Ah - I see Iran is shipping military supplies to Syria through Iraq - Iraq, namely Shiite president Malaki, is refusing to stop this activity, but is managing to push down sharply on Iraqi Sunni attempts to send similar aid to their afflicted brethren. And yet American commentators still rally for a US involvement in Syria - not once have I heard one of these idiots address the fact that if we start a full blown civil war in Syria it could easily spill across the borders into Iraq and Lebanon and then germinate into something quite dangerous - not once have I heard any of them address fact that maybe Iran would love for us to wade into a Syrian quagmire - would certainly both give the Mullahs a very efficient way to divert the peoples attention away from the hardships the sanctions are supposedly causing while proffering up a perfect rationalization for why Iran needs the bomb - these fools do admit, reluctantly it seems, to reality of how utterly disorganized the Syrian 'opposition' is but then fail to mention how rife with radicalism it is as well, both of which conditions suggest that if we stoke to full boil this simmering civil war it could turn very ugly very quickly and end up empowering some strikingly unpleasant devotees of the prophet.
Still find myself shocked at how many American pundits and so called experts embrace involvement in this fucked up little corner of the world as if Iraq and Afghanistan never happened. Not that I'm suggesting that America divest itself of interests in the region - but is it too much to ask of people getting paid to comment on tactics and strategy related to foreign policy to show some respect for a careful meditation on evidence and the cautionary deliberations of experience?
