This was written impromptu on Friday (Aug 30th)
while listening to the ACLJ – Jay Sekulow program – I don't normally listen to
talk shows much anymore for either side just because they have some annoying
habits – like repeating themselves- that I don’t like. They are conservative though which I follow –
and they will point out things the president is doing RIGHT – whereas others
tend to just toss him under the bus when they don't agree with him.)
This is kinda stream of conscious.
Thoughts about the “shot across the bow.”
One – the pres said IF. This will work… etc So it’s not set in stone.
But history says that a shot across the bow – a warning
doesn’t work.
Two. This is on Syria . If this is REALLY a civil war - and one side did the chem weapons… then WHAT
IS THE OTHER SIDE DOING?
If the other side isn't mobilizing themselves, isn't
condemning it- isn't trying to stop it… then IMHO – ALL of Syria is a
problem. So we wouldn't be “taking sides” if we struck.
Ok. Show just said
that it was Assad – the current power – that used the weapons. (really?)
supposedly the rebels don’t have weapons. But apparently the rebels are al-kada. (unsure of spelling) Who would not hesitate to use the same chem
weapons. And if they got into power
they would be worse.
Also if a normal election was held the Terrorists would win.
So to me… are two choices sound like “do nothing at this
time” (and risk seeing more chem. Attacks)
or b. Full scale war – get rid of
both regimes. (eek!)
NOTE: Program just
said that Assad has had these weapons for years and that it HAS been suspected
that many of the weapons were from Iraq before out operations there
started. And the point was – he has
never used them against the USA
or Israel . This was in response to the question is if
there is a direct threat to the US . – which the white house spokesperson won’t
fully answer.
My op: I really think
it’s hard to tell. Just because he
hasn’t used them for years against us doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have in the
future.
No comments:
Post a Comment