Text Us: 870870
Studio: (504)260.1870
Toll Free: (866)889.0870
| More

Garland Robinette

Tune in to "The Think Tank" for independent, intelligent discussions with experts on matters of news, politics, science and much more!

Weekdays 10am-1pm

Twitter: @garlandWWL
Email: garland@wwl.com

Posts from September 2013


Garland: On Syria - why should we believe
garland@wwl.com  9.6.13    

Make the lie simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. – Adolf Hitler

Why should we believe our leaders assurances concerning the proposed attacks on Syria?  I don’t see enough reason or proof.  Little things keep me suspicious.  Why does the British Joint Intelligence Committee put the death tolls (due to Sarin gas) at 350?  Our leaders say 1,429.  How can the very top of America and Britain’s intelligence corps be so far apart?
 
On the 8th of August U.S. officials turned down an offer from Bashar al-Assad to allow U.N. inspectors into areas that were gassed.  We said, no, it’s too little, too late.  The quote was, “The evidence of chemical weapons would be significantly corrupted as a result of the regime’s persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days.”  But, on the 1st of September, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “we know Sarin gas was used.”  Only blood and tissue were analyzed.  Analyzation takes two to four weeks.  No soil samples were taken.  New York Times, (Chemical Attack Evidence Lasts Years, Experts say) said scientists have discovered that Sarin, a deadly nerve agent, can be detected long after its use on the battlefield.  You simply test the dirt, but we didn’t.  The little things… 
 
AND, big things…like the U.S. knew about the gas strike before it occurred.  Foreign Policy Magazine (U.S. Had Intel on Chemical Strike Before It Was Launched) reported American intelligence had reports three days before the attack that chemical weapons would be used.  The direct quote was, “we collected streams of human signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.”  John Kerry said, it would be a moral obscenity to see the gas attack and not act.  We reportedly saw it before it happened.  There have been other gas attacks in Syria earlier this year.  Would we not have been ready to stop another, especially when we knew it was coming?
 
John Kerry’s complete quote was, “the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable.”  Does the “by any standard” apply to us?  I saw children die from Napalm in Vietnam.  We aided Saddam Hussein in the gassing of thousands during the Iran-Iraq war.  Foreign Policy Magazine (Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He gassed Iran) reports that the U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history—and still gave him a hand.  Hussein also gassed hundreds of Kurdish women and children.  If a country had aided the German concentration camps with technology and intelligence, but did nothing to stop the slaughter, would it be absolved because it didn’t participate?  By any standard would that be a defense?
 
But the force of American military brought to bear should have the desired results, right?  No, not in Lebanon in 1983.  U.S. warships shelled Beirut for days in support of the Christians fighting Muslims.  In return they blew up our Marine base.  The biggest loss of life of U.S. military personnel on a single day since WWII; 241 died.
 
What about Libya in 1986, after they bombed an American disco in Berlin?  We conducted bomber raids, which tried to kill Muammar Gaddafi.  In return, they blew up a Pan Am plane; 270 died.  Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 blew up embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. President Clinton ordered missile attacks on Al-Qaida camps and a pharmaceutical factory.  Little damage was done and Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden interpreted this as a lack of U.S. resolve to engage in a major confrontation.  His belief led to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen and a year later September 11th attacks on American soil; in total almost 3,000 people died.  U.S. missile attacks have failed in Laos and Cambodia Beirut, Libya, Iran, Sudan Afghanistan Pakistan, Somalia and Vietnam.
 
If we are to believe our leaders how about a WAR TAX!  Here is why we may need it… JOBS.  If you read Business Pundit (The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers), you will see just a few of the companies that make billions and billions of dollars and create thousands and thousands of jobs for war.  How many Washington politicians would be out of work, if all the companies making war had to lay off workers or close?  The costs don’t end there. The Times of Israel (No-Fly Zone In Syria Could Cost $B A Month General Says) reports that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says creating a Syrian no-fly zone alone, could cost over a billion dollars a month and if the navy was involved, billions more.
 
When asked, our leaders will tell us the military budget is fractional compared to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but our leaders don’t speak of hidden costs.  NBC News (Health-care costs for wounded vets to increase for decades to come) reports the V.A. spent $2.8 billion in 2012 alone and the cost will go up by $510 million this year.  Costs over the next 30,40, 50 years will be hundreds of billions of dollars.  We cannot (or will not) afford physically or financially to take care of our current war problems.  We have a backlog of disability claims for 773,000 vets and the average wait is 125 days.  Like the saying goes (and from a biting Onion satire piece, "Have plenty of money, a fresh, rested military—why not?”
 
As written in the Washington Post: (U.S. intervention in Syria: War for virtue) “God is on our side.  Strangely enough, we keep losing.  Since World War II we have failed to win any land war that lasted more than a week and that includes Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Ah, but those were all intended to be good wars, saving people from themselves.”
 
One final thought, how about Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia.  Why didn’t-haven’t we interceded, when hundreds of thousands have been tortured, maimed, raped and killed.  Wait for it...too yellow, too black?
 
As written in the ONION (The Case For and Against Intervening in Syria):  "We’re the good guys.  It’s the right thing to do, maybe."

Maybe.
 
 (7) Comments




 
Recent Posts
Categories
Tag Cloud
No Tags Found !
Archives