tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post949617063969048663..comments2024-03-28T17:30:34.605-05:00Comments on Althouse: Trump addressing nation right now about strikes on Syria.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58791021265402761382018-04-14T16:03:40.214-05:002018-04-14T16:03:40.214-05:00@Jim at:
Or maybe the lazy asshole who was Presid...<b>@Jim at:</b><br /><br /><i>Or maybe the lazy asshole who was President before him could've done something instead of simply running his mouth and making a bad situation worse.<br /><br />Trump inherited this shit. You're welcome for him attempting to clean it up.</i><br /><br />Obama's error in Syria was that he did too much, not too little. The US was covertly arming rebel groups early in the civil uprising in Syria. If the US was going to be involved in all, the pragmatic thing to do would be to assist Asad in keeping control of his country. But mostly, the US should have simply stayed out of Syria. <br /><br />Every president inherits his foreign policy from his predecessor. Nothing is stopping Trump from withdrawing US troops from Syria and ending our involvement in that conflict. Instead, the administration has signaled that may keep American troops in Syria indefinitely. Under what authority these troops are deployed I have no idea. Furthermore, we have now carried out two airstrikes on Syrian government facilities. Is this because we must make a show of force to maintain our credibility? The US has been bombing countries in the middle east pretty much nonstop for the last 17 years. J. Farmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09118902560282089997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90483501092403932142018-04-14T15:53:01.514-05:002018-04-14T15:53:01.514-05:00@grackle:
Allies, clients, whatever. I don’t get ...<b>@grackle:</b><br /><br /><i>Allies, clients, whatever. I don’t get caught up in mere semantics. Whatever they are, the USA should back them up IF it is in America’s interests to do so. If THAT concept constitutes ‘indulgence’ then I plead guilty.</i><br /><br />It is not "mere semantics." There are important distinctions between legitimate allies and client states. For countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, we are under treaty obligation to come to their defense in case they are attacked. We are expected to sacrifice American lives in defense of their countries. With the exception of Turkey, we have no such obligations to the countries of the Middle East. <br /><br />As for your second point, I completely agree with it. The question, of course, is how we define American interests. What American interests are served in bombing Asad's facilities? What authority do we have to do this? Why, exactly, should the US oppose Asad?<br /><br /><i>My view is that America should seek any ally that is in America’s advantage to support regardless of such a nation’s governance method. That includes Egypt or any other nation that will cooperate with America’s goals and policies.</i><br /><br />Exactly my point. If you recall, the context of what I was saying was in response to another commenter who said that we had a "moral obligation" to attack Asad because he was a "bully." J. Farmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09118902560282089997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67858678668110833892018-04-14T13:30:32.568-05:002018-04-14T13:30:32.568-05:00Back in 2013.
In case you haven't noticed, it...<i>Back in 2013.</i><br /><br />In case you haven't noticed, it's 2018.<br /><br />Jim athttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02271099587684174816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4887452825259863062018-04-14T13:24:45.276-05:002018-04-14T13:24:45.276-05:00Trump should’ve thought about Putin and his associ...<i>Trump should’ve thought about Putin and his associations before he wanted a relationship with him.</i> - Inga <br /><br />Or maybe the lazy asshole who was President before him could've done something instead of simply running his mouth and making a bad situation worse.<br /><br />Trump inherited this shit. You're welcome for him attempting to clean it up.Jim athttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02271099587684174816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66901576841231114792018-04-14T11:54:05.915-05:002018-04-14T11:54:05.915-05:00This was a terrible mistake by the God Emperor. On...This was a terrible mistake by the God Emperor. Once again the globalists and the neocons have achieved their goals.<br /><br />They delayed the bombing long enough for the Russians to flee and get their military assets out of harms way. Long enough for the Syrians to hide the poison gas. It is all kubuki theater. Bubba bait for the boobs.<br /><br />The only hopeful sign is that the President said we had no designs on remaining in Syria. Now is the time to withdraw and let the Syrians sort it out. Let the Russians and the Turks fight over the corpse. Just ban any Syrians from entering the United States. Let Europe adsorb the rapists and terrorist and all around piece of shit Muslims that destroy everything they touch. Put America First.<br /><br />No more endless wars in the Middle East. No more endless expenditures in the Middle East. Leave them to rot. They are worthless pieces of shit who are never going to worth a bucket of warm spit. Fuck them and the camel they rode in on.langford peelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07665516958065968605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72179559507998322582018-04-14T11:06:44.854-05:002018-04-14T11:06:44.854-05:00Yesterday was National Blame Someone Else Day. Coi...Yesterday was National Blame Someone Else Day. Coincidence?