Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Syria - Part One?

I titled this as "Part One?" because I have a hunch it won't be the last time we visit this subject.

I agree with those who think we need to do something about the government of Syria using chemical weapons, assuming that can be established as fact.

I'll go into my reasoning for that (and it's mine, since I haven't listened to the talking heads on TV and radio on this subject - so if it agrees with someone else I didn't copy it) in a moment, but first, if you'd like to see my other writing (including books), please go to the beginning of the blog or the post of April 22, 2013

Also, on the date this is written, 8/28/13, it's before the radio show we're doing tonight with Morgan St. James and Bella Capo. The latter is the subject of and the co-author (with Morgan) of La Bella Mafia, which is about to be published. The interview should be fascinating, in spite of the interviewer. Tune in tonight at 9:00 PM Central, 6:00 Pacific, or listen to the recorded program afterwards. http://GoingBeyondRadio.com/JeffBushman.

Now to the posting....

In the mid '80s, Iraq fought a war with Iran. We "tilted" towards Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein so when he used chemical weapons against Iran, we didn't object. In fact, when the Iranian representative brought evidence of the chemical weapon use to the UN, he couldn't get anyone to listen.

It's my belief that if we had done something meaningful then, Syria wouldn't have used chemical weapons now. But we didn't.

If Syria used chemical weapons, that country should receive a meaningful punishment. My suggestion would be to use a drone or other un-staffed weapon to damage their command and control capability or we should severely damage their government offices or the home of Assad.

But something.

If we don't, there's a better-than-even chance that in some future war, at some future time, these chemicals will be used against American people or the people of one of our allies.

While there's a good argument that punishment of one person doesn't work as a deterrent for others, when it comes to countries it's a bit different. If the world sees that those who use chemical weapons will die or be severely damaged, those who might consider the use of such weapons in the future, will decide against that approach.

Maybe.

What we have is a group of bad choices, but some attack, without troops seems to be the least bad option.


Tuesday, August 20, 2013

More Idiocy - Guns

I'm among the group of progressive thinkers (though to call me a "thinker" might be overly praising) who believes that Americans ought to be able to own guns of almost any variety. I say "almost" because I can't see a reason to own an Uzi or other machine gun. Other than that, though, I say enjoy it and please don't shoot me.

But we have to do something about the morons like the guy today who went and fired shots at a Georgia (the U.S. state, not the country that used to be part of the Soviet Union) elementary school. The fact that no one was hurt and the shooter was taken alive, was amazing and rare. The latter fact suggests that the police there deserve a lot of praise.

But come on. I don't know if this guy was certifiably insane prior to the shooting, but if he was and we don't have background checks on gun buyers, why not? Lots of people objected to the legislation last year that would require buyers to be background checked, even when the purchase takes place through a private sale or a gun show.

Why the objection? People already have to get background checked if they buy through a dealer and most sales take place at dealers.

Do those who object to background checks just feel more secure because they know they could obtain some serious firepower without the government knowing about it?

As we all now know, if they listen to your phone conversations and read your e-mail through the NSA, they'll know anyway.

But aside from that, the gun show and private sale exceptions mean that a nut can go buy a gun. A person who's got a serious felony record can buy a gun. Someone who's been convicted of domestic violence can purchase a gun.

I believe you should be able to buy a gun if you perceive you need one. I don't think you should be able to buy a gun and then qualify for food stamps or that you should be able to buy a gun and have the taxpayers support you with disability payments, but I think otherwise you should be able to get a gun.

Unless you're a convicted felon or a spouse-beater or certifiably nutso (on 2 of those 3 my ex-wife might be prohibited). Then you shouldn't be able to get a firearm. And if you agree with that (and why wouldn't you?), I don't know how you can be against the legislation that would've required those background checks. I guess the question can best be put as: What Is Your Problem?

Please tune in to our radio program, The Jeff Bushman Show at http://GoingBeyondRadio.com on Wednesday evenings, starting at 9:00 PM Eastern time, or the archived programs, anytime. Also, if you'd like to see our other writing (on the subject of Radio), let me invite you to: JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com.

Thanks.