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.