<br /><br />https://nationaldaycalendar.com/national-blame-someone-else-day-first-friday-13/Bob Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14217663230833386582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26009086080548145372018-04-14T10:40:15.991-05:002018-04-14T10:40:15.991-05:00I have no idea whether Assad used gas or not, but ...I have no idea whether Assad used gas or not, but if he did it's hard to understand why. He was winning, Trump had announced US forces were soon leaving Syria and it was a militarily insignificant strike. Assad had to know beforehand the primary result of using gas would be that America would retaliate and perhaps become more involved in the war. It doesn't make sense. <br /><br /> But maybe it doesn't matter who used the gas so much as it matters to A) send the message to the world that if gas is used, bombs will fall on the accused culprit, no question. Any of the world's many bad actors would have to think long and hard about that before they decided to gas their opponents. And B) to reinforce the idea Trump means what he says when it comes to drawing a red line.<br /><br /> Maybe our side knew it likely wasn't Assad, but who else are you going to bomb? If a rebel group we support was wanting us to stay so they staged the gas attack, we can't very well bomb them. It would be counterproductive and how would you designate a target in the environment the rebels operate? It would just kill a lot of civilians and make rubble bounce. <br /> Assad is our named enemy, he's a very bad guy, if you must drop bombs in Syria to send a message, why not bomb him? And he's the only one with any worth while targets still standing. Maybe they decided it's better to take the opportunity to bomb Assad than to do nothing. <br /> Just speculation. Bob Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14217663230833386582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71090996367329667692018-04-14T10:17:25.837-05:002018-04-14T10:17:25.837-05:00Blogger Birkel said...
Bruce Hayden,
Syria claims ...<br />Blogger Birkel said...<br />Bruce Hayden,<br />Syria claims a 10% rate of shooting down missiles. (13/120)<br /><br />One should expect the number is lower than 13, given that 13 is the propaganda number. So the best Russian defense was lower than 10% effective. That's not exactly Iron Dome rates of success.<br /><br />That is why the U.S. must stop Chinese espionage. Our tech is what separates our military from others'.<br /><br />4/14/18, 7:03 AM<br /><br /><br />I'd like some facts on this. If the Russians say they only shot at missiles affecting the areas that Russia was defending and they went 13 for 13 on those intercepts, that looks different. But we don't know what any of the truth is. <br /><br />Was it even Tomahawk missiles or did they use anything invented post-1970s? What did the Russians use? I would actually think that a Tomahawk would be a pretty easy target to detect and destroy. They're not stealthy. Bad Lieutenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18091901464339059169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45527145662877986332018-04-14T10:14:22.837-05:002018-04-14T10:14:22.837-05:00Assuming that the "option" to remove Ass...<i> Assuming that the "option" to remove Assad did exist, why in the hell would that be an advisable thing to do? </i><br /><br />The answer is that I do not think it “advisable” for America to depose Assad. Such an action would require a lot of American boots on the ground. The MSM, the Democrats and the eGOP opposing Trump in Congress are at this moment salivating at the prospect of a Trump quagmire in the Middle East. I doubt that Trump will fall into THAT trap. <br /><br /><i> I agree with this, but I still don't understand what Syria being "lost" actually means. </i><br /><br />It means that realistically the USA can do very little in Syria that hasn’t already been tried and hasn’t already failed.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18243911710712984502018-04-14T10:14:15.082-05:002018-04-14T10:14:15.082-05:00This comment thread is tending to confirm me in my...This comment thread is tending to confirm me in my opinion that the Islamic Middle East has become fluid - not divided or fractured, but fluid. It's so fluid that there is no lasting, meaningful outcome possible as a result of any action imaginable by anyone on any side. It's good to try to halt gas attacks. But meaningless murder by some means will continue and will have meaningless, terrible consequences. Islamic society and government in that area is liquefying and flowing over its own people like hydrochloric acid. Everyone in an Islamic society in that area hates; everyone has lost someone to someone else, to The Others; everyone wants revenge for torture. How is Islamic society in that area possible?wildswanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11975129877750876072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53710989028924394582018-04-14T10:04:34.425-05:002018-04-14T10:04:34.425-05:00Inga: "I didn’t say I was against a limited s...Inga: "I didn’t say I was against a limited strike. I said Mattis had it right."<br /><br />LOL<br /><br />And strike planning teams everywhere breathe a sigh of relief.Dragohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079148433908004715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72893050414698655732018-04-14T10:00:13.546-05:002018-04-14T10:00:13.546-05:00Perhaps my point was not clear. I was not arguing ...<i> Perhaps my point was not clear. I was not arguing that we should not do business with "bullies." In fact, I was saying the opposite point. The internationally recognized governments of most middle east nations are bullies. </i><br /><br />Here’s the quote from the commentor:<br /><br /><i> Your bully analogy could possibly make sense if so much of US foreign policy wasn't built on supporting, funding, and arming bullies. See, for example, the military dictator of Egypt, a favorite of western powers. </i><br /><br />My view is that America should seek any ally that is in America’s advantage to support regardless of such a nation’s governance method. That includes Egypt or any other nation that will cooperate with America’s goals and policies.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68441526788139157252018-04-14T09:44:49.427-05:002018-04-14T09:44:49.427-05:00Transfer it [Assad’s arsenal] to forces outside of...