Well, folks, there are bad wars and good wars.

And now, finally, we're going to have a nice big good war.

Including lots of fun circus attractions:

Light and medium weaponry, including antitank weapons and light artillery.

A "little" no-fly zone, which U.S. F16s will patrol and enforce.

Antiaircraft missiles... well, maybe. Not entirely sure on that one, because we can't trust the bloodthirsty savages that we're arming not to use them on civilians.

Political minefields galore, including (but not limited to) antagonism with Russia and Iran; exacerbation of Syrian relations with our unstable ally to the north, Turkey; risk of being drawn into spillovers in Jordan (which we are also arming) and Lebanon (which is sparring with Israel)....
​

Oh, fun, fun, FUN!!!!!! :razz:

Just one question, though...

Are we absolutely certain that this is a GOOD war? A wholesome healthy adventure?

Suddenly we're certain that Assad has crossed a line or something, because tests on clothing of corpses for traces of Sarin came back positive. Supposedly. So now Assad, the Dictator, has to pay. For using the WMDs. Or something.

So, my question is... shouldn't we be absolutely sure? Like, shouldn't we send Hans Blix or something?

Or should we just throw ourselves into the deep end of the pool, on the Messiah's say so?

After all... why the hell not? Our Glorious Leader won the Nobel Peace Prize, didn't he? :excited:

Sincerely yours,
Princess Clarise

 

We don't have a dog in that fight. Whoever wins will hate us.

For at least a generation the Muslims will be in a lethal mood. It is in our interest, and that of Israel - which is the only country I care about over there - for the Muslims to direct their lethal energies at each other.

During the war between Iran and Iraq the United States supported the side that was losing. We did not give that side enough support to win, just enough to keep fighting. When that side began to win we shifted our support to the other side.

A foreign policy like that is not one we should have announced in a speech before the United Nations, and we did not, but for eight years it kept two dangerous Muslim countries out of our hair.

 

+1

All razzing aside.... I have seen nothing to suggest that Barack Obama is particularly bright. But I did think he was smarter than this.

 

Not to mention Russia backing one side and the US the other.

Bringing up kids in Syria..........tough job at the moment.

Thinskin

 

Oh, I did mention Russia in my list of circus attractions (see fourth indented item).

Above, DL makes a good point that we fueled the fire that burned down three million people in the Iran/Iraq war.

Maybe that was a bad war. I don't know. But whether it was bad or good, it was reasonably contained.

The potential for spillover/escalation in Syria is enormous.

 

Corrected I am usually so meticulous with your written word.

Thinskin

 

Barack Obama, whom I voted for three times, is clearly our first affirmative action president.

Of those three votes the only one I regret was the first one against Hillary. Now that Bill's testosterone has thinned out a bit with age he would have more time to serve as President Hillary's chief adviser.

During the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression we need IQ power in the White House, not someone who got there by filling quotas.

 

And its 1-2-3, what are we fighting for? I don't know, I don't give a damn...

Clarise,

Fearless Leader said long ago that if Assad uses chemical weapons, a line would be crossed that would spur US involvement in Syria.
Whether you believe the line has been crossed or not, Fearless Leader is moving to help the rebels in Syria.

There is all kinds of money for the military industrial complex to make in Syria.
Why do you think McCain and other Republicans have been clamoring for the US to help the rebels?

The US can sit this one out as Hezbollah and the Iranians pump money, weapons and fighters into the Assad regime to prop it up while Saudi Arabia pumps money into the Sunni majority in Syria, or the US can feed the moderate Sunni elements of the rebels in the hope that the moderate Sunnis will take power instead of the Sunnis who are made up of elements of Al-Qaeda.

Another worst case scenario for the US is the US sitting this one out and having the entire region turn into a Shia-Sunni bloodbath.

Diminishing the influence of Hezbollah and Iran in Syria is in the best interests of the US.
The problem for the US is how to support the moderate Sunni rebels in their overthrow of the Shia Assad regime without replacing Assad with a Sunni government that supports, or at least tolerates, Al-Qaeda.

Current US options in Syria are ugly from the front, ugly from the back, and ugly all the way around.

I would have preferred that the US had supported the moderate Sunni rebels from Day 1 with small arms, anti-tank weapons and mortars combined with a no-fly zone over Syria to level the playing field, but my opinion was a minority opinion and not in the political interest of the politicians in DC or the military industrial complex that owns the politicians in DC.

Come on all of you big strong men/
Uncle Sam needs your help again...
:wall:

 

DL,
Even within the realm of your comments, that has to be some of the most ignorant and bigoted bullshit I have ever seen you post.

 

Why are chemical weapons a game changer? Why is killing 100 thousand people with bullets and tanks tolerable, but killing a dozen or so with poison unacceptable?

If America is getting involved in another war, why wait till now ? Why let 100 thousand people die first ?

On the flip side, Why aid Muslim extremists against oppressive governments?
Let's have a look at how that has worked out in the past. After Libya, the American embassy was sieged and the ambassador murdered. Or perhaps something more alarming, how about the Arming, training and financing of the mujahideen against the soviets. Now they are known as the Taliban and we have been at war with them for over a decade.


It's deeply sad that 100 thousand people have been killed. But do you know what would have saved more lives? If from the beginning America had said we are not helping in anyway, it's unlikely the same number of people would have bothered to rebel, and be crushed by their government in the process.

People only want to be liberated by their own people, not by people they despise, or even people they like. It hurts their pride. And this reflects the future conduct of a country. I can think of many countries that would be better off liberated from their dictatorships. North Korea for example. Why not get involved there too?

 

You think helping to kill three million Asians is better than risking one dead American. Ever wondered exactly why so many Asians hate the likes of you?

 

Latest stats show the fastest growing group in the US ...
not blacks
not whites
not Latinos

Drum Roll....

The Asians...

 

Ugh.

I did not say that I liked it.

Heyesey, I am using the term "good war" satirically. It is dark humor, I admit. Most of the Americans here will get it. The term is an allusion to a scathing critique of the public perception of war and the perpetuation of popular myths related to wars in nations' histories. The book is called The Good War, by Studs Terkel.

Sorry if you didn't get it. The book is kind of famous on this side of the pond, but it may not be well known in UK/Europe.

For the record, war is insane.

 

+1

Why, indeed.

If war were to take me, I would not care whether I were hit by Sarin, or a cluster bomb, or a nuke. I doubt the distinction means all that much to any corpse that is rotting in the ground.

As to why now, and why have we waited, Kudos to Baddogwoof for an excellent post. He says it comes down ultimately to commerce.

This thing had better not escalate, that's for sure. Speaking of which... Obama is headed to Russia, to make his case with Putin. That ought to be interesting.

Related newsflash: the chair of the UN wants inspections of Syria's arsenals! Did I call it, or what!? Can we drag Hans Blix out of retirement, and repeat history VERBATIM????

 

*not_secure_link*25.media.tumblr.com/1ea44c037da4d51388dd62605217fa4d/tumblr_mo7w1hINeQ1qdu31oo2_500.png
​

 

Your post has many good points, DD. A chilling remark about the paragraph excerpted above:

You say the Syrian war has taken 100,000 lives. The number touted in the U.S. is 90,000. (Perhaps it omits Assad's forces as irrelevant?) Whatever the actual body count, consider this little tidbit: how many people are alleged to have been killed by Sarin gas?

150​

That is the number I hear bandied about. Maybe it is low. Let's double it. ​

Now, when did these alleged gassing deaths take place?
​

LAST YEAR. WHEN ASSAD WAS ON THE ROPES.​

So.​

Let's see if we understand this.​

100,000 deaths (give or take)? No biggie. Killed by concussives and gunpowder, so nothing to see here, folks.​

300 deaths by gas? Last year? ​

Clearly this requires a response.
NOW.
When Assad is winning, and is less likely to use gas.​

Funny thing. Each Iraq war split the U.S. roughly in half. Even Afghanistan and the campaign against the Taliban split us in half. Libya? Christ. Half the country was appalled, and the other half was asleep.​

But this?​

JESUS. We might finally agree on something. Is there anyone, anywhere in the U.S., (outside of Washington, D.C., that is) who thinks this is a good idea?​

 

Baddog, as I said above in another response, I loved this post. No arguments from me.

One remark about the quoted paragraph, though.

President Obama did make that promise, it is true.

But here's the thing: he was reading off TOTUS (The Official Teleprompter of the United States), and the promise wasn't on the script!!

The fool ad-libbed!

His advisers were appalled, pissed, furious afterwards.

So, because Obama decided to monkey around with his instructions (pardon the term) and get creative, we have to be railroaded into an insane adventure that could escalate?

Can't we just say the idiot had his fingers crossed at the time?

Can't we ask for a do-over?

 

One more thing...

The economy is getting better for most in spite of the Obama polices...
in spite of sequestration...
in spite of no budget
in spite of the debt

I don't think Obama wants things to get better
as more and more scandals appear...

a new war might shift focus away from all that is wrong now..

but look what the news did to west Texas crude prices
and Brent oil the Britain Europe operate on went much higher...

In spite of record reserves and record inventory...

Higher oil prices hits all of us.....
Obama hates this country...

*not_secure_link*www.finviz.com/fut_chart.ashx?t=CL&cot=067651&p=m5

 

We need to keep out of Syria completely, most of this mess began with the arms smuggling of Pres Obama to the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorists in Libya and Syria.

This sudden incursion into Syria is to draw the heat of the criminal scandals off of his back and to save his flaming tush.

We have no business there.

Again - this is but one more move, and a desperate one, for President Obama to cover his tail and get us swept into another war that can easily escalate to a regional conflict beyond anything people can imagine.