Did Ron Paul really ask this question?
I don't know.
I found this graphic on Facebook via Martin B.
I think, at times, Ron Paul can be a bit loony, yet at the same time often make really good sense. And ask good questions.
With this Syria deal methinks Ron Paul is right to be a bit perplexed.
I know I'm perplexed.
We, by we, I mean the United States, invaded and deposed Saddam Hussein because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons.
The assertion is that Assad's Syrian regime has actually used chemical weapons to murder hundreds of Syrian rebels fighting to oust Assad.
Back before the first Gulf War, that being the one led by the first President Bush, Saddam had used chemical weapons to murder a large number of Iraqis. A much larger number than Assad's alleged murder victims. But, nothing was done, at that time, to punish Saddam.
So, how do we administer justice in this current Syrian case? Depose Assad and charge him with crimes against humanity. Or just do some random bombing? Like a spanking, hoping he behaves better.
Martin B, on Facebook posed an amusing, but flawed analogy...
A little make believe story: Hillary Clinton becomes our next Prez. In reaction to this a far FAR right faction of redneck Tea Party members go absolutely ape. With Susan McDougal as their spokes person they gain numbers and take to the streets of DC demanding that Hillary step down. The mob grows, the redneck Tea Partiers even burn a Prius or two. Intelligence sources inform Prez Hillary that a huge number of the redneck Tea Party have gathered in a central location and are planning to rush the White House, forcing her from office. Fearing for her administration, Hillary orders a chemical attack......200 rednecks are dead, another 100 or so innocent Walmart shoppers also perish. In reaction to this, Russia puts a missile or two into the Pentagon and into a couple of the military bases around DC...as a "warning shot." I've written enough...you guys can finish the story.....
Which had one of Martin B's Facebook friends pointing out the obvious...
The analogy to Syria is seriously flawed, unless you're claiming a US presidential election is akin to whatever means Syria used to choose its current president.
The current Syria situation has way too many ways it could go badly awry. The world does not need anything going badly awry right now....
1 comment:
I think the biggest problem the U.S has is the issue of why are they rushing to attack now? The U.N. are still investigating the chemical attack, there is no support from any other countries, so why is President Obama insisting on attacking Syria before the U.N. finish their investigation? They need to explain that or you guys will be doing this alone.
Post a Comment