Why do I find it so enraging that no one lists doing nothing in Syria as an option?
Is it really because we said a redline existed and now that we've been called out, we have to respond? Is world politics really that close to being a schoolyard playground?
Is it because use of chemical weapons is just so abhorrent to the American people? Probably not, since we didn't mind when Iraq used them liberally against Iran. Oh, and who gave Iraq those weapons? Whoops . . .
Is it because we really care about the lives of the Syrian people? If we do, why didn't we act earlier? And if we do, why aren't we in Somalia or any of the other shitholes scattered around the earth where horrible things happen every day? If we don't, why are we even discussing this?
Is it national security concerns? If so, please explain how so? That bullshit argument that people are training there to come back and hurt us? The old scare tactic, eh? Sorry, not buying that one anymore.
Is it because we are mad at Assad for buying Russian weapons and not ours? I'd buy that.
If congress decides to approve military action in Syria, it is my firm belief that their decision is made purely to increase Lockheed Martin stock prices, which will in turn increase their lobbying kickbacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment