Once More Unto the Breach

The problem with drawing a red line, as any parents knows, is that when it’s crossed you have to either act or lose your credibility. Looks like the Obama Administration is deciding to act:

Few question that there was a major chemical attack in Syria last week, and the United States has made clear that it blames the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Now, the question is how President Barack Obama will respond.
For almost two years, Obama has avoided direct military involvement in Syria’s civil war, only escalating aid to rebel fighters in June after suspected smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks by Syrian government forces.

However, last week’s attack on a Damascus suburb that reportedly killed and wounded more than 3,000 people obliterated the “red line” Obama set just over a year ago against the use of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks.

The Administration, through John Kerry, has indicated they will act. They’re not going to send in soldiers or establish a no-fly zone, which is wise. Most likely we are looking at a cruise missile strike and air strike on al-Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles and facilities. This is unlikely to happen right away. China and Russia are backing al-Assad, a coalition needs to be put together and — I know I sound like a nut when I say this — Congress should, you know, approve any act of war. But my gut feeling is that Obama, like most Presidents, will respond to being stymied on domestic matters by acting on international ones.

In principle, I don’t oppose destroying Syria’s chemical weapons. No matter who wins the Syrian civil war, it is possible that those weapons will fall into very bad hands. There’s some talk of attacking Assad’s conventional forces and “sending a message”. Either would be a waste. The opposition to al-Assad is not composed of nobel democratically-minded reformers but includes hard-core Islamists. No matter who wins, we lose. Our only interest is in making sure the chemical weapons aren’t used for nefarious purposes.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    Short of nuking Syria, he’ll never have any credibility.

    He’s in the Carter zone, trying to pull off a daring helicopter rescue to show everyone what a man he is. Problem is that everyone’s already figured out he doesn’t have any balls.

    Thumb up 2

  2. Section8

    We need to stay out period. If we need to be involved, at most call for UN action but abstain on any vote. Other countries can form a coalition with their forces. Of course it will all fall flat with Russia and China vetoing pretty much everything, but it’s not our problem and should not become our problem. None of this should be a concern, chemical weapons or not.

    Thumb up 11

  3. Mississippi Yankee

    I have to wonder exactly whose chemical weapons these were and by whose orders they were used. Did Putin give Assad the green light to deploy them with the full knowledge that Obama has turned America into a toothless scold. Or did the Muslim Brotherhood, aka rebels, gas their own people in order to gin up support for their brand of tyranny? And I don’t even want to think about how this could be just another manufactured distraction to avert the attention away from the myriad of domestic scandals that are brewing here in the homeland.

    The only thing I’m sure of is that our old Jewish uncle Benjamin is following this very closely. And he knows that this ass-clown in the WH will not cross Putin. Evah!
    OTOH uncle Benjamin has dropped a few bombs on Syria’s chemical plants and depots. Oh and David Cameron and the rest of the EU whores… useless as a soft dick as usual.

    Thumb up 7

  4. Hal_10000 *

    MY, I don’t think its any accident that this use of chemical weapons came on the anniversary of the day Obama set the red line. They’re calling his bluff.

    Thumb up 7

  5. stogy

    We need to stay out period. If we need to be involved, at most call for UN action but abstain on any vote. Other countries can form a coalition with their forces.

    Remember that if the it spreads, the conflict may well destabilize the many US allies (Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia among others) in the region, cause problems for states already struggling with conflicts of their own (Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now Egypt), allow Iran to assert greater regional dominance, as well as posing huge security problems for Israel. As the major oil producing region, a regional conflict will have a huge impact on global prices and stability…

    And you think staying out of it is an option?

    Thumb up 1

  6. Section8

    And you think staying out of it is an option?

    Without a doubt. If this is of concern to the world there are over 190 other countries in the UN. That’s plenty of other hands that can deal with it. All our involvement will do is serve to give the usual suspects, such as yourself, a nice spin that either we were the reason for it escalating out of control in the first place, or how we manipulated the UN, have some self centered motive, or whatever bullshit story will be the propaganda buzz of the day. If it’s that serious there are plenty of others that can step up. If it’s that serious, people can gather together to protest those countries standing in the way of any action. I’d prefer to sit back an accuse anyone intervening in the name of “stability” that it’s all for oil as you have already used as a potential reason. Not interested in your war thanks though.

    Thumb up 6

  7. Mississippi Yankee

    MY, I don’t think its any accident that this use of chemical weapons came on the anniversary of the day Obama set the red line. They’re calling his bluff.

    And the anniversary of 9-11 just two weeks away…
    “May you live in interesting times”

    Thumb up 3

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    , the conflict may well destabilize the many US allies (Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia among others) in the region, cause problems for states already struggling with conflicts of their own (Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now Egypt), allow Iran to assert greater regional dominance, as well as posing huge security problems for Israel. As the major oil producing region, a regional conflict will have a huge impact on global prices and stability…

    stogy, unbeknownst to you you’ve hit it right on the head. Your predicted scenario is the feature not the flaw.

    Ether the world will end up with a Caliphate encompassing the ME or a whole New World Order, probably by the end of the year, isn’t the point. It’s the massive power shift that we should all be watching.

    Thumb up 2

  9. stogy

    Not interested in your war thanks though.

    Then why should other countries continue to be US allies? By and large, they have supported US interests (particularly when those interests are aligned with their own, but at other times as well), but looking like the US will simply let them go under is not conducive at all to US interests or security.

    Ether the world will end up with a Caliphate encompassing the ME or a whole New World Order,

    It’s much more likely that there will be some breakup of countries and a redrawing of borders based on sectarian/ethnic/linguistic lines. Whether this will mean cross-border mergers into new states and what will come after that, I don’t know, but if it’s violent (and my feeling is that it will be), I doubt the new states will be democratic. There will also be refugees in the tens of millions (like what happened in India-Pakistan after partition in ’48).

    Do I want to see the US sending military forces into Syria? No. But at the same time, more needs to be done to ensure that the conflict doesn’t spread and that the eventual winner/s in Syria commit to international standards of governance and behavior (i.e. you can’t execute all the Allawites) .

    Thumb up 0

  10. Section8

    Then why should other countries continue to be US allies?

    I’m all for abandoning NATO. I’ve stated it many times before. As far as this conflict, stop with the bullshit and quit being a dick and playing games.

    As far as allies, there is a difference in being an ally and the neighbor down the street that everyone thinks is an asshole until they need something from him. Keep in mind we’ve sacrificed a shitload of lives and treasure over the decades only to have it discounted to zero benefit, or rewritten to down right evil intentions to expand our imperialism. Much of that narrative coming straight from our “allies”. Getting involved in this can just as easily be written that way, and perhaps it should of other countries who jump in, say Europe or whomever. Keep in mind no one gave a shit about the first 100,000 Syrians killed in this thing. Now that it’s on TV more it’s “we need to do something!” Please.

    Also, are the rest of the nations of the world comprised of a bunch of invalids? Are these nations of the world in such a dilapidated state that not even a group can get together and resolve this without the asshole American cowboy getting involved? Wow and you guys think we’re pathetic. Also, no action should be done without full UN approval, so maybe go to a Russian or Chinese blog and sell your shit there.

