Is the US staging for a strike on Syria?

posted at 10:01 am on August 26, 2013 by Bruce McQuain

Because of Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons on its people that is becoming  a distinct possibility.  The Telegraph is reporting:

Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.

Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.

What is being discussed is a “Libya style” intervention:

Military sources suggested the early hours of the 2011 campaign against Col Muammar Gaddafi could form a template for any operation. The Libya campaign began with a blitz of Tomahawk cruise missiles from US warships and from a British Trafalgar Class submarine.

The question is, “and then what?”  Will the American public stand for troops on the ground or will politicians limit the incursion to air strikes (designed, one supposes to destroy their ability to deploy chemical weapons) and the establishment of “no fly” zones.

At the moment their doesn’t appear to be much of an answer.  The irony is that well over 20,000 have been killed in the two year old civil war yet only now is R2P being invoked.

What sort of support would any sort of intervention in Syria have among the American public?  Not much:

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

For most it is hard to justify the intervention as something that fits in the category of being in the compelling national interest of the United States.  Frankly we lucked out in Libya and things, for the most part, broke our way militarily.  The political aftermath, however, has been a disaster.

Syria promises to be a much more difficult military venture and the possibility of political disaster is much higher.  On the military side, it has better command and control and more sophisticated air defenses.  It won’t be as easy an intervention as Libya.

And, of course, once we do intervene, then what?  Who takes over if we’re successful in toppling the Assad regime?  Most people are aware of the fact that the opposition to the mostly secular Assad regime is a collection of Muslim extremist groups.  How friendly are they going to be to the US?  And, if it is true that Assad has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, who will have control of them when he falls and how do those talking intervention plan on stopping that stockpile from falling into the wrong hands?

One has to wonder if these questions have even been asked yet, and, if they have, what contingencies are in place to help shape the outcome.  Or, as it seems is usual now days, will the Obama administration shoot first and ask questions later?

~McQ

Blogging at QandO


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

American imperial hypocrisy continues unabated…..

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Art. I, Sec. 8. Cl. 11:

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War,…

Where are the lefties? At least Bush went to Congress before starting conflicts. The One must think he’s playing video games with the American military.

blammm on August 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Syria promises to be a much more difficult military venture and the possibility of political disaster is much higher. On the military side, it has better command and control and more sophisticated air defenses. It won’t be as easy an intervention as Libya.

The Syrian military at its present form, or what is left of it, is a bunch of gangs… Their command and control is much weaker than many think and their air defenses are not as sophisticated as people think… Israel destroyed a nuclear facility in Syria in 2007 and another attack in 2013 and not a single Israeli airplane was downed or even shot at…

From the political point of view it can be very dangerous if Assad falls and Al Qaeda or muslim brotherhood takes over but we can certainly avoid this outcome if we make sure that the Free Syrian Army is going to be the strongest faction to take over once Assad falls and will be able to destroy Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria…

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I think Obama has only choice…ask Code Pink what to do…

right2bright on August 26, 2013 at 10:18 AM

The question is, “and then what?” Will the American public stand for troops on the ground or will politicians limit the incursion to air strikes (designed, one supposes to destroy their ability to deploy chemical weapons) and the establishment of “no fly” zones.

American boots on the ground in Syria? I would hope not. Air strikes and enforcement of a “no fly zone” is the most involved we should get. It’ll be interesting to see how Russia reacts to all this.

JetBoy on August 26, 2013 at 10:19 AM

There isn’t much upside to getting involved in Syria.

In fact, the White House could end up looking extremely bad if Russia threatened to retaliate and President Red Line wet his pants.

DRayRaven on August 26, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Who are we attacking? Who released chemicals? The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, or Syria’s leader?
Who, where, and what are we striking?
No matter what is done, it will help only the extremists.
Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do and is facilitating the outcomes he and the radicals around him want!

Delsa on August 26, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Where are the lefties? At least Bush went to Congress before starting conflicts. The One must think he’s playing video games with the American military.

blammm on August 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Presidents with dictatorial powers shall not be restrained by the constitution.

antipc on August 26, 2013 at 10:22 AM

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Here’s a simple question for you. Which of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the communitarian ethos Calhoun deploys to rationalize slavery? *sets sundial*

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

None. They weren’t nascent Commies like John C. Calhoun, and full blown Commies like you. Don’t you think you need to provide some proof for such a ridiculous smear there Mr. Calhoun? You’re a history perfesser, right?

NotCoach on August 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Oh dear God….hold on, give me 10 minutes.

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Over 120.5 hours later…

NotCoach on August 26, 2013 at 10:23 AM

American boots on the ground in Syria? I would hope not. Air strikes and enforcement of a “no fly zone” is the most involved we should get. It’ll be interesting to see how Russia reacts to all this.

JetBoy on August 26, 2013 at 10:19 AM

I agree that our involvement should be air strikes and a non fly zone… Russia will yell and scream but they know their limits once they deal with a vastly advanced military like ours… They know that their military technology is 20 years behind ours and that their conventional weapons can do little against ours… So they will stay on the side hoping that if Assad falls they can at least make a deal to keep their naval base in the city port of Tartus in Syria…

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Gulf of Tonkin.

