Word out of Washington, D.C. is that President Obama has seen enough of the Syrian Civil War and has decided to arm “the rebels,” a mix of different groups with different agendas.

Obama suggested that a “red line” has been crossed when Bashar al-Assad‘s government forces used sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent, reportedly on his own citizens.

My first reaction to this news came in the form of a question. From which country did Syria obtain sarin gas? I’m not sure if it’s from the U.S., but one has to wonder.

Remember in 2003 when the Bush administration invaded Iraq on the pretense of “weapons of mass destruction”? Many of Saddam Hussein’s cache of chemical weapons were actually handed to him by the U.S. government during the run-up to the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

So basically, the U.S. government supplied the Iraqi government with weapons of mass destruction only to see Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq, use the chemical weapons on his own Kurdish Iraqi citizens.

In doing so, the U.S. became an accomplice in a crime against humanity because Americans provided Hussein with the weapons that were used during the attack. Here is an interesting excerpt from a CNN article:

It is an interesting spin to think the U.S. government watched on as their “allies” used chemical weapons, only to now hold a “red line” for intervention over the very same weapons.

Perhaps the times have changed?

Some important questions to ponder are: What kind of support will President Obama provide to “the rebels”? What kind of weapons will be transferred?

American weapons might get in the hands of the wrong people, only to see more crimes against humanity occur under the U.S.’s watch.

Who wants that?