The United States is on the verge of using military force against Syria's dictator Bashar Al Assad because of his alleged use of poison gas, and that although poison gas is definitely a weapon of mass destruction, the term "weapon of mass destruction" is never used?
Not all of those actions are war. Unless, for example, The Berlin Airlift is an act of war. Simply because the military is doing something doesn't make it war.
That won't work because of Bush
But we need to look into this from a Humanitarian perspective. Are humans ok with their own species being chemically gassed to death while people do nothing about it?
I have little interest in fighting the fights others must fight for themselves, to determine their own future.
It is not the job of American citizens to correct the perceived injustices in the rest of the world. Let us clean our own house before attempting to tell others how to clean theirs.
As in all wars, those that stand to make a profit will promote it. Central banks for example are notorious for doing that, they lend money at a high interest to either side. What we want and is best for us is irrelevant.
What I don't understand is how we have the gall to pretend these sort of human rights abuses don't happen or matter outside of the Middle East. No one gets up in arms over African conflicts. What utter hypocrites we Americans are.
Stoopid hyperbole that backfired and now has connotations to bullshit. Besides, the left is in power and it is the right that creates all the stupid nicknames and buzz phrases.
Ah, the white knight to the rescue again, I suppose we will promote "democracy" (two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner) there too. Even if we don't have it here in the first place as a form of government.
Actually, I heard the term used this morning on msnbc.
...by a right-leaning moderate, if I'm remembering it correctly.
But not by the Obama administration.