Tuesday, August 27, 2013

really? what?

ok, this afternoon i heard some senators and stuff being interviewed about the inevitability of military intervention in syria.

because the president apparently doesn't need congress's approval to start another war any more than the government needs warrants to spy on citizens.

and i heard either the president or a spokesman for the president (i don't remember which because i'm too batshit about it) say that whatever "response" we have (read: missile launches), it's "not about regime change."

DAFUQ???? WHAT?!?!

we're going to heave missiles into another country because apparently they don't have ENOUGH bombs and horror and we have NO INTENT OF ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING?

we are going to heave bombs into another country's civil war and we are going to enter this war on the same side as al-qaeda and the only thing we intend to accomplish by it is to MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND BE SEEN HAVING A RESPONSE BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT REGIME CHANGE?

we're what? going to bomb the fuck out of the remaining syrians for no particular purpose and with no actual aims? because someone thinks that it's ok to drop bombs on people but it's somehow a moral outrage to use chemical weapons to accomplish the same end?

we're going to show the assad regime how wrong it is to kill civilians by going in there and killing a crapton of civilians?

but it's not about regime change?

so the only thing we hope to accomplish is to drop explosives on some people in another country in order to make the point to a guy we're going to leave in power - we're going to have to go kill some people with metal and fire just for the sake of demonstrating that killing people with chemical agents is bad?

but we're going to be careful not to change the balance of power?

i'm sorry, but that is fucked.


if you're going to sit on your hands and not do anything besides express displeasure, you don't need to rain fire and death on people to do it.

but just in case i haven't made myself clear: i think it is a bad idea to march into syria and support the al-qaeda allied rebels against the hezbollah-backed regime. either way you slice that one, that is not going to come out well. not for us, not for anybody.

if - and this is a big "if"- a thing is so monstrous that we're going to step into another war and kill people, there had better goddamn well be an actual goal and some things we can actually accomplish with that blood instead of making weak speeches about needing to make "some kind of appropriate response."

you want to make a statement? put up a poster.

you want to stop a war? STOP the monstrosity. don;t just dogpile on and add your bombs to the big pile of bombs because you don't want to look weak.

and at the risk of sounding crass, i'm going to say ow much is this going to cost in american lives? american tax dollars?

and how many american arms manufacturers and security contractors are going to get obscenely rich off of it?

and how long do you think it will distract the 'murican people from their increasingly impoverished state where health care and pensions and groceries are drying up while the CEOs of large corporations had an average sixteen percent increase of income last year alone?

the economy's just fine.

...if you are a death merchant.

you remember last week when it was ok to spy on american citizens because we had to do everything to fight al-qaeda and its allies?

but now we have to drop bombs on civilians in support of al-qaeda?

because reasons?


this is why we can't have nice things anymore.

No comments:


Related Posts with Thumbnails