And now: Syria

[ShadowHM]

I can only laugh at the complaint that a collective security measure, agreed by both governments, once again simply must become an environmental issue.  Perspective?  Nil.

Not touching the rest of it, other than to remember, as regards terrorism:

"Evil prospers when good men do nothing."  What the hell, some cliche's are handy.

Appeasing terrorists is antithetical to the long term goal, in some future near or far, that the rule of law will one day actually be a more universally accepted premise.  A work in progress, as I see it, since Abel and Cain.

Who said anything had to be an environmental issue? I didn't. My senior citizen friend didn't either. He merely observed that the mess was cleaned up with no fuss or requests for assistance. Was it the fact that he mentioned it at all?

And where did this appeasing terrorists part come from? I had the distinct impression from repeated declarations that the war in Iraq was to bring a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction and a known predilection for using them into line. The U.S. admin has chosen its own way to do so. Canada has declined to jump on that particular bandwagon and stated that it prefers a different bandwagon.

The war on terrorism, while certainly related, is not at issue here. Or is it?

Or maybe there was an extra coffee or three this morning? You have me confused.