Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
My eyes won't dry.
There is no "good guy" there. There is no preferrable alternative.Why the Hell are we even discussing intervention? We'd end up having two loathsome sides opposing us until we leave, then resume the mass slaughter of one another with weapons we provide.This is the worst thing we can possibly involve ourselves in.
We need to stay out of Syria and let others participate and then judge them based upon the outcome.Regards — Cliff
And our President aspires to give them air cover.
I knew there was a problem when Kerry told a congressman to read a newspaper article about how the rebels really aren't so terroristy, despite what the intelligence says.
I am sorry but they appear to be already dead. No hand or arm movement, no breathing.
I'm no stranger to gratuitous violence. I teach in inner city schools and have danced to bullets spattered around the classroom, narrowly avoided flashing knives and shivs, been assaulted, battered and slammed, and evacuated, running from the fear of planted bombs. What was the purpose of the snuff video in the New York Times, linked at Althouse and watched at my desk? To warn me or to proselytize me? To scare me or encourage me? Note to self - be careful with Althouse links in the future....
History has seen one certain outcome whenever a King invites foreign fighters in to help him preserve his kingdom.The foreign fighters take his kingdom themselves and never leave. That's why the came in to "help."Obama, Rice and Kerry know that fact of history. Ergo : they want al Qaeda to occupy Syria and retake Anbar Provence in Iraq.The Drone Killer Creep Obama's object seems to be revenge on Bush and the US Marines for defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq.
This is what a "moderate" looks like.
This is one of those cases where we'd be better off if both sides lost.
Oy. We want to get in the middle of that? This is like choosing sides in the Iran vs. Iraq war. What could possibly be the point?I'd be there are plenty of folks among the rebels just itching to get their hands on those chem weapons.
This is the NYT. What are they not telling us? Why are they sharing info that doesn't support Obama's position? I do not understand how to judge this. It looks too straightforward to be totally believable coming as it does from The Gray Lady.
Convenient that a video shot in April happened to be "smuggled" out of Syria this week.
The USA should be on the side of good, not evil. Hard to tell the difference here. Being on the side of not-as-bad-as-the-other isn't a good option.
Thus endeth Obama's very short Syrian adventure. Any support he had in Congress is going to melt away after this.At least I hope so!
So, the NYT's supporting Assad?
I agree with gregwithtwogs. They certainly appear to be already dead. If so, then that raises even more questions. This may well be another example of Palywood.Of course, I'm open to correction. The NYT video is edited, and I watched it on a fairly small screen.
There's worse videos out there.A couple of weeks ago I saw one with the 'rebel's' sawing off the head of a Syrian priest.
There were massacres of Serbs by Bosniaks and Croats, too. Or Hutus by Tutsis. Or Sunnis by Shia. Still didn't make imposing peace a bad idea. Only, that's not on the table here. The US cannot act as an outside imperial power the way it did in the Balkans, or Iraq. So, the situation in Syria is more like Rwanda or the Congo where it's likely that hundreds of thousands will die while we do nothing because of a recent war that didn't turn out well (Somalia in 1993 and Iraq in 2003). I think it's time to start looking at Syria as a genocidal war, since the numbers and the advent of chemical weapons is taking it way beyond simple civil conflict.President Bush acted and 100,000 people in Iraq died. President Obama did nothing and 100,000 people in Syria died, with more every day. US military strikes may simply make things worse if they don't have the objective of ending the violence.I'm not sure Bush is going to come off worse in history if this keeps up.
The best path to regional peace and stability is for both sides in the Syrian "conflict" to slaughter each other. They can do it just fine without our help.
Any libtards who opposed U.S. aid to the Contras and cited concern about their human rights record in the 80s but who support the President here want to explain themselves?
John Lynch - "President Bush acted and 100,000 people in Iraq died. President Obama did nothing and 100,000 people in Syria died, with more every day. US military strikes may simply make things worse if they don't have the objective of ending the violence.I'm not sure Bush is going to come off worse in history if this keeps up."===============1. Simple math. Bush invaded, and bloodthirsty Iraqis started a Civil War in the aftermath where both sides also targeted the Imperial Invader (us). Over 100,000 dead Muslims but also 40,000 American casualties and 2 trillion Bush borrowed from China pissed away while US industry and infrastructure further decayed and Wall Street played.Obama is blocked from invading, over 100,000 Syrian casualties happen...but the US is not out 2 trillion and 40,000 casualties.Do you have any question who will be considered a better American leader vis a vis Iraq or Syria??I suppose you can say that Bush II was a strong leader like LBJ and led us into a complete morass, while Obama was weaker leader who failed to lead us into a morass.
A pox on both their houses. Their conflict is not worth a single American life or a single American tax dollar. Let them kill each other off. If innocents die in the crossfire, that's sad, but it's the way of the world. There's nothing we can do to help the situation and the people over there are irredeemable. As I read elsewhere, there are no Thomas Jeffersons over there, just embryonic Osama Bin Ladens. We should defend our national interests, but there are none there that I can see that can be advanced short of going in with a massive army and crushing both sides, occupying them and then De-Islamifying them the way we De-Nazified the Germans after World War II. That involves sitting on them for a generation and outlawing their barbarous religion. We won't do that, and short of doing that, we shouldn't even try. If you can't run with the big dogs (and fight wars in their ruthless fashion), stay on the porch.
It didn't seem to cause much consternation when we bombed Serbia in order to aid the Kosovan "rebels". Hopefully, we will not make that mistake again. The Clinton administration was ostensibly confused about the culpability of each party, as well as they failed to discern the causal relationship of the conflict.
n. n said:"It didn't seem to cause much consternation when we bombed Serbia in order to aid the Kosovan "rebels". Hopefully, we will not make that mistake again."Excellent point. Few people seem to realize that out air force has already served al Al Qaeda's air force. Few Americans seem concerned about the ethnic cleansing against the Serbs happening right now under our watch.Cedarford said:"I suppose you can say that Bush II was a strong leader like LBJ and led us into a complete morass, while Obama was weaker leader who failed to lead us into a morass"I believe you are insulting LBJ by comparing him to Bush and Obama. At least LBJ knew who our enemies were even if he didn't pursue the Vietnam war correctly. Bush squandered a small fortune and much American blood to fight a tactic, Terror, without ever recognizing that the real enemy was an ideology. Obama's morass will be even worse since he has embraced our enemies, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and has promoted them throughout the World. The difference is that Obama's morass will be right here at home, America, and the casualties will be American civilians. The shooting at Fort Hood, "Obama's work place violence", is a first installment of this policy.
Post a Comment