ONE:
"...but officials say a limited strike on Syria could be accomplished with half that number." Actually, a limited strike on Syria could be accomplished by using only one cruise missile - fired harmlessly into a remote, uninhabited desert region.
TWO:
Maybe the United States should have attacked France [which now urges the USA to smite Syria] when it was engaged in genocide (to the tune of half-a-million dead civilians) in Algeria back in the day. France is hardly one to accuse others of atrocities.
THREE:
QUOTE: "President Obama is not asking America to go to war," Kerry said...:UNQUOTE.
RESPONSE: That's exactly what Obama is doing. For if one country attacks another, especially without having been attacked first, that in itself is an act of war.
QUOTE:... Israel and the U.S. conducted a joint missile test over the Mediterranean in a display of military might in the region.:UNQUOTE.
RESPONSE: Oh, stop. You don't have to show anybody what big deeks you have. They already know you think you've got big ones.
QUOTE: ...Boehner [said] the United States has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies...who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it's necessary.":UNQUOTE.
RESPONSE: What "the world" should have said in 1945: "The USA needs to understand that we will not accept future events like the recent nuking of Nagasaki, which had no military value whatsoever and killed (almost exclusively) civilians and took place a mere 3 days after the nuking of Hiroshima. We therefore demand that the USA president, who authorized this strike be brought immediately to Nuremberg to face war crimes trials just as the Nazis had been."
As for "America will be there and stand up when it's necessary," it's NOT necessary for there are others who can stand up. Saudi Arabia comes to mind, for surely they of all people would want to enforce the will of Allah that such atrocities (allegedly) committed by fellow (though heretical in their eyes) Muslim Assad must be punished.
QUOTE: The measure would set a time limit of 60 days and says the president could extend that for 30 days more unless Congress votes otherwise.:UNQUOTE.
RESPONSE: Does this measure also set a time limit of 2 days for the actual assault and define (in a secret part of the resolution) which targets Obama will strike and with what weaponry?
QUOTE: The measure also bars the use of U.S. ground troops for "combat operations.":UNQUOTE.
RESPONSE: But does the measure bar US ground troops (special forces or others) to enter Syria, not for "combat operations" but solely for the purpose of securing/neutralizing the chemical weapons stockpiles? Of course, if such troops were fired upon, they would be at liberty to shoot back to defend themselves but under that scenario, by definition in the measure's terms, that would not label them as being in "combat operations" since it wasn't their intent, going in, to fight the Syrian army.
FOUR:
"...support for [Obama's] strategy for a 'proportional' military response."
"Proportional," you say? How about this - firing rockets loaded with sarin at a concentration of Syrian civilians known to be supportive of Assad, with the idea of killing 1,400 or so? Now that would run counter to the fact that the USA signed a treaty banning its own use of such weapons. But maybe we could get Egypt, which did not sign that treaty and which owes us a few favors to say the least, to do this. Of course, true proportionality would dictate that the USA and its allies, which were not attacked by the weapons, would do nothing.
FIVE:
Two points worth pondering:
ONE: Since our surveillance capability, including assets in orbit, are supposed to be so sharp that a man could be seen holding a quarter on the White House lawn from 125 miles above the earth.Question: What would video footage reveal as to the source and nature of that rocket-launched chemical attack in Syria?
TWO: How is it that a (supposedly) ragtag army of rebels were able to have any degree of success against Assad's professional army, which has tanks, artillery, aircraft, and a network of intel gathering expected of a modern state? Answer: The USA had been planning this (so-called) "spontaneous" and broad-based uprising for over a decade. The rebel forces, due to US backing and coordination, were far more formidable than the lamestream media would have us suppose. What threw a monkey wrench into our plans was the fact that Assad's army didn't abandon him. Syria is not Libya, which BTW witnessed a similarly backed USA planning effort spanning over a decade.
SIX:
To think, when the crimes against humanity took place, conducted in the "Hotel Rwanda" campaign (as in the movie of that name), we would have jumped right in if (as President Clinton lying claimed) we had only known what was happening. That surely was a crime against humanity, with hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered - many of them by means of machete attacks. Or maybe it's the fact that machetes were used over a period of weeks, and not sarin gas over a period of (say) hours. Is that what defines a crime against humanity to which the USA must respond - gas versus blade? Quickly versus slowly?
Or are new standards evolving, in which the USA will be expected to punish militarily any government deemed responsible for large numbers of civilians being killed? This is a dangerous game we're playing, especially since there are other nations that could respond (leaving the USA entirely out of it) by meting out the limited punishment Obama is proposing. The only reason Obama wants to jump in is because he put his (therefore "our") prestige on the line by saying we would respond if a certain red line was crossed.
Last thing: Wouldn't it be hilarious if the war resolution (for which we've seen nothing in the way of actual text) was passed based on secret briefings given to select congressman - and that this resolution itself was passed with a "top secret" stamp on it disallowing the public from ever being able to read the darn thing? Catch 22! Catch 22!
Yes, these are dangerous times we live in. Don't go down that slippery slope. Tell your congressman to say NO to any kind of resolution allowing Obama to attack Syria. And if he attacks, even though handed this NO, then impeach the SOB.
SEVEN:
"...[Graham and McCain are] convinced that Obama is willing to use air strikes not just to destroy Syrian chemical weapons capability but also to bolster Syrian rebels." And they became "convinced," how? Did Obama actually tell them this? Also, if Obama decides to target chemical weapons depots, won't that release deadly gas into the local environment? Wouldn't it be kind of embarrassing if Obama's strike ended up killing (by gas) more than Assad allegedly did? Bottom line? Obama didn't really think this thing out before opening up his yap about red lines. And now he's trying desperately to save face. Maybe France could "help" by staging a solo attack on its own. Better? If Saudi Arabia did so, in the name of Allah the Just. The USA would be far better served if a Muslim state decided to mete out Muslim justice against another Muslim state. Just saying.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party
"It's amazing to me how hawkish both Obama and Kerry have become over the years" - Steve Searle
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment