Despite objections to the contrary from the representatives from other nations and NGOs, the USA has declared that our analogy-confused “thin red line in the sand” has certainly been crossed. Some are still arguing for the defense, that it may have been the ‘rebels’ in Syria that used chemical weapons, but Judge Obama has decreed that the Syrian government forces used them. This means we are o-fishully on the side of the rebels, and will be lending them military aid of some sort.
I heard right off the bat that we would not be sending surface-to-air missiles, because we fear they might end up in “the wrong hands” and civilian airliners might start falling out of the sky all over the world. We might enforce our own No-Fly Zone, instead.
Hold on there.
If you don’t trust the rebels with a SAM, why the [deleted] will you trust them with an AK-47 and ammunition? What, rifle bullets will only kill brown people in other places, but we ourselves sometimes fly the friendly skies?*
Hint: we have no idea what we are doing, quite literally. The enemy of our enemy is not our friend. It appears that the Obama has made up his mind that Bashar Al-Assad must be removed from power. Do you remember the last two times President Obama removed thug heads-of-state from power? Their countries disintegrated into bloody internecine civil war, and the strongest of the gangs of radical islamist fighters won. So here’s a hint: if you support the rebels in Syria in ANY way and Al-Assad falls, Syria will in its turn degenerate into factional fighting between different flavors of mujihadeen and other unsavory types, and the strongest will rise to power. That will be the one we give the most weapons. That will also likely be the most fanatically dedicated to their cause which -by the way- is not exactly pro-American at heart. That would be, translated to simpleton: we are arming our next enemy.
Why? Who benefits from this? The military-industrial complex of course, but who else? To what end? I don’t think this type of maneuvering is sophisticated enough to even hint that they are trying to prevent a greater Persia under Iranian influence. That’s chess, that is – and these jokers running America can barely keep pace with checkers!
It could be that they are blindly idealistic. The chemical weapons are bad and we will punish those who use them and consequenses be damned. Given the previous short-sighted “smart diplomacy” that got Ambassador Stevens killed and the Copts in Egypt back under fire, I think this is the most likely reason.
The tinfoil had crowd will also notice: It could be that they are blindly idealistic. The radical islamists will be in charge, and we will help them because the Obama likes them. Note that I think this is the less likely motivation.
So the no-fly zone is going to cost you, the taxpayer, $50,000,000 per day. It’s a good thing we are in such a prosperous economic state, as a nation, so we don’t have to borrow money from China (at interest) to fight a country that will possibly get us embroiled in a war with China. Ugh.
*Yes, this is a very strong allegation. No, I do not put it past most senior Democratic party leaders to think this way.