tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post8811930481279680121..comments2024-03-28T15:35:21.498-05:00Comments on Althouse: "Unbelievably small."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40844959718691542022013-09-11T15:23:30.210-05:002013-09-11T15:23:30.210-05:00Heh, bet he changes a certain VPs diapers.Heh, bet he changes a certain VPs diapers.Mellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08092126598706179916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65005730404175174292013-09-10T22:16:48.463-05:002013-09-10T22:16:48.463-05:00jr565,
I made my points. Why did it take you 7 c...jr565,<br /><br />I made my points. Why did it take you 7 comments to make yours, and still fail to deal with any of my points coherently? I'd reply but I'm at a loss as to what I should or could reply. I'm done.<br /><br />good night.CWJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03598487232861475833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3479825479766990962013-09-10T19:32:37.621-05:002013-09-10T19:32:37.621-05:00CWJ's doom and gloom scenario where only Russi...CWJ's doom and gloom scenario where only Russia is capable of honoring its red lines and only the rogue regimes are allowed to get their way, and any actions to counter said moves are a forgone failure on our part is a lefty trope based on the argument that the US is responsible for all evil and that our enemies only act in reaction to us. otherwise they are inert automatons.<br />My guess is CWJ is actually a libertarian so his focus is sllightly different. But it's still the same basic argument.<br /><br />Fundamentally though what happens when a country doesn't honor its word after putting down a red line.<br />Well, Russia is putting down its own red line. What would happen if Russia didnt do what it said. would it be stronger or weaker because of it?<br />CWJ is arguing we cant honor our red line and do what we say becuase Russia will honor its red line and do what it says. But that just means we must always cede our foreign policy to what other countries say, almost definitionally. And they never have to. <br />because there will always be consequences if we do what we say we'll do.<br />Are there never consequences though, if they do what they say they'll do. Or they do what we say not to do? <br />Why is CWJ's world such where Syria can use chemical weapons on its people and never have to deal with consquences for said action, but if we DARE to try to hold them accountable it's a forgone conclusion that we must lose, because they will react to us? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-48702858789528161782013-09-10T19:19:24.333-05:002013-09-10T19:19:24.333-05:00Sorry, I though Meade made the statement that CWJ ...Sorry, I though Meade made the statement that CWJ made (Meade was just reposting the comment). So my last comment was directed at him and not Meade jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73441863844722892352013-09-10T19:15:31.489-05:002013-09-10T19:15:31.489-05:00Meade wrote:
"Everything you cite Max Boot as...Meade wrote:<br /><i>"Everything you cite Max Boot as saying has already happened. Authorizing military force now will not unring that bell."</i><br><br />Even if you argue that it has happened it doesn't mean that it has to keep on happening.<br />So,you can unring the bell to a certain degree simply by not continuing the policies that are hurting you.<br />So, I'll go through Max's first paragraph to show you what I mean:<br /><br /><i>"Bashar Assad will get away with the most significant use of chemical weapons since Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in 1988. "</i>Only if Obama doesn't honor the obligations he set down. If he capitulates then obviously Syria gets away with it. But if he doesn't then Syria doesnt.It's all predicated on the choice we make. <br /><br /><i>"This, in turn, will send a signal to weapons proliferators such as North Korea and Iran that the U.S. lacks the will to stop them."</i><br><br />Again, only if we don't honor the commitments we set down when we say that Syria would be accountable. You could unring that bell simply by not doing what you are saying we must do. It's not predetermined. We would choose to put ourselves in that position.<br /><br /> <i>"Any hopes of a negotiated stop to the Iranian nuclear program–admittedly slim to begin with–will disappear altogether."</i><br /><br> Yes, if obama doesn't honor his commitments, but not necessarily if Obama does. Do you personally think that we can negotiate a stop to Iran's nuclear program or is that bell unrung too? How do you propose we do that other than by honoring our words and holding Iran to account. And if you are saying that we can never do so, why shoudn't Israel bomb them to the stone age tomorrow? Because you're saying we CAN'T hold Iran to account diplomatically. Therefore Israel would NEED to hold Iran to account militarily. unless it wants to live in a world where Iran is threatening it with nukes. how are you then stopping a greater war by counseling we should act like cowards?