My opinion on Syria

I rarely find anything important enough to blog about.  I don’t know how some of you do it…blogging sometimes daily about the stupid, menial shit you do in your lives.  But what is happening right now in Syria, and what the U.S. is preparing to do despite having little public support is, I think, something worth writing about.

To be clear, I support hitting Syria hard.  I am well aware that I’m in the minority, but I suspect that the majority of people opposing military action are of that opinion simply because they really aren’t capable of looking at anything strategically.  As with the economy, most of you people are extremely short-sighted.  There is no debate that chemical weapons were used in Syria.  Ok?  That isn’t debatable, so if you are holding the position that the jury is still out on that, then stay out of the conversation.  The only thing that is debatable at this point is WHO actually used them.  Personally, I don’t give a fuck who did…does it matter?  Really?  Would it matter if the Assad government OR the rebels used them?  The FACT that they were used is reason enough to attack.

Now, I know some of you clowns are all like, “No!  America should stay out of their business.”  Guess what, it is our business.  It’s everyone’s business–and the President (and the United States in general) doesn’t need UN, public, or international approval to act.  This matter has already been approved and settled by such documents as the Geneva Protocol, 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, AND U.N. Security Council Resolution 687.  The authorization has already been in place for 20 years…by unanimous vote (including Russia and China)…and, with regard to Resolution 687, it explicitly reaffirms every preceding U.N. resolution pertaining to chemical, biological, and nerve agents.  Read them.  Tell me I’m wrong.

If you oppose military action, you need to justify why you think the United States should willfully ignore it’s OBLIGATIONS under international law as outlined in the treaties it signed.  Tell me where in any of those treaties it gives countries that signed them the option to balk at enforcing them because “the people” don’t like it, or “our economy sucks”, or because “we have too much debt.”  Fuck you guys.  You’re rationality is clouded because you are confusing a legitimate reason for military aggression (chemical weapons used in Syria) with illegitimate reasons (9/11 attacks)–and because the government at the time has been proven beyond a doubt to have lied to start such wars, you are paralyzed by indecision on Syria.

I don’t support invading Syria.  I DO support hitting the locations those banned weapons are being hidden with overwhelming firepower.  Oh, I know what some of you might be thinking…what about collateral damage?  Fuck that.  Look at the larger situation instead of wearing blinders.  Look at the region of the world these weapons are being proliferated.  Al-Qaeda, a sworn and committed enemy to the West (more than Russia or China could ever hope to be on their best day) are not only religious fanatics who wouldn’t hesitate to “martyr” themselves or innocent people who want nothing to do with their bullshit jihad, but are also CRAWLING all over that country.  They’re not the majority of the rebel force (latest estimates is that they comprise anywhere between 10%-20% of the total), but they are much better equipped…trained…and funded.  The WMD are, without any doubt, already being hidden in densely populated areas in Syria–as a means to protect them from U.S. air and missile strikes.  With this in mind, are you still going to say the U.S. should not take out these weapons in order to save maybe a few hundred civilians who, in all likelihood, will die there anyway.  I’m not advocating killing civilians, and neither allowing al-Qaeda nor collateral damage where civilians get killed is in any way good…but CLEARLY one option is worse.  If you disagree, you’re a fucking idiot.  Religious lunatics don’t have a moral code prohibiting mass murder…in fact, they don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.  Permitting them to have access to weapons which they PROBABLY will get a hold of AND use is not tolerable.  Whether your country is in debt, has a deficit, has a weak economy, or a populace that is completely spineless.

If the U.S. can destroy even 70% of the weapons it knows about with relative precision, if nothing else, will make them think twice about taking them out at all.  The goal is to ensure they don’t get used, NOT end the civil war.  If they can stop the weapons from being used, then all the efforts will have paid off.

By the way, do we really NEED Congress anymore?  These fucking cowards.  Oh NOW they respect the constituency, huh?  When it comes to the budget and taxes and all that other shit, they proudly proclaim to be mavericks on that, but when it’s actually an IMPORTANT decision, they cower behind the people that elected them and throw YOU under the bus.  Obama is going to attack Syria…with or without public support.  If I were in his shoes right now, I would do the same thing.  The only reason he brought it to Congress at all was to keep the people informed and to permit there to be a debate about it.  Considering the element that occupies the Capitol nowadays, I’d say that was a very stupid move on his part…admirable, but stupid.  The world needs to know that, at least for the next 4 years, the United States isn’t going to put up with this shit.  Europe may be a bunch of pussies now, but the U.S. needs to have a fucking backbone.  This isn’t Iraq.  This would be a legitimate and justified attack on Syria.

America is really, REALLY stupid.

You read the title correctly.  It should be noted that I think American ideals are wonderful…unfortunately, most natural-born Americans don’t really deserve to live here and enjoy them.

Stunningly, nearly four months after the Newtown school massacre where 26 people, including 20 CHILDREN, were mowed down and turned into hamburger by a mentally ill person with high powered automatic pistols, we are still no closer to any reasonable gun control in this terrible country.  Are you fucking kidding me?  What, exactly, needs to happen before the die-hard gun lobbyists will finally say to themselves, “ok, yeah, we have a problem.”  To give you an idea of how utterly insane and self-serving gun lobby groups and their members actually are: their FIRST reaction following the events in Aurora, CO; Madison, WI; and Newtown, CT was not to show any recognizable form of empathy whatsoever…instead they drafted statements regurgitating the same bile they’ve been spitting up for the past [checks watch], ohhh, 30 years, which essentially said the 2nd Amendment is sacred an necessary to protect us all from tyrannical government and “bad guys”.

Following all of these shootings, we were berated with incessant fabricated history lessons of what the founding fathers of this country ACTUALLY intended when they authored the 2nd Amendment.  The only mention organizations like the NRA made of the VICTIMS of these shootings were, and I’m paraphrasing, “Jeez, it really sucks that adults and kids get murdered.  It really is.  But, if only everyone was armed the outcome might have been different.”  You know what, fuck you NRA.  Fuck you, and fuck the ignorant members of your organization.  You’re the minority.  Overwhelmingly.  I don’t know how a small group like yours (no, you do NOT speak for the majority of gun owners) has the kind of political sway over politicians that you do, but your days are numbered the more often you imbeciles speak.  Here’s the ENTIRE text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That’s it.  Naturally, for such strict Constitutionalists as yourselves (oddly, 99.999% of whom don’t have a M.S. or Ph.D. in Constitutional law–or any degree of any kind, actually–and who probably get the majority of their knowledge of the world from shit like this), it makes sense to completely ignore the first participle of the SINGLE SENTENCE FRAGMENT (it’s not even an actual sentence) that makes up the 2nd Amendment, and only focus on the part that says your rights to keep and bear arms can’t be violated.  Even though, that’s not what it fucking says.  In non-crazy world, words have actual meanings.  Are you part of a well-regulated, officially sanctioned militia by your state?  Didn’t think so.  So, technically, you have no right to own a gun at all.

I know, I know.  Gun laws don’t stop criminals from owning guns…because they’re criminals.  Blah, blah, blah.  The same way drunk driving and seat belt laws don’t stop people from doing those things?  Oh, but wait, the end game isn’t to ELIMINATE bad outcomes (that’s impossible), it’s to dramatically reduce them.  Since our goal is to REDUCE bad outcomes instead of ELIMINATE them, tough anti-drunk driving and seat belt laws have more or less been statistically PROVEN to contribute to the reduction of needless deaths and injuries.  But that could nevveerrr work with guns, right?  I get the feeling you lunatics don’t WANT a world with less violence, because having one would somehow invalidate your fucking miserable collective existence.  You want to know something else?  I think we’d all like to see what you clowns will do when we do, eventually, pass comprehensive gun control measures in this country despite your vehement opposition.  You won’t do anything, because gun owners are never around to do any of the things they say they can do…like stop shooters.  You idiots didn’t even do anything when your government bailed out Wall St who committed fraud and tanked the global economy.  Not a peep out of you guys.  So you know what, put your money where your mouth is, gun nuts.  I fucking dare you to stand up to the full might of the U.S. government…and for what?  Because you don’t want to be inconvenienced and take one for the team to save the lives of kids who have no stake in any of this?