Obama, Who Won the Nobel Peace Prize, Is Determined to Get the US Into a Dirty War in Syria, For Some Reason

Blessed be the peacemakers, for they TAKE NAMES AND KICK ASS.

I'm actually just sort of assuming that Obama's all hot and heavy to get into Syria. I didn't read AllahPundit's piece. I've been in the comments.

But I assume he wants to go in there because he previously wanted to go in there and exactly one year ago, to the day, he gathered up what little manliness he had and told Syria that under no circumstances were they to use chemical weapons.

And exactly 365 days later, they appear to have done precisely that.

Via David Shor and Aaron Zelin, who was quick this morning in remembering that today’s apparent chemical massacre outside Damascus falls a year to the day from Obama issuing his empty “red line” threat. Is that why Assad did it, to show the world that he’s still alive, kicking, and defying the United States a year after O talked fake-tough about him? The “red line” comment backfired long ago by forcing Obama to take action, however feeble, in the name of protecting American credibility.

Video of Obama's Red Line Warning at the link.

Drew had a good post on this earlier. You should read it.

In short, even if this terrible massacre did take place (and there's a reasonable case to be made for questioning the timing of the story) it doesn't change the basic calculus for the US...do whatever it takes to keep the fighting going for as long as possible.

More dead Assad loyalists + more dead jihadis = US Win.

It's cold, it's uncaring and it's the reality of our interest in the fight.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far -- I don't think we need to "keep it going." I don't know that we need to do anything at all.

We have become so conditioned -- left and right both -- to think that every bomb that falls anywhere in the world is somehow An Important Matter for the United States Requiring Our Instant Action that we don't seem to ask the very important threshold question:

So what?

I don't mean "so what?" as in "Who cares if lots of people die."

I mean: What's this have to do with us?

No one elected us to impose a Pax Americana on the world, including the most important people who vote on such things, the American voters themselves.

Furthermore, the idea of a Pax Americana is folly. We don't have the manpower for it. And even if we did, I wouldn't waste those good men to save bad ones.

Bombing things and killing people is an act of extremely serious moral dimension. We should not even consider such things unless we are satisfied that one of the two is true:

1) That such action is so manifestly in our own selfish interests that we can be forgiven for taking the violent action.

2) That the action is so manifestly in the interests of general altruistic good we would scarcely forgive ourselves if we didn't take the violent action.

And ideally I'd like a good mix of 1 and 2.

So let's say we start bombing in Syria.

First question: Who do we bomb?

We could make a case either way.

And that means we probably shouldn't do it.

There should be no such thing as an Obligatory Bombing. A Thoughtless Bombing, a Rote Bombing. There should be no Muscle Memory Bombings, no Just To Keep Our Hand in the Game Bombings, no Well We've Got To Do Something and a Bombing is Something Bombings.

We need a pretty damn good reason for that.

What's our reason in Syria?

Posted by: Ace at 07:30 PM



Comments

1 Our reason is to help Obama's buddies, the Muslim Brotherhood.

What? I didn't say it was a good reason.

Posted by: bonhomme at August 21, 2013 07:31 PM (45N4D)

2 I forgot who it was, someone at NRO I think, who said that leftists are not truly anti-war; they are only against wars that have the slightest bit of strategic value to the USA. Syria is a good example.

Posted by: logprof at August 21, 2013 07:34 PM (bufJH)

3 i can kind of see a slight value in being rid of assad, as he's an Iranian client and a sponsor to terrorists.

of course, he's in a fight with Al Qaeda.

yet I could still see an argument that a corrupt thing needs some shaking up, and while syria's path will be violent and will get worse before it gets better, there is still some utility to starting it down that path.

but it's not much of an argument, is it?


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:36 PM (/IWYB)

4 Like I said previously, the World is filled with monsters, death, injustice, and corpses. We aren't going to change much without going Full Fucking Roman on entire regions. And I think our Caesar is more of a Caligulan, less of a Julian.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at August 21, 2013 07:36 PM (71Cvy)

5 Excellent Investment Strategy!

I approve !

Posted by: Malik Obama at August 21, 2013 07:37 PM (EZl54)

6 ...leftists are not truly anti-war; they are only against wars that have
the slightest bit of strategic value to the USA. Syria is a good
example.


Haven't you ever heard of the Karatchok oil field? Wingnuts!

No Blood for Oil!

Posted by: bonhomme at August 21, 2013 07:37 PM (45N4D)

7 I'm still confused on whether this really happened.

Why is verifying a chemical attack that supposedly killed a 1,000 people so difficult?

Are all those dead bodies really dead? Are they just pretending? Is all that foaming at the mouth an act?

I know the Palestinians routinely fake deaths so it's possible.

It's also possible the rebels killed their own people.

Seems there's tons of photos and videos coming out of the area, yet none of them offer enough detail to make sure it really happened. And that arouses my bullshit detector.

This whole thing smells fishy.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 07:37 PM (ZPrif)

8 The rebels used the gas. There's zero befit for Asadain in doing so. He saw what that got Saddam. He might have used it as a last gasp type of attack but he's winning the war.

Posted by: Red at August 21, 2013 07:38 PM (7us0J)

9 >>> I wouldn't waste those good men to save the bad ones.

That pretty much sums up what our Middle East foreign policy should be.

Posted by: L, elle at August 21, 2013 07:38 PM (0PiQ4)

10 3
i can kind of see a slight value in being rid of assad, as he's an Iranian client and a sponsor to terrorists.

of course, he's in a fight with Al Qaeda.

yet
I could still see an argument that a corrupt thing needs some shaking
up, and while syria's path will be violent and will get worse before it
gets better, there is still some utility to starting it down that path.

but it's not much of an argument, is it?




Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:36 PM (/IWYB)

--Why speed that process along when we can benefit equally by having them kill each other for free?

Posted by: logprof at August 21, 2013 07:38 PM (bufJH)

11 I reiterate everything I said in the earlier thread, and I would like credit for repeating lots of other people's comments that I agreed with at that time.

Posted by: MTF at August 21, 2013 07:39 PM (z6Elp)

12 Have you seen the new puppy?

Posted by: Barack Obama at August 21, 2013 07:39 PM (V4eAG)

13 Let's just let the Taliban bang it out with Russia in A-stan. No way that'll ever end up with 3,000 dead Americans on some September morning.

Posted by: Lincolntf at August 21, 2013 07:40 PM (ZshNr)

14
>>>This whole thing smells fishy.


Stop trying to control my vagina! War on women!!!

And hand over that $10 bill so I can get some condoms, you theofascist.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at August 21, 2013 07:41 PM (HzhBE)

15 And I think our Caesar is more of a Caligulan, less of a Julian.

Impossible! Little Boots liked the ladies.

Posted by: bonhomme at August 21, 2013 07:42 PM (45N4D)

16 7
The photos I saw all looked like the kids were sleeping. Only one baby had half opened glazed eyes. What kind of gas was used?

Posted by: Tuna at August 21, 2013 07:42 PM (M/TDA)

17 #13, maybe if we let the Russians fight it out with Afghanistan, it might've worked out better for us.

Posted by: Morseus at August 21, 2013 07:42 PM (BHGji)

18 Obama, Who Won the Nobel Peace Prize, Is Determined to Get the US Into a Dirty War in Syria, For Some Reason —Ace

The Left Wishes to Destroy Society, Period —Ace

Posted by: mindful webworker, I only read the headlines at August 21, 2013 07:42 PM (U13jb)

19 Meanwhile, if you go to whitehouse.gov, the Egyptians and the Syrians have gotten on there and are calling Obama names and making charges against him.

Yeah, that speech in Cairo was a humdinger, wasn't it?

Posted by: Miss Marple at August 21, 2013 07:43 PM (GoIUi)

20 The strategic argument against letting them kill each other is that just produces a more lethal strain of jihadi. It's like antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The best way to kill Islamism is peace and prosperity. Bore it to death.

Peace and prosperity also tends to lower birthrates. I want fewer muzzies.

Egypt's birthrate has boomed during the chaos. So did Iraq's.
Iran has been calm at home for decades and now they breed like gay rabbits.

Shooting and chaos and war, at least these modern low casualty wars, seems to actually boost fertility rates.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 07:43 PM (ZPrif)

21 >>>Let's just let the Taliban bang it out with Russia in A-stan. No way
that'll ever end up with 3,000 dead Americans on some September morning.

???

we actually intervened with a large covert armaments program.

so I don't know what this proves or what it's meant to prove.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:43 PM (/IWYB)

22 Ah for the good old days, when assassinations that could save lives were a Good Thing. Now, let me be clear, I don't advise assassinating Assad, or any Head of State, no matter how assassinatable Assad is, because, frankly, then assassinations are On The Table, and I don't want my Ass assassinated.

Posted by: Bronco Bama at August 21, 2013 07:43 PM (1I4sj)

23
The point here is well made, and is so obviously true that only an intellectual could fail to understand it.
That said, given that Obama's plan is to wreck the US it makes sense for him to try to embroil us in this madness. He failed to get us tied down in Libya - this is his second chance. And the traitor McCain is eager to give him a "bi-partisan" fig leaf. Sickening.

Posted by: Reactionary at August 21, 2013 07:43 PM (jfeoD)

24 are you suggesting we should have actually fought russia over f***ing Afghanistan, the world's toilet?


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:43 PM (/IWYB)

25 The flip side of all this is that like Saddam Hussein, like Marshall Tito, the Assad family have kept the country from blowing itself apart for decades. cough Hosni Mubarak cough. Stability does actuall!y have meaning. If I didn't know better, I would think that President shit stain is destabilizing that region for his own reasons.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2013 07:44 PM (V4eAG)

26 Hard to look at the pics of those dead kids and not believe that someone deserves retribution. But of course that doesn't change the fact that your strategic calculus is exactly correct.

Posted by: Wonkish Roghe at August 21, 2013 07:44 PM (dvRYt)

27 I'm not saying we should get involved, just that that is a strategic argument.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 07:44 PM (ZPrif)

28 There should be no such thing as an Obligatory Bombing.

Ahem. Aspirin Factory.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at August 21, 2013 07:44 PM (uX+Qq)

29 There is no possible way that we can get involved without becoming The Bad Guy.

Just look at the situation in Iraq, which admittedly had many altruistic intentions.

Road to Perdition.

Posted by: navybrat at August 21, 2013 07:44 PM (6msQC)

30 Our Caesar is more like Nero.

http://youtu.be/iZ04KhQra6M

Posted by: logprof at August 21, 2013 07:44 PM (bufJH)

31 More "a strategic argument" than "the strategic argument".

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 07:45 PM (ZPrif)

32 >>>Hard to look at the pics of those dead kids and not believe that someone deserves retribution.

Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.

If we're gittin' into the Retribution Business, as regards savageries inflicted on non-americans, boy howdy, are we going to have a lot of work to do.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:45 PM (/IWYB)

33 It doesn't prove anything. It points out that non-intervention can be just as deadly as intervention. What did your post prove?

Posted by: Lincolntf at August 21, 2013 07:45 PM (ZshNr)

34 "But I assume he wants to go in there because he previously wanted to go
in there and exactly one year ago, to the day, he gathered up what
little manliness he had and told Syria that under no circumstances were
they to use chemical weapons."

My assumptions differ.

Exactly one year ago, to the day, Obama was in a race for re-election, and his campaign advisers no doubt told him that he had to put on the guise of a straight-backed, steely-eyed American Commander in Chief who wouldn't take any guff.

Obama duly did so, and posed as something he is not and has never been. Just as he has put on so many other temporary campaign guises (reformer, moderate, technocrat, Christian). Then, once its purpose as a political device had been served, Obama sloughed off that particular artificial skin and forgot all about it.

It's not as though he's ever held to account by the media for his Zelig-like ways. Why in the world should Obama cease to practice them?

Posted by: torquewrench at August 21, 2013 07:45 PM (gqT4g)

35 Is nuking from orbit off the table?

Posted by: Muad 'dib at August 21, 2013 07:46 PM (PlTXA)

36 I'm with you on this, Ace:

Don't just do something, stand there!

Posted by: speedster1 at August 21, 2013 07:46 PM (yeM7r)

37 There is only one rational action...


Drill Baby Drill... Starve the Middle East of funds while fueling greater world economic growth...

So that means Barky will do everything in his power to further delay domestic production, stall the economic engine of the world, and get involved in Syria in a way which will give the Muzzies the upper hand.

Posted by: phreshone at August 21, 2013 07:46 PM (Pr6hk)

38 If McShame is for something and you are too, you should question your assumptions.

That said, we aided Saddam's Iraq in the Iran/Iraq War in the 80s. This time around, aiding the rebels in Syria hurts Iran as Syria has become Iran's proxy.

And Iran has 18,000 centrifuges now, spinning away making material for the most powerful WMD on Earth. Hurting Iran is most definitely in the American interest, considering the number of times that Iran has mentioned destroying The Great Satan (that's us).

I dunno, someone beat my logic up here.

Posted by: GnuBreed at August 21, 2013 07:47 PM (ccXZP)

39
I came to smoke choom and kick ass. And I'm all out of choom.






Okay, not really with the choom. That would be ridiculous. I'm the president. The president is never out of choom.

Posted by: BaRambo Obama at August 21, 2013 07:47 PM (HzhBE)

40 1) Do we have definitive proof these people were actually dead?
2) Do we have proof it was a chemical attack?
3) Do we have proof Assad did it and not the rebels?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 07:47 PM (ZPrif)

41 >>>It doesn't prove anything. It points out that non-intervention can be just as deadly as intervention. What did your post prove?

but we did intervene quite a bit in A-stan and that did not seem to stop september 11th. Russian helicopters fell from the sky thanks to US stingers.

I guess I'm not quite sure what you're trying to suggest.


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:47 PM (/IWYB)

42 I would be chary about assigning blame for this chemical attack, if such it was. These bastards aren't above killing their own people to try to get the US in on their side. After all, we're helping the other jihadisits in Egypt...

Posted by: ahem at August 21, 2013 07:47 PM (lKGzI)

43 >>>I would be chary about assigning blame for this chemical attack,

i'll go you one better:

Who cares who did it?

Not my concern.


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:48 PM (/IWYB)

44 When Obama said . . .
It was just basketball trash talk, you know, when you say stuff to get the other guy stirred up. Well, when Obama said, 'red line' he was just talking, didn't really mean it, didn't really expect anyone to take him seriously.

Like Bart Simpson said, " I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove anything". Well, all the news coming out of Syria about chemical weapons is just faux news, it's all fake, never happened, you can't prove anything, and you can't prove who did it. So shut up! It's a distraction from the important debate we need over raising the debt ceiling, comprehensive immigration reform, and funding Affordable Health Care.

Posted by: Confused in Seattle at August 21, 2013 07:48 PM (PG/h7)

45 26
These people place no value on the lives of their children. Anything for the cause. Kids are always the first to suffer. It's easy to talk about strategic value until you look at their little bodies.

Posted by: Tuna at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (M/TDA)

46 All the news reports I'm reading just say there are hundreds dead, according to the opposition.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (ZPrif)

47
I don't think that the Obama administration is keen to get us into a war in Syria. The "red line" claims were followed almost immediately by attempts to downplay any evidence of chemical weapon usage.

A more likely scenario is that Obama thought he could have another Libya, where someone else did the fighting and he got to take the credit and gain influence with the MB. However, Assad isn't giving up easily and if the MB loses, they'll blame the US for leaving them to hang.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (lr3d7)

48 I've read articles saying Assad used them and other articles saying that the rebels used them. So how can anyone know who used them. Cause won't it make a difference in how the US treats this incident?

Posted by: caustic at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (/b8+5)

49 Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.

If only we had a leader who was willing to ask God what His will was on this matter. God sicced the Israelites on several groups of people.

Posted by: bonhomme at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (WhJf8)

50 I haven't been chary in a good long while. I will endeavor to be so soon.

Posted by: Muad 'dib at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (PlTXA)

51 If a thousand Christian or Jewish or Buddhist children were on fire I don't think you could find a Muslim to pee on them.

But, that's just me.

Posted by: navybrat at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (6msQC)

52 Syria is the only country (in the area) with a reasonably safe Christian population.

Many people fleeing Syria to Iraq are very likely, highly probably, the Iraqis that fled to Syria during the last bit of unpleasantness ...

Posted by: Adriane... at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (/yH2j)

53 I've read that preperations are underway for at least a partial no fly zone.

Posted by: steevy at August 21, 2013 07:49 PM (9XBK2)

54 Exactly one year ago, to the day, Obama was in a race for re-election,
and his campaign advisers no doubt told him that he had to put on the
guise of a straight-backed, steely-eyed American Commander in Chief who
wouldn't take any guff.

Obama duly did so, and posed as something
he is not and has never been. Just as he has put on so many other
temporary campaign guises (reformer, moderate, technocrat, Christian).
Then, once its purpose as a political device had been served, Obama
sloughed off that particular artificial skin and forgot all about it.


This. Just exactly this.

Posted by: Splunge at August 21, 2013 07:50 PM (bKA83)

55 Not suggesting, just stating. Isolationism is not always safer, and often results in far greater human suffering, that's my theory. I have no proof.

Posted by: Lincolntf at August 21, 2013 07:50 PM (ZshNr)

56 General Steve Urkel.

Posted by: redenzo at August 21, 2013 07:50 PM (vx61Q)

57 What infuriates me about this "We gotta do something! For the children!!!" crowd is damn few of them, if any, have any skin in the game. Their special and unique snowflakes will never see MEPS, OCS, TBS, AIT, etc.


They get to feel all virtuous and the loser offspring off those bitter clingers in flyover country die. So, win-win!

Posted by: butch at August 21, 2013 07:50 PM (EV3Uf)

58
Does Syria have anything we want to take? No? Let's not go.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at August 21, 2013 07:50 PM (uX+Qq)

59 Another rule for potential US military intervention is to do the opposite of whatever John McCain says we should do.

Posted by: Rufus T. Firefly at August 21, 2013 07:50 PM (uxi9i)

60 I'm pretty sure Barack isn't going to 'help' anybody

Posted by: George Obama at August 21, 2013 07:50 PM (Pr6hk)

61
I was gonna rappel down there myself and mow down a few dozen sorry motherfuckers with my ninja throwing stars, but Michelle needed me to help out with planning our next Motown Night at the White House.


So I send a few of those Navy Manatees or whatever you call 'em.


You know--the Corpses.

Posted by: BaRambo Obama at August 21, 2013 07:51 PM (HzhBE)

62 I pretty sure this will be the best course of action for funding OUR presidential library

Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at August 21, 2013 07:51 PM (Pr6hk)

63 I haven't been chary in a good long while. I will endeavor to be so soon.

I'ma gonna work on being froggy.

Posted by: bonhomme at August 21, 2013 07:51 PM (WhJf8)

64 Well, another pro-intervention argument -- more from the liberal side -- is that the world has established a ban on the use of chemical weapons and has to punish any leader who violates that ban.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 07:51 PM (ZPrif)

65 During a game of spayds the President was informed Syrians were gassed.

Posted by: redenzo at August 21, 2013 07:52 PM (vx61Q)

66 The best way to kill Islamism is peace and prosperity. Bore it to death. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 07:43 PM (ZPrif) ************************That's the ticket. After all, prosperous and peaceful Saudi Arabia never produced any terrorists, nor funded them. Oh, wait... That's the opposite of what's going on.The muz in Europe have it better, by far, than they did "back home" and yet they are setting up no-go zones within the cities and raping every European woman they can get their hands on.As a man thinketh, so he is. They think like rapists and murders, because that's what their evil religion tells them is OK. Thus, that is what they are. The only think preventing total bedlam is their cowardice. That's why many of them simply finance or cheer-on the bombers - they lack the balls to blow themselves up.The absence of Islam is the only condition that can lead to lasting peace. Any method required to bring about that condition is justifiable.

Posted by: Reactionary at August 21, 2013 07:52 PM (jfeoD)

67 >>

Actually, they are being slaughtered in droves. To Obama, that's a feature not a bug.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2013 07:52 PM (V4eAG)

68 My good man. Are you froggy?

Posted by: Muad 'dib at August 21, 2013 07:52 PM (PlTXA)

69 You really want to see something 'dirty'? Here's a pic

Posted by: Danger, Carlos Danger - Agent Double O Naught at August 21, 2013 07:53 PM (Pr6hk)

70 Who cares who did it?

Not my concern.


State = probable competency to use chemical weapons elsewhere. Probable diplomatic restraint not to.

Terrorists = probably only resources to detonate locally. No diplomatic restraint not to be divas.

Posted by: Adriane... at August 21, 2013 07:53 PM (/yH2j)

71 >>>Not suggesting, just stating. Isolationism is not always safer, and
often results in far greater human suffering, that's my theory. I have
no proof.

i agree with that. In my post, I put up two conditions for intervention. I did not foreswear it. I said we had better have at least one of these two conditions.

I don't see that in Syria.

I would like assad dead for, having visited lebanon, I thought very well of the country, and I am sick of them being under the yoke of Syria and Iran. I am sick of those two funding hezballah and making a wartorn mess of a country which could be a non-Jewish Israel.

but this is not a good enough reason for the us to intervene in a war in which one side funds terrorists and the other side IS terrorists.


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:53 PM (/IWYB)

72 During a game of spayds the President was informed Syrians were gassed.

They've already spayed Sunny? That poor dog.

Posted by: bonhomme at August 21, 2013 07:53 PM (WhJf8)

73
I want you to go in that bag and find my bike helmet. Which one is it? It's the one that says Bad Motherfucker.

Posted by: BaRambo Obama at August 21, 2013 07:53 PM (HzhBE)

74 President Jones in CO's Middle East policy could be summed up thus:

We stand with Israel. The rest of you can kill each other if you like- but you pop your head up out of your sandbox and we'll blow it off for you.

Posted by: Jones in CO at August 21, 2013 07:53 PM (8sCoq)

75 My quote got eaten by pixy

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2013 07:54 PM (V4eAG)

76
Oh, if we only had some sort of national security agency to intercept the internet communications of the Syrian government to determine what was going on. Read their emails or something.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at August 21, 2013 07:54 PM (kdS6q)

77 You leave me the hell out of this, okay? All I do is haul your lazy, newspaper reading asses from Rockville to Union Station and back. I don't need this shit from you right now.

Posted by: The Red Line at August 21, 2013 07:54 PM (kyAWi)

78 Oh, if we only had some sort of national security agency to intercept the internet communications of the Syrian government to determine what was going on. Read their emails or something.

Privacy H8R!

Posted by: Adriane... at August 21, 2013 07:56 PM (/yH2j)

79 >>>Well, another pro-intervention argument -- more from the liberal side --
is that the world has established a ban on the use of chemical weapons
and has to punish any leader who violates that ban.

chemical weapons are horrible but so are pressure cookers loaded with black powder and ball bearings.

Chemical weapons will kill and injure the same number of civilians as a good sized improvised bomb attack.

there's not a continuum from conventional weapons to chemical to nuclear. Chemical are right down by conventional. they are ugly weapons but every terrorist weapon is ugly. They're not "like" nuclear weapons.

a chemical weapon in the US would wind up killing 40 and injuring 300 or so. Terrible, yes, but not outside of the scope of what some well-placed improvised bombs can do.


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:56 PM (/IWYB)

80 but this is not a good enough reason for the us to intervene in a war in
which one side funds terrorists and the other side IS terrorists.


I'd like to see a purely informational intervention. Do an association web on each group's people. Find the key people on each side and slip the other side intel on how to kill them.

Hopefully that will break their orgs better with less bloodshed.

Posted by: bonhomme at August 21, 2013 07:56 PM (45N4D)

81 So 0bama's red line was actually sort of Hello Kitty Pink

Posted by: Jones in CO at August 21, 2013 07:56 PM (8sCoq)

82 51
Kids make compelling martyrs especially in the Western world. The dirtbags on both sides of the Syrian conflict know that. It's all insanity.

Posted by: Tuna at August 21, 2013 07:56 PM (M/TDA)

83 My nuncucks will decimate their heads with laser precision. And then I'll blast them away with a few shotgun shells from my rifle. And then roll out my 88 millimeter penis to infect them all with the syphilis I got from my pops.

Posted by: The plan at August 21, 2013 07:56 PM (hemD9)

84
Should we pick the third party in the Syrian conflict?

The KURDS.
Offer them a nation-state in Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran.
They will be attacked by all sides just like Israel in 1948, but that would definitely change the face of the the mid-east. And keep the troublemakers at home.

Posted by: rd at August 21, 2013 07:57 PM (D+lxs)

85 Lincolntf @ 55 - Sorry, but non-US children suffering outside the US are not my concern.

Is it in our strategic interest to intervene, or to let them kill as many of each other as possible?

I vote Plan B.

Posted by: butch at August 21, 2013 07:57 PM (EV3Uf)

86 Ace, are you suggesting the USA should have a thoughtful, coherent foreign policy?

That is so old school. To quote the modern view, "That is retarded, sir."

Posted by: USA at August 21, 2013 07:57 PM (VIaw0)

87 >>>I'd like to see a purely informational intervention. Do an association
web on each group's people. Find the key people on each side and slip
the other side intel on how to kill them.

interesting. I don't think I'd agree (it's an intervention) and I don't know if we can (our Intelligence is not) but it's an interesting sci-fi idea on intervention.


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:57 PM (/IWYB)

88 No argument here ace. Except I'm not sure The Lord will be actually meting out justice in the afterlife. If that's case then the barbarous inhumanity of creatures like Hitler, Stalin and lesser monsters like Assad is never truly punished. I get what you're saying. Can't save em all and it's unfair to ask those in uniform to risk their lives for it without an actual self interest at stake. Still pisses me off though.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at August 21, 2013 07:57 PM (dvRYt)

89 We, like Israel, should bomb shit that matters. That would be Iraq's chemical weapons, that never existed, that Syria now has and all their Russian missiles.

Posted by: Billy Bob, Psuedo Intelectual at August 21, 2013 07:58 PM (wR+pz)

90 Obama, Who Won the Nobel Peace Prize, Is Determined to Get the US Into a Dirty War in Syria, For Some Reason —Ace

The Left Wishes to Destroy Society, Period —Ace
Posted by: mindful webworker, I only read the headlines at August 21, 2013 07:42 PM (U13jb)


As good a place as any to start.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at August 21, 2013 07:58 PM (IXrOn)

91 are you suggesting we should have actually fought russia over f***ing Afghanistan, the world's toilet?




Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 07:43 PM (/IWYB)

Before this goes too far, I'd really like to make sure ace knows this is not the True Conservative (TM) position.I agree with the previous speculation that perhaps leaving Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Russians may have worked about better for us. But you only get one shot at history, so who knows.

Posted by: Methos, occasional purity ball buster at August 21, 2013 07:58 PM (hO9ad)

92
Does Syria have anything we want to take? No? Let's not go.
--------------

There is one - and only one - reason to get rid of the Assads. Syria is Iran's pipeline with the outside world, and getting rid of Assad would isolate Iran even further. Most notably, the supply line that Iran uses to send weapons to the various anti-Israeli terrorist groups would be cut (which would also help Lebanon, since that would cripple Hezbollah).

Unfortunately, the AQ-types appear to be dominating the anti-Assad side. So bringing Assad down probably won't improve matters at all. Old boss same as the new boss, and all that.

Posted by: junior at August 21, 2013 07:58 PM (UWFpX)

93 The only thing I'd add to that is if we do bomb someone or something, we bomb the fuck out of it. Relentlessly and unmercifully. No Pussyfoot Bombing.

Posted by: garrett at August 21, 2013 07:59 PM (zqLj2)

94 If it is wrong to intervene(and Ithink it is),Obama will intervene.The guy is wrong pretty much100% of the time.

Posted by: steevy at August 21, 2013 07:59 PM (9XBK2)

95 The only possible American angle I see is that there are secular resistance fighters who are now becoming default jihadis because of Al Queda's intervention. More jihadis aren't in our favor.

Posted by: Lauren at August 21, 2013 07:59 PM (ELdpj)

96 Interesting video at WZ: last year at this time the Affurmatif Axshun Presnit drew the red line in the sand regarding the use of chemical warfare in Syria.

Apparently Assad called his bluff....today...on the anniversary of President Gutsy Call's ultimatum.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at August 21, 2013 08:00 PM (UeUjL)

97 as junior says there is a reason to take out Assad IF we knew we'd get a better tyrant.

we have nothng like that sort of assurance. it's not even 50/50. It's worse. We could get worse. we probably would get worse.


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 08:00 PM (/IWYB)

98 That quote from Drew is not just amoral, but immoral.

I'm not saying we should intervene. But to want more dead kids, etc, is wicked. I don't think Drew is a bad person; he's just a pundit whose view of reality is too abstract.

Posted by: sandy burger at August 21, 2013 08:01 PM (+yb/5)

99 ...and I am sure that the Aspirin Factory Workers of the World agree with you, Ace.

Posted by: garrett at August 21, 2013 08:01 PM (zqLj2)

100 Then I'll drop a few scuds from a Huey, and then I'll shot my 9 sideways and then I'll catch a quick 36 holes at Andrews

Posted by: The plan at August 21, 2013 08:01 PM (hemD9)

101 12 Have you seen the new puppy?

Posted by: Barack Obama at August 21, 2013 07:39 PM (V4eAG)

I have and he's BLACK!

Posted by: Rev Al at August 21, 2013 08:01 PM (wR+pz)

102 I never advocated intervention in Syria. But I don't ever rule it out. We have a right to self-preservation and that sometimes entails, ahem....forward leaning, policies.

Posted by: Lincolntf at August 21, 2013 08:01 PM (ZshNr)

103 "we probably would get worse."

It always gets worse.

Posted by: Lauren at August 21, 2013 08:01 PM (ELdpj)

104 There is an economic collapse coming in the fall.

What better way to distract from it than war?

/btw, totally do not believe gas attack was Assad. sorry.

Posted by: Chaos at August 21, 2013 08:01 PM (25HWz)

105 About a million or so people have been butchered in Africa during the GWOT. Lots of nasty tribal violence, invasions, etc. Note how anxious everybody is to dive into that mess. /s

Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at August 21, 2013 08:02 PM (2oMj2)

106
If Bambi goes with nukes I'm in.


Otherwise, I'm out.

Posted by: Meremortal at August 21, 2013 08:03 PM (1Y+hH)

107 The more dead on both sides, the better.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at August 21, 2013 08:03 PM (lr3d7)

108 I have long believed that people like Obama, what with their enormous intellect and all that, want to create impossible problems just to show they can solve them. And one day, just like the Wright Brothers, they will prove to the world that they are that brilliant. In the meanwhile, we get one mess after another that they blame on someone else, you know, like, this wouldn't be going on right now if Bush hadn't removed Saddam, who was keeping the peace, balance of power, etc etc.

Posted by: Mallfly at August 21, 2013 08:03 PM (bJm7W)

109 So, that whole heavy weapons barely secret program out of Libya went back under the rug, eh?

It's funny how every dark dream of the left about what the right wants to do comes true - only the left does it.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at August 21, 2013 08:03 PM (qyfb5)

110 Operation Orchard


[...]

In July 2007, an explosion occurred in Musalmiya, northern Syria. The official Sana news agency said 15 Syrian military personnel were killed and 50 people were injured. The agency reported only that "very explosive products" blew up after a fire broke out at the facility. The September 26 edition of Jane's Defence Weekly claimed that the explosion happened during tests to weaponise a Scud-C missile with mustard gas.
A senior U.S. official told ABC News that, in early summer 2007, Israel had discovered a suspected Syrian nuclear facility, and that the Mossad then "managed to either co-opt one of the facility's workers or to insert a spy posing as an employee" at the suspected Syrian nuclear site, and through this was able to get pictures of the target from on the ground."[19] Two months before the strike, Israel launched the Ofek-7 spy satellite into space. The satellite was geo-positioned to watch activity at the complex.

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:04 PM (r2PLg)

111 I feel sorry for the christians.Of course Obama is bringing in refugees from Syria,but not christians.

Posted by: steevy at August 21, 2013 08:04 PM (9XBK2)

112 If I remember Afghanistan correctly, the Russians had already pulled out years before we went in. There was no leaving Afghanistan to "their tender mercies." The Russian people had already pushed for a pull-out due to Afghanistan atrocities on Russian soldiers (which they filmed and sent to Russian news outlets).

So when we went in it was because Al Qaeda had moved in and were working with the Taliban. No Russians were there at all.

Posted by: Miss Marple at August 21, 2013 08:04 PM (GoIUi)

113 We have no business interfering in Syria. We do not know who is who, they are all bad. TFG is a blithering idiot!

Posted by: CarolT at August 21, 2013 08:04 PM (z4WKX)

114 Problem is--

The Obama Administration has advertised its lack of commitment and chaos--


Benghazi.

So leave it for the next fellow to clean up.


Or Hillary.....wow--cue Alanis Morisette.

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:06 PM (r2PLg)

115 What is Syria's development level? As in, one of the main arguments as to why Iraq could be successful after the ousting of Saddam was its status as a developed society as opposed to Afghanistan. Does Syria have that sort of development? Would it have the capacity for an Iraq like evolution?

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at August 21, 2013 08:06 PM (dvRYt)

116
The only thing I'd add to that is if we do bomb someone or something, we bomb the fuck out of it. Relentlessly and unmercifully. No Pussyfoot Bombing.Posted by: garrett at August 21, 2013 07:59 PM (zqLj2)


That would be an unfair use of dis-proportionate force

Posted by: The mewling quims of the left at August 21, 2013 08:06 PM (D+lxs)

117 115
As far as I know Syria produces nothing.

Posted by: Tuna at August 21, 2013 08:07 PM (M/TDA)

118 But to want more dead kids, etc, is wicked. I don't think Drew is a bad person; he's just a pundit whose view of reality is too abstract.
Posted by: sandy burger at August 21, 2013 08:01 PM (+yb/5) ****************Absurd. We are in a cultural war with those people, and they would not hesitate to kill all the children in this country. Do you think the muz are ashamed of what happened at Beslan? They donot feel bad about it- they celebrate it. In any case, killing children is not morally different from killing adults in this context. What do you plan to do - adopt them all when their parents are dead? If you really think that way, then I invite you to comment on our method of handling Germany and Japan in WW2. Firebombing torched countless children, and the A-bombs were no more discriminating.This kind of do-gooder attitude is the reason why the world is right to laugh at us. We're fundamentally unserious in this age. We want to coddle our enemies, rather than let them live with the consequences of being our enemy. It's a horrible cultural flaw. It's a major part of why our side bends over and lets the Libtards in this nation rape the US - unwillingness to do the nasty things required to compete.

Posted by: Reactionary at August 21, 2013 08:07 PM (jfeoD)

119 Yeah, our aid to Afhhani "rebels" was measured by the pound back then. Nowadays we ship ( or allow other countries to ship) arms, etc. by the ship load.

Posted by: Lincolntf at August 21, 2013 08:07 PM (ZshNr)

120 Replace the despicable Assad with AQ?

Pass.

Posted by: butch at August 21, 2013 08:07 PM (EV3Uf)

121 Ace, I agree chemical weapons aren't the terror they are made out to be (relative to conventional) but there is an international treaty banning them. One the US has signed.

It's a, somewhat arbitrary, norm the US and the rest of the world have established after the horrors of WW1.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 08:08 PM (ZPrif)

122 I've got an idea....

Posted by: Ripley at August 21, 2013 08:08 PM (Aif/5)

123 "... this wouldn't be going on right now if Bush hadn't removed Saddam, who was keeping the peace, balance of power, etc etc."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is quite possibly one of the stupidest remarks I have heard lately.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at August 21, 2013 08:08 PM (UeUjL)

124 I'm actually just sort of assuming that Obama's all hot and heavy to get into Syria. I didn't read AllahPundit's piece. I've been in the comments.


You say that as if anyone actually reads Allah.

Posted by: CoolCzech at August 21, 2013 08:09 PM (niZvt)

125 "...chemical weapons aren't the terror they are made out to be..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And that is equally ridiculous...

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at August 21, 2013 08:10 PM (UeUjL)

126 >You say that as if anyone actually reads Allah.

Posted by: CoolCzech at August 21, 2013 08:09 PM (niZvt)

i won't read anything called 'allahpundit'

Posted by: Jones in CO at August 21, 2013 08:11 PM (8sCoq)

127 I'm hoping Maet has a mindless ONT lined up.

Posted by: L, elle at August 21, 2013 08:12 PM (0PiQ4)

128 Again, I'm not jonesing for an intervention. Just mulling over possible legitimate reasons to support one.

On the whole I'd rather have Assad than the jihadis so, for now, I'm against it.

I wouldn't mind if we used this chaos to destroy Assad's forces in lebanon, though. Cause I've known a lot of Christian lebanese refugees.

I actually wish we could partition Lebanon and one part could become a Christian Israel and refuge for all the Christians in the mideast being murdered and cleansed.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 08:12 PM (ZPrif)

129 I don't read Ace, there's no way I'm reading allahpundit.

Posted by: garrett at August 21, 2013 08:12 PM (zqLj2)

130 Though I'm not willing to use US military to do that. More a magic-genie type wish.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 08:13 PM (ZPrif)

131 What a mess that region is. Just an effing mess with no relief in sight. Too bad Israel can't raise a force field around itself and let the rest of them battle it out.

Posted by: Tuna at August 21, 2013 08:13 PM (M/TDA)

132 Reactionary:
>>> We are in a cultural war with those people

I largely agree. But do you advocate genocide? If not, why not?

We shouldn't root for murder.

Posted by: sandy burger at August 21, 2013 08:13 PM (+yb/5)

133 About a million or so people have been butchered in
Africa during the GWOT. Lots of nasty tribal violence, invasions, etc.
Note how anxious everybody is to dive into that mess. /s


Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at August 21, 2013 08:02 PM (2oMj2)

Same amount of interest anyone has in pacifying Chicago.

Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2013 08:14 PM (hO9ad)

134 I think Obama literally does support the jihadis.
Many libs believe if the jihadis are put in charge that will force them to moderate.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at August 21, 2013 08:14 PM (ZPrif)

135 How about I got a new puppy bombing? And the middle class.

Posted by: Barack Obama. And the middle class. at August 21, 2013 08:14 PM (9yRqg)

136
Posted by: butch at August 21, 2013 07:50 PM (EV3Uf)

Anecdote about the perceived "dumbness" of our troops. I had the occasion to have lunch today with some OCS students who are getting ready to graduate. One of them had some specifics about my field, as that's where he wound up with a paragraph and line number. He asked me about related civilian opportunities. I asked him what his degree was in, as that would drive what segment of the field that would be open to him.The guy has three Bachelor's: Philosophy, Business Management, and Accounting. He's also wearing a 2ID combat patch and CIB. So he got those three degrees either before or while serving as an enlisted infantry grunt.

Posted by: Big Jim Slade! And the capitol of Nebraska is Lincoln at August 21, 2013 08:14 PM (T1R3G)

137 >What a mess that region is. Just an effing mess with no relief in sight.


such a cruel trick of geography that an ocean of petrochemical wealth be located underneath the worst people in the world

Posted by: Jones in CO at August 21, 2013 08:15 PM (8sCoq)

138 If it is wrong to intervene(and Ithink it is),Obama will intervene.The guy is wrong pretty much100% of the time.
Posted by: steevy at August 21, 2013 07:59 PM (9XBK2)



This is the scariest part.

We are a leader-less country.

I've never felt so naked when it comes to national security.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at August 21, 2013 08:15 PM (IXrOn)

139
There is a significant chance US intervention will escalate and not end the conflict. Everyone has trouble with no-good-option choices. So usually we pretend there are freedom fighters in a jihadi clusterfark and plow in with no entry, war, or exit strategy.

Fingers crossed.

Posted by: Beagle at August 21, 2013 08:15 PM (sOtz/)

140 But proxy war with the Russians is so 1960s.

Posted by: kartoffel at August 21, 2013 08:16 PM (5oLb/)

141 Didn't Hillary laud Assad as a Progressive Reformer a couple of years back?

Posted by: garrett at August 21, 2013 08:17 PM (zqLj2)

142
Egypt - we backed the Islamists

Libya - we backed the Islamists

Iran - we did nothing to help the secular protestors, which helped the Islamists who were already in power

Turkey - we did nothing to help the secular protestors, which helped the Islamists in power

Syria - no good guys here at all, but when in doubt, support the Islamists


don't you get it?

Posted by: thunderb at August 21, 2013 08:18 PM (zOTsN)

143 >If it is wrong to intervene(and Ithink it is),Obama will intervene.The guy is wrong pretty much100% of the time.

Posted by: steevy at August 21, 2013 07:59 PM (9XBK2)


agreed- whatever policy will have the worst possible outcome is President Zipperhead's go-to move

Posted by: Jones in CO at August 21, 2013 08:18 PM (8sCoq)

144 133
About a million or so people have been butchered in

Africa during the GWOT. Lots of nasty tribal violence, invasions, etc.

Note how anxious everybody is to dive into that mess. /s




Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at August 21, 2013 08:02 PM (2oMj2)

Same amount of interest anyone has in pacifying Chicago.


Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2013 08:14 PM (hO9ad)

--Remember, Obama has authorized some military intervention against the Lord's Resistance Army and that "KONY" fellow in central Africa. It's not as if there's no U.S. footprint there.

Posted by: logprof at August 21, 2013 08:19 PM (bufJH)

145 >This is the scariest part.



We are a leader-less country.





what about President Valerie?

Posted by: Jones in CO at August 21, 2013 08:19 PM (8sCoq)

146 #142 I get it, thunderb, and I would almost be willing to predict our actions in any hot spot, based on those past choices.

Posted by: Miss Marple at August 21, 2013 08:19 PM (GoIUi)

147 Dempsey is probably pivotal.

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:20 PM (r2PLg)

148 what about President Valerie?

Posted by: Jones in CO at August 21, 2013 08:19 PM (8sCoq)


Do they sell Prozac OTC now?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at August 21, 2013 08:20 PM (qyfb5)

149

Advanced civilization is bringing about its own demise.

We are too civilized to destroy an enemypossessing a mass consciousness 1000 years behind the rest of the world.


Which means many will die before we begin to actually fight.


Civilization may slide back into a dark age as a result.


There's your happy thought for the day!

Posted by: Meremortal at August 21, 2013 08:21 PM (1Y+hH)

150 This is one of those situations where our overwheening lust for power doesn't really provide any guidelines to direct our actions.

Mark this: Whether Obama bombs Syria will be decided entirely based on how much of a p#ssy he looks like if he doesn't. We'll do some polls and stuff. Don't worry, we've got this covered.

Posted by: The Left at August 21, 2013 08:21 PM (Fr15L)

151 --Remember, Obama has authorized some military intervention against the
Lord's Resistance Army and that "KONY" fellow in central Africa. It's
not as if there's no U.S. footprint there.


Not something I was aware of.

Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2013 08:22 PM (hO9ad)

152 137
>What a mess that region is. Just an effing mess with no relief in sight.


such a cruel trick of geography that an ocean of petrochemical wealth be located underneath the worst people in the world


Posted by: Jones in CO at August 21, 2013 08:15 PM (8sCoq)

--Originally those people were on jack shit until the Pedo-Prophet unleashed them.

Posted by: logprof at August 21, 2013 08:22 PM (bufJH)

153 Civilization may slide back into a dark age as a result.


There's your happy thought for the day!
---

Your 'may' is more optimistic than I've been in years.

Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2013 08:23 PM (hO9ad)

154 151
--Remember, Obama has authorized some military intervention against the

Lord's Resistance Army and that "KONY" fellow in central Africa. It's

not as if there's no U.S. footprint there.

Not something I was aware of.


Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2013 08:22 PM (hO9ad)

Good. We've been doing our job.

Posted by: The MBM at August 21, 2013 08:23 PM (bufJH)

155
Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2013 08:23 PM (hO9ad)


Baby steps, Methos, baby steps. I know there is little time, but as you know we are fighting a most insidious enemy on many fronts.

Posted by: Meremortal at August 21, 2013 08:25 PM (1Y+hH)

156 151 --Remember, Obama has authorized some military intervention against the
Lord's Resistance Army and that "KONY" fellow in central Africa. It's
not as if there's no U.S. footprint there.

Not something I was aware of.
Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2013 08:22 PM (hO9ad)

***********

At the heart of the Stop Kony campaign is a clear message: if a critical mass of people does not stand together to make Joseph Kony "famous", then the United States will lose interest in providing the Ugandan government with military advisers and Joseph Kony – a man accused of unspeakable crimes against children – will never be held accountable.

That fear has led to a 27-minute video – detailing the horrors experienced by children the west rarely thinks about – going massively viral. While the video was first posted Friday, it didn't take off until Monday. The call to action has now been viewed at 70m times and counting.

The thing is, the prospect of the US military pulling out of central Africa any time soon appears unlikely.

On Friday morning, a spokesperson from the state department said there are no plans to pull US military personnel out the region where Kony and his forces have done so much damage.


The Guardian.

I think the Aussies also might be in there for some reason?

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:26 PM (r2PLg)

157 That only gets you to 2012 however.

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:26 PM (r2PLg)

158 Approximately 100 combat-equipped troops culled from US special operations forces were sent to central Africa in October of last year. President Obama, in a letter to Congress, wrote that the deployment was "in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States."

The administration pointed to the 2010 passage of the "Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act" as justification for US efforts in the region. The legislation favors "increased, comprehensive US efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability."

After 9/11, the US designated Kony's LRA forces a terrorist group.

Still, human rights workers specializing in central Africa have long expressed concerns that United States' mission in the region is ill-defined, particularly with respect how and when it will end.

On Wednesday, Maria Burnett, a senior researcher with the Africa division of Human Rights Watch said: "I have some concerns about what the US longer term plans are and what kind of exit strategy they may or may not have."

US military interest in central Africa, much like US military interests in various areas around the world, is multi-faceted. Uganda, for example, has played an increasingly central role in US counter-terrorism efforts, particularly in the United States' attempts to destroy the Somali militant group Al Shabab. In June of last year, the Pentagon approved plans to send $45m worth of military equipment to Uganda and Burundi.


********

100...

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:30 PM (r2PLg)

159 The first question any politician should ask before going any further toward armed conflict is "What are our national interests in this matter." Something that was taught in junior high school and forgotten by most every modern politician I can think of.

Posted by: Bill R. at August 21, 2013 08:30 PM (KZZzQ)

160 We really must consult with the UN. And the French. I'd bet there are dozens of resolutions that will clarify the world's duties, obligations, and responsibilities.

Posted by: Fritz at August 21, 2013 08:31 PM (C1d5Z)

161 Looks like UN is calling Bull Shit on this "gas attack".

Posted by: Billy Bob, Psuedo Intelectual at August 21, 2013 08:31 PM (wR+pz)

162 Thank you, thank you, thank you Ace for bringing up the "what does this have to do with us?" question. No one is willing to ask that anymore, yet it should be the most important one.

Posted by: Thorrison at August 21, 2013 08:33 PM (GdUWB)

163
@150 The Left
Go to back al Qaeda and Salafi mujahideen, but stay for the beautiful ocean vistas and Crusader castles. Would make a nice BB.


But don't. Really. This could get a lot worse without some honest thinking and planning. Obama has shown no capability or interest in honesty, thinking, or planning.

Posted by: Beagle at August 21, 2013 08:34 PM (sOtz/)

164 So why doesn't he get his BFF's at the UN together and pass one of their bullshit resolutions for cover to invade, like Bush did? Remember how vitally important that was way back then to legitimize the use of force in Iraq? The JEF isn't even bothering.

Nothing good will come from any of this, and no matter what happens, we'll get blamed.
Reset, baby!

Posted by: Leonard-Pinth Garnell at August 21, 2013 08:36 PM (PtuJp)

165 Looks like UN is calling Bull Shit on this "gas attack".

Another fine cinematic production brought to you by Paliwood?

Posted by: Purp at August 21, 2013 08:37 PM (VZSHr)

166 U.N. diplomats, however, said Russia and China opposed language containing an explicit call for a U.N. probe. An earlier Western-drafted statement, seen by Reuters, would have asked the United Nations to "urgently take the steps necessary for today's attack to be investigated by the U.N. mission."

That proposed statement was diluted to accommodate Russian and Chinese objections, council diplomats told Reuters.

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:38 PM (r2PLg)

167 >>>Ace, I agree chemical weapons aren't the terror they are made out to be
(relative to conventional) but there is an international treaty banning
them. One the US has signed.

our treaty says they are "banned," whatever that means, and we promise we won't use them.

That doesn't obligate us to run around the world bombing people who use them.

Now, we'd have the RIGHT to do that. But do we want to?

What does this get us? Those weapons are easily made. It's not like we're actually going to rid the world of them.


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 08:39 PM (/IWYB)

168 http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-stops-short-demanding-syria-chemical-attack-220717554.html

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:40 PM (r2PLg)

169 167 >>>Ace, I agree chemical weapons aren't the terror they are made out to be
(relative to conventional) but there is an international treaty banning
them. One the US has signed.

our treaty says they are "banned," whatever that means, and we promise we won't use them.

That doesn't obligate us to run around the world bombing people who use them.

