let's remember that we have been doing this for at least 50 years without any significant success. The Middle East is now in more of an uproar than when we first started more than 50 years ago.
Someone should put a muzzle on Sen. McCain. Too many people can be influenced by ridiculous rhetorical and allow us to be pulled into another conflict, in which we have no business, would be very costly, and has been proven ineffective in the past. Syrian government forces and rebels have neighbors, who have more at stake in the Syrian conflict then do we. They already have a problem with Syrian refugees, which justifies their involvement.
In passing, let's also take a look at Turkey, with its recent uprisings. Does John McCain want to take sides against the government? How about a no-fly zone? How about some US boots on the ground, or should we wait until one of our planes is shot down, or someone decides to use a chemical rather than a bomb or bullet?
I now judge Sen. McCain as probably the most dangerous man in America, possibly exceeding even Pres. Obama.
McCain says the US objective should be to unseat Syrian Pres. Assad. He says Pres. Assad has killed 80,000 of his own people. McCain does not say why any president would consider killing 80,000 of his own innocent people. Perhaps the 80,000 were rebels, or it may not even be 80,000. It is difficult to trust word-of-mouth reports. Many times they are filled with lies or exaggerations. But, let's say that Pres. Assad's government forces may have killed 80,000 rebels. For comparison, government forces in the American Civil War killed 94,000 rebels.
McCain doesn't really say why he prefers rebels over government forces in the Syrian Civil War, but he says that merely supplying Syrian rebels with weapons is insufficient. He is now pushing for a no-fly zone. He says no American boots on the ground.
May I now suggest how a country falls into a war?
One first beats the drum for a particular side to obtain a preference for one side of the other by public opinion. In the case of the Syrian war, the drum has already been beaten such that many warmongers in the US government are already on the side of the rebels for no known reason. They actually know nothing about the rebels. The people may be a little smarter. We don't know how they feel about rebels versus government forces in Syria, but we do know that the majority of the American public is opposed to becoming involved in the war.
Continuing the scenario: After enough support is generated in leadership circles, the requested no-fly zone is set up, wherein American planes patrol the Syrian air space. This is done at great cost.
After an indeterminate time, one of the American planes is shot down by a shoulder launched missile from the ground. It is not known whether the launcher was Syrian government or Syrian rebel, but it is assumed to be Syrian government. This then requires boots on the ground in order to control the missile launchers, who are so mobile that they cannot be attacked from the air. At that point, we are involved in a full scale war, e.g.. Iraq, e.g.. Afghanistan.
McCain also says we must become involved to stabilize the Middle East. In other words, we should be the Middle East policeman. Can we afford this? Let's remember that we have been doing this for at least 50 years without any significant success. The Middle East is now in more of an uproar than when we first started more than 50 years ago.
Someone should put a muzzle on Sen. McCain. Too many people can be influenced by ridiculous rhetorical and allow us to be pulled into another conflict, in which we have no business, would be very costly, and has been proven ineffective in the past. Syrian government forces and rebels have neighbors, who have more at stake in the Syrian conflict then do we. They already have a problem with Syrian refugees, which justifies their involvement.
In passing, let's also take a look at Turkey, with its recent uprisings. Does John McCain want to take sides against the government? How about a no-fly zone? How about some US boots on the ground, or should we wait until one of our planes is shot down, or someone decides to use a chemical rather than a bomb or bullet?
No comments:
Post a Comment