85% of Rightish Bloggers Say NO to war with Syria
I was one of those polled so I can't say I'm surprised.But I would like to know who the 7 bloggers who say yes to going to war with Syria are? And the 11 who say that we should go to war with Syria if they had proof the regime was behind the chemical weapons attack. What's the rationale? I hate Assad more than most and while I would be the last one to shed a tear should a large crowd introduce him to a noose, I just don't see what comes after that as much better than the status quo.
Posted by: Vyx at September 05, 2013 11:20 AM
Let them kill each other.
Posted by: obsidian at September 05, 2013 12:29 PM
Posted by: Abrog8 at September 05, 2013 12:33 PM
Posted by: Abrog8 at September 05, 2013 12:37 PM
Posted by: occam at September 05, 2013 01:04 PM
Aren't you aware that the proposed strikes are not directed to getting rid of those weapons? They are supposedly directed to generally degrading Assad's capacity.
Posted by: Valerie at September 05, 2013 01:36 PM
Posted by: Bubbe at September 05, 2013 01:39 PM
Posted by: occam at September 05, 2013 01:40 PM
Posted by: Birbal Dhar at September 05, 2013 02:15 PM
Posted by: Notyuyayahoo at September 05, 2013 02:25 PM
Posted by: Monty at September 05, 2013 03:11 PM
I'd say 15% is about right. That would mean that 85% are opposed, or that we have a consensus. Here, I believe, is one of the likely 15%.
I would summarize his position as being "we have a responsibility, regardless of who is President." I consider that position to be ethically and morally sound.
I disagree with him because I do not see any positive outcome to an intervention absent an enormous commitment of our nation's blood and treasure to a nation-building exercise. This administration has shown itself incapable of making such a commitment, and has also shown itself to be careless of our country's blood and treasure.
Posted by: Valerie at September 05, 2013 03:15 PM
If Canada threatens America with chemical weapons is Israel going to send it's navy and fire missiles at them?
Posted by: Sal at September 05, 2013 07:56 PM
We're on our own. Look for the Russians to bring in air defense systems to pay us back for Afghanistan.
All this bullshit about no boots on the ground is nothing but bullshit. How is it that all our ships waiting offshore have their decks loaded with Marines? They are already estimating that it will take 75,000 troops to complete their plans.
Meanwhile the airheads say
"Aren't you aware that the proposed strikes are not directed to getting rid of those weapons? They are supposedly directed to generally degrading Assad's capacity."
Posted by: Guest at September 05, 2013 11:20 PM
With Russia supplying and manning air defense systems who says we will be successful anyway.
Obama either backs down or Putin is going to make a monkey out of the United States.
It's a lose, lose situation. But what the hell. Perhaps if we look like monkeys we'll learn to mind our own business and not be influenced by what happens in the middle east.
Drill, drill, drill and save American lives.
Posted by: saneman at September 05, 2013 11:26 PM
There is the regular deployment of the Kearsarge Amphib ready group. There is an MEU in the med. on a regular rotation it carries most likely a re-enforced Rifle Bn W/assests I bet the MEU has only four to six Tanks.
Every ship most likely is on a regular med. deployment those who are not are Home based in Ports across the Med. and in Rota Spain.
Decks loaded with Marines, TOE is most likely 2000 men/women, that's not loading the decks.
At 75,000 Troops you are discussing what is known as a Field Army not Marines.
Moving that many troops would be quite noticeable.
Posted by: obsidian at September 06, 2013 10:30 AM
Posted by: Guest at September 07, 2013 04:23 AM
Posted by: gilbert at September 10, 2013 03:08 AM
Posted by: gilbert at September 10, 2013 03:11 AM
Posted by: gilbert at September 10, 2013 03:12 AM
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0056 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0031 seconds, 28 records returned.
Page size 14 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.