The White House said Thursday that it believes the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in its civil war, an assessment that could test President Obama’s repeated warnings that such an attack could precipitate American intervention in Syria.What now, Barry? Are you going to go in and find Assad's weapons of mass d
.
25 comments:
Obama's looking like the parent "counting to three" that doesn't really want to do anything.
"Okay, this is it... one... two... two and a half... I mean it! Two and three quarters... I'm not kidding! Two and seven eighths..."
I really don't want him to do anything.
Why do we need to go get involved in another land war in Asia? Did Benghazi not teach this administration a lesson in the gratitude of the people they are ostensibly trying to help?
Is it time for a Short Victorious War(tm) already?
I doubt anything will be onde other than launch John Kerry with a sternly worded letter. Part of Obama's problem is that both sides are anti-west/anti-israel muslims and he can't really choose which side to support. I'm pretty sure he prefers to support Assad, but Putin has beat him to it.
One would think we might have learned our lessons in Iraq or Afghanistan or Egypt or Libya or...
Look, we keep helping our enemies fight our enemies and it is pointless. We send them aid and arms and eventually they'll be pointed back at us...it's just a matter of time. No matter what side we support they will hate us anyway when it's all over so why bother at all? And honestly, why do we care how our (eventual) enemies are killed?
And one more thing...anyone wanna venture a guess where Assad came across those chemical weapons? Anyone? Reid? Pelosi? BUELLER?
Did (insert fustercluck here) not teach this administration a lesson
You cannot teach those that continually refuse to learn. All you can do is sit back and watch the handwringing.
(and pay the big $$ for it)
One more warning and The Mistake is going to appoint another 'wet finger in the air' committee.
And one more thing...anyone wanna venture a guess where Assad came across those chemical weapons? Anyone? Reid? Pelosi? BUELLER?
Beat me to it Quiet man
There's the problem with drawing lines in the sand. Somebody will eventually want that bit of sand for their castle and then your nice pretty line will be all buggered up. then you've gotta go kick sand in the other guy's face and it escalates into a big surfer throw down.
Right?
(according to the word verification, ckatali agrees. But you know that ckatali, he'll agree to anything)
Schlock Mercenary, Rule 29. "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less."
The entire Middle East, Israel aside, can kill each other as much as they like for all I care.
What are you all worried about? Obama's PR Flack said yesterday that they'd FIRST have to go through a whole bunch of "Technical Verification" (in spite of the Fact that Obama's Secretary of Prevent-Defense said it WAS Sarin) and ONLY then will it go to the United Nations for "Discussion on what to do about it."
With a Russian Veto on Standby.
So unless France or England or Israel say "to Hell with it" and THEY start something, I wouldn't worry about Obama doing anything except saying that "if he had a Freedom Fighter for a Son, he'd be just like..."
Give it a little more time, and Israel will BE the Middle East. All it will take is some sort of WMD to hit them (likely a nuke) and SHAZZAM!, instant urban renewal.
Only real question is, how do they decide which targets get the glass surfacing effect, or the neutron sterilizing one? Decisions, decisions. (coin flipping?)
(they are considered to be #4 in the nuke owners club)
If they actually have WMDs, the US likely won't go in.
Maybe "red line" doesn't mean the same to Barry as it does the rest of us.
But I agree with those who say that this is none of our business. I'd like to think that our country is the ultimate Good Guy, that people being slaughtered and oppressed around the world can hope that Uncle Sam will come to the rescue. De oppresso liber.
But I've learned better. Quite aside from the fact that the rescued tend to be pretty damned ungrateful about it, our own people can't make up their minds. Intervening here is bad; intervening there is good. We have a responsibility to protect civilians... but only in this place, not that other. We'll vote to send in the troops, but a week later start ranting about "warmongers" and "air-raiding villages and killing civilians."
It just isn't worth it.
Anyway, what would our guys do in Syria? Who are they supposed to shoot at?
The "in" is easy. There's always an Opposition in need of Assistance. Sneak some SF over the border to make contact and we can start the latest real life Tom Clancy novel.
The Bloods will support it even if it isn't their guy as C in C. The Crips will call it humanitarian and dive right in. Plus, a draft sure would make all this residual proletariat unemployment go away...
Ladies and gentlemen and people who are neither ladies nor gentlemen (you know who you are), we're about to have ourselves another war!
The doing nothing is the right action. What screws it up is the pretense at dynamic leadership by the prancing metrosexual President that hurts our image. So long as Syrians are killing Syrians we have no dog in the fight. And what happened in Egypt ought to have shown clearly that "good guys" are very thin on the ground over there. Neither Assad nor his opponents are worth our time and resources.
But Obama has a compulsion to be he Most Important Guy In The Room. Hence, keeping his mouth shut and avoiding the lower lip chewing, stern finger wagging is not an option for him.
A: Obama wanted to/wants to posture and state "This is the line you must not cross!" However,
B: He does not actually want to have to do anything. But
C: Since he made "You'd better listen to me!" noises, he doesn't want to have to deal with 'Screw you, Obama' from them. Therefore,
D: "We will study this for a few months, and if we decide they really truly ACTUALLY crossed the line, then we will consult with the UN and our allies about this."
So he'll do all he can to delay and eff around and hope it goes away. After having once again told the bad guys he doesn't really have the balls to back up what he says. Even when it would mean using the lives of troops he doesn't give a rats' ass about to 'do something'.
And yeah, I'd much prefer him doing nothing. He'd give support to the worst jihadi types there, who'd both start killing the actual "We want to live in the 21st century" people and start planning how to launch or help launch the next terrorist attacks in Europe and here.
And Tam? He may actually be getting under-the-table thanks from the people he really wants to help.
Why yes, I have become somewhat cynical about all this.
Two groups shooting at each other then screaming "allahu akbar." I don't see a problem. TS
Concerning WMDs: they do have them. Scumbag Coward POS from Boston had them since that's one of the things they charged him with. Apparently WMDs have gotten much smaller under Obama. At this point EVERYONE has WMDs based on the current usage.
Concerning getting involved: it would piss off a Muslim somewhere so no, he won't get involved - for once, his natural bias will take us in the right direction - He's sort of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't - I like that.
"Apparently WMDs have gotten much smaller under Obama"
Obama Derangement Syndrome much? That little legal term comes from that showpiece law of the previous administration, the (laughably misnamed) PATRIOT Act.
Anonymous 12:35, Israel too. Everything from Adana to Herat to Djibouti to Casablanca is a hole in our pockets, a supplier of oil to our competitors, a financier of murder, or an active, American-killing enemy. Sometimes all four.
You may be missing the elephant in the room, which is Iran. Remember that Obama has been ordering Israel not to attack Iran because he, Obama, has RED LINES on Iran getting the bomb. So Israel is naturally quite interested in this demonstration of what if anything O. means by 'red line'.
It would have been much smarter of Obama to not have said anything in the first place. "It's worse than a crime--it's a blunder".
Note 1: I am Israeli, but only a private citizen with no special insight beyond what 'the people in the street' are saying.
Note 2: There's not much doubt that getting involved with Syria would be loose-loose.
"Another land war in Asia." Are we talking about Germany avoiding a two-front war?
Docjim, I think part of the reason the rescued are so ungrateful is that our presence prevents the reciprocal barbarianism their cultures practice, so while we did save their lives, they spend this bonus time on earth brooding over how they are unable to bring revenge on their deserving countrymen.
"getting involved with Syria would be loose-loose."
That's the problem! Obama wants the result to be Tight-Tight!
Obama never had any executive experience beyond running a campaign, in which, as we all know, you can make promises you don't have to keep and no one over the age of 21 expects you to keep. He wants the problem to go away merely by virtue of him having made a noble speech filled with platitudes. In that respect he was like Mussolini who also wanted everything to be resolved by making a dramatic speech from his balcony in Rome. Is this a Godwin's Law violation?
What kind of word verification program did you buy, anyway? the WV is "Construction ssedipt", which is like serendipity spelled inside out.
Hmmm. A threat from a President who lets his ambassadors get raped, murdered, and their bodies dragged through the streets.
I'm sure Assad is impressed.
Ummm... "diestrauction"?
Post a Comment