    Thumb up 9

  11. TxAg94

    Am I the only one who finds it odd that this is all happening at just the right time to distract from Obama’s domestic problems? Obamacare, failing economic recovery, scandals up the ass…

    Getting involved in a civil war would not in any way be supported by his base…except for those icky chemical weapons. Funny, when Bush cited them as an excuse he was grilled for proof, as he should have been. No one seems to question it now. It all just seems so damned convenient to me. Maybe it’s just hypersensitivity from all the bullshit the administration has been feeding us for years now. So many crackpot, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories have been proven real that I don’t know where the border of Crazytown is anymore.

    Oh, and I find it odd, too, that Billary bailed on State just before the administration started angling in this shit show. Did she know it was coming and was too risky for her 2016 plans?

    Thumb up 7

  12. stogy

    Keep in mind no one gave a shit about the first 100,000 Syrians killed in this thing.

    I gave a shit. As far back as two years ago, I was sending messages to the Lebanese government calling on them to respect international laws on asylum seeking and to stop sending defecting soldiers back to Syria. I did this in partnership with an Arabic-speaking group of bloggers. I have no way of knowing whether we had an effect, but they did actually stop – at least at the time. So yeah, I’m still involved, and not just here.

    Keep in mind we’ve sacrificed a shitload of lives and treasure over the decades only to have it discounted to zero benefit, or rewritten to down right evil intentions to expand our imperialism.

    Whether you agree with it or not, US foreign policy has done a lot to protect US interests – state, individual and business. A stable Europe has improved global trade and investment. Of course, there are pretty good arguments that 76,000 US servicemen and women are no longer needed in Europe. But the US is just as much the asshole neigbor down the street that suddenly everyone wants something from, as he is the unelected chief of police that benefits from the free donuts and coffee that his position brings. But if he follows your course, as soon as the shit hits the fan, the guy locks the door and pulls the shades.

    I think that the US will become more involved in Syria because it is in US interests to do so. My personal view is that without intervention, the Assad regime is likely to win in Syria, but this won’t mean the end of the conflict, and parts of the country are going to try to break away (particularly the north east).

    Hot! Thumb up 2

  13. stogy

    Funny, when Bush cited them as an excuse he was grilled for proof, as he should have been.

    I don’t think proof is such a big issue this time around. Already plenty of it.

    Thumb up 2

  14. Section8

    as he is the unelected chief of police that benefits from the free donuts and coffee that his position brings.

    Well it’s not much of a benefit to us providing all this military welfare in this day and age, and believe me I’ve written my share of letters to Congress. Anyhow, you still didn’t respond on other countries resolving this. Are they just not capable? Even with their diplomatic and intellectual prowess, it still comes down to us dumb rednecks? Seriously? Just curious about the free donuts given the mass amounts of money poured into this shit, which folks like you bitch about until you need it for your own interests. And if we’re unelected then this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate this by NOT asking for our assistance. Also, any country can close our bases and ask us to leave at any time. The people of the Philippines asked us to leave, and guess what we didn’t even slaughter them on the way out. How weird isn’t it? Latest polls are showing we the people here have very little interest in getting involved. Plenty of other countries you can sell your shit to. France, Germany, don’t forget to chastise Russia and China. Anyhow, take care.

    Thumb up 6

  15. TxAg94

    I don’t think proof is such a big issue this time around. Already plenty of it.

    I’m not disputing you because i have to admit I haven’t been watching it all very intently. That being said, the “proof” I’ve seen photos of looked like acetylene and oxygen bottles and such. Seems like I saw some small munitions of some sort, too. Other than that, I’ve seen a lot of various headlines but would be skeptical of the sources. What I have seen is both sides pointing a lot of fingers at each other. Again, not saying I haven’t missed it but I also haven’t seen a smoking gun, so to speak, plastered on the news.

    Thumb up 5

  16. stogy

    Anyhow, you still didn’t respond on other countries resolving this. Are they just not capable? Even with their diplomatic and intellectual prowess, it still comes down to us dumb rednecks? Seriously?

    A military solution may not be what’s required. And actually, I hope it isn’t. I don’t claim to have any answers. Certainly bombing chemical weapons dumps is a very bad idea. But what you are suggesting – let them have at it until one side or another wins regardless of the effects on surrounding countries – not good either.

    But if there has to be a military solution, other Arab countries getting involved will almost certainly spark a wider war (Saudi Arabia vs Iran in particular). China and Russia support Asad regardless of what he does (China in principles supports the right of governments to murder their own people, although they call it non-interference). Apart from the US, only NATO has the necessary power and nearby infrastructure, and action would probably come through them anyway (given the US domestic opposition, as you point out). But NATO would mean some level of US involvement, as it did in Libya.

    I think it would be really bad for the Obama to head into some kind of action without Congressional approval. He’s already done way too much of this.

    Just of interest, and I know it’s just speculation, what do you think a Republican administration would do at this point? (And yeah, the left would vilify them no matter what they did – not necessary to point it out).

    Just curious about the free donuts given the mass amounts of money poured into this shit, which folks like you bitch about until you need it for your own interests.

    The US is still the number one global power. With that comes both many benefits and drawbacks. Just have to suck it up.

    Thumb up 0

  17. AlexInCT

    I’m all for abandoning NATO.

    Word, man. NATO right now is a bad investment for the US. We pay and do most of the heavy lifting, with the exception of Great Britain, most of NATO is a joke, and GB is drastically reducing an already dangerously thin military to the point it might as well not even exist. We are doing the right thing pivoting to Asia. That’s where the big shit in the coming century will happen. Europe is doomed to collapse under the weight of its socialist experiment. We don’t have NATO allies: we have people that take advantage of the US tax payer and military to shirk their duties.

    Thumb up 9

  18. AlexInCT

    No worries, we’ll get this one sorted for you guys.

    Who is this magic “We” you speak off? And with what assets CM? You do remember that without the US the rest of NATO didn’t even have enough assets to properly bomb Libya for even one day, right? This claim of yours sounds awefully lot like the guy without even a shovel claiming he will dig the Olympic pool out by tomorrow AM. Heh.

    Thumb up 6

  19. Thrill

    Once again we get sucked into maintaining the idiotic borders and status quo left in place since the slow-dying years of the British Empire.

    None of this is our responsibility to begin with and blowing up Baathists to help put Islamists in control does not serve our national interests. We will go forward with our weak “allies” while totally pissing off our extremely powerful global rivals/future enemies. I see no advantage in any action that we take here.

    It’s a regional problem. Let the nations of that region find a regional solution.

    Thumb up 7

  20. Dave D

    I don’t think proof is such a big issue this time around. Already plenty of it.

    I forgot. A Dem is in charge now, so less “proof” is now the standard.

    Too funny!!!!!!

    Thumb up 7

  21. Hal_10000 *

    It’s a regional problem. Let the nations of that region find a regional solution.