<br /><br /><i>"Israel will be left standing alone against the Iranians and their Hezbollah proxies."</i><br />This is only a forgone conclusions if you make it your policy that we dont honor our obligations. Do we HAVE To do that? I would say no. YOu are choosing that path!<br /><br /><i>The opposition in Syria will suffer a substantial blow and Assad may well be emboldened to employ sarin gas again.</i><br />You didn't stand for holding them to account the first time, and they got stronger because of it, you wont hold them to account the next time either.<br />But all of these consequences are choices you are are suggesting we MUST make and then saying we can't do anything about it because it's already happened. What absolute bullshit!<br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54371542723116713592013-09-10T18:53:33.467-05:002013-09-10T18:53:33.467-05:00Meade wrote:
That's why Obama publicly laying ...Meade wrote:<br />That's why Obama publicly laying down a red line was so irresponsible and naïve. And why it needs to be walked back. You don't reinforce unforced errors for the sake of pride. You may wish to be a Hapsburg in August 1914. You may wish to arrogantly risk the possibility of a larger war, but I am not.<br /><br> So, Im not saying we need to go to war with Iran YET. But I am saying we are arguing that we need to hold iran to account and putting down ultimatums for them to not cross various red lines or else. Is it irresponsible of us to do that? What if they call our bluff one day and we feel they are on the verge of getting their nukes and that is the one line that we wont allow to be crossed. Would it be naive to have put down those ultimatums in the first place and assume that Iran wouldn't cross them and that we might need to deal with the repurcussions? If we aren't prepared to deal with the potential there would be consequences for them crossing that line then there is no reason we would ever, say, contain, a country for a nuclear program. Or contain Iraq for its WMD program.<br />And similarly,why is the onus on us to not honor our obligation to the red lines we put down and not on the regimes that are insistent on crossing them. Who is the one pushing for a potential war?<br />The country that uses chemical weapons even though we said in on uncertain terms that there would be consequences if they did. Are they worried about the potential war that might ensue were they to cross that line? <br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86280251281411803552013-09-10T18:45:26.059-05:002013-09-10T18:45:26.059-05:00Meade wrote:
Syria is to Russia as Israel is to th...Meade wrote:<br />Syria is to Russia as Israel is to the US. Now reverse the roles with Russia threatening to bomb Israel. What would the US do.<br /><br />In short, as weakened as Russia is, stop acting like the US is the only actor in this drama and that the only factor we need to consider is a failure of will.<br /><br> When we had the Iraq war Iran lobbed cruise missiles into Israel. Did Russia get inovled in the war with Israel? Did Russia attack us when we invaded Iraq? Did Russia attack Israel when Israel bombed Syria over it's nuclear program? <br />When the Muslim Brotherhood lobs missiles at Israel do WE attack the muslim brotherhood?<br /><br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15695908844092778402013-09-10T18:40:53.588-05:002013-09-10T18:40:53.588-05:00Meade wrote:
"Finally and most foolishly, you...Meade wrote:<br /><i>"Finally and most foolishly, you have dismissed the possibility of a Russian direct response. Alternately, saying that they wouldn't do it, or are no longer strong enough to do so.<br /><br />You have not thought that one through. Syria is Russia's one remaining ally and client in the ME. Surely Russia is cultivating other potential allies there and has influence, but Syria is Russia's one remaining card carrying ally and the location of Russia's one remaining military base in the Med,"</i><br /><br> <br /><br />From the movie Casino:<br /><br />All right, I'm gonna give you a choice:<br /><br />You can either have the money and the hammer or you can walk out of here.<br /><br />What do you want?