<i> Transfer it</i> [Assad’s arsenal] <i>to forces outside of Syria's borders. </i><br /><br />And how would America gather Assad’s arsenal? The only way would be to put a lot of American troops into Syria to fight our way to the different storage facilities that warehouse the armaments – IF we have the intelligence. Excuse me, but that sounds like a very risky operation. It sounds like the beginning of a “quagmire,” a term that the MSM would LOVE to apply to Trump.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47322657871751959892018-04-14T09:36:10.841-05:002018-04-14T09:36:10.841-05:00"BTW My dick is so big it's being investi..."BTW My dick is so big it's being investigated by the FBI."<br /><br />Too big to fail.Bob Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14217663230833386582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78094736975382613132018-04-14T09:34:10.360-05:002018-04-14T09:34:10.360-05:00None of these countries are allies. They are, at m...<i> None of these countries are allies. They are, at most, clients. The article you quote makes the same errors. And your notion seems to be that the US must constantly indulge clients.</i><br /><br />Allies, clients, whatever. I don’t get caught up in mere semantics. Whatever they are, the USA should back them up IF it is in America’s interests to do so. If THAT concept constitutes ‘indulgence’ then I plead guilty.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33460471821441012812018-04-14T09:32:58.369-05:002018-04-14T09:32:58.369-05:00It wasn't utilateral J. there were other count...It wasn't utilateral J. there were other countries involved. Britain and France , I think.<br />Did I mention gas? I may have mentioned gas. <br />And yes you're moving goalposts.Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66715437996353694072018-04-14T09:32:18.069-05:002018-04-14T09:32:18.069-05:00J.Farmer opines: The Syrian government gaining co...J.Farmer opines: <b>The Syrian government gaining control of its own territory is a good thing. The alternative to a Syria without Assad is a fractured Syria plagued by internecine warfare between competing groups. Obama's blunder was never his throw away "red line" remark. That is just part of the establishment's idiotic obsession with "credibility." No, his biggest blunder was believing that we had to assist, arm, and fund a violent insurgency intent on overthrowing the government. Our "partners" in the region (e.g. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE) also plunged into the conflict by assisting their favored violent jihadi groups to wage war against the government of Syria. </b><br /><br />Agree 100%. Assad, much as we hate him, is standing between either Sunni extremist jihadis taking over or Shiite Iran taking over, neither of which is a favorable outcome. mockturtlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10507310332014103437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6342840390894299412018-04-14T09:28:24.719-05:002018-04-14T09:28:24.719-05:00Little dick?
Jesus Inga. At least be creative.
Thr...Little dick?<br />Jesus Inga. At least be creative.<br />Three two letters words for small. Is it in?<br />See.<br />If you can't be smart at least be entertaining.<br />BTW My dick is so big it's being investigated by the FBI.Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13162125107484713652018-04-14T09:28:01.741-05:002018-04-14T09:28:01.741-05:00@Rusty:
J. I think I specifically mentioned gas. ...<b>@Rusty:</b><br /><br /><i>J. I think I specifically mentioned gas. <br />Leave the goal posts alone and deal with the fact that Assad used WMDs on his own and others. There are UN treaties against such thingsh as using gas. Surely not for the use of gas. Or is that not relevant in this instance? Or are you advocating something else?</i><br /><br />First, the US has no authority or obligation to unilaterally UN treaty obligations. Second, no goal posts have been moved. There are UN treaties against what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen, and not only are we not doing anything about it, we are supporting and participating in it. There are UN treaties that Israel is violating in the West Bank. Does that mean Russia should launch missiles against Israeli forces in order to compel their compliance to UN treaties. J. Farmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09118902560282089997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87408706938459874232018-04-14T09:25:10.523-05:002018-04-14T09:25:10.523-05:00@grackle:
I’m curious. What non-bully in the Midd...<b>@grackle:</b><br /><br /><i>I’m curious. What non-bully in the Middle East, other than Israel, does the commentor believe the USA should ally itself with? </i><br /><br />Perhaps my point was not clear. I was not arguing that we should not do business with "bullies." In fact, I was saying the opposite point. The internationally recognized governments of most middle east nations <i>are</i> bullies. So the notion that we are attacking Asad because he is a "bully" is obviously nonsensical.<br /><br /><i>Answer: Israel, the Kurds, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. </i><br /><br />None of these countries are allies. They are, at most, clients. The article you quote makes the same errors. And your notion seems to be that the US must constantly indulge clients. In regards to the Iran nuclear deal, it was supported (and is still supported) by all our major allies (e.g. UK, France, Germany, the EU). Which country do you think is more important to America's geostrategic interests, Germany or Israel?<br /><br /><i>Question: What damage could “competing jihadist groups” do with Assad’s arsenal that Assad isn’t already doing? Gas children?</i><br /><br />Transfer it to forces outside of Syria's borders.J. Farmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09118902560282089997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12510950667384385902018-04-14T09:13:38.470-05:002018-04-14T09:13:38.470-05:00J. I think I specifically mentioned gas.