    THIS

    I’m reminded of what PJ O’Rourke said: these aren’t nations in the traditional sense. They’re tribal squabbles with borders.

    Thumb up 5

  22. Section8

    No worries, we’ll get this one sorted for you guys.

    Considering just about everyone here doesn’t see this as our issue there is nothing to sort out for us. Thanks though. Now if you’re referring to sorting it out for the Syrian people, like you say they should have no need to worry as the UN has a “responsibility to protect”. With 100K less people to worry about I’m sure you guys will get around to it eventually. Good job!

    Thumb up 4

  23. stogy

    No worries, we’ll get this one sorted for you guys.

    Too Fuckin’ Funny….!!!! How is the NZ airforce doing these days, CM?

    I forgot. A Dem is in charge now, so less “proof” is now the standard.

    Well, there is the 1000 or so people suddenly dead on the ground of no visible cause of death… I don’t remember George ever having such a smoking gun. But I could be wrong. Or not.

    Thumb up 1

  24. Seattle Outcast

    The people of the Philippines asked us to leave, and guess what we didn’t even slaughter them on the way out. How weird isn’t it?

    And they’ve regretted it ever since.

    The economic, political, and military ramifications of Clark AFB and Subic Bay closing were not good for the Philippines. They’ve had 20 years to think it over and are asking for us to come back again.

    Thumb up 4

  25. AlexInCT

    Well, there is the 1000 or so people suddenly dead on the ground of no visible cause of death…

    This is the middle east where faking deaths is all but par for the course if anyone follows the actions of the palestininas. The only difference is that this time they are not blaming the Jews. Speaking of Jews and double standards, Stogy’s reasoning just reminds me of the joke about the Nazi officer that captures 3 American soldiers.

    One is white, one black, and another is Jewish. He tells them he is a decent guy so he will give each a chance to answer a question to see if they can just go free. He asks the white guy first: “What’s the name of the ship that sank on its maiden voyage from Britain to NY?” To which the white soldier answers “The Titanic?” and gets lets go to the German guy saying “See! I am a fair guy..”.

    He then asks the black soldier “How many people died on the Titanic when it went down?” The black soldier is sweating profusely but answers more than 1500 people. The Nazi guy shakes his head and says “That’s close, but not the exact number Shwartzen, but I am in a good mood so I will let you go”.

    He finally turns to the Jewish soldier and says “Give me the name, gender, and addresses of all the people that died”…

    The role of the white soldier is played here by democrats and Obama. The role of the Jewish soldier goes to Bush and republicans. The Nazi officer that’s so fair is a characterization the media and people like Stogy, and aptly shows their level of “fairness” when it comes to the evidence bar.

    I guess the black guy is again racialy abused by the joke because he has no equal…. That’s a joke you race huxters.

    Thumb up 4

  26. Section8

    Just of interest, and I know it’s just speculation, what do you think a Republican administration would do at this point? (And yeah, the left would vilify them no matter what they did – not necessary to point it out).

    Well the former presidential candidate McCain is running around advocating various levels of intervention to anyone who will listen, so that kinda tells you what at least some in the GOP would do. Fortunately not many are listening.

    We are doing the right thing pivoting to Asia.

    I’m not too keen on this either. We don’t need to be shifting bases, we need to just focus on home defense, and beefing up the navy to protect our shipping interests on the seas if needed. If Asian countries see a threat from other Asian countries, then they should prepare accordingly. Prior to World War II we had a structure to have an over all vibrant economy (of course discounting the depression period), and we didn’t need to have bases all over creation. Sure there are benefits and control to some point, but it also puts us in situations that are dangerous that we don’t need to be in not to mention very costly to the tax payer.

    Thumb up 1

  27. Seattle Outcast

    I’m so worn out thinking about all the various middle east and north African squabbles that I’m pretty much in favor of either nuking it or ignoring it most days.

    Seriously, don’t these people EVER stop?

    Thumb up 1

  28. AlexInCT

    I’m not too keen on this either. We don’t need to be shifting bases, we need to just focus on home defense, and beefing up the navy to protect our shipping interests on the seas if needed.

    The shift to the Pacific is home defense. Like it or not, we are eventually going to end up in a fight with China which suffers from a severe case of inferiority complex and has abandoned their long term strategy of just wearing resistance down through minimal action and adopted a very belligerent one that is going to cause a war in the Pacific sooner than later. I think the Chinese leadership is seeing the writing on the wall, knows the lies about their double digit growth are going to come out, that their economy will collapse, and that they need some nationalistic victories to get the people to stay with them. My question is if they go after the Japanese, Koreans, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, India, or even Russia – Siberia would solve their resources problem – first, skipping Taiwan completely, or they take all commers on at once. Anyone not able to see this disaster coming is deluding themselves.

    I am not one to buy into the closed borders nonsense that too many people that seem incapable of joining the 21st century have, and that is no offence meant towards you Section8. The ability to hunker down and ignore the world until they came to your shores died the day they combined flight with weapons, and that lesson should have been burned into our psyche after 9-11. I am not advocating we go out and start them, but we definitely should be prepared to force the other guy to fight on their soil and not ours.

    Now please do not take my stance to mean that I believe we should be pissing away billions taking over defense of the Pacific nations like we did in Europe. I don’t see that happening anyway. These Asian nations do not have a fucking death wish like the idiots in Europe do, and they take defense seriously because they have not bough into the liberal bullshit that has turned the majority of Europeans into state serfs.

    Thumb up 2

  29. HARLEY

    Assuming that the strike package going in is only gonna hit known chemical weapons depots, I dont see how this action is truly gonna amount to fart in a whirlwind.
    that is assuming that Assad has not already dispersed the chem weapons to new location or unbombable targets, Destroying chemical weapons is very difficult thing. First off blowing them up, generally you rely on secondary explosions to do most of the of damage when destroying enemy munitions, most chemical weapon delivery systems have at best a small charge to disperse the gas, if any at all. 2nd you have to burn it ALL.. at a very high temp, this usually requires Thermobaric weapons of some sort, these are very large area weapons, not good cor the surrounding environment, ya know?… and then what happens if we don’t destroy them all in the depot, leaks and secondary explosions hurdling unexploded canisters would be bad voodoo for any one nearby..
    And who will get the blame for that?

    As to teh whole issue, What he fuck are we doing getting involved in this , Libya was bad enough, and we are gonna support more radical Islamist wanting to bring their brand of religious law to another nation that was for the most part secular?

    I am not convinced that the Assad regime did thins, what would they gain? , did Assad get assurance from Putin? or are they THAT stupid?
    There are many out there that claim this could lead to a wider conflict, meh, Israel has already invaded Syrian airspace and hit many more targets….without a reaction from Russia…
    We should just let the fuckers fight it out…
    And some one figure out how Libyan arms ended up in Syria so damm fast!

    Thumb up 5

  30. Section8

    I am not one to buy into the closed borders nonsense that too many people that seem incapable of joining the 21st century have, and that is no offence meant towards you Section8. The ability to hunker down and ignore the world until they came to your shores died the day they combined flight with weapons, and that lesson should have been burned into our psyche after 9-11. I am not advocating we go out and start them, but we definitely should be prepared to force the other guy to fight on their soil and not ours.

    No offense taken but there is a difference in being prepared and roaming the earth looking for a fight just so it doesn’t happen at your house. Also, didn’t 9/11 happen while we had bases all over creation? Might as well just argue for more phone tapping each time it doesn’t work. Working on better missile defenses, having a strong army and navy to protect our shores is fine, and yes if attacked we take the war there and make sure the cost to the enemy is high enough so that they have no incentive to try again and then we go home.

    Also, I’m fine with spending more on human spying, i.e. infiltrating the most dangerous of our enemies such as those in the ME. I’d rather us pay an agent 2 mil a year that can blend in and get a few thousand of those folks out on the field. It would be much cheaper than having a base sit there, and can come out of the NSA’s email and phone monitoring budget which seems to be quite large these days and serves no purpose, which I think we all pretty much agree.

    Like it or not, we are eventually going to end up in a fight with China which suffers from a severe case of inferiority complex and has abandoned their long term strategy of just wearing resistance down through minimal action and adopted a very belligerent one that is going to cause a war in the Pacific sooner than later.

    I doubt this. Is it likely they may get into conflicts in their region? Sure, but if it’s that big of concern those countries in the region can prepare for it. If it doesn’t seem like a big deal to them, then it shouldn’t for us either.

    Thumb up 2

  31. AlexInCT

    As to teh whole issue, What he fuck are we doing getting involved in this , Libya was bad enough, and we are gonna support more radical Islamist wanting to bring their brand of religious law to another nation that was for the most part secular?

    Carter redux: but on steroids. Carter just fucked up Iran, albeit badly, and considering Iran’s role in the ME through history (it once was called Persia) that’s one giant fuck up. Obama is fucking up Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. Not to mention he is pissing off Russia and China by going after their last serious butt buddy in the ME, Assad. Maybe he just wants to show these two he is not the empty suit we all seem him for. Fuck, in Libya we were stealing oil for the Europeans, and in Egypt he was helping his bros in the Muslim Brotherhood. WTF is he gonna get from Syria?

    So, speaking of comparisons to Carter, I guess Obama must have figured that nobody would compare him to Carter if he made Carter’s insane foreign policy moves look brilliant in comparison, or something. Because otherwise there is no explanation for this idiocy: as I once posted we all win if these people keep killing each other off. If anything we should be arming both sides, piecemeal so they can do it faster. That’s the only win I see us getting out of this.

    Thumb up 2

  32. AlexInCT

    No offense taken but there is a difference in being prepared and roaming the earth looking for a fight just so it doesn’t happen at your house.

    Not gonna disagree with you on this ever. That kind of policy is idiotic.

    Also, didn’t 9/11 happen while we had bases all over creation?

    We had, and still have, a lot of them, and too many of them are in the wrong place if not outright stupid to have to begin with, Section8. Seriously, we should haul ass and leave the Europeans to their own things. If they arm up and start killing each other again then we deal with them. When that happens again it will most likely be because they now are all part of the Caliphate anyway. And we don’t need more bases in Asia either. We could close a whole bunch of them, and build or reopen a couple of them that would allow us to be better prepared (like Subic in the Philippines). What we need for the coming conflict are real assets and the will/determination to use them, so the enemy knows they are going to get ass raped if they start shit.

    Might as well just argue for more phone tapping each time it doesn’t work. Working on better missile defenses, having a strong army and navy to protect our shores is fine, and yes if attacked we take the war there and make sure the cost to the enemy is high enough so that they have no incentive to try again and then we go home.

    Precisely my point. We need more naval assets, and what we are doing is shrinking the NAVY, and to arm up the Air Force, especially in space and missile defense, and couple that with some serious capability of ground troops to cause mass death. No more clean war. That concept of an antiseptic war where we avoid collateral damage to the civilian enemy is idiotic. Make them aware that war means everyone dies, and I guarantee you we see a lot less, if any, wars.

    Also, I’m fine with spending more on human spying, i.e. infiltrating the most dangerous of our enemies such as those in the ME. I’d rather us pay an agent 2 mil a year that can blend in and get a few thousand of those folks out on the field. It would be much cheaper than having a base sit there, and can come out of the NSA’s email and phone monitoring budget which seems to be quite large these days and serves no purpose, which I think we all pretty much agree.

    Agents and infiltration are tricky things. I am not disagreeing with you that we need a lot more of that, but what I think we really need is to show any enemy that while we are reluctant to fight, once we go to war all politics are gone and we follow a strategy where we are willing & capable of ending the war by causing massive casualties to the bad guys. The Islamofascists keep fighting us because they see our ROEs – which are designed to appease the spineless fucks that are the most harmful to western democracy, prosperity and wellbeing instead of defeating the enemy – and think we can’t ever win. The sad thing is that I believe that they are right too.

    Look, the asnwer is simple. make war fucking so ugly that nobody wants to do it. I guarantee you we will be spending a lot less and need a fraction of the bases we have now. Of course, it will piss of the idiots that ignore human nature and history and want everyone to believe that being a pacifist is the answer to the problem of other bad people that want to kill you and take your shit, ad when forced to fight, you have to fight with bth hands tied behind your back, shackles on your feet, and are only to use pissy language against an enemy that is looking forward to gutting you and using your entrails to jump rope. Until we change the myth about fighting like pussies so we can pretend that makes us better and accept that war is dirty and you fight to win, we are going to have way more war and death than we should.

    Thumb up 3

  33. CM

    Too Fuckin’ Funny….!!!! How is the NZ airforce doing these days, CM?

    Marvelously. If they keep saving those pennies one day they’ll get a plane.

    Thumb up 1

  34. Mississippi Yankee

    And some one figure out how Libyan arms ended up in Syria so damm fast!

    Ambassador Stevens could not be reached for comment…

    Thumb up 6

  35. HARLEY

    Marvelously. If they keep saving those pennies one day they’ll get a plane.

    They had jets OA-4’s, and were offed older usaf F-16’s..

    Thumb up 1

  36. Miguelito

    Here’s something I’ve been wondering about… when did this “red line” stuff start? It’s always been a line in the sand. But I guess once you’ve had so many people not only walk over the line, but kick and shuffle them out of the sand anyway, that you need to come up with a new, scary sounding thing. Probably never expected to have his bluff called though. He’s got the peace prize and all.

    Thumb up 4

  37. Miguelito

    Oh, and I’m totally reminded of the commentary track from The Sum Of All Fears. One of the only commentary tracks I’ve listened to the entire thing of on a movie. It was between the director and Tom Clancy, so very interesting. At one point Clancy said something about how Republicans usually will go after a threat before it gets to big, but Dems will end up backed into a corner and have no choice (and things turn out worse). The liberal director, of course, disagreed, but rather than argue they agreed to disagree.

    But it sure seems like Obama did exactly that. Kept bluffing and now is backed into a corner. Depending on what happens, this is the kind of crap that could trigger a far larger conflict in the middle east.

