Okay, in order to keep me off Facebook, or rather some of my meanderings and musings, I've created this blog. I can freely express myself, and hopefully engage in argumentative discussion with others who so choose.
First Rule is that although I may have a preconceived notion of how I feel about a subject I'm blogging about, I am always open to other ideas or views on that subject. I never said I was right 100% of the time - I've never been wrong....but that's irrelevant to the discussion !! LOL
Hey Democracy! Congrats on the Blog...good move. OK, now down to business. I hope you take questions...What are your views of our possible Syria involvement. From what I hear, from Fox there doesn't sound like I would take either side of that civil war. How solid is the intel that our commander and chief is bantering around. I am not really thrilled to have our young Hero's get involved in another Mid-East power struggle. I always appreciate your insite..Oldnursie in Las Vegas
ReplyDeleteHey Nursie !
DeleteI can not give a complete opinion on this yet; however, that has never prevented me from speaking to date. From what I see in your post this is a 3 part question, so I'll just tackle the first part for now.
The easiest view on involving ourselves in the Syrian Civil War would seem to be that we are not the worlds police force - an argument that I can certainly side with. Do I think that the fact that chemical weapons were used (regardless of who the victims were), may have some bearing on the final decision - I think I do feel that use of chemical weapons bares a closer look. If it was simply another countries Civil War, then I'd definitely want us to stay out.
So if chemical weapons were used I believe that we, as a nation, are entitled to know the extent of the intelligence that has resulted in this knowledge. As is normal, the intelligence sector will absolutely be against releasing the information, for fear that it will compromise the source, or sources. With the news furor over the various NSA (and Border Control) intercepts, I think we may actually be past any fear that the American Public will find out that there are clandestine means of reading pretty much every piece of data that crosses into the 'internet' zone. In this day and age, if you don't already know this...well, pull your head out of the sand and start listening. (My general feeling on that is that once you hit the 'enter key' on a internet connected device, you lose all sense of privacy; is this right or wrong ? it's fact - learn it, live it)
Now, if we determine that the preponderance of the evidence clearly states that chemical weapons were used, and the state used them against their people, perhaps something does need to be done about that. Question is what is the correct response? If the state used them, then International Law should prevail - unless of course, we have usurped International Law in the past, and it no longer carries the same weight (we have). So then regime change becomes the appropriate response, in my opinion. Sending a few cruise missiles in to destroy lives and property does absolutely nothing to change the face of a regime that apparently does not respect the lives or welfare of it's people to begin with. That is kind of the crux of the issue then; a nation's govt that cares little for it's people, who, do not forget, are currently involved in some sort of a Civil War against that regime. So, apparently we've come full circle back to whether we should be involving ourselves in some other countries Civil War. American foreign policy in that region of the world has never been exceptionally good foreign policy; perhaps that region of the world needs to figure this out for themselves. I'm wary of Saudi Arabia, or any other Middle Eastern country pressuring the US to act. In that region of the world, as much, or more than any other region, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true, always. I imagine that I'm not done with this subject, however that is all I have tonight.
sorry for the typo's
ReplyDelete