Akzed on August 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Didn’t we just have a war over WMD which weren’t used against us?

Akzed on August 26, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Yahoo, January 2013: US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt’: Report

http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html

TheDriver on August 26, 2013 at 10:27 AM

I agree that our involvement should be air strikes and a non fly zone

Hey look, one of those 9%. Fascinating creatures, even if they want to waste American treasure sticking our noses where it doesn’t belong.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

TheDriver on August 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM

The other question: How will Russia respond?

“Them? Oh I sent the Russians a reset button a few years ago so they’ll be cool.”

-Preznit Peace Prize and Flaming Hypocrite

Bishop on August 26, 2013 at 10:32 AM

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

But libtards were saying that Iraq had no WMD’s.

Even that war-monger Colin Powell said they had them when he helped lead the 2003 war into Iraq.

sentinelrules on August 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM

This is not our fight. However, if the UN wants us to go launch missiles, then they can reverse their decisions on “Global Warming”, carbon taxes, and taxes on rich nations. Then watch when they state, “Syria Who????”

Oil Can on August 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM

“Why would we attack Iran, they’re a small country on the other side of the world that can’t hurt us”, paraphrased from the original Austrian as spoken by Jumpin’ Joe Biden.

Man, how I wish I hadn’t been booted from certain lefty websites I used to haunt as I’d love to have a little debate with the hardcore libs about this.

Bishop on August 26, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Russia will yell and scream but they know their limits once they deal with a vastly advanced military like ours… They know that their military technology is 20 years behind ours and that their conventional weapons can do little against ours

So how many years behind was Afghanistan, and why after 12 years have “we” still not beaten them? If all coalition forces completely disappeared from that country tomorrow, the Taliban would be back in power in no time. Epic fail.

TheDriver on August 26, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Official of the Obama administration, particularly the Intelligence and State Departments have been openly recognized for lying under oath to Congress.

So now they are telling us that there is cause to start a war in Syria.

This is total insanity. The Obama administration LIES !! Why would any rational person start a war based on the lies of a KNOWN LIAR?

CrazyGene on August 26, 2013 at 10:40 AM

but we can certainly avoid this outcome if we make sure that the Free Syrian Army is going to be the strongest faction to take over once Assad falls and will be able to destroy Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria…

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 10:15 AM

The Free Syrian Army is Al-Qaeda. The FSA is just an umbrella group, and under it are groups such as al-Nusra.

Obama wants to use American resources to help Al-Qaeda. Thankfully Assad is winning now.

TheDriver on August 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Are we going to soon reach a record on number of times a president attacked another country without consulting congress?

Why is this not an issue?

WitchDoctor on August 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM

We trust this leadership to be competent ?
Sec Def ? Sec State ? President ?
Leadership in House ?
Leadership in Senate ?
Think about it .

Lucano on August 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM

American imperial hypocrisy continues unabated…..

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Face it, you got hustled worse than Paul Newman at the hands of Forest Whitaker in “The Color of Money”. Your boy is everything you hated about Dubya and you helped elect him.

You voted for Dog Eater not once but twice. Every single innocent who gets killed in any sort of U.S. strikes will put their blood on your hands.

Sure you will spend inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to deflect the debate onto Reagan or Nixon or a KKK murder from 100 years ago, but the sad fact is your Hope and Change Messiah turned out to be just another two-bit huckster. All of the self-professed smartest people in the room got suckered.

Bishop on August 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The Free Syrian Army is Al-Qaeda. The FSA is just an umbrella group, and under it are groups such as al-Nusra.

Obama wants to use American resources to help Al-Qaeda. Thankfully Assad is winning now.

TheDriver on August 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM

The Free Syrian Army is not Al Qaeda… In fact there have been fights between the Free Syrian Army and Al Qaeda terrorists…
When Assad is winning so is the Iranian terrorist regime and their Hizballah terrorists…

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 10:45 AM

So how many years behind was Afghanistan, and why after 12 years have “we” still not beaten them? If all coalition forces completely disappeared from that country tomorrow, the Taliban would be back in power in no time. Epic fail.

TheDriver on August 26, 2013 at 10:36 AM

An insurgency warfare is totally different from a conventional warfare between two countries military…

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Once upon a time, when there was a real necessity, we’d go ahead and strike, bomb, or whatever, and then announce it…if we made any public announcement at all.

Today we seem to be bent on telling the world we are “on the way,” and “don’t call my bluff” or “we are coming in low, from the northwest, at about 0630 [local time] on Tuesday, and will be hitting Damascus airfield, and Homs army base, and Latakia harbor” so y’all better be ready.

At what point did the we get so far away from the basics? Operational security. Surprise. Not broadcasting our intentions. Speaking softly but always carrying that big stick?

Now that we have told the world, and Syria, does anyone think for a moment that the Syrian military is just cowering in their boots…stupified into complete paralysis? Or maybe Syria is moving assets around, and the Russians as well…waiting to strike back should the need arise?

