The N.Y. Times is a leading big deal newspaper, and they are weighing in this morning on Syria. The reporting there says the U.S. has joined others (a.k.a. the Arab League) and these others together w/ the U.S. will be supporting the people, or the "opposition" or whatever it is, in Syria. Did I mention this is taking place in Syria? Yes I believe I did. So, there is this support, understood as support for the opposition in Syria, whatever that is. Government NOT in oth'r words.
The countries in the "Friends" group are united against al-Assad. I think so.
But the N.Y.T. is not sure, or they are dithering, this being the impression I get from my reading of NYT.
Support the opposition? OMGoodness. A decision.
Maybe you should? Maybe you shouldn't? So, pick already! There is a problem here or something.
They simply have no idea, but they arbitrarily pick; they need to pick a side or something. Maybe their nose. So. Pick a side.
These people are sub-normals, let's face it. We are talking about arbitrary, clueless behavior. We have no opinion. They have no opinion. What we are talking about here is a kind of choice, a vacant choice. A clueless, meandering kind. You just pick one side or the other----out of the thin air, my friend, out of thin air.
In such context, we are not surprised to see: "so-called lethal and non-lethal support." It probably sounds like probably something like the difference between military and humanitarian... This is what we are dithering about here: this is the issue.
Well, when I support someone I always try to support them non-lethally. And, lemme see, we are definitely not supporting Assad, the killer. The, Um-----dictator. You know? That one? So then, the "friends" group, including just about everyone it seems, is supporting "the other side." The U.S., remember, has been supplying all manner of arms to all manner of folks, for years and years and years. We have supplied arms to the rebels in Afghanistan, for example. That was not so difficult! Neither was the decision to supply arms to Saddam Hussein, in the mid-80s. We must stop supplying arms! We've got to stop doing this!!!
I think if you just have patience, the thing kind of makes sense all on its own. We are supporting some Syrians, the fight of some Syrians, in what is truly their struggle to simply not die, at the hands of a man who is sole power in his country, and who bombs villages. Our "opposition" are persons who simply do not want to be killed. Is that not what al-Assad is trying to do? Kill them?
The Syrians demonstrate, that's what they did, from what I read in the press, including the esteemed Times. The Syrians demonstrate, and they say they do not like their president anymore, and they get rocket attacks -- get beaten or killed for that. And somebody now thinks like this: it may be important to distinguish between supporting the Syrians non-lethally or lethally. It may also be important in opposing their dying to issue orders and directives regarding whether they shoot back?
Give me a break. N.Y.T. ...you slay me. The first few inches of column space seems to caution the readers -- basically that is the whole world? -- on just this very distinction: "the definition of humanitarian assistance." And it is about whether the U.S. government should "stretch" it. That's the topic, it seems so. (see N.Y.T. col 9 April 01, 2012 -the paper edition, which I gazed at briefly, at a Café)
The U.S. needs to look over its options carefully; and carefully we need to make a decision on some possibilities that may exist out there. And we should remember what the Russians and Chinese are up to in this matter. This is fairly clear. I'm not saying to do anything rash, or to drop bombs on persons randomly. I am saying that if you look, and look carefully, there should be something there, some opportunity or something you can find at some point that can be done. There's got to be some option somewhere for policy.