We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, September 1. 2013
Obama believes attacking Syria will send a message. He's correct, it will, but the message will not be what he thinks. Rather than a forceful show of strength, the world will view it in these terms:
The Syrian situation exists purely because the Obama foreign policy has been weak. As a result, it has fostered situations which allow tyrannical leaders to be overthrown, with tacit approval of the US government, without any support or plan for providing material support afterward.
Each of these situations has become chaotic - which is precisely what should have been expected, since the region in question has never been completely stable and any hint of stability had previously been provided by despotic regimes. When these despotic regimes have faced a populace encouraged to stand up, they have fallen (as expected), and reverted to anarchy.
Obama is faced with a situation which he didn't plan for, but should have. Increased anarchy in a region he hoped he'd guide gently toward democracy. He has learned you can't reason with mobs or tyrants. And now he's learned what every other leader in the world knows - if you want to deal with tyrants, you have to do so from a position of strength.
But he has squandered our strength.
Now he needs to regain it and lacks the ability to do so. He is hoping a show of military force will help. He is wrong. He can only make things worse now. Best to back off, disengage, and let the chips fall where they may.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This seems to me, far to little, far too late. If attacking Syria for its actions was a strategy, plans should have been laid (oh, for the past year or two) on what to do. Instead we're, as a "world-power" playing a pick up game.
Today, during Mass, our priest confessed that he originally thought we should attack Syria because of the government's crimes, but reassessed that perhaps a bigger crime is our allowing chemical abortions.
Considering the number of people hacked to death with machetes in third world countries, the supposed concern for humanity is revolting.
Obama needs to play golf until his term is over. After that, he should play golf until his arthritic hands can't grasp a club.
The first 100,000 dead don't count. It's those 400 children gassed that count. No, wait. It's the fact that our Idiot Child President made the mistake of going off his teleprompter and declaring a "red line" and now he's embarrassed. Or something.
If 'we' do this [it is Obama's military, after all, according to him] it will only be for face saving reasons for Obama. Not that at this point it will save any face, but it will give the toadying, boot-licking MSM a chance to pretend that Obama has saved face.
“But as I’ve already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options.”
President Barack Obama, President of The United States of America.
And consumate assshole.
Droolie - Not to disparage your writings skills, old bud, but you just took 292 words to say what Sarah Palin said in 5. :)
I added this little gem to my own Syria post the other day:
Everything the Media is Missing on Syria
The false flag accusations have been pretty well covered over on Zero Hedge, for the last week. I suspect this is probably very accurate.
One thing about Sarah Palin. I have no doubt we'd be in a different situation were she in Obama's shoes. But I do believe that different situation would be just as bad.
While this is Obama's doing, there are very few outcomes resulting from the Arab Spring in which the US position improves.
The problem is wrapped up in Islamic/Arab history. There has not been a strong ruler who has pulled that region together in many centuries, and even when there was, the political intrigue was intense and deadly. Even great leaders like Suleyman were likely killed by allies, friends or relatives seeking power.
I thought the Arab Spring was a 'good' thing. Great that people are seeking to rule themselves in some fashion. But I did say to all my friends (mostly liberal) exulting over it to be careful what they wished for.
Not one is very happy right now, and all are backing Hillary for 'the great job she did as Sec of State'. Um....yeah? Really?
Sarah's snarky 5 words are very good. But even a blind squirrel like her finds a few nuts.
"even a blind squirrel like her"
And thus does the libertarian show his true colors.
Be sure to use the term "tea-baggers" in your next post.
I've got nothing against the Tea Party.
I do have a problem with every politician, though not her as much as others.
I just happen to feel she is emotionally driven and rarely factually driven. I didn't say she is poorly informed, and I don't think she is.
But she definitely will make decisions that are based on short term data and needs. I think her behavior as governor, as a VP candidate, and as a member of the Fox News team bear that out.
Would she be better than Biden? Damn sight better.
Would she be better than Obama? Toss up, in my opinion. Hard to tell, really.
I will take a potshot like that at any politician, though, including a Ron or Rand Paul, if the situation warrants it.
This probably is also very accurate.
I think it's more meaningful than the false flag concept (though the two are integrated since the Saudis and Qataris support the rebels and likely provided the means for getting the chemicals).
Also, I've noticed some Facebook groups in which uniformed (but disguised) members of the military are posting pictures with written opposition to any intervention.
I'm sure they will do their job, if asked, but the number of these pictures is increasing. How will Obama ask these men to do the job he wants in order to save his reputation?
