Thursday, August 29, 2013

Guess I Missed My Blogiversary

This blog has now been up and running for 7 years and most of 9 days. Woo-hoo!

Later 4 U,
GB

The Threat Was Reported Yesterday - U.S. Strike On Syria Delayed Today?

Maybe there was something to the blog post I wrote yesterday, the one about the Syrian minister threatening a "surprise" for the world in how it would defend itself should the U.S. strike Syria overs its alleged use of chemical weapons. Yesterday, president Obama and vice president Biden were absolutely certain that President Assad of Syria had orchestrated the chemical attacks in Syria that killed about 100 people and they indicated that the U.S. would strike Syria to teach them a lesson.

All of a sudden, today, all that may be on hold as many U.S. allies apparently are not willing to back us on such a strike, at least not just yet. For example it has been reported that great Britain, France are calling for restraint relative to an immediate strike (source). Of course, Russia, being a long term ally of Syria, is also opposed to such a strike. It seems that world leaders are trying to hold off such a strike at least until president Obama visits Russia for the upcoming G2 summit where and when it would be certain that Russia's president Putin would put pressure on Obama to hold off. Even many U.S. officials are not fully convinced that the chemical attack, if indeed there was one, was initiated by President Assad of Syria; they are saying that evidence of Assad having ordered those chemical attacks is not a "slam dunk" (you may recall that was the term used by then CIA Chief George Tenet back when the Bush Administration believed that Iraq had WMDs in 2003).

So, it seems all the world is looking for restraint right now except maybe for the Obama administration. On Tuesday, it was reported that Joe Blabbermouth Biden stated there is no doubt that Syria orchestrated those attacks against its own people.



While I am sure all this saber rattling on the behalf of the USA is well intentioned, I seem to remember the same guy above as condemning George W. Bush when he went into Iraq on the same premise.

Granted, Biden is claiming that everyone agrees that chemical weapons were used by Assad (sounds like "slam dunk" info to me) but the truth be told, such has not been reported as being the case, thus all the hesitation on the part of our allies and our own politicians. In addition, Biden says that the UN has not been allowed access to the area where the chemical weapons were allegedly used. I find that a bit doubtful since all the reports I have seen, on that issue, indicate that the UN is on the ground in Syria now conducting its third day of investigations into allegations of the use of chemical weapons (source). Yet, even Obama stated he was certain that President Assad's forces perpetrated the chemical attack(s). "We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," (source).

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying chemical weapons were not used nor am I saying that we should not rain missiles down of Assad's forces if they were the ones who did the deed. I am in essence just showing how certain is the Obama Administration that Assad's Syria are the guilty culprits but how hesitant is the rest of the world to take definitive retaliatory action. Now ask yourselves - why is that the case. What I am taking my time getting to is the fact that just a couple of days ago, at most, it seemed Obama had the full support of our allies and most of our own politicians to strike Syria. Today, just one day after it was reported that Syria would "surprise" the world in how it would defend itself against such a strike, the rest of the world is backing off. Are you still a doubtful that Iraq may have had WMDs and that Saddam Hussein sent them to Syria prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003? I wonder. Of course, if they do not have them - their ally Russia - does have them.

All the best,
Glenn B

More Guns = Less Violence - Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Volume 30, #2

A friend of mine, Pete Q, just sent me a link to a PDF file that was an article about whether or not a gun ban would reduce murder and suicide. The conclusion of the article was that no, such a ban would not work. In fact, it clearly indicated that a higher rate of gun ownership, among the citizenry of a country, is what reduces such violence.

It was an interesting article and it plainly debunks much of the leftist anti-gun mantra that says reduction in the number of guns will lead to a reduction in such violence. You know the liberals who utter that nonsense, they are the likes of President Barack I Love The Shooting Sports Obama, Vice President Joe Two Barrels Biden, Mayor Michael I Got Body Guards and an Army With Guns Bloomeberg, and all the rest like Feinstein, Boxer, McCarthy and Brady. Then rant and rave about how it is absolutely a fact that a reduction in the number of guns will cause a reduction in the amount of violent crimes. Well, as facts, such as Justice Department statistics on violent crime have shown - the more guns there are in this country correlates with reductions in violent crimes. Somehow, all of the above leftist loonies always seem to miss those statistics just as they also seem to have missed the article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that my pal sent to me. The article can be found in Volume 30, number 2 of said publication and was written by Don B. Kates & Gary Mauser. Here is a link to it:

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence

Once again, I am convinced that those on the left, especially on the far left, do not care about the facts.

All the best,
Glenn B
View My Stats