Obama And Kerry Want To Kill Something, Anything, To Prove No Point
By Alan Gray
President Obama, the Nobel Peace Laureate and John Kerry, the peace activist now want to drop bombs on Syria. They say they have no goals for the attack. There will be no boots on the ground. they don't even know what they are shooting at, and they don't know how many civilians they will kill. They don't even know if they will hit any chemical weapons.
Obama and Kerry say it is justifiable because a war crime has been committed. Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence whatsoever, except that some civilians died. There is no way to tell who was responsible. Except that Obama and Kerry are "sure" it was Bashar al-Assad.
British Prime Minister promised to back them. Australia's Prime Minister for 5 weeks, Kevin Rudd, said he would back whatever the US did. The British Parliament told Cameron to back off, and Rudd lost control of the government at last week's election.
Syria is ruled by Bashar al-Assad, an opthalmologist who is not popular with western governments (Obama and Kerry) and some middle east governments. They didn't like him before they helped the Arab Spring get started, but after he suppressed that, they liked him even less.
Al-Assad is a friend to Iran; and the West, the Israelis, Middle East Sunnis and al-Qaeda want Iran and Al-Assad shut down. In Syria, the Arab Spring has turned into a civil war. We are told it is the Syrian government against "the rebels."
Unfortunately, "the rebels" encompasses a wide range of people. Some are unarmed, and they want a negotiated peace. Some are heavily armed, having received weapons from the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and possibly even from the CIA funneled through Libya - and the rumor is through Benghazi, Libya. Included with "the rebels" are elements of al-Qaeda.
There have been war crimes on both sides - if you can rationalize that the "sides" are the Syrian government as opposed to everyone else. "The rebels" even provided documentation of their own war crimes, beating and killing Syrian Soldiers who were bound, with gunmen standing over them. One "rebel commander" even killed a soldier, cut out his heart and liver, and ate them. See Video of A War Crime In Progress
Obama, Kerry, and apparently John McCain and Lindsey Graham want to provide more arms to "the rebels" and they want to bomb Syria. It is unclear what they aim to hit, but even though it may result in some civilian casualties, they seem to be undaunted by this possibility. They "need to teach Assad a lesson." They seem to be very sure that this will send such a strong message, and that, after their aimless hit, the Syrian government will not try use chemical weapons again. The problem is that there is no proof that it was the government and not some element of "the rebels."
From what has been said recently, "the message" that needs to be sent, isn't actually for Syria. "The message" is for Iran, because of its nuclear program, nothing to do with the apparent sarin gas usage.
Many people have weighed in on the issue of the West's dirty fingers dabbling in the Middle East mess. Robert Schadler, writing for the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, says Obama publicly favors killing babies with chemicals. Schadler wonders if this might lead to the international community deciding to bomb the USA, presumably to "send a message."
"Killing babies with chemicals deeply offends President Obama, President Hollande and others to such a degree that they want to bomb Syria. Such bombing, it is hoped, will deter Syria from using chemical weapons in the future and, even more hopefully, other countries and entities as well. Presumably, killing babies by bayonet, bullets and bombs (and starvation) still offends but not to the same degree - i.e. not sufficiently to commit an act of war by bombing."
There are many, at least millions and likely billions of people who believe there can be a baby inside, as well as outside, a womb. For many of those people, an abortifacient (a pill that, if taken by a pregnant woman is lethal to the fetus) is ... 'a chemical that kills babies.' As such, that is simply a set of facts: it is a pill containing a chemical that kills a fetus (or 'terminates a pregnancy') AND some people consider a fetus a baby. What makes it a policy issue is that Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius has mandated that health care insurance MUST include the 'morning after pill.'
Which should lead to an interesting question: should the international community, arguably led by Syria and France, bomb the United States for killing babies with chemicals?
The "moral obligation" storyline isn't credible. The U.S. government sat idly by while many other terrible things have happened, and they actually fueled this civil war. They did it by providing weapons and moral support to "the rebels" and al-Qaeda elements, encouraging them to keep fighting, making them think they would receive even more support.
It was a card game, very poorly executed.
After failing miserably, and losing credibility, when their most important ally was forced to back out, they then decided to drag the US Congress into their charade, applying pressure to force the vote in their favor.
Still, there is no hard, provable evidence that any chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime. As much as they desperately want to bomb Assad, it appears that president Obama, Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Rice and a contingent of others, are manufacturing non-existent evidence, so they can sell and use more bombs.
It really looks like the tried and true "tail wagging the dog."
Alan Gray is the publisher of NewsBlaze, the independent online newspaper for thinking people. Read more stories by Alan Gray.
* The views of Opinion writers do not necessarily reflect the views of NewsBlaze
Related Opinions News