Barack Obama called himself a "citizen of the world" in his 2008 Berlin speech. His approach to foreign policy since has suggested that he is more interested in making the world "one" than in quarterbacking a victory for America. But now, however, when Syria is accused of using chemical weapons against its own citizens Obama seems prepared to "go it alone" and launch missiles into the country. Why is he avoiding a UN solution?
The question can probably only be answered by conspiracy theorists and deep White House insiders. Odds are that forces far more powerful than Obama could ever hope to become control the millions and billions of dollars that military actions generate. And because they control the money, they control the president.
If stinger missiles cost the US government about half a million dollars each, what do you think those things will fetch on the black market? And if you own a company that makes and sells military equipment to the government and it never gets used, how are you going to sell more unless they use some of what they've got?
And how about the companies that provide food, and fuel and medical supplies and contract for computer technology or get rent from the use of their satellites, or that need the fire power of a government to make an offer to a foreign leader that he "can't refuse"?
The world is not what it appears to be and what is going on behind the scenes is more than we will likely know in our lifetimes. But, for a president who claims to be so "transparent" and such a globalist, one would think he would make his case either to the American people, via our Congress, or to the UN.
Doing neither raises suspicions about his motives and justification.
Comments