Seems my primer on chemical weaponry this week provoked a larger than usual response. The comments were all deleted before being published as I didn’t feel like responding individually.
That’s why I pay the rent here – I get to control the comments. They ranged from one rant that appeared to be narcotics fueled (seriously, it was like reading directly from the journal of somebody on heroin) to another that questioned my ability to write about orphans in Haiti if I wasn’t going to go to war over children in Syria.
The ones in between were not so bad. But I elected to use this forum to clear up a few things.
First, it’s a good idea to read a whole blog post before commenting. The comments this week indicated a lack of reading for comprehension. I didn’t say children aren’t valuable. I did not advocate genocide. I did not… the list goes on.
What I should have pointed out is that with over 100,000 dead in that civil war in the last five years it’s rather silly to rush into a military entanglement just because somebody used chemical weapons. Remember, chemical weapons have been around since at least 900 B.C. Not exactly an orbit shaking event that somebody used them. After all, nobody seemed too upset when Saddam used them on the Kurds, the Syrians used them on – you get the point. Heck, even Italy used them on Ethiopia. But I digress. Artillery and truck bombs don’t count? Rifle fire and grenades are moot? As Greg Gutfeld pointed out, machetes don’t count? As the post pointed out, anyone could have used chemical weapons in this spot and it’s least likely of all that Assad was the culprit. He may be a lousy eye doctor, but I don’t think he’s stupid.
I will throw this out there: If Barack Obama can give me a tersely worded five sentence explanation of what we would accomplish with limited air strikes in this mess I might change my mind. But the nebulous nonsense out of Washington is too much. There is no real gain here, only loss.
For those of you in the comments who were advocating our involvement I have a question? Have any of you ever done contingency planning for air strikes? Have any of you studied chemical weapons? Have any of you trained to use chemical weapons? Have any of you sat for hours wearing a gas mask with your clothing all buttoned up to avoid contamination? Have any of you “Set Circle William” and shut off all the air to your compartment to avoid nerve gas?
Yeah, thought not. I have. All of the above. And the one really nasty thing about the kind of strikes that President Obama (Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) is proposing is that the poor schmucks downwind will die. Chemical weapons tend to linger in the air for a ways. Syria has had plenty of warning to move these in close to the cities. Strike a chemical depot and kill all the civilians for a few miles downwind.
Doesn’t sound so great anymore does it?
That’s the point, Ladies and Gentlemen. If you really give this some thought either we’re backing Iran or we’re backing Al Qaeda. Not much of a choice. Stay out.