<br /><br> So you're thinking of Russia having that influence now. But realistically, that will not be the same scenario that Russia will face were it to confront us directly. Because we would HAVE to by necessity expand the war to directly deal with the what Russia just did to us personally. Could Russia maintain it's influence in the region if we are directly attacking their interests in the region? No. It's only able to do so because it's keeping us in check diplomatically. <br />You can take the hammer and the money (meaning you'll get the money but we're going to break your hand) OR you can walk away but lose the money. You wont get both. Which is why Russia might work behind the scenes to prop up the regime but it would be beyond stupid for it to think it could directly target us and not expect a reprisal or that the regime it was backing was still standing. If it received such a reprisal, could it still maintain it's influence in the region?<br />Russia cannot support its navy long term in the region, especially if the navy is engaged in combat operations against the US. And what would be the benefit that they wouldn't get by simply getting the money from arming Syria?<br /><br />Russia is not going to get involved in a direct war with us. That's not where Russia is strong. Especially not in the middle East where it's only strong diplomatically but not militarily.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5904669348148482762013-09-10T18:16:36.976-05:002013-09-10T18:16:36.976-05:00Meade wrote:
"That's why Obama publicly l...Meade wrote:<br />"That's why Obama publicly laying down a red line was so irresponsible and naïve. And why it needs to be walked back. You don't reinforce unforced errors for the sake of pride. You may wish to be a Hapsburg in August 1914. You may wish to arrogantly risk the possibility of a larger war, but I am not"<br /><br> You wouldn't reinforce the red line because of pride. you would reinforce it becuase to not do so weakens your position in the world by not doing so.<br /><br />And who are you kidding? If Obama were to reinforce his red line comments with action sooner rather than later do you think that would somehow prevent the risk of a possible larger war? Do you think those who would risk a potential bigger war would do so because Obama looked like a bozo before dropping bombs as opposed to Obama dropping bombs?<br /><br />You can't walk something back once you've laid down your red line. You can either honor it or not honor it and then the world (and our enemies will judge you on whether you were serious or not. Waking it back would be an example of them judging you as weak. <br /><br />It's not arrogant to uphold the idea that if you use chemical weapons there will be a reprisal. It's arrogant to think you can use chemical weapons and there wont be.<br /><br />So, you making some distinction about us honoring a red line for principle of solely for pride is irrelevant if it came to the possibility of expanding a future war. Would you be ok with Obama honoring his red line, if it was done so principally but then Syria or Iran bombs Israel because of it? That's going to happen or not happen because of decisions made by Syria and Iran in response to our action not on whether we are principled in making the action in the first place. <br /><br />And lets also be honest. Right now it looks like the House is leaning against authorizing a military response. But these things take time. Our rush to war in Iraq took months in the leadup to war. Obama might ultimately get enough people to agree with his strike. OR he might find congress to be so useless he gives up on the idea of getting them to agree to give him the power to honor his commitment and not weaken his ability to act as a commander in chief. <br /><br />So how does that work when you make the argument that we need to walk back our honoring the ultimatum we put down with our red line if the congress takes more time to decide to go to war than it does for us to lose some advantage in not going to war early?<br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57939714693445726362013-09-10T17:22:03.551-05:002013-09-10T17:22:03.551-05:00Wow, thank you Meade!Wow, thank you Meade!CWJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03598487232861475833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63038016219835625352013-09-10T17:15:08.142-05:002013-09-10T17:15:08.142-05:00CWJ: Here is your duplicate 2:17 comment that got...CWJ: Here is your duplicate 2:17 comment that got deleted:<br /><br /><i>CWJ has left a new comment on the post ""Unbelievably small."": <br /><br />jr565 @ 11:27<br /><br />Everything you cite Max Boot as saying has already happened. Authorizing military force now will not unring that bell.<br /><br />As others have noted, toppling Assad as bad as he is does not lead to a good result. In fact, it may very likely lead to genocide against Syria's Alawites, Druze, Shia, and Christians. These groups' safety is secured only by a secular government in control. Playing God in Syria's internal affairs, as sordid as they are, is not my cup of tea.