How Long Should the Dying in Syria Go On?
How long should all the untimely
deaths in Syria
be allowed to continue to mount, through the use of whatever weapons, before
someone is finally allowed to do something about it? This is the Big Question that seems to be
occurring to almost no one, and instead you just see people, mired in
legalisms, doing the 21st century equivalent of the medieval urge to determine how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Various
strains of progressives, who -- in their zeal for having a third party that,
however, they are too powerless or too slothful to form -- have been against
Obama almost from the start, are overjoyed at how this latest White House Syria
initiative has given them new excuses for their attacks on the President.
Meanwhile the real and most virulent enemies of everything worthwhile, the
Republicans, are most likely chortling with glee. Rest in peace, forever stillborn Progressive
Third Party!
Meanwhile,
in the widespread efforts to prevent Obama from directing the U.S. military to
take a more active hand in affairs in Syria -- a move that can take many forms
besides the "bombing" that most of today’s would-be peaceniks are so
busily shouting to the rooftops -- the pseudo-peace drums are being pounded
harder than any war beats that I've been able to hear so far. And I keep wondering why Obama's initiative
-- the most serious-sounding and substantial in response to the long-running slaughter
in Syria -- that he's taken so far -- can't be seen above all as a humanitarian
one, above discouraging the use of chemical weapons. After all, if you're killed by sarin, you're
no less dead than if you are taken out of here permanently by a bullet or
bullets -- the fate of many thousands of Syrians long before the current big
thing, Chemical Weapons, began to be mentioned.
"As his international support collapses?"
I agree with the earlier commenter who said that if
the British Parliament had not undercut the British Prime Minister, Obama
would've begun his Syrian initiative by now, without the backing of the Arab League,
Congress, or anyone else, but not without Britain
and France.
his two standbys (and stand-ins) in Libya. All he really needed for his international
support was that pair of the largest and most active European nations in trying
to do something about al-Assad's slaughter of his own people for little more reason
than to keep the rulership of Syria purely a family matter. Meanwhile the rest of that
"international support" mainly seems to have stood idly by while over
a period of several years, many thousands of Syrian citizens have been killed.
to the tune of as many as 100,000 by now.
And that is the whole point of why I think American
military intervention is not a bad idea, and that's been true for some
time.. It would be a truly humanitarian
effort to cut down and even end this
bloodbath, as one was cut short in Libya, and meanwhile I don't think the
number of operative crystal balls is anywhere near the number of dire
predictions -- should Obama give the order -- that are being flung all over the
place. And what better use of that
unbelievably expensive American military machinery that otherwise merely sits
rusting and corroding away, on the seas, in the air, and in a great many countries all over the planet?
It's too bad that Obama let himself be spooked into
consulting that body of do-nothing baboon-butts called the U.S. Congress. While he wastes that time, more Syrians will be fed into the Syrian
death machine who otherwise had every right to live as long and as comfortably
as anyone else in this largely indifferent world. And that will also happen for sure if the U.S. merely
resumes sitting in the bleachers – where the British Parliament is already perched, secure in its self-satisfaction.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home