I happened to listen to a business report this morning from Fox business in which the reporter was discussing the likely impact on world oil prices as a result of any American attack on the Assad regime in Syria. The "expert" reporter explained that Syria is not far from the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, and that the waterways are a key shipping point for oil. As a result, the possible attack on Syria would bring higher oil prices. What a genius! The Suez Canal is in Egypt, hundreds of miles from the fighting in Syria, but very close to all the current uproar in ........... Egypt. During the heavy confrontations in Cairo and Alexandria between the military and the supporters of ousted president Morsi, the canal went on as if nothing was happening. Events in Syria will not change this. As for the Straits of Hormuz, that water lies between the Arabian peninsula and Iran. Syria's ally Iran could, in theory, try to close the Straits and it might be able to do so for a month or two before the navies of the world powers completely cleared the area (including the shore) of Iranian forces. That action, however, would mean an invasion of Iran, a defeat for the mullahs, the certain destruction of the Iranian nuclear program and the decimation of the Iranian military. In other words, that action is less than unlikely.
I also read today a series of articles announcing that while there is evidence that it was the Assad regime's forces that used the chemical weapons, there is no proof that Assad himself ordered the strike. In amazing fashion, the reporters then explained that this could be a reason not to strike at Syria because we lacked this key evidence. Are they kidding? First of all, since the evidence has not been made public except through the endless leaks from "high administration officials", there is no way to know the accuracy of what is being said. More important, however, proof that Assad himself ordered the strike has nothing to do with an America response. This was not an accidental release of nerve gas. Thousands were affected after missiles filled with gas were launched at neighborhoods near Damascus. If the order for the launch came from the top of the Syrian army rather than from Assad himself, does that make the launch any less heinous? Of course not! Once again, these reporters are trying to mix criminal prosecution with international relations/war. The act was carried out by the Syrian army. That means Syria is at fault and must reap the consequences of its actions. We are not trying now to have a trial as to whether or not Assad is a war criminal. (He is, but that is for a later discussion.) This mindset is like the one currently held in Washington regarding the thugs who attacked the embassy in Benghazi last September. We know who they are. We know where they are. We just don't have all the evidence that we would like so that we could convict them in court. We don't need to convict them; we need to kill them. They are our enemies who are engaged in a war against America. We need to wake up.
I also read today a series of articles announcing that while there is evidence that it was the Assad regime's forces that used the chemical weapons, there is no proof that Assad himself ordered the strike. In amazing fashion, the reporters then explained that this could be a reason not to strike at Syria because we lacked this key evidence. Are they kidding? First of all, since the evidence has not been made public except through the endless leaks from "high administration officials", there is no way to know the accuracy of what is being said. More important, however, proof that Assad himself ordered the strike has nothing to do with an America response. This was not an accidental release of nerve gas. Thousands were affected after missiles filled with gas were launched at neighborhoods near Damascus. If the order for the launch came from the top of the Syrian army rather than from Assad himself, does that make the launch any less heinous? Of course not! Once again, these reporters are trying to mix criminal prosecution with international relations/war. The act was carried out by the Syrian army. That means Syria is at fault and must reap the consequences of its actions. We are not trying now to have a trial as to whether or not Assad is a war criminal. (He is, but that is for a later discussion.) This mindset is like the one currently held in Washington regarding the thugs who attacked the embassy in Benghazi last September. We know who they are. We know where they are. We just don't have all the evidence that we would like so that we could convict them in court. We don't need to convict them; we need to kill them. They are our enemies who are engaged in a war against America. We need to wake up.
No comments:
Post a Comment