http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....
Our ever-reliable ally, Israel, is urging President Obama to attack Syria. Or so says this article in the Huff post. It makes sense; Israel and the American-Israeli lobby want all our foreign policy to be in the national self-interest--of Israel. Now, for those asking if any of the American public supports attacks on Syria, you know who DOES support American attacks on Syria--and so you know America will got to war, no matter what American public opinion says.
The one and only point that catches my attention in the argument for attacking Syria is that the world has maintained an almost unbroken ban on use of poisonous gas since WWI. The Nazis developed sarin gas early in WWII, and made shells, but did not use them. The United States may have supplied gas to Iraq to use against Iran; more likely just sanctioned its use because the Reagan Administration thought that anything was better than a gain in power by Iran, since this was exactly at the time of the outrageous and unforgivable hostage crisis. If Syria now has used gas, and it is confirmed by the U.N. and agreed by most observers, and if nothing is done against Syria, then the almost 100-year old ban is null and void. And, as Israel urges, we are TRYING to enforce the same type of ban on Iran in developing nuclear weapons.. As I say, this is the ONLY point about the argument for attacking Syria that catches my attention at all.
I guess supporters of Israel, which probably includes almost everyone here, including most emphatically myself, don't back Israel on this particular decision. Is that because it is perceived that Assad's sarin gas attack was on Hezbollah? And that Hezbollah and Iran are in the same camp? So Israel's red line against Iran's nuclear weapons is good; but Obama's (fading) red line against poisonous gas is Syria is bad? On this, I really am “just asking.”
Has everyone who vents eight times a day on the importance of supporting everything Israel wants gone off-line, now?