Obama and Syria

[Dänk 42Ø]

I was just reading an opinion piece in which the writer describes
Chairman Obama's waffling position on Syria as a much more serious
scandal than the Benghazi coverup.

Though I usually criticize Obama, I feel I should defend him here. It is
true that he is waffling over the issue, making bold statements like
"crossing a red line" if the homicidal Syrian government used chemical
weapons, then backing off when it used them. But he is just reflecting
the opinion of most Americans, who do not want another war, no matter how
much genocide is occurring.

Arming the Syrian rebels would be a huge mistake, since what started out
as what looked like a pro-democracy movement is now dominated by
Islamofascists, who will surely be no less homicidal if they win control
of the government.

If something is to be done to stop the killing, it must be an
international effort. The USA is not obligated to take unilateral
action, and we would be condemned as usual if we did. The EU pretends to
care about the issue, but is not offering to participate in a NATO
operation.

Britain is unusually silent, given that British Petroleum would profit
immensely from the conquest of oil-rich Syria. Normally Britain has its
American cousins fight its oil wars, but the British media have not been
advocating an invasion of Syria, and British intelligence agencies have
not been feeding forged yellowcake documents to our retarded president.

Until the UN or at least NATO (with the contribution of more than a token
number of British troops) can agree on a coherent plan to topple the
Bashar al-Assad regime, while preventing Islamofascists from gaining
control, the USA should not intervene. We will be criticized no matter
what we do. If British Petroleum is suddenly concerned about human
rights, let IT fight the war!

[Dänk 42Ø]

[Subject header changed from plain old "Obama and Syria," because nobody
pays attention unless sex, murder and hopefully cannibalism is involved.]

Nobody wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:49:57 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>>
>> I was just reading an opinion piece in which the writer describes
>> Chairman Obama's waffling position on Syria as a much more serious
>> scandal than the Benghazi coverup.

<crickets.wav>

Wow! I guess I shouldn't be surprised at getting no response regarding
such a serious issue.

Leftards can't support an invasion of Syria because the country is semi-
socialist (and whose ruling Baath pary is a cousin of Saddam Hussein's
own party of the same name).

I would expect lots of noise from rightards, given how similar Bashar al-
Assad is to Saddam Hussein, AND because his stockpile of chemical weapons
is quite real. But so far they have remained silent, presumably awaiting
further instructions from their British Petroleum master.

Meanwhile the genocide in Syria continues, with the two possible outcomes
equally abhorrent. If the Bashar al-Assad regime wins, it will possess
chemical weapons and kill lots of people in revenge. If the Islamofascist
rebels win, they will possess chemical weapons and kill lots of people in
revenge. Whoever wins, British Petroleum will have to decide whether the
cost of providing security for its drilling operations in Syria will
exceed any profits from that oil.