Regardless of what side you're on, the Syrian Government has the responsibility of safeguarding their weapons stockpiles from the opposition. The movement of weapons could be just that. Of course, the movement could also be that they're getting ready to use them on the opposition. I wouldn't put anything past the Syrians at this point.
However, I'm pretty much done caring about the struggles of other countries. Call me coldhearted if you want, but I could give a rat's ass about the people of Syria. I don't know that Syria is strategic to the national security of the United States either. Enough of our men and women have died on foreign soils fighting somebody else's war. If you want to send them money, send them guns, send them tanks so that they can defend THEMSELVES against the regime...fine. But, leave our armed forces out of it unless there is a strategic issue that directly impacts the United States. There shouldn't be a drop of American blood spilled over it otherwise. And don't give me that "stability in the region" BS either, because that region hasn't been stable since Jesus left Chicago. It will never be stable.
I sat at a red light today in the United States of America and witnessed a homeless family under an interstate overpass. Our government trips over itself to send aid to foreign countries that may or may not make it to the people on the ground who generally hate our guts anyway. I'd vote TODAY for a President who ran on a platform of completely shutting off all foreign aid so that it could be reassessed...and diverting that money to helping AMERICANS in need here at home. I think I'm honest to God becoming an isolationist. I don't think it's radical to think that we should fix OUR home before we race to fix somebody else's.



Reply With Quote