    Interestingly, searching google for “red line” and syria (was curious about my own previous question) shows how people were claiming said line was crossed back in June, but the sainted O kept finding ways to avoid it… now he’s in that corner though.

    Thumb up 6

  38. stogy

    You joke but imagine being hit by 400 tonne of kiwifruit dumped from one of those Hercules. Extremely damaging yet very nutritious.

    Damn, hadn’t thought of that. I need to do more to keep up with these modern warfare techniques.

    Thumb up 1

  39. stogy

    The role of the white soldier is played here by democrats and Obama. The role of the Jewish soldier goes to Bush and republicans. The Nazi officer that’s so fair is a characterization the media and people like Stogy, and aptly shows their level of “fairness” when it comes to the evidence bar.

    Um… the difference here is that the Syrian government has said that it has chemical weapons (although said it would never use them), none of the main parties are disputing that chemical weapons were actually used, we have footage from multiple sources showing dead bodies (although perhaps they could have asked all those people to just lie really still while they ran the camera over them), and some eye-witness accounts (not exactly a gold standard this). We’re waiting on reports from the weapons inspectors still.

    But I think it’s a fairly safe bet to say that the weapons were used (unlike those supposed ones that Blix was scouring the Iraqi desert for).

    However, I have no ideas about who actually used these weapons on a mostly civilian population. And as I understand it, we’re unlikely to know this even after the UN inspectors have been. So does this justify military action? I’d want more evidence, personally.

    Thumb up 2

  40. stogy

    Look, the asnwer is simple. make war fucking so ugly that nobody wants to do it.

    Yah! Blitzkrieg! Worked so well at Stalingrad as I recall.

    Thumb up 2

  41. AlexInCT

    Um… the difference here is that the Syrian government has said that it has chemical weapons (although said it would never use them)

    Uh, that Iraqi dictator they dragged out of a his hidey hole back when also told everybody he had a ton of them weapons, and he promised to use them in the “Mother of all battles”. So what’s your point? Are you maybe allowing for the stories that circulated about Saddam’s Russian special forces buddies showing up while the Russian and French government were trying to pull crazy Hussein’s bacon out of the fire and moving the weapons to Syria? Not sure I get it.

    The point is that you have a bias, and you aren’t even honest enough to admit it.

    But I think it’s a fairly safe bet to say that the weapons were used (unlike those supposed ones that Blix was scouring the Iraqi desert for).

    So you telling me Saddam never used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and on his own people? Even the liberal Wikipedia site that is edited by an army of leftist monkeys to help cover for the left’s bullshit doesn’t pretend otherwise.

    I really do not want to rehash this old argument with you again, because you seem immune to the facts. Let me just point out that contrary to the rewritten historical facts, everyone believed Iraq had WMDs before we went there. Every god damned intelligence agency in the world, including the Iraqi one, believed Saddam had WMDs and had proof they had WMDs. This includes the French and the Russians, whom defended Saddam, not because they didn’t think he had WMDs, but because they were worried about all the money he owed them for selling him, amongst other things, practically all his military hardware, and despite the recent stupid claims, practically all his WMD capability and infrastructure, and all the money they hoped to make in the future selling him even more of that shit.

    All the democrat politicians now grandstanding and pretending they knew otherwise, but especially the Clintons, knew he had WMDs. That’s why congress voted with a clear majority to authorize the Iraqi invasion. Their only objection at that time, kind of like when Bill Clinton pined about how unfair it was that 9-11 didn’t happen when he was president because he would have really known how to milk that fucking tragedy for points, was that the president wasn’t a democrat. I state the fact that Obama has involved us in far more adventurist endeavors than Boosh, including this latest one in Syria, and these people all seem to be cool as hell with it.

    BTW, this is the first time that they have accused the Assad regime of using WMDs. Conveniently when Obama needs a lot of distractions because he has ruined our economy, is still pushing for more economy crippling idiotic leftist bullshit, the American people find out Obama has been running a police state where there are different laws for his buddies and allies than his enemies and political opponents, and that he makes excuses for a massive spying campaign on his people that would give Stalin a fucking raging boner. So, yeah, you might want to pretend this is all a closed case and easy, while the Iraqi one was all nebulous and shit, and that you are not biased, but the only one you better be trying to fool is yourself, because I am not buying it Stogy.

    Yah! Blitzkrieg! Worked so well at Stalingrad as I recall.

    Way to prove the stupid and lack of military understanding there. First off all, the siege of Stalingrad was not an example Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg, which is latterly German for “lightning war” is a military concept where you rely on speed & maneuvering of your heavy mechanized forces to overwhelm and take down your opponent. Ask the Dutch, Belgians, French, and even the British that got pushed into the North Sea during the German blitzkrieg campaign about the effectiveness of said military strategy. Note that the objective here isn’t extermination, but maneuvering and overwhelming use of power to hit the enemy’s weaknesses and bring him down. The Germans were masters at this, and had they not had Hitler, whom was a fucking idiot when it came to actual military strategy, playing general, I guarantee you that the fight on the Russian front wouldn’t have been so nice for the Russians. Stalingrad was a disaster for the Germans precisely because they abandoned their strengths to fight the Russians on their terms, with a divide army, courtesy of Hitler and a general/field marshal that got his job because of his name & political affiliation, not his skill or military prowess. Stalingrad was urban warefare, and stupid. The Germans should have just bombed the entire city back to the stone age and killed off everyone. They didn’t because Hitler didn’t want that, but the German Luftwaffe could have eaten the Russians alive espeically with the allies providing the Russians all their war materiel at the time.

    The type of war I am talking about was actually fought by the Russians, and the US against the Axis enemies. We bombed everything in Germany and Japan, civilians being considered part of the war machine of the enemy, including using nukes. It was an all-out, break the enemy’s spirit and will to fight, type of warfare. One that was intended to result in an unconditional surrender. No trying to be nice or pussyfooting around. And that’s why Germany and Japan were converted from fascist and imperial hell holes to decent members of the world society. Until we understand that the war against Islamic radicalism will not be won until we are willing to fight it that way – because they certainly are, and once they get the upper hand they will fight that way – we are doomed. Look at the British empire for a reference (not that I am calling us an empire, just pointing out what happens when you go soft). That empire went belly up as soon as the Brits became too civilized to resort to total warfare whenever their enemy came knocking at the door. In war, the more detemined opponent, regardless of any advantage in technology or manpower, will win in the long run.

    Thumb up 3

  42. Xetrov

    You joke but imagine being hit by 400 tonne of kiwifruit dumped from one of those Hercules. Extremely damaging yet very nutritious.

    LOL (Not Necessarily SFW)

    Thumb up 1

  43. stogy

    So you telling me Saddam never used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and on his own people? Even the liberal Wikipedia site that is edited by an army of leftist monkeys to help cover for the left’s bullshit doesn’t pretend otherwise.

    Oh, he had them all right. And he used them, yes. It was just by the time that the second gulf war came up, he didn’t have them any more. He said he didn’t. And the UN weapons inspectors said they were pretty sure he didn’t. The US administration said that they did. Compare that to now. Everybody says that they have them. Everybody says that they have been used.

