General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: That was pretty goddamned incoherent, frankly. [View all]truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Assad may have attacked some people with sarin gas. (I am betting thirty years from now we find out it was our CIA, the same CIA that used to bomb Italians back in the 1960's so that the Communist movement in Italy could be stalled.)
But anyway, Assad is being blamed for this alleged attack of his on people. Great Britain sold the sarin gas to Assad, some have said. If that proves true, then do we attack Great Britain? No of course, they are white people, and we do not attack a nation of white people.
White people don't fit our modern day criteria for our wars.
But once we make sure that Syria is a nation of brown skinned people, who also live in a region that we need to take over for a pipeline that is instrumental for one of OUR BIG OIL CORPORATIONS, and so then we realize that this oil business fits the criteria for a military strike.
And it could be a two fer - we go there to do this military strike. Obama can't quite explain the benefit to humanity of this strike, but then no wars fought since 1960 have had any benefit other than to the profit column of the guldarned One Percent.
But the way it becomes a two-fer is if the Russians still have their Naval ships in the area and one of those ships hits one of our ships with anti-ship artillery, and then the whole thing can expand into a much larger war, which is probably the whole goal to begin with.
It's time we have ourselves a great big war. The officials in charge have clearly lost their enthusiasm for little wars.