Just a weekend quickie note here: One of my friends asked me if I was in favor of war with Syria and I said “Of course not!” That apparently was not crystal clear in Saturday’s report on the Obama statement.
I then explained that the decision to toss the decision over to Congress was all I was applauding and just so we’re clear, that’s where I sit until the UN inspection team’s report comes out.
Even then, I believe the US should only be party to a first-strike on Syria as part of a United Nation’s action, not a unilateral West versus Syria schoolyard bully session.
As of Sunday, the US is claiming there is evidence of sarin gas, but is it homebrew or military grade…that’s the issue and deal point here.
The US has an awful track record of intervening only when it’s for corporate and political convenience and regional strategic (fund-raising?) interests. I would point to the genocides in Cambodia (1975) and Rwanda (1994) as examples.
Here’s a test: Can you guess what the Nigerian genocide of 1967-70, the Sudan genocide (2003), the East Timor genocide of the 1990’s, the Falun Gong genocide in China (on-going), or the Congo genocide (complete with child-soldiers) have in common?
There was no US interest in striking hard at the regime perps in power. But then, we didn’t have the check-dispenser action committees running around Washington on their behalf, either now, did we?
Is this fairly clear? I mean without me outright saying we’ve learned well our mob ways as global Capo di tutti capi: Cui bono?