I'm On Fire wrote:America should do nothing. If yet another middle eastern third world country wants to fight with itself and use guns, bombs, gas or nukes then why should we stop them?
From the NYTimes: JERUSALEM — Since reports surfaced of an apparent chemical attack outside Damascus, Israeli leaders have called for an American response, both on moral grounds and as a warning to Iran over its nuclear program .... Both Mr. Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry, have mentioned Israel’s needs as one justification for an attack on Syria .... the main pro-Israel lobby, said Sunday that the group “won’t have comment for now.” … Part of the hesitation comes from Jerusalem’s ambivalence about what outcome it prefers in the Syrian civil war …. Ari Shavit, a columnist for the left-leaning daily newspaper Haaretz, said that Israel and others in the Middle East were being left with a “feeling of orphans,” wondering “if there is still a reliable parent in Washington who is really committed, who understands what’s going on and who is willing to act.”
Now that really frosts my ass.
We are supposed to be a “reliable parent” “committed” to Israel "orphans" and “willing to act”? Get over it, folks, ALL countries are orphans in this world, and it is not Uncle Sam's job to look out for them. The Israelis are calling for an “American response”? If they’re so gung ho, how about an Israeli response paid for by Israelis? Obama and Kerry want us to intervene on behalf of “Israel’s needs”, while Israel is not even sure which side they want to prevail in the Syrian civil war?
How about we consider the needs of the USA for once? And please explain EXACTLY what we hope to accomplish, and how we think it will be accomplished by shooting a few hundred million dollars worth of missiles into Syria, at targets that have already been evacuated.