Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hegel have argued further for military assault on the government forces of President Assad of Syria saying that to fail to do so would open Pandora's box (of chemical weapons, biological and nuclear weapons and so forth). One could infer thus that to attack Pandora's box will release the contents in an incinerated and contained form somewhat analogous to the Fukushima Nuclear plant containment efforts. Inn that case freezing the dirt with advanced technology placed underground will work best beside just dumping the excess radiation into the ocean that is a kind of building up global Pandora's box.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/03/kerry-hagel-testify-on-syria/
I am still considering the 'red line in the sand' that was crossed in Syria by the use of chemical weapons two weeks ago. One makes a red line I suppose with chalk, blood or red tide-its a little bit of an English as a second language sort of language use that American diplomats like when not using cool military jargon like 'force delivery packages'. Setting out a goal like red lines in the sand for terrorists to meet that want to draw the U.S.A. into the conflict is probably like announcing an exit date from Afghanistan enabling Taliban to better coordinate terror activities on their planner's calandars, yet at least its a nice color selection for exteriors.
Maybe if the Obama administration had said if x number opf civilians are killed with chemical weapons we will launch 100 cruise missile at 1 million dollars each at Syrian units we don't think support our Middle East agenda it would have been a better deterrent. Since the first deterrent didn't work, if it was the Assad forces that delivered the fatal Sarin nerve agent to a presumably Sunni populace killing 1500, it is not certain that the conditioned response punishment will be an effective deterrent.
The administration in Washington D.C. has yet to say why the chemical attack on Syrian Sunni civilians-if that's what they were, was militarily useful. Did it help win the battle against the rebels or was it an emotional sort of thing in an inhuman war with rebels sponsored in part by Washington D.C. for the past two years?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/03/kerry-hagel-testify-on-syria/
I am still considering the 'red line in the sand' that was crossed in Syria by the use of chemical weapons two weeks ago. One makes a red line I suppose with chalk, blood or red tide-its a little bit of an English as a second language sort of language use that American diplomats like when not using cool military jargon like 'force delivery packages'. Setting out a goal like red lines in the sand for terrorists to meet that want to draw the U.S.A. into the conflict is probably like announcing an exit date from Afghanistan enabling Taliban to better coordinate terror activities on their planner's calandars, yet at least its a nice color selection for exteriors.
Maybe if the Obama administration had said if x number opf civilians are killed with chemical weapons we will launch 100 cruise missile at 1 million dollars each at Syrian units we don't think support our Middle East agenda it would have been a better deterrent. Since the first deterrent didn't work, if it was the Assad forces that delivered the fatal Sarin nerve agent to a presumably Sunni populace killing 1500, it is not certain that the conditioned response punishment will be an effective deterrent.
The administration in Washington D.C. has yet to say why the chemical attack on Syrian Sunni civilians-if that's what they were, was militarily useful. Did it help win the battle against the rebels or was it an emotional sort of thing in an inhuman war with rebels sponsored in part by Washington D.C. for the past two years?
No comments:
Post a Comment