<br /><br />Finally and most foolishly, you have dismissed the possibility of a Russian direct response. Alternately, saying that they wouldn't do it, or are no longer strong enough to do so.<br /><br />You have not thought that one through. Syria is Russia's one remaining ally and client in the ME. Surely Russia is cultivating other potential allies there and has influence, but Syria is Russia's one remaining card carrying ally and the location of Russia's one remaining military base in the Med.<br /><br />Syria is to Russia as Israel is to the US. Now reverse the roles with Russia threatening to bomb Israel. What would the US do.<br /><br />In short, as weakened as Russia is, stop acting like the US is the only actor in this drama and that the only factor we need to consider is a failure of will.<br /><br />That's why Obama publicly laying down a red line was so irresponsible and naïve. And why it needs to be walked back. You don't reinforce unforced errors for the sake of pride. You may wish to be a Hapsburg in August 1914. You may wish to arrogantly risk the possibility of a larger war, but I am not.</i>Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75025107602841408602013-09-10T16:49:57.501-05:002013-09-10T16:49:57.501-05:00Barry Sanders wrote:
2. There is not a good side a...Barry Sanders wrote:<br />2. There is not a good side and a bad side here, only two bad sides. Which bad side do you want to help?<br /><br> I know the Assad side is bad. I know that Iran is bad I know that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe. Therefore the Assad regime is bad and its in our interest to see regime change if we can get it. I also know that elements of the resistance are also bad and are tied to Al Qaeda and or Muslim Brotherhood. but not all the resistance are those people. There are some moderates in the bunch.<br />And I don't know if backing those moderates to some small degree will lead to them taking control of the country. But I do know that Assad's regime standing makes Iran more powerful, Russia more powerful etc.<br />So, what could a bombing achieve? It could remove Assad's advantages against the rebels. We could bomb them and then sit back and see what happens. If it seems that the muslim brotherhood is the one that's taking over, or Al Qaeda is taking over and not moderates, then we could engage in another bomb strike that weakens THEIR ability to fight.<br />Is Russia going to back Al Qaeda, will Iran potentialy be at war with Al Qaeda if we topple Assad? If not then I can see a much weaker regime to deal with (since they wont be backed by two of our enemies). But if Iran were to back them, well then aren't we at war with AL Qaeda? So why not deal with Al Qaeda in Syria as it tries to control Syria? Al Qaeda is good at terrorism not so good at running countries. And, I'd imagine, a lot of Syrians would have problems with Al Qaeda trying to run their country. <br /><br />SO what would the end game be? It would be a limited operation .Take out targets that help Assad use chemical weapons or wage war, then let the war play out and push it in a direction that is in our national interests.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-155076611288225992013-09-10T16:36:23.046-05:002013-09-10T16:36:23.046-05:00Barry Sanders wrote:
1. It's not our fight. Wh...Barry Sanders wrote:<br />1. It's not our fight. Why do you think it is smart to make it ours?<br /><br> Because Russia is making it theirs. Because Syria is a proxy state of Iran and we have this idea that we should prevent Iran from getting nukes. Thus any policy that strenghens the proxy state of Iran also strengthens Iran. And because it then makes it harder to actually tell IRan that they have to stop with a nuclear program. Because they already know our word is shit.<br />Because having a country use chemical weapons and have no response only means that future wars will escalate to chemical weapons use.<br />Because if American power, or the perception of American power is weakened because our enemies think we will not back up our words with actions it emboldens our enemies an makes us weaker. <br />Because our allies are relying on us being able to keep our word. If we can't, why wouldn't more countries back Russia since they seem to be able to keep theirs. jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54915594413460834002013-09-10T16:21:38.802-05:002013-09-10T16:21:38.802-05:00What's worse? The scenario you lay out, or one...<i>What's worse? The scenario you lay out, or one in which POTUS went ahead and launched the strikes, completely by surprise (which is what you're supposed to do...not a week of political and very public soul search and 'walks' first), and they ended up as nearly or completely ineffectual?</i><br /><br><br />Based on how our country conducts war its very hard for us to engage in a strike that ends up a complete surprise for those we are are targeting unless we are already at war with them.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81242599146198176422013-09-10T16:18:39.444-05:002013-09-10T16:18:39.444-05:00Damikesc wrote:
