It only doesn't work when we stop...
Intervening in mid-east conflicts is a no-win situation. Recall Colin Powell's 'you break it, you own it' statement. We all see how well our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has worked out. In contrast, Viet Nam has done quite well - after we retreated and let them solve their own problems. Syria is a mess. But it's their mess. We just don't have the means to bomb out only the nasty guys without incurring responsibilty for the aftermath.
As usual, the Onion gets it right while speaking truth to power. Easily manipulated dumbass rednecks are all about "kick their ass and take their gas"...but it doesn't really work that way...not unless you're willing to commit genocide on a scale unseen before.
A question I've seen asked a lot over the past few days:Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons? "You can blow up your citizens all you want. But if you use gas, we're coming after you."I don't understand the logic there. And I have yet to see it explained.
Who the hell wants to get into Syria, besides the military industrial complex?I believe most conservatives, and surely libertarians, do NOT want to get involved, except those politicians financed by bomb makers.Let's see, you have two groups of ragheads killing each other...and the problem is?And none of this..."but they are killing children!". They have proven over and over that they do not care about their children. Why should we?
In the spirit of military inclusiveness, Obama's actually going to drop female and gay servicemembers on Syria. If that doesn't act as a deterrent, nothing will.
Nuke 'em. Prollem solved.
Buy Lockheed stock. Support Ft Worth.
A young boy asked his father why there were no Arabs on the TV show 'Star Trek'. His father said "It's because the future is wonderful, son!"
Colin Powell was wrong. We break it it's broke. Don't piss us off..
I'm cool with the Navy carrying the load this time around. Fire those missiles, Swabbies!DF General Norman Schwarzkopf
10;14 Here's my take on your very good question, chemical weapons are worse for 2 reasons. First they are not precise as smart bombs thus capable causing wide spread death especially among civilians and 2 most important if accepted in warfare it makes the use of deadlier and mass destructive biological weapons more acceptable or so the theory goes. We really don't want to go down that road some of these could be worse than use of nuclear weapons at least short of mass launching of nukes. Not sure you buy this just wanted to pass along some things I have read.
There's no logical definition of WMD. How about machine guns? Rockets of various payloads? I have friend who was bombadier on B52's in Viet Nam. They carpet bombed hundreds of 250 puund bombs on whatever was uner them. Caused mass destruction of the jungle. War is nasty. Especilly when there are no front lines. The real question is who gave us the authority to enforce the world's morals?
Post a Comment