Thursday, August 29, 2013
The Bear Is Growling
Why would Syrian President Assad use chemical weapons on his own people, particularly after President Obama proclaimed in the summer of 2012 that Syria's use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and necessitate a military action from the United States?
One reason.
Assad WANTS military action from the United States against Syria. Russia will respond. the U.S. Is too weak to be involved in a protracted war. Syria NEEDS Russia to intevene. Russia is Assad's strongest ally against the radical Muslims attacking Syria. Russia hates Muslim radicals (i.e. Chechnya radicals), and all they need is an excuse to intervene in Syria. Two lessons Americans ought never forget in these perilous Middle East times:
(1). Nothing is as it seems, and
(2). America seems now to be the ally of radical Muslims.
Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I agree with Wade on this. There is some motivation on Assad's part to use the weapons. They did not change the outcome of the battle (so far as I can tell)so the motivation is other than that. Getting some reaction out of the US is the only action I have come up with that might be in Assad's favor in some manner.
Personally, the drawing of the "red line" seemed like a bad idea when I first heard of it and still seems problematic.
Wade,
As our caretaker PM (who appears to be being discarded next Saturday) mouths support for the action contemplated I formed similar thoughts to yourself.
It seems that leaders of the western world have big mouths and small brains.
if the civilized world could look at Adolf Hitler and do nothing and boldly calling 'peace in our time' and privately call it 'appeasement',
then be surprised when Hitler ignored the 'peace in our time' agreements and moved on his own agenda,
and nothing could be learned from this,
then perhaps the civilized world can look at those dying civilians, the photographs of the dead children and babies, and the hurting and crying chemically injured children walking around terrified,
and decide to act 'reasonably' in the face of something beyond all human reason,
then I am concerned . . .
when hell is unleased, it never stays 'contained' within one set of borders, no . . . and the use of certain weapons IS HELL in a way that humans recognize above all other forms of warfare
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)
P.S. there is a practice field near our home where military jets prepare for carrier duty, and the noise has been non-stop 24/7 . . . our bet here is that something is up, or at least being planned for if not decided on (?)
I actually think it was the Al-Qaeda militants that used the weapons. At least, I have been shown no convincing proof that Assad's regime did it. Regardless, still not something to get involved with.
Derek,
I would not put it past the radical Muslims to pull such a inhumane stunt. My only question would be "where did they get the weapons?"
Syria is a war torn country. Things go missing in countries like that and weapons are captured by the other side.
I have seen reports claiming the Syrian rebels have access to those weapons. Can't remember where right now.
I am relieved to say the Westminster Parliament in London has pulled back Britain from the brink of another international disaster. The UK has decided to intensify its involvement on the diplomatic and humanitarian fronts in Syria, but will not engage in crude, useless and expensive military action, especially when it is uncertain who the good guys/bad guys are in this situation.
Christians should welcome this change of attitude because we are familiar with the power of spiritual weapons in our daily warfare.
Gordon
Wade,
Yes; “Go figure” is right. This week I saw part of a continued movie that almost has the same events taking place now. In the movie, the black American President was making plans to bomb a country that was falsely blamed for America being bombed by the Muslim brotherhood.
Many disagree with the President having the authority without Congress approval to start a ‘war’.
It’s like Obama said in the Boston Globe December 20, 2007:
“The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Why has Obama changed his mind? Could it be as the link below indicates?
http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/obama-family-ties-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
“Obama’s best man at his wedding was his half brother, Malik Obama, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. This is not a matter of speculation or opinion; it is a solid fact. The Brotherhood gave birth to a number of terrorist groups – the al Qaeda network among them, as well as Hamas, which was founded as the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood.”
“Even during the current crisis in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood supporters are carrying out genocidal attacks on that country’s Coptic Christian community, as well as kidnapping and executing members of the Egyptian security forces. The Brotherhood has openly expressed support for the al Qaeda-affiliated opposition in Syria and the Brotherhood’s former Egyptian dictator, Mohamed Morsi, has been personally connected to terrorist attacks, including the Hamas-led assault on the Egyptian prison in which he was formerly incarcerated and the armed attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya.”
I believe “Go figure” better NOT be done by arithmetic but calculus.
PS
Thomas Sowell said:
“I think this man [Obama} really does believe he can change the world, and people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere crooked politicians.”
I think that if we don't stop sticking our nose where it doesn't belong, sooner or later it's going to get bloodied. American invincibility is not sustainable and cannot last forever.
I think this issue goes hand in hand with Wade's previous blog about being blindly "over confident".
Now Britain says "No way" they're getting involved. Israel is silent because they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose if they're targeted by Syrian retaliation. Assad benefits and is already strengthened by the perception of being bullied by the "lone wolf" United States’ intervention in their civil war. It's almost humorous that our lone ally in this fiasco is who? Did you say, "FRANCE"???? Wow! THAT gives me a whole lot of confidence!! France's affirmation should be a sure sign that we’re taking the wrong path!!
When it comes down to it the only motive for our intervening seems to be to save the face of one American leader that "opened mouth and inserted foot" one too many times. But I guess he's the national leader that our country elected TWICE and continues to receive high approval ratings. I bet he would win a THIRD time if laws can be changed to allow that. So we're all included collectively in whatever decision or statement he makes. It just seems that too many leaders on both political sides have out-of control tongues that are disconnected from any source of wisdom these days.
(I wonder if I can go to jail for saying this? Guess I’m kind of paranoid these days. This must be kind of how the Soviets felt during the Soviet Union days. I’ve burnt all of my “President” masks and no more preaching on homosexuality!!)
The Atlantic > James Fallows > Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk
Thy Peace,
WOW! Your link is a ‘home-run’!
Since there is NOT a condensed version of 13 pages, I’ll write what I thought were the high points.
But first yesterday’s newspaper said bombing Syria would help “replace the bad guys with worse guys who would gladly kill Americans as soon as they’re finished killing Alawites.”
Also the newspaper wrote “…as Seal Team Six took care of Osama bin Laden instead of their Commander-in-chief being in the Situation Room, Obama’s former aide, Reggie Love reported that Obama said, “I can’t watch this entire thing.” So they and two other staffers left and played about 15 games of spades.”
I wonder if Obama’s problem was watching a fellow Muslim being killed?
OK, the high points:
1. The rockets that delivered the poison gas were NOT government rockets but homemade.
2. The area struck was NOT an area controlled by the rebels, but in disputed territory.
3. The area was NOT a ‘knockout blow’ such as storage facilities, communications links, and arms depots or where commanders congregated, but was an area of civilians.
4. “Assad had much to lose and his enemies had much to gain.”
Post a Comment