    I’m not arguing that there is a different standard of evidence here. The standard is the same. The evidence is different. Are you seriously arguing that there is no evidence that Syrians possess chemical weapons, and that they haven’t used by one or more parties in the conflict? That would be obtuse. But on form.

    everyone believed Iraq had WMDs before we went there.

    Bullshit! Powell’s UN presentation – the smoking gun, mobile labs one – fell apart within hours. Lots of the attendees at the actual presentation were casting doubt on the facts. Not to mention, intelligence from the ground that was showing serious scepticism about WMDs was being completely ignored. The only people who believed that there were WMDs in Iraq were the people who wanted to believe it. Watching it, I thought “Powell doesn’t believe what he’s actually saying here”, and turns out I was correct – he said later that his instincts deserted him. He knew the facts were really weak.

    Way to prove the stupid and lack of military understanding there. First off all, the siege of Stalingrad was not an example Blitzkrieg.

    Well, I do confess some ignorance about the military uses of kiwifruit, so you have me there. But Hitler actually attempted Blitzkreig in Russia – but failed rather miserably. So my ironic comment, “yeah, it worked so well at Stalingrad as I recall” shows that the use of blitzkrieg failed. The attempt to “shock and awe” the opposition with lightning fast high tech weaponry into submission failed. I’m not sure how this highlights more of my inadequacies.

    But your main claim is that I’m going to apply a different standard to Obama than to Bush. Actually, I’m not. Use of force in Syria without a UN mandate is almost certainly illegal under the UN charter. This applies to both Bush II in Iraq, and it would apply to Obama in Syria. It didn’t apply in Libya, although NATO forces severely bent the security resolution to fit their purposes. I don’t think Bush II should have invaded Iraq, I don’t think Obama should invade Syria.

    The key as I see it is to drive a wedge between Russia and the Syrians – and according to the news I was watching while at the gym, the Saudis have been offering some big contracts on arms purchases to the Russians if they’ll only stop selling the guns and planes up the road, and to swing a few votes their way in the council that really matters, if you know what I mean. We may yet get to see just how committed Russia actually is to the principle of non-interference.

    Until we understand that the war against Islamic radicalism will not be won until we are willing to fight it that way – because they certainly are, and once they get the upper hand they will fight that way – we are doomed.

    So now you are advocating a ‘total warfare’ style intervention? It seems inconsistent with what you were arguing before.

    Thumb up 0

  44. AlexInCT

    Oh, he had them all right. And he used them, yes. It was just by the time that the second gulf war came up, he didn’t have them any more. He said he didn’t.

    No, he told the UN inspectors he didn’t have any, while denying them access to his facilities and doing everything possible to either hide them or make it look like he still had them and was hiding them, and thus leaving trails that convinced every intelligence organization in they existed and he still had them. In fact, I still believe he had some, and they moved them during that 6 months build up to the war. We will find out a long time from now, when the politics of admitting he had them or not won’t matter so much anymore, what was the case.

    Besides, what people like you ignore and would love everyone to forget is that even if he had zero viable WMDs in hand – something I do not believe at all – that Iraq’s WMD programs, while dormant, were not just intact, but capable of standing back up and cranking the shit out in a matter of weeks. Not to mention that right before we decided to go into Iraq we had France & Russia trying their best to remove UN sanctions from Saddam so they could get back into the lucrative business of selling Saddam arms and all manner of components and materiel to make WMDs. Yeah, the same France and Russia that were the loudest complainers about any action against Saddam, not because they believed he had no WMDs, because they were going to lose billions.

    And the UN weapons inspectors said they were pretty sure he didn’t.

    Oh, bullshit. The UN weapons inspectors only changed their tune AFTER they got paid to say he had none. Or do you conveniently forget Scott Ritter getting caught? And Hans Brixs? I think Kim Jong Il said it best in that movie Team America.

    The US administration said that they did. Compare that to now. Everybody says that they have them. Everybody says that they have been used.

    Bullshit. Every god damned intelligence agency on the planet, including Mossad and the Iraqi Mukhabarat, believed he did and said so. In fact, the French DGSE and the Russian KGB, both believed he had them and never said otherwise.

    I’m not arguing that there is a different standard of evidence here. The standard is the same. The evidence is different.

    To-ma-to… To-MA-TO…

    Are you seriously arguing that there is no evidence that Syrians possess chemical weapons,

    Not at all. In fact, I believe a lot of the chemical weapons Syria possess came from Iraq because that is where the Russians helped Saddam hide them.

    and that they haven’t used by one or more parties in the conflict?

    Now we are getting somewhere. No, I don’t buy that at all. This isn’t the first time someone over there cried WMDs. In fact, it happened right before the 2012 election, and our WH all but ignored them then. This time however, when we have decided it has to be real, conveniently comes right at a time where this WH is under assault for numerous horrible scandals and behavior Saddam would feel more comfortable with.

    That would be obtuse. But on form.

    If you mean to insult me I should point out that all you did is really show your true colors. I remind you that I am not the only one to point out you are full of it and clearly showing a double standard. If anyone is obtuse and true to form, I suggest a mirror for you to look into. Funny how you care about the plight of the poor Syrians but have no such feelings for the people of Iraq, who were freed from their tyrant, huh? I wonder what was different then then now…

    That was me being sarcastic and making fun of you BTW.

    Thumb up 4

  45. Mook

    Um… the difference here is that the Syrian government has said that it has chemical weapons (although said it would never use them)

    When and where did the Syrian govt. admit this? Every news article I’ve seen has the Syrian govt. denying ANY involvement at all with chemical weapons.

    It appears the only ones claiming “for certain” that Syria has chemical weapons are Joe Biden and John Kerry.

    He said he didn’t.

    Well that settles it, doesn’t it? A mass murdering child killer like Saddam says so.. good enough for me!

    Thumb up 4

  46. Section8

    Well as of now the UN hasn’t approved anything and likely won’t, and it appears France wants to punish the Syrian government through force. Hopefully our government will stay out of it. Good luck to France as long as they follow UN mandates to the letter, and that they can guarantee no errant bombs hitting any civilians, mosques, or anything other than the exact target and said target can be proven it’s a hostile target. Not sure why they are out of the blue so appalled that they need to take action bypassing the UN over a country that’s not a threat to them.

    Thumb up 3

  47. stogy

    When and where did the Syrian govt. admit this? Every news article I’ve seen has the Syrian govt. denying ANY involvement at all with chemical weapons.

    I saw an interview with a senior Syrian government official on CNN a couple of months ago. He said, “we have them, but we’d never use them. They are safely secure” or something along those lines. I’ll see if I can dig out a link for you.

    Well that settles it, doesn’t it? A mass murdering child killer like Saddam says so.. good enough for me!

    The point, Mook, is that this time all the parties agreed that they had been used – the Syrian government did so by eventually allowing the UN inspectors in. This means that a different standard of evidence is operating here. We know they were used, but not what or who used them.

    Ah, found it here in the Wall Street Journal – from July this year.

    Syria’s government acknowledged for the first time Monday that it had weapons of mass destruction, saying it has the capability to use its chemical and biological weapons in case of a foreign attack.

    Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jihad Makdissi says Syria is in ‘self defense’ mode, and says the government won’t use chemical weapons at least not on its own people. He added that Syria would only consider using the weapons in the event of quote ‘external aggression.’ Video: Reuters

    Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said Damascus wouldn’t use unconventional arms against its citizens. “Any stocks of WMD or any unconventional weapons that the Syrian Arab Republic possesses will never be used against civilians or against the Syrian people during this crisis in any circumstance, no matter how the crisis should evolve,” he said.

    In confirming the existence of such weapons, Damascus also issued a challenge to foreign governments that it has accused of meddling in its crisis.

    “All of the stocks of these weapons that the Syrian Arab Republic posses are monitored and guarded by the Syrian army,” Mr. Makdissi said. “These weapons are meant to be used only and strictly in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic.”

    But it if wasn’t so serious, it’d be funny that Alex thinks this is all an Obama conspiracy aimed at American domestc politics. We’re back on the quack train again. All aboard!!

    Funny how you care about the plight of the poor Syrians but have no such feelings for the people of Iraq, who were freed from their tyrant, huh? I wonder what was different then then now…

    That was me being sarcastic and making fun of you BTW.

    Yeah. It was a dumb idea then. It is a dumb idea now. The focus should have remained on Afghanistan and stopping it from turning into the clusterfuck it turned into. There are plenty of countries with terrible human rights records – mostly we don’t invade them to free them from their dictators (unless it’s in our own interests to do so).

    But if you care so much about the human rights of the people of Iraq, and now Syria apparently, why aren’t you clamouring for a full ground invasion of Syria? And then how do you justify your “all out war” comments. And the “just let them have at it” comments. I can’t seem to locate what your position on this actually is?

    Thumb up 0

  48. AlexInCT

    Well as of now the UN hasn’t approved anything and likely won’t, and it appears France wants to punish the Syrian government through force.

    In Libya it was blatantly obvious that the French were after the oil and pissed that Gaddaffi told them to fuck off because he was signing up with the Chinese. Not sure what they want in Syria other than to piss China & Russia off some more. Maybe Assad owes them money for weapons he bought long ago and since he isn’t buying any of their shit anymore, the frogs want revenge. Nobody is more megalomanical that a frenchman slighted. Their inferiority/superiority mixed complex makes them seriously dangerous.

    Good luck to France as long as they follow UN mandates to the letter, and that they can guarantee no errant bombs hitting any civilians, mosques, or anything other than the exact target and said target can be proven it’s a hostile target.

    The French only care about this shit when they can blame others. When they do it it is always justified and the fucks they killed had it coming.

    Someone mentioned Kerry & Biden are the only two convinced that Syria used WMDs. Let me remind you that Kerry thinks he is French, and Biden, well the guy is a class-A fucking moron and why Obama picked him is also obvious. President Biden is even more scary than President Obama, albeit, these days, not by much. Both are about as relizable as solar flares.

    Thumb up 3

  49. AlexInCT

    But it if wasn’t so serious, it’d be funny that Alex thinks this is all an Obama conspiracy aimed at American domestc politics. We’re back on the quack train again. All aboard!!

    You mean after all the lies keep falling flat and the attempts to pretend that the scandals are all politically motivated, even as the evidence keeps mounting that what the abuse is far worse than ever imagined, Obama suddenly looking for an obvious “Clintonesque – Lets bomb the aspirin factory” moment is just the thing of quacks? Sign me up as a quack if pointing out what’s so obvious and blatant means I am a quack.

    I see why you are a progressive Stogy. Facts, logic, and reality don’t matter much to you. Richard Nixon must be fucking pissed. Obama is getting away with murder while he got shafted for a fraction of the despicable behavior of this administration. You might not want to face that reality, but it is there and in your face.

    Yeah. It was a dumb idea then. It is a dumb idea now. The focus should have remained on Afghanistan and stopping it from turning into the clusterfuck it turned into.

    That’s some primo logic there considering both Iraq and A-stan turned into serious shit when the guy that was going to fix everything took over and declared that the recipe for victory was to run away with our tails tucked between our legs and to stop any serious fighting. But hey, let’s pretend the biggest problem isn’t the idiot now calling the shots, yet again. he does run a real special drone-em-to-death program, although I hear Limbaugh & Hannity seem to be the most wanted on that list, instead of the real enemy Obama sure is chummy with, these days.

    Thumb up 4

  50. stogy

    Facts, logic, and reality don’t matter much to you.

    OK. So let me see if I can think this through…. Both Assad…. and the rebels… … of course the UN…. and the international media… have got together…. with the White House…. France and the UK too… to fake a chemical weapons attack… so that Obama can take some off the heat away… from his… domestic political scandals… All those people…. the dead looking ones…. were just playin’ dead…. for the cameras… and now they are just… going about their normal day-to-day. I wouldn’t be surprised if Giggles the fawn is also involved somewhere in this heinous plot.

    No, you’re right. Facts, logic and reality don’t really matter to me.

    Thumb up 1

  51. CM

    Oh, bullshit. The UN weapons inspectors only changed their tune AFTER they got paid to say he had none. Or do you conveniently forget Scott Ritter getting caught? And Hans Brixs?

    Huh?

    Thumb up 1

  52. AlexInCT

    So you missed all the revelations about Scott Ritter getting paid off by Saddam’s sons, huh CM? Or was that another one of the convenient lapses of memory that the left seems to suffer from so they can all pretend it was blatantly obvious there were no WMDs and Boosh lied and people died, or some other such nonsense.

    Thumb up 5

  53. AlexInCT

    OK. So let me see if I can think this through…. Both Assad…. and the rebels… … of course the UN…. and the international media… have got together…. with the White House…. France and the UK too… to fake a chemical weapons attack…

    The Palestinians do this almost daily to make Israel look bad and all the people you mentioned just go along. So what’s your point?

    Thumb up 5

  54. CM

    So you missed all the revelations about Scott Ritter getting paid off by Saddam’s sons, huh CM? Or was that another one of the convenient lapses of memory that the left seems to suffer from so they can all pretend it was blatantly obvious there were no WMDs and Boosh lied and people died, or some other such nonsense.

    No, this is the first I’ve heard of UN weapons inspectors all being paid off (including Ritter and Blix). As you’re obviously (strangely) unwilling to actually provide any links, I guess I’ll do the required work.

    LOL (Not Necessarily SFW)

    Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwww. First I’ve heard of that also (probably a good thing).

    Thumb up 0

  55. CM

    Is this what you’re referring to Alex?:

    A much-maligned documentary about Iraq, which he made in 2000 with the dubious financial backing of an Iraqi businessman living in Detroit, failed miserably and plunged him into debt.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Alkafajii, who is accompanying Ritter as a “translator and cultural adviser,” secured the travel visas for the crew and agreed to put up a $400,000 line of credit to finance the documentary.

