> "Chemical weapons � the �red line� which President
> Obama said he would so resolutely oppose � have
> emerged in Syria. Blood tests have confirmed the
> exposure of patients in hospitals to these weapons.
> Readers will recall that President Obama issued a
> stern warning against their use. Now they�ve been
> used. The problem is now how ignore them. The
> National Journal�s article is headlined: �Obama Is
> Looking for Reasons to Delay Response to Syria�s
> Chemical Weapons Use.�
I notice that the Congressional budget meeting for next years NASA
budget was cut short for a defence meeting. Something could be up.
If the US President does want to go to war then he will have to make
threats that deter. My suggestions:
1. Publicly investigate what the procedure is for returning the Nobel
Peace prize. On the grounds that what action may be needed is not peaceful.
2. Publicly ask the lawyers "If the Geneva Convention permits the enemy
head of state to be castrated using attack dogs, dragged naked through
the streets and then killed with maximum pain?". If the answer is no,
does failure of the other side to apply the Geneva Convention mean the
USA can choose not to?
Andrew Swallow