As far as I am concerned, the USA must not get involved in Syria. The Sunni and Shiite Muslims there are fighting each other in what could turn into WW III. Both want to establish a worldwide caliphate under Shuria Law. Both hate Americans as much as they hate Israel. To paraphase Sarah Palin, "Let Allah decide."
The Great Orator has failed to make the case to the American public that the situation in Syria requires a response from us for the sake of national security, which is the only LEGAL grounds on which he is authorized by law to act. The humanitarian grounds he cites are insufficient for him taking military action without the approval of Congress---not that it would be wise for Congress to give such approval. Nothing this man has done or said over the past 5 years argues in favor of Congressional Republicans offering him their support. He has misled the public time and time again, he has lied (gee, has everyone forgotten Benghazi so soon?), and he has broken his promises. He has consistently betrayed the trust of other people. Why should the Republicans trust him now? Why give him the power to wage war, however limited, against another country in a part of the world that is waiting to erupt into a wide conflagration? We can be certain that whatever limits a Congressional authorization places on him, Obama will ignore the limits and do whatever he pleases, which is what he always does. The best and clearest answer to Obama's request to Congress should be a resounding NO---not now, not ever. If he ignores such a rejection and goes ahead all the same, I would hope the Joint Chiefs would refuse to follow his illegal orders and instead abide by their solemn duty to uphold the Constitution.
I think you are quite right Bulldog. I fear 0bama is going to attack Syria anyway, whether Congress agrees or not. My SWAG at this point is that attacking Syria may be a face saving attempt. It's all about him at this point. The players and consequences are all of secondary and tertiary importance IMO.
I don't see how he can do anything but make matters worse.
I hope I am wrong.
It's worse than that.
If Obama attacks, it will show Al Qaeda and its allies that America is a stupid, blundering behemoth whom they can goad into attacking any target they want us to attack.
It's time to impeach the Commander in Chief before he can press the start button.
I'm totally with you, except for the last paragraph.
I'm willing to go along with Obama on even the minimal and relatively ineffective use of force that he may order. Why? Because, some day there won't be a President Obama and hopefully a more competent one, who at least will lead a US that has not skulked away and has a mere drop of credi bility left that we will act when necessary. Yes it was long ago necessary and now pretty futile due to President Obama's neglect, delays and zig-zags. Still, getting beyond that, we can nevertheless save a shred of decency, purpose and self-respect, and respect for the lives brutally treated.
The above may not seem like much of an argument during the heat and resentments of today, but try to step forward some years past President Obama and see if it makes more sense than our current emotions.
I don't see how us doing anything will help us regain, or maintain, a shred of credibility.
Aiding Al Qaeda, in any way, shape or form, will not benefit us or help us regain credibility.
Obama lost his credibility long ago. Saying he supports human rights because of a gas attack, and then bombing someone he blames for it doesn't help him regain it. In fact, it may make him look foolish if the false flag claims are accurate.
I think the false flag claims are likely correct. We will be aiding the people who, in all likelihood, did the gassing.
Down the road, whoever replaces the bozo in the White House, will have to map a new path and create a new sense of respect. There's not much left to work with, admittedly, but there will be less if he thinks he can go ahead, even with Congressional support. The world will not judge us well.
False flag is the only thing that makes any sense. What possible benefit could Assad game by using chemical weapons. It is so very coincidental that the alleged chemical attack has come after Obama's bumbling red line talk.
He's, we're, being played as fools and the usual neocons and 'corporate conservatives' like the WSJ and too happy to jump right in.
Let them all kill each other to death. It's what they want, it's what they should get. The West should stay out of the way and Israel should just hunker down.
I suggest you are mistaken if you think the world believes there is any necessity for the US to act now on Syria. I suspect most of the world thinks the US interferes far too much in the affairs of other nations and is actually afraid the US will act quite recklessly in any efforts to punish Syria. This is by no means a test of the willingness of the US to "act when necessary." It is instead a test of whether this President can be easily goaded into doing foolish things in order to save political face. If Obama thinks what he proposes to do in Syria will have a deterrent effect on the mullahs in Iran, then he is utterly delusional. Obama has a long, sad history of waffling. Everyone knows that when the going gets tough, Obama will wet his pants.
I don't see the moral argument as being so clear that it requires us to "act when necessary". Syria's bombs go pop and rip your lungs out. Our bombs go boom and blow your head off. ---Theirs are clearly immoral.
So we should act?
