Text 10112, 161 rader
Skriven 2013-08-30 19:47:39 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Ärende: Excuses For War
=======================
Hello Everybody,

George W. Bush did it.  Now it is Barack Obama's turn.
Only instead of Iraq, it is Syria.  While GWB had his own
excuses for going to war in Iraq, Barack Obama has a new
set of excuses.  Although many of those excuses do seem
to be very much the same.  So what are those excuses?
Let me count thy ways -

Even if it is true, there is no excuse for war.  And
yet, presidents (and other world leaders) do it all the
time.  Come up with an excuse for war.  Never a reason.

War is never made legal by an excuse, regardless of what that
excuse might be (e.g. the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the United Nations
Charter, the U.S. Constitution, etc.).  However, a legal excuse
can be found in U.S. war propaganda circa 2002 (GWB going to war
in Iraq based on false pretenses).

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.  So are a lot of other folks.
Does that mean we should have offed them too?  I guess GWB must have
chickened out on the other two members of his "Axis of Evil."

The United States possesses (and uses) internationally condemned
weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons.  You know what I
am talking about - white phosophorous, napalm, cluster bombs, and
depleted uranium (among other things).  There is no moral or legal
justification for any foreign nation to bomb the USA, or to bomb
some other nation where the U.S. military is operating.  I mean,
we are the protectors of freedom, making sure peoples of every
land are safe from those who would harm them.  Killing people to
prevent others from being killed with the wrong kind of weapons
is a policy that only Dr. Strangelove could have come up with.
Maybe we should call it Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder ...

George W. Bush's critics claimed that a war in Iraq could have
become regional or global, with uncontrollable consequenses.
Such worry-warts.  The conflict was contained, not spilling over
to be anything more than a localized conflict.  No war with Iran.
No war with Russia.  No war with any other country other than
Iraq (aside from the US continued presence in Afghanistan).

Would an invasion of Syria have the same limited effect?  Or
would the conflict spill over into Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel?
Would Iran get involved?  What about Russia?  What about China?
What about the Gulf states (together with NATO states such as
Turkey)?  Is this the sort of conflict we want?  Is it the sort
of conflict anyone will survive?

We have seen what happened in Iraq.  A lot of huffing and puffing
by the enemies of George W. Bush, but no real action.  Pussies
venting a bunch of hot air.  Nothing more.  Just a bunch of bruised
egos, with the wimps crawling back into their caves once the Butcher
of Baghdad was dead.

Creating a "no fly zone" is something the US is quite good at,
having done this several times in various countries, most notably
in Iraq and Serbia.  How did that work out for the enemies of
freedom?  Not so well for either madman, both having to flee for
their lives, only to be captured later, with both dying in custody.
Of course, bombing urban areas did result in the deaths of many
innocent civilians.  This also happened in Libya.  But we looked
away as it was more important to capture or kill madmen.

See how that works?  Declare a "no fly zone" and then drop a bunch
of bombs.  Doesn't really matter what the target is, as the more bombs
dropped the more likely a madman is to flee.  And then we can capture
or kill the madman, giving freedom to everybody else.  The best part
about this strategy is that no announcement is necessary.  Just start
dropping bombs, and keep dropping bombs, until the madman is captured
or killed.  We did it for 78 days in a row in Serbia, and aside from
an errant bomb that took out the Chinese embassy, everything worked
according to plan.  With no American casualties.

Both sides in Syria have used horrible weapons and committed horrible
atrocities.  We should join them, playing by their own set of rules.
Our philosophy is, and always has been, that people should be killed
to prevent their being killed with difference weapons.  Barack Obama
is about change, as he so proudly proclaimed during his campaign for
office.  Hope and change.  That is his motto.  Certainly he can see
the insanity of arming both sides to protect each other side.  Why is
it not just as insane to arm only one side and not the other?  Oh,
that's right.  Vladimir Putin wants to arm the other side ...

The United States will be blamed for the opponent's crimes, no matter
which side has committed the crimes.  Most folks hate al Qaeda and
other terrorists.  Most folks who come to America also hate the US
and its drones, missiles, bases, night raids, lies, and hypocrisy.
Now just imagine the levels of hatred those folks will feel when
al Qaeda and the United States team up to overthrow the government
of Syria, which is led by Bashar al-Assad, a madman who has vowed
to stand up to both so as to prevent his beloved Syria from becoming
an Iraq-like hell.

An unpopular rebellion put into power by an outside force never
results in a stable government.  We found that out in Afghanistan.
And yet, the US is trying to do the very same thing in Syria.  Will
it work?  US Senator John McCain thinks so.  Of course he has his
doubts.  But only because he is not the president, as he has no
confidence in the abilities of the present commander-in-chief.

The opposition in Syria has absolutely no interest in democracy.
Nor does the opposition have any interest in taking orders from the
United States.  Again, we found that out in Afghanistan.  We armed
the mujahadeen, got them to get rid of the Russians, and then after
the events of 9-11 we became the new Russians in Afghanistan.

Arming the enemy of the enemy never does work out quite the way
it is planned ...

The precedent of another lawless act does not mean we should do it
again.  Even if it has worked before, as some have claimed.  Such
action sets a dangerous example to the rest of the world - as well
as to those in Washington who want to start bombing Iran.

The vast majority of Americans oppose arming the rebels in Syria.
And even vaster majority of Americans oppose direct engagement, such
as bombing or sending in US troops.  Most folks are in favor of
providing humanitarian aid, but that is not just among Americans,
as most folks throughout the world feel much the same way.

George W. Bush thought he could spread democracy through the point
of a gun.  It seems to me that Barack Obama is trying to do the very
same thing.  However, we would be better off, much better off, by
putting our guns away and start spreading democracy by example rather
than the bomb.

There are nonviolent pro-democracy movements going on throughout
the world - including in Bahrain and Turkey.  And yet the US government
has chosen not to lift a finger in support.

The other day, Americans paid homage to a great man.  A man who
gave a speech, fifty years ago, to a crowd of believers.  "I have
a dream ..." said this great man.  And the people listened.  As
well as politicians and other important folk.  And look what we
did to him.  Or rather what one misguided soul did to him.  But
never mind the violence that came his way.  Look at the violence
we (as a society) have done to his dream.

The Rev. Martin Luther King may have led the march, and many have
claimed to have followed.  But after all those years of protesting
wars and wishing millions of foolish partisan politicians would
join us in protesting blatant mass-murder, I have good news for
you -

Those very same foolish partisan politicians are leading the
way in pretending to oppose war this time.  After all, Syria is
a different kind of war than Iraq.  And the Syrian madman is a
different kind of madman than the late Iraqi madman.  So, if
you Democrats (or Republicans) who I am absolutely sure were
100% sincere in opposing wars just a few short years ago are
still ready to act, now is your chance.  We (all of us) can
start right now the sort of anti-war movement that the Rev.
Martin Luther King could only dream about.

That is, if you're not too busy.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)