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/170/41891.html

    Mr Ritter formed a partnership with Mr al-Khafaji to finance the documentary Shifting Sands, which, according to Mr Ritter, “proved” that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

    In 2001, Mr Ritter said none of Mr al-Khafaji’s funding came from Saddam’s regime. Of the $A630,000 film budget, he said his payment was $67,000.

    He said he had Mr al-Khafaji checked by CIA “sources” through a friend who was a reporter.

    There is no suggestion in the documents that money or benefits were paid to Mr al-Khafaji.

    Mr Ritter said officials had offered a gold bracelet for his wife and to finance the film. He said he rebuffed the attempts and filed reports to the FBI and US Treasury.

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987658018.html

    Thumb up 0

  56. CM

    …they can all pretend it was blatantly obvious there were no WMDs and Boosh lied and people died, or some other such nonsense.

    There was insufficient evidence, and certainly the evidence wasn’t there to justify an invasion. Which is why the US could not secure much support at all within the UNSC. As I’m sure you’ll remember, the ‘veto’ issue (from Russia/France/China) was mostly a red herring, as they only had 3 out of the remaining 14 members on-board anyway:

    Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

    But no, “blatantly obvious” wasn’t even remotely relevant to whether an invasion was justified.

    However I’m sure that’s explained by simply claiming that everyone who didn’t agree was just ‘paid off’. Right?

    Thumb up 1

  57. stogy

    The Palestinians do this almost daily to make Israel look bad and all the people you mentioned just go along. So what’s your point?

    That your version of this analogy requires the Israelis to be working with the Palestinians to deceive the American people about its hopeless presidency…

    It just doesn’t figure.

    Thumb up 1

  58. balthazar

    There was insufficient evidence, and certainly the evidence wasn’t there to justify an invasion. Which is why the US could not secure much support at all within the UNSC. As I’m sure you’ll remember, the ‘veto’ issue (from Russia/France/China) was mostly a red herring, as they only had 3 out of the remaining 14 members on-board anyway:

    Well according to the Obama DOJ, a pressure cooker with gunpowder is a WMD.

    Dumbass.

    Thumb up 6

  59. Xetrov

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

    – Senator Obama

    Senator Obama can’t stand the way President Obama is running things.

    Thumb up 7

  60. CM

    Considering just about everyone here doesn’t see this as our issue there is nothing to sort out for us. Thanks though. Now if you’re referring to sorting it out for the Syrian people, like you say they should have no need to worry as the UN has a “responsibility to protect”. With 100K less people to worry about I’m sure you guys will get around to it eventually. Good job!

    Wow, and yet I get accused of being obtuse.

    Thumb up 0

  61. stogy

    So… when Saddam has some supposed WMDs… and he actually got around to using them 15 years before… and a there is a Republican administration… then there is ample reason for invasion…. and freeing the people from this inhumane despot.

    But when there is a democrat in power…. and Syria definitely has WMDs… and they have been used in the past six days… there is no reason at all to invade… and free the people from this inhumane despot.

    I’m not arguing for an invasion, mind, just trying to understand the rationale here. There seems to be a very big hole in the logic.

    Thumb up 1

  62. balthazar

    But when there is a democrat in power…. and Syria definitely has WMDs… and they have been used in the past six days… there is no reason at all to invade… and free the people from this inhumane despot.

    Really? Where is the evidence?

    OOPS maybe not

    Oh and what country has Iraq invaded in the last few years? What restrictions has it been under that its been flouting?

    Not the same situation at all clueless one.

    Thumb up 3

  63. stogy

    Really? Where is the evidence?

    OOPS maybe not

    Balthazar, you’ve linked to a story that doesn’t question that chemical weapons were used, but casts doubt on whether it was the regime that used them. The overwhelming evidence points to the fact that they were used – as all the main parties say they were used (the government is blaming the opposition, the opposition the government). I have already said I have no idea who used them.

    Oops!

    Oh and what country has Iraq invaded in the last few years? What restrictions has it been under that its been flouting?

    I’m guessing you mean Syria, not Iraq. Well they were in Lebanon for an awfully long time, in spite of the protests of just about everybody except Hezbollah and Iran but including half the Lebanese population. But no, I don’t think that justifies a ground invasion.

    So that’s your rationale for the different treatment of Iraq and Syria? I thought Iraq was human rights and ‘slam duck’ on WMDs – nobody mentioned invading another country at the time, as it was more than 10 years before. But OK. Would your position be the same if the US was under a Republican President?

    Thumb up 1

  64. Mook
    Mr Ritter said officials had offered a gold bracelet for his wife and to finance the film. He said he rebuffed the attempts and filed reports to the FBI and US Treasury.

    Well, besides the fact that Ritter is a mentally unstable child predator, he’s changed his story on Iraq with no explanation. He’s simply not credible in the least. In 1998 when Saddam blocked inspectors, Ritter appeared before House and Senate committees and testified that Saddam was a dangerous menace and he was consistent with that position until 2002 when his story suddenly changed with Ritter claiming Saddam was not a dangerous threat with no explanation as to his change of position. I remember when O’Reilly interviewed him and asked about his reversal of position, Ritter admitted he was out of the intelligence agency loop since 1998. No explanation, other than to accuse those who questioned his inconsistencies as an attack on his patriotism.

    In the case of Iraq, there is no question that Saddam had developed and used chem weapons, and had also developed bio weapons. Look at the UNSCOM records . NO ONE believed in 1998 that Saddam had destroyed all his WMD’s. EVERYONE knew he was lying. Yet suddenly, after Saddam was forced to allow Blix to inspect part of the country, then all of a sudden these same assholes claims that there was no way Saddam had WMD’s. It’s insane and irrational, but that is the position of many.

    Thumb up 3

  65. Mook

    I thought Iraq was human rights and ‘slam duck’ on WMDs

    There were actually quite a number of other justifications given for those who are open enough to listen. I’d say repeated violation of Iraq’s 1991 terms of surrender would be justification alone. Violation of TOS has always throughout history been justification for resumption of hostilities. Whether the war was worth the cost is a separate question.. but the justification for toppling Saddam was unquestionable.

    Interesting to see the same hypocrites who screamed that Bush was a “war criminal” now silent over our Assassin in Chief’s use of drone strikes to assassinate individuals without a trial, and also silent over his bombing the shit out of Libya.. and soon Syria?.. Those who claim there is no silence over Obama’s actions, then please direct me to the protests. Protests like those under GW Bush… crickets.

    Thumb up 5

  66. stogy

    Please provide.

    Film footage from multiple different sources showing casualties and afflicted. No-one actually questioning that they were used. All sides blaming each other about use, but not arguing that they were used. The UN team should provide the final evidence.

    Again I have no evidence of who used the weapons and I never claimed that I did.

    Thumb up 0

  67. hist_ed

    There were actually quite a number of other justifications given for those who are open enough to listen. I’d say repeated violation of Iraq’s 1991 terms of surrender would be justification alone. Violation of TOS has always throughout history been justification for resumption of hostilities.

    But But but but but Halliburton Bushmonkey oil Darth Cheney!!!

    Thumb up 1