Looking closer to home.....congress (aka gutless cowards)vote no, obama launches a strike. The minority of people in the USA who have read the Constitution and support it, realize that another part of our fundamental system has been destroyed and America slept. Everything is going as planned in the obama world.
I agree, in many respects.
I have many friends who say "I agree with your views, but what can we do to change it? There's nothing we can do about the government. We can't get rid of lobbyists, we can't get crony business out of the pockets of politicians, and we only have 2 parties that are meaningful. So we're left with...what?"
It's this kind of defeatism that allows Obama and others of his ilk to do as they please. A friend, who said this recently to me, would prefer to be more conservative/libertarian in nature. However, he admitted to me that because things are so far gone he feels it makes sense to go "all in" on the other side because it protects his interests.
In some respects, he's right. Politically, as if he lived in the USSR, he's going to be 'safe', or at least as safe as you can be when the shit hits the fan. As it will.
The simple truth is that we're dealing with 5th century barbarians armed with 21st century weapons. It would be inevitable that some sort of "popular" uprising would occur because of tribal rivalries. Add the secular/religious concepts to the mix and it will be a mess no matter who runs Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. But it's the weapons that make it happen.
The President is an amateur at almost everything he tries from the economy to foreign affairs. He has no concept of any real world consequences beyond those that he believes in. He honestly think that his word is law, that he rules rather than governs and he when leaves office, he wants to be King of The World. He thinks of himself as a "citizen of the world" rather than the President of the United States of American. He has not even been touched by patriotism and believes it to be an archaic notion which is a direct result of his Marxist family and radical/anarchist friends teaching him, guiding him, shaping him and forming the man we have running the country now. That and a couple of boat loads of choom.
We shouldn't get involved. Let them kill each other - none of our business. "Innocent" civilians are almost never "innocent". They have the power to revolt even against superior arms and numbers. Save the children? Most of them will be better off dead as their lives will be a living hell in most cases.
I agree that they are "5th century barbarians" but there is an assumption there that we are a 21st century civilization and therefore can use these weapons "for good and not evil". I am of the camp that says war is inevitable and perpetual. There are so many good reasons for war and so many people ready to find them applicable that there has never been a time without war somewhere. And it always has the possibility of effecting us.
I think we should view this as a one hundred years war and fight it efficiently. We should pick our battles strategically and fight them with the long term in view. I agree that we can win this battle but what would it gain us; who would be deterred. The terrorists have already been shown the effectiveness of Sarin, and it's so much easier to get than nuclear.
The simpler truth is that we don't fight wars to win - we fight wars to "nation" build and "bring" democracy.
That worked during WWII. Today, we're facing barbarians who want nothing less that total war for total subjugation. The Western world will never agree to that as we have this odd notion of civilized warfare.
Nope - sorry, ain't gonna happen. This time it truly is them or us and I'm afraid it's gonna be us.
So John McCain and Lindsay Graham met with the President to discuss Syria and to pledge their fealty. The press is overjoyed these two RINOs are within the fold, and I'm hearing all sorts of claims the two of them speak for Congressional Republicans. Oh, is that so? Who appointed them to speak for their colleagues? Among Conservatives, there isn't a whole lot of trust in Obama--now why should that be?--and many of them apparently don't see the great national security crisis and urgency that Obama claims to exist. As others have noted, after all, the President is only about 100,000 dead Syrians behind the curve in failing to act against the Assad government. Obama and Kerry (not to mention the United Nations) didn't seem to find any great urgency in stopping Assad's indiscriminate killing of a hundred thousand people thus far, which others argue was as much a violation of world "norms" as is his use of chemical weapons (i.e., WMD). On a different front, nothing has been heard from Hillary Clinton on the matter. AFAIK no one in the press has reached out to her for her views on the situation. No doubt her response regarding Assad's use of WMD would be much as before over Benghazi, namely, "What difference does it make now?"
The war in Syria is not our problem and inserting ourselves into is reckless. The biggest problem with getting involved there now is Obama. He is inexperienced (and that is being generous), probably traitorous and unpredictable when it comes to his allegiance. It would seem more likely to me that he would put our troops in harms way and allow them to be sitting ducks.
The greater war between the radical muslims and the free world is our problem but we are not willing or prepared to fight it. Just as a drug addict needs to hit bottom and then decide for themselves that they want to beat drugs so to we will have to have a real "Pearl Harbor" event to get our mind right to fight the war to win. I have no doubt that sooner or later the terrorists will get WMD's and use them against the West. But until that happens the West will continue to see the world through rose colored glasses.