At first I thought the party of NO (aka TeaPublicans) would save us from attacking Iraq, I mean Syria, but then I remembered that republicans haven't met a war they didn't like. They may vote against access to health care, education, food stamps, jobs, and other ahem social issues, but when it comes to bombing people they are full speed ahead.
Where does your congressman stand on Syria?
If you are like me and only know what the Lapdog media wants us to know about Syria, click and read 9 questions about Syria you were afraid to ask, beginning with:
What is Syria?
Syria is a country in the Middle East, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It’s about the same size as Washington state with a population a little over three times as large – 22 million. Syria is very diverse, ethnically and religiously, but most Syrians are ethnic Arab and follow the Sunni branch of Islam. Civilization in Syria goes back thousands of years, but the country as it exists today is very young. Its borders were drawn by European colonial powers in the 1920s. Syria is in the middle of an extremely violent civil war. Fighting between government forces and rebels has killed more 100,000 and created 2 million refugees, half of them children.
I will close by quoting Rep. Allen Grayson (D. FL)
"We are not the world's policeman," he said. "We can't afford this anymore, these military adventures that lead us into wars that last for a decade or more. It's wrong. We need to cut it off before it even happens."
6 comments:
Keep in mind that Congress wanted action...no, revenge...on Benghazi because some of "their guys" got killed.
In Syria, no one but the usual brown people are getting killed - so the U.S. has no "skin" in this game. But that's just my humble opinion.
I hear ya Mack, but if we attack Syria more brown people are going to be killed. Enough bombing people in my opinion.
I think the US should blast the Assad regime into oblivion. We gave Assad (just like Hussein, Khadaffi) every chance to leave or settle or work out solutions, and now millions of Syrians are running or dead by indiscriminate use of all manner of weaponry. The modern "family of nations" should not turn it's back on yet another humanitarian crisis. We should be absolutely intolerant of these brutal tinpot dictators clinging to power by any means. Hit them hard and bring them to the peace table, or kill them - we now have the means to end these people, ask Bin Laden.
We need to make it our policy to intercede for the rights of civilians and the expansion of democratic tolerance wherever we can make a difference.
If Russia and China support Assad, good - the people will know who stood with them in their darkest hour. And the Russian and Chinese people will know where their "government" stands.
It is rare that you and I disagree Yellowdig but what gives us the right to intercede for civilians and democratic principles in The Middle East when we need to intercede for the rights of civilians and democratic principles in Anerica?
What possible target of a "limited strike" would send a "message" that conveys disapproval of civilian slaughter? A magical assassination of Assad? Poisoning the atmosphere by blowing up munitions factories? The regime is too decentralized for a surgical strike, which makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not very good at constructing conspiracy theories (most politicians don't seem all that smart), but I'm starting to wonder how contrived both the situation and media representation have become. As was my question at the time of Bush's "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq -- is this chaos really about proving who has the biggest dick?
I hear you Margherite, Shock and Shame is more like it.
Post a Comment