Now, we'd have the RIGHT to do that. But do we want to?

What does this get us? Those weapons are easily made. It's not like we're actually going to rid the world of them.


Posted by: ace at August 21, 2013 08:39 PM (/IWYB)


*****************

Did you see up thread....


Awhile back the fuckers were trying to arm a scud missile with mustard gas.

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:41 PM (r2PLg)

170 It's in that Operation Orchard blurb.

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:42 PM (r2PLg)

171 And reported by Jane's.

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:42 PM (r2PLg)

172 When there's a guy inyour neighborhood who spends all day screaming that he's going to kill you, and all night making bombs to do just that, how long do you think you'll survive?

Posted by: Lincolntf at August 21, 2013 08:42 PM (ZshNr)

173 our treaty says they are "banned," whatever that means, and we promise we won't use them.

What it means is that when someone uses them on us, if we happen to capture them, we have grounds for prosecution.

Note that I remain not in favor of capturing enemies unless there's a good excuse.

Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2013 08:46 PM (hO9ad)

174 First question: Who do we bomb?

We're not running low on bombs, are we?

Posted by: dissent555 at August 21, 2013 08:52 PM (yR6A1)

175 I think our bombs have "use by" dates ... hate to see them spoil ...

Posted by: JeffC at August 21, 2013 09:01 PM (dtOe6)

176 Banned?

Posted by: Dept. Of Acuracy at August 21, 2013 09:19 PM (MhA4j)

177 ?

Posted by: Dept. Of Acuracy at August 21, 2013 09:20 PM (MhA4j)

178 The U.S.of A. should immediately incinerate every chem/bio site in Syria. This is easy to do with modern (non-nuclear) precision weapons and expensive bombing airplanes.

Will this act eliminate/prevent future chem/bio weapon use?

no.

Will it discourage them?

yes.

Get on it Mr. President.

p.s. and bomb the Syrian Presidential palace on the way home, just for the lulz.

Posted by: rammer at August 21, 2013 09:53 PM (+GfSF)

179 Jesus Ace sometimes you sound like a combination of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul; in other words, very retarded.

Inaction in Rwanda led to inaction in Sudan; not punishing Assad for using WMD will lead to not punishing _____ in the future for using WMD. Have we decided it's time to jettison a huge part of the moral justification for the post-WW2 international system and say hey it's okay to use WMD as long as you don't use them against us? What parts of liberal internationalism are we going to shuck out the window next?

Maybe the world will be better off if we go back to a pre-WW1 international framework, probably not though.

Posted by: chaos at August 21, 2013 09:55 PM (kvwrw)

180
There are many situations in foreign policy where the old saying, "we don't have a dog in the fight," is the best policy. In Syria and Egypt we don't have dogs in the fights. If you don't like what the Sisi regime is doing, fine. Do you want to empower the Muslim Brotherhood to burn more Coptic Christian churches? In Syria if you don't like what Assad is doing, do you really want to empower al Qaeda? In Libya... in Afghanistan.... in Pakistan... etc., etc., etc.

No. Dog. In. The. Fight.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at August 21, 2013 10:11 PM (nov+8)

181 The reason the jef will intervene in Syria is the same reason he intervened in libya and the same reason he did not intervene in Iran.... he wants a radical Islamic theocracy across all the middle east... can you say caliphate

Posted by: ET at August 21, 2013 10:20 PM (YpjaN)

182 As long as there is some doubt that this is real. And as long as there is some doubt about who is responsible if it is -- Assad et al or Syria Rebel AQ -- I think we should send in an advance team trained on the streets of Chicago.

Posted by: gracepmc at August 21, 2013 10:29 PM (rznx3)

183 Who do we bomb?

Both, Satan will know his own

Posted by: Jean at August 21, 2013 10:48 PM (CMlD4)

184 hussein is a worthless pos.

Posted by: Titanium at August 21, 2013 11:28 PM (zHWyo)

185

"First question: Who do we bomb?

We could make a case either way.

And that means we probably shouldn't do it."
How about we make the case both ways? Bomb 'em all and then take their shit? Wait, do they have anything besides sand? Like oil?
Of course we're about the only people in the world who don't do things like that or even want to do things like that. But I'm just saying - there are theoretically other questions besides Ace's.

Posted by: csmats at August 22, 2013 01:03 AM (9yxBr)

186 Whom. "Whom do we bomb?" Whom.

Posted by: For Who the Troll Feeds at August 22, 2013 08:15 AM (Y05RT)

187 Speaking as a goddam rightwing Prussian maniac who still thinks our military strength is defined by our overall population and economy and not the budget-- yeah, stay out of Syria.

We have a clearer mission against the Taliban in Afghanistan than we do against "the bad guys" in Syria. Suppose the army shoots Assad-- war over? Or Assad turns the gas generals over to the Hague-- war over? Or we topple Assad and disband his army, and Hezbollah starts burning Druses and Orthodox Christian villages--war over?

We have a clearer national interest in stomping the Taliban, what shielded and succored the guys who bombed on New York City, than we do in demanding somebody stop killing Syrians in a forbidden manner.

Morally, I have a problem saying we'll march into Syria as its protectors, and then, not protect them out of weakness, and bail because nobody protects us. I'm old-fashioned.

And while I totally disagree that our military power is maxed out, it's clear whatever we got would be divided between Afghanistan and Syria, and not multiplied to achieve the missions. Since they're not equally important I'm going to call for the absence of a Syrian mission and more commitment to Afghanistan.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at August 22, 2013 09:11 AM (ng/SK)

188
Eh, I wouldn't go that far -- I don't think we need to "keep it going." I don't know that we need to do anything at all.

I would. This is precisely the strategy I've been advocating from the start. Let the Russians, Assad, Hezbollah, the Iranians, and al Queda and their fellow travelers get bogged down in a hot shooting quagmire. Make them expend both treasure and blood to protect their interests, such as they are.

And if needed, make sure that the rebel factions do not get rolled over by Assad by providing them with sufficient arms to be able to resist, but not sufficient arms that they will be able to remove Assad.

In the mean time, there will be dead al Quedans, Assad loyalists, Hezbollahians, other rebels and with a little luck, Rooskies and Iranians. And lots of them. And while they're busy killing each other, they won't have the time to plan new ways to kill us.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at August 22, 2013 09:40 AM (1hM1d)

189 100...

Posted by: tasker at August 21, 2013 08:30 PM (r2PLg)

And what was the initial count of 'advisors' sent to Vietnam?

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, The Colossus of Independence at August 22, 2013 10:00 AM (fwARV)

190 Posted by: Washington Nearsider, The Colossus of Independence at August 22, 2013 10:00 AM (fwARV)

Note: I am not correlating Kony and Vietnam. I'm merely pointing out that our footprint can start incredibly small, only to balloon later. It is not always necessary to land 10,000 troops at once to have a large presence.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, The Colossus of Independence at August 22, 2013 10:01 AM (fwARV)

191 Dealing with the Middle East is kind of like managing the nation's forests: You need to let them burn down every once in a while. If you keep putting the fires out, it just makes the next one worse.

Posted by: jd at August 22, 2013 10:36 AM (MXyBs)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0946 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0725 seconds, 200 records returned.
Page size 112 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat