How many Syrians will Obama kill with perfectly-legal cruise missiles to avenge the 350 deaths of Syrians by chemical weapons (note: the US does not count depleted uranium or white phosphorus as chemical weapons)?
Note: this is a trick question.
Tricky
Ted Rall
http://rall.comTed Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
Comments are closed.
9 Comments.
A strong streak of psychopathy runs through every State leadership.
Assad’s enemies would not be above killing some of their own people to further their glorious cause, no more than the U.S. would not be above killing Americans to the same effect. How else can the American dead in the State’s wars of choice and aggression, in the name of defense, be classified?
Another question: if they happen to hit a depot holding chemical weapons and gases from those weapons kill civilians, will the irony be lost on Americans?
Meh. We’ll just blame the Syrians for storing chemical weapons in an obvious target. Bad security. Why, we better go in and secure those chemical weapons so we don’t accidentally blow them up.
It is really hilariously sad to see so many people and countries trying to tell the USA to just keep their hands out of the Syrian situation – especially in view of how badly the US has fucked up before in doing similar things. The US public is overwhelmingly opposed to another war and there is still no tangible proof at this point about the chemicals or even if it was sarin, or who actually may have been responsible. Our executive branch is deaf to all this. Instead the US Administration is in lock-step, jackbooting itself towards confrontation and destruction. Good point Ted; How many non-combatant Syrians will our efforts kill and what situation will be left after the smoke clears? If it is true that the “rebels” are a mixed bunch of factions that will fight amongst themselves, then the situation could actually end up worse.
The US is going to roll out its newest smart weapons for this conflict. These missiles are of the next generation which use sophisticated DNA and brain wave detection so that only those people who are terrorists or are future terrorists will be targeted.
Children that have a propensity to join terrorists organizations will be targeted while those fresh-faced, America loving scamps will be allowed to live and sing around the campfire with their buddies from Bayonne.
We have nothing to fear now with these weapons, we can make the world a better place to be an American.
To nom du jour:
It would certainly be in keeping with the outcomes of the US’s wars of this decade to unveil such “smart” weapons.
When unleashed on Syria, these weapons would, of course, kill only the “rebels” we have hired to harass Assad.
Bring ’em on!!!
One of my first thoughts was there is a 100% chance that we will kill civilians if we bomb. It is absolutely guaranteed. So we have to ask if we can help enough to make up for that. We here know from many past examples that American policymakers’ idea of intervention never turns out well for people. It’s either as useless and destructive as doing nothing would have been or more often worse.
You know, there is one simple thing that could be done that might make Barry stop and think a little tiny bit more about what he is doing. Imagine if Sweden publicly and loudly announced that they were rescinding Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize for peace? Imagine the reactions that would occur all around the world if they demanded it back in view of what he has done since he took office? Physically. They should demand that he turn it over to a representative of the Swedish Embassy immediately.
I’ve been thinking the same thing, rikster.
The Syrian Electronic Army. Anyone want to give me odds on the likelihood that it’s a CIA front?
Either way, whether it’s really Syrians or just American assets practicing sneaky-pete tricks, today’s thought: They shut down the NY Times website for a day. Big deal. Except for a few thousand newsheads, no one cares. The inconvenience was pretty much zero.
What happens when they do the same thing to a power plant or some other key piece of infrastructure? And wouldn’t the president just jump all over that for an excuse?
I thought Obama could no longer shock me, but to be making his pitch for war on the same day he commemorated MLK’s speech was just so stunningly fraudulent, I couldn’t believe it. Was it just me, or when O finished the speech and walked away from the podium, did his body language convey a sense of “thank God that damned thing’s over with”? Poor Martin Luther King. If he knew how the first black president was going to turn out, I think he would have blown his brains out long before Memphis.