"Jr, I could care less what K...Damikesc wrote:<br /><br><i>"Jr, I could care less what Kristol thinks. We are being asked to support military action against a country that poses no threat to us on the basis of a chemical attack that nobody knows was done by the government.<br /><br />Is it our job to fix the Middle East? Because that requires a lot more than we can provide."<br /></i><br />Does Russia think it can fix the ME? then why is it propping up the Assad regime? Is it Russias business? Then why is it there? Why is it saying that were we to attack that it would act as a shield? isn't that butting into a countries business?<br />Russia's great idea that you say we should adopt instead of bombing Syria would require Syria turning over its chemical weapons to the International community and they will monitor the chemical weapons.<br />I've already said why this is a completely stupid idea (since Russia can veto any action that might hold Syria to account) but is it the international communities business? Can THEY fix the ME? and aren't we the primary actor anytime the international community gets involved with dealing with a rogue country anyway? How then is it not our business on some level? even Russias solution that doesn't involve war still requires other countries butting into Syria's business.<br /><br />why do the rest of us sign treaties prohibiting chemical weapons anyway? What obligation are you saying its supposed to have considering we are limiting our sovereignty by agreeing to the terms?<br />Is it Syria's business what Iran does? is it the ME's business what Israel does? All these countries though seem to order themselves around coalitions that serve their interests.<br />Which suggests that "none of your business" isn't really applicable in the world.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79408796768965841802013-09-10T15:32:17.943-05:002013-09-10T15:32:17.943-05:00Cedarford wrote:
R - Max Boot is an infamous Neoco...Cedarford wrote:<br />R - Max Boot is an infamous Neocon. Any new war he can get us in that doesn't serve America but is seen as halping Israel in some way, he is a strong cheerleader for.<br /><br />From your extensive war drum banging, JR565..is it fair to term you a Neocon??<br /><br> Well I'm not a jew. So would that mean I'm not a neocon? <br /><br />But this is a common tactic for you and Cooke. Rather than address the point vilify the speaker. For you its the neocon for Cooke it's the neocon and anyone who isn't as far to the left as him. Obama suddenly becomes a neocon who is out to get the resources of the brown people, even though he was a lefty when the lefties elected him. <br /><br />How about instead address the point that Max Boot made. Does it make sense? If not, then explain why it doesn't.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34301757250832496422013-09-10T15:27:56.709-05:002013-09-10T15:27:56.709-05:00damikesc wrote;
Jr, I could care less what Kristol...damikesc wrote;<br />Jr, I could care less what Kristol thinks. We are being asked to support military action against a country that poses no threat to us on the basis of a chemical attack that nobody knows was done by the government.<br /><br> Does Iran getting nukes pose no threat to us? I ask to simply find out where you are on the question. If you say no, then of course bombing Syria makes no sense whatsoever. But if you say yes, then you are beyond idiotic in thinking that Syria isn't directly related to our dealings with Iran.<br />And you should still have to answer the charge about whether what Kristol asys is in fact true or not. Is letting an "Iran-supported, terror-backing dictator with American blood on his hands off the hook after he's used chemical weapons." good for our interests.<br />If you're Robert Cooke you would even have a problem with the idea that an Iran supported regime is a bad thing. But to someone like myself the question answers itself. What perspective are you coming from? <br />jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/06250384040393259866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27275996524373793972013-09-10T15:11:51.186-05:002013-09-10T15:11:51.186-05:00I went back to delete the duplicate comment and no...I went back to delete the duplicate comment and now both are gone.<br /><br />Oh well, whatever.CWJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03598487232861475833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59081118304493583192013-09-10T14:52:10.792-05:002013-09-10T14:52:10.792-05:00Meade, I'd like to think that last comment was...Meade, I'd like to think that last comment was beneath you.<br /><br />The equavelence I was making was geopolitical, not moral.<br /><br />But I would hope you knew that.CWJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03598487232861475833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9969587645232666812013-09-10T14:28:05.421-05:002013-09-10T14:28:05.421-05:00"Syria is to Russia as Israel is to the US. N..."Syria is to Russia as Israel is to the US. Now reverse the roles with Russia threatening to bomb Israel. What would the US do."<br /><br />The government of Israel targeted and gassed Israeli women and children? That would be weird.Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12347959395885692672013-09-10T14:17:20.547-05:002013-09-10T14:17:20.547-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.CWJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03598487232861475833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24073197883286641732013-09-10T13:09:21.790-05:002013-09-10T13:09:21.790-05:00"Now see here, Mr. Putin, I am going to put m..."Now see here, Mr. Putin, I am going to put my dick in your cash box, an' since I am a magnanimous citizen of the world I trust you won't--"<br /><br />( SLAM )<br />...<br />( SLAM SLAM SLAM SLAM SLAM)<br /><br />Scott Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02459388007426664813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67864809728383343532013-09-10T12:58:12.816-05:002013-09-10T12:58:12.816-05:00JR - Max Boot is an infamous Neocon. Any new war h...JR - Max Boot is an infamous Neocon. Any new war he can get us in that doesn't serve America but is seen as halping Israel in some way, he is a strong cheerleader for.<br /><br />From your extensive war drum banging, JR565..is it fair to term you a Neocon??Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53652826588909636442013-09-10T12:52:57.639-05:002013-09-10T12:52:57.639-05:00JR,
1. It's not our fight. Why do you think...JR,<br /><br />1. It's not our fight. Why do you think it is smart to make it ours?<br /><br />2. There is not a good side and a bad side here, only two bad sides. Which bad side do you want to help?<br /><br />3. There are worse outcomes than Assad. Do you think we get to choose who comes next? Why do you think the next dictator will be better for our interests than leaving Assad where he is?<br /><br />4. Obama has fucked up not getting involved. Do you think he'd do a great job of getting involved? Do you have confidence that he will show steely resolve and focused leadership for whatever the consequences of bombing will be? Do you think he has a plan or even a clue what he is doing? I know you think you know why we should bomb, but do you think Obama knows why he should bomb?<br /><br />5. You don't say what your end game is. Do you want a massive don't-ever-think-about-using chemical weapons again bombing, or are you good with a Kerryesque polite excuse-me bombing? Seems you need a big one to save face. A little one is worse than none at all. Do you want the civil war to end? If so, who wins and with what result? Or do you want to degrade Assad just enough so that the war contines? Just enough so that he and Iran thinks twice about using chemical weapons again or ever? What level of bombing will do that? Or do you not give a shit about Syrians but just want to hope that future threats of strikes by American presidents are not discounted as the utterings of a pathetic weakling? <br /><br />6. Once Obama made the threat, he needed to have the balls to carry out the consequences immediately and let the chips fall. But he doesn't have the balls to do that. Now that he hasn't, any lessons he hoped to teach are gone. If he was so sure this was in America's interests, he should have done it and then justified it with a big fat Fuck You to anyone who opposed it. Asking permission was foolish when he had no plan to win permission from allies, the UN or Congress. Do you think bombing now saves face?<br /><br />The least bad option now is to let Vlad ride to the rescue. Not to help us, but to stick a thumb up Obama's and America's ass. Amazing that Obama let that happen.<br /> BarrySanders20https://www.blogger.com/profile/05746075364579483752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90026844977468691262013-09-10T12:52:48.862-05:002013-09-10T12:52:48.862-05:00"Since Vlad is just running up the score now,..."Since Vlad is just running up the score now, I am wondering what last minute policy the Russians are going to announce just before the speech to make the whole thing look ridiculous."<br /><br />I think he meant, "Even more ridiculous."Scott Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02459388007426664813noreply@blogger.com