OK, I'm officially mystified. I mean, I would be if I wasn't sure that Obama was a terrorist sympathizer at the very least.
But, Obama's response to chemical weapons use in Syria isn't what mystifies me. It's everyone else's response.
Everyone is yelping about this international chemical weapons ban being violated. Nobody seems willing to admit that the use of chemical weapons in this instance is not really the problem.
Now, let's leave aside the fact that no one really knows which side used the chem-weapons. Reports conflict. The Syrian rebels may very well have gassed their own people, either via an accident they were having with THEIR chemical weapons, or on purpose to make Assad look bad. They've done this kind of thing in the past - Muslims think nothing of using their own children to blow up the opposition.
But that's not the point.
Everyone is upset that civilians, especially children, were killed with chemical weapons. Since when did we become concerned about using the correct kind of violence when killing civilians, even civilian children, in a war?
Both Assad AND the rebels killed children with bullets and high explosives. Is this somehow saner and cleaner than killing them with chem-weapons? I don't get the logic - either way, you end up with a corpse.
The international chemical weapon ban was a ban on use against SOLDIERS. The idea is that we retain at least a modicum of chivalry in warfare. If you're going to fight somebody, at least give them a chance to fight back (artillery, and their drone-strike children, get a grandfather-clause waiver here).
NOBODY is supposed to be using ANY weapons against civilians. Yet EVERYBODY who fights Muslims uses weapons against civilians because Muslims are cowards who hide behind civilians every chance they get. Thus, there are something like 100,000 civilians dead in Syria. The vast majority were killed with conventional weapons, with a few thousand killed by chemical weapons. Yet somehow, the few killed with chemical weapons are more dead than the great mass who were killed by more conventional means?
Obama's "thin-red line", his grotesque "distinctions" - indeed, most of the commenters absurd "distinctions" - are just incredibly stupid. I use the word "stupid" instead of "ignorant" because these Ivy League graduates are supposed to already KNOW the distinctions between a civilian and a soldier. They are supposed to already KNOW that civilians aren't to be killed at all, while soldiers are to be targeted only with conventional weapons. If they don't know these differences, they must be stupid.
And how will we respond? By drone-striking Syrian targets. As the brilliant Sarah Palin points out, it isn't clear why us bombing Syrians is superior to Syrians bombing Syrians. I guess we just use morally superior high-explosives or something.