I had been on vacation and thus did not write anything recently. I also have not been following the news much. Just found out that Obama was getting ready to bomb Syria but then decided to let Congress debate and vote on it. I also heard that Newt Gingrich is against bombing. Well, what do you know? I agree with Gingrich and disagree with Obama. Must be something in the water in Michigan!
Obama painted himself into the corner by saying that using chemicals crosses a red line. But it is a red line that I don't understand. After 2 years and 100,000 dead and no intervention, now 1000 dead from a sarin attack crosses the line? I mean, what is the difference between getting blown up by a bomb or killed by sarin? You are dead either way. And do we know where the chemicals are made and stored? How do we know that our own bombs won't cause more collateral deaths than the sarin attacks themselves? Isn't a death from a cruise missle same as a death from sarin?
The Arab League has called for intervention from the UN. Knowing Russia and China will veto, it is basically asking the U.S. to intervene on its own. Hey, how about doing it yourself? It is a regional problem and they should deal with it themselves. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan all are stronger than Syria militarily. Why should we get involved in this civil war in which neither side will be friendly to us once it is over?
Incidentally if this red line is drawn by international law as Obama puts it, why did the U.S. looked the other way in the 1980s when Iraq used chemicals against Iran? Was it because Iran was our enemy then and Iraq was our friend? Also if after bombing Syria for a while and Assad stopped using chemicals and go back to killing his own people with conventional weapons only, do we declare victory while the next 100,000 are being killed?
So I am against Obama on this one. But I do agree with him in seeking Congressional approval. I do not agree with those who say that Obama appear weak by not pulling the trigger now. It does not take courage to send the greatest military to fight. McCain, who has been calling for intervention long before this, now asks Obama what is the strategy and exit plan. Well, why doesn't McCain tell us what exactly what he would do? In the Congressional debate, I want the hawks tell us how they envision we can be successful in this. I doubt anyone can. I think New Gingrich is the voice of reason here!
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
2 comments:
Use the following html code to make a clickable link in your comment (instructions in the sidebar). You can test the link by previewing your comment.
<a href="http://angryyellowman.blogspot.com">Angry Yellow Man</a>
The above example will display as Angry Yellow Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome back! I hope you had a great trip.
ReplyDeleteI guess there's some kind of taboo about using chemical weapons. To me, if you decide to kill, it almost doesn't matter how you do it.
Maybe chemical weapons are "less humane"? Or there's a larger degree of suffering? I don't know for sure.
But you are right that if Syria were a concern, then why act now? Maybe the U.S. was looking for an excuse or maybe the use of chemical weapons is really a line that you don't go over.
I don't like the idea of going in without support from the UN. Even the Brits aren't going to join in. So, I have to ask, what's in it for the U.S.?
Did you see that McCain was caught playing online poker on his phone during the congressional meetings? I don't think he cared that he got caught, but it's a huge mistake.
-LBOAYM
Well McCain is not running for anything now or probably not in the future so he can gamble. Maybe he is making $10,000 bets with Romney on the other end. He can also afford to call for military action without any exit plan because he is not up for election. He can afford to gamble because if the war turns out good he can say he advocated all along. If it turns out bad, he can blame Obama.
ReplyDeletePeople like McCain say that if we don't stop Assad it would be like not stopping Hitler when he used chemicals in the 1930s. This is the same argument about not stopping Hussein in Iraq. It is a laughable comparison in both cases. Hitler was stronger than all other European powers and that is why the Brits and French did not challenge him. Hitler did not destroy most of Europe because of chemical weapons, he did it with conventional military power. Assad and Hussein had no such capabilities. So I don't buy any of these arguments that if we don't stop Assad today, it will be dangerous to our national security later.
Right now the polls show that a majority of the people don't want to bomb Syria. It is up to Obama to change the minds of people. Of course, I think a lot of people are just tire of wars and really don't understand what is happening in Syria. Some may not know where the heck is Syria. Hopefully the debate will educate some people but I doubt it. Will see if Obama is able to persuade a lot of people. I don't think he can persuade me.