Search This Blog

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Time to surpass Obama in understanding foreign policy

Ann Coulter has done it again: explained with compelling logic and evidence that a policy or plan of the Obama administration is horrible for America. This week, Syria is the case in point. Here is some, but you don't want to miss the rest of it:
It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)

It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades.

It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people, administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in front of the victim's wife or children.

It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. -- someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.

It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in other countries.

It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.

It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a functioning, peaceful democracy.

And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs -- say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.

If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth supporting!

All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true -- indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent was Barack Obama. 
Read it all! Seriously, this is a quick way to be more familiar with some relevant facts that are currently being ignored by Obama-supporting media. Their hypocrisy is sickening when compared to Bush's treatment by the same media for a more clear-cut engagement.

Why Syria, Obama? Why spill more American blood when there is no clear plan of attack, reason for attack, or even desirable end results? We can't win this. Methinks Americans had better understand that blindness and possibly anti-American motives in Washington are digging us into a hole so deep that bad policies are the only possible outcome. Attempting to leave a legacy or improve public opinion by waging an unnecessary war is the height of folly. This move is more damaging to the United States than the ones we have already been seeing domestically, since this one would be paid for in both federal dollars and lives.

Reminder: last week I summarized a blog post surmising that the only winner of this probable war is Saudi Arabia, because most of the Shias could be killed off without direct involvement by predominantly Sunni nations. Such as Saudi Arabia, who has been funding this Syrian war.

What does gaining understanding do for American citizens? We can call out the media and politicians for their stupidity and/or deception. Nothing forces a politician to be more agreeable to his constituents than a little pressure that he won't get reelected. Meanwhile, keep a weather eye out for candidates who know more about foreign policy than our current crop or at least are more willing to do the right thing for America. Don't forget The Liberty Amendments as another superb manner to reclaim Washington.

No comments:

Post a Comment