Let me get this straight. John Kerry tosses out a "casual" remark about securing Syria's chemical weapons as a way of forestalling a devastating but limited (Hunh?) cruise missile attack.
Then the Russians snap it up and run with the ball. But Syria is their long-term client state. Where did it get its chemical weapons from in the first place? Russia has already said that they would re-stock any weapons destroyed in an air attack. Why not their chemical weapons too?
Who would have thought that the Russkies would step in with a solution?
Or is it? Aside from its perhaps being a delaying ploy to move weapons
to better locations and surround them with civilians, can you imagine
the logistical nightmare of trying to collect and transport deadly
poisonous materials across a country torn by sectarian strife? Some
military pundit said that would take 75,000 troops. So much for "no
boots on the ground."
Stay tuned.
A collection of current topics on politics, religion, technology and life.
No comments:
Post a Comment