Leave th...J. I think I specifically mentioned gas. <br />Leave the goal posts alone and deal with the fact that Assad used WMDs on his own and others. There are UN treaties against such thingsh as using gas. Surely not for the use of gas. Or is that not relevant in this instance? Or are you advocating something else?Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7050302339564467182018-04-14T09:11:46.234-05:002018-04-14T09:11:46.234-05:00What "ally" was abandoned?
Answer: Isr...<i> What "ally" was abandoned? </i><br /><br />Answer: Israel, the Kurds, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Read about it in the <a title="Atlantic" href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/obama-israel-kerry-allies/511796/" rel="nofollow">Atlantic</a>:<br /><br />[Obama] … <i> has succeeded in forging deals with hostile nations after decades of estrangement, and emphasized the importance of collaborating with allies to address international challenges, while nevertheless <b>leaving a number of allies feeling estranged.</b></i><br /><br /><i> Had Assad fallen, there is also the likelihood that any number of competing jihadist groups in the country could have obtained control over his military arsenal. </i><br /><br />Question: What damage could “competing jihadist groups” do with Assad’s arsenal that Assad isn’t already doing? Gas children?gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69877922701144492012018-04-14T09:04:59.805-05:002018-04-14T09:04:59.805-05:00"My theory: The purpose of the gas attack was..."My theory: The purpose of the gas attack was to see what Trump would do. Now they know. And you can lay odds that North Korea is watching all this very closely."<br /><br />And Israel.<br /><br />Everyone watches Israel. <br /><br />This is an example of "It's the Right Thing to do," actions. Especially on the Shabbat following Yom Ha Shoah. Gas.<br /><br />"Tonight, I ask all Americans to say a prayer for our noble warriors and our allies as they carry out their missions.<br /><br />"We pray that God will bring comfort to those suffering in Syria. We pray that God will guide the whole region toward a future of dignity and of peace.<br /><br />"And we pray that God will continue to watch over and bless the United States of America.<br /><br />"Thank you, and goodnight. Thank you."<br /><br />The Right Thing To Do.Daniel Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811235498203906479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87231896661996195412018-04-14T08:54:50.208-05:002018-04-14T08:54:50.208-05:00The alternative to a Syria without Assad is a frac...<i> The alternative to a Syria without Assad is a fractured Syria plagued by internecine warfare between competing groups … Your bully analogy could possibly make sense if so much of US foreign policy wasn't built on supporting, funding, and arming bullies. </i><br /><br />I’m thinking hard and simply cannot identify ANY nation (other than Israel) in the Middle East that does not rule through force of arms or who didn’t come into power through force of arms. Turkey was kind of a candidate for awhile but it recently reversed its previously non-secular leaning governance and went down the Islamic-ruled road and is revealing itself to be among the “bully” nations. I’m curious. What non-bully in the Middle East, other than Israel, does the commentor believe the USA should ally itself with? <br /><br />Readers, they are all “bullies.” Such history constitutes one of the main characteristics of an Islam-ruled state - and they are ALL Islamic in that region. Nations ruled by Islamic dictators are all the region (other than Israel) has to offer in the way of American allies. <br /><br />The sentiment expressed by the commentor is what could be called the Virtue-Signaling Concept of Foreign Affairs. It’s a subset of the Blame America philosophy. Under this foreign policy America would have NO allies other than Israel in the Middle East and maybe not even Israel. <br /><br />My view is that America should seek allies based strictly on what is good for America and American allies.<br /><br />And lastly, “internecine warfare between competing groups” in Syria seems like a GOOD thing to me. Let the asshole countries and “competing groups” fight it out, thereby depleting their weaponry and fighting forces, and may the best bully win.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56038075312426466392018-04-14T08:33:19.860-05:002018-04-14T08:33:19.860-05:00FTR: The McCain and CIA sponsored Syrian Rebel Arm...FTR: The McCain and CIA sponsored Syrian Rebel Army are the ones who have been systematically making Syria into a Christianrein place. No wonder Obama refused to take any action. It takes several years to exterminate a people. traditionalguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05706120413005530014noreply@blogger.com