In any case, we still recognize the current government of Syria. Maintain diplomatic relations with the current government of Syria. Nonetheless, we are arming, training and encouraging enemies of the current government of Syria.

And we are the good guys?

We are the ones who recognize the rule of law, and the importance of diplomacy over armed thuggery?

Somebody call Stockholm…they really need to revoke/recall one of their recent Nobel Peace Prizes.

And we, The People need to consider recalling/removing our glorious and sainted and ever-omnipotent leader…this guy is going to get a lot of folks killed.

coldwarrior on August 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Yahoo, January 2013: US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt’: Report

http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html

TheDriver on August 26, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Even for conspiracy theory nuts that should be a super crazy crap to believe…

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 10:48 AM

The US is staging another flatulent but bombastic and totally dishonest speech by Barack the Bug. That’s it. The NY Times will treat it as a Churchillian masterpiece, stumbles, hesitations, meanderings and all. If there is any action ordered by who ever thinks for Obama, a group effort of losers as embarrassing as Obama, be assured it will decidely be the immortal “leading from behind”.

arand on August 26, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Since Rwanda, I’ve been a staunch advocate of R2P. Turkey must act immediately, and Obama should tell them so.

We can supply and give general assistance to Turkey, if needs be.

Dusty on August 26, 2013 at 10:49 AM

coldwarrior on August 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

The incredible power of our military is that we can tell our enemies when and where we are coming and they can do nothing about it… If we see our enemies then they will be dead… That is the simple equation when our military deal with our enemies… And yes we can see the Syrian military units and their weapons, so if we interfere then they are dead…

Yes, the Syrian military is shaking in their boots (if they are wearing any)… The Syrian army or what is left of it is one of the most cowardly military force on earth when faced with a superior military force… What is left of the Syrian army is now a bunch of gangs with very little discipline…

Also we do not recognize the Syrian government to be legitimate anymore and we have called for the ouster of Assad long time ago…

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Stay out of it for now.

Philly on August 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I believe we have finally reached a point that we must, absolutely must send a strongly worded memo to stop this horrible crime against humanity…

Kerry must come off of his yacht and draft this memo, and it must be signed by Obama…it has finally come to this.

I know, extreme measures from this president, but these times call for extremes time…yes, and he must even open an world dialogue to put a stop to these international crimes.

All of this and fending off radio talk show hosts…it is just too much pressure on this president, he needs a golf vacation.

right2bright on August 26, 2013 at 11:05 AM

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I differ on that.

Syria has a intact and very effective channel hopping communications system, a good, reliable and rugged air defense system, an air force still operationally effective, scores of Russian advisors down to the battalion level…and has most of its military assets within or in close proximity to civilian neighborhoods and areas that can be defended.

If not, Assad’s military would have capitulated months and months ago.

How many thousand Americans have been killed in Afghanistan fighting a third world armed force using tactics going back to the 10th century?

Matter of fact, over the decades how many third world third rate military forces have given us a run for our money…and proven costly, in American lives to extirpate?

If Syria were such easy pickins’ they’d have been long gone by now.

Never, never, underestimate the abilities of an intended enemy.

coldwarrior on August 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Keep Obama in president, you know?
He gave us a phone!
He gonna do more!

Galtian on August 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Sure you will spend inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to deflect the debate onto Reagan or Nixon or a KKK murder from 100 years ago, but the sad fact is your Hope and Change Messiah turned out to be just another two-bit huckster. All of the self-professed smartest people in the room got suckered.

Bishop on August 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I’m sorry….are you suggesting that Obama supporters are the first people who discovered their chosen Presidential candidate wasn’t what he purported to be. Because that seems like a really insane claim. But believing it does some kind of important emotional work for you. I don’t know why, but please don’t let me get in the way of your issues.

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

And we, The People need to consider recalling/removing our glorious and sainted and ever-omnipotent leader…this guy is going to get a lot of folks killed.

coldwarrior on August 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Body count attributable directly to him is already high. You’re right though gonna get higher.

Never, never, underestimate the abilities of an intended enemy.

coldwarrior on August 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

+ A bunch. The fact that jug ears is in the White House tells us how true that statement is.

Oldnuke on August 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I differ on that.

Syria has a intact and very effective channel hopping communications system, a good, reliable and rugged air defense system, an air force still operationally effective, scores of Russian advisors down to the battalion level…and has most of its military assets within or in close proximity to civilian neighborhoods and areas that can be defended.

If not, Assad’s military would have capitulated months and months ago.

How many thousand Americans have been killed in Afghanistan fighting a third world armed force using tactics going back to the 10th century?

Matter of fact, over the decades how many third world third rate military forces have given us a run for our money…and proven costly, in American lives to extirpate?

If Syria were such easy pickins’ they’d have been long gone by now.

Never, never, underestimate the abilities of an intended enemy.

coldwarrior on August 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

The Israeli air force attacked and destroyed a nuclear facility in Syria in 2007 and did another attack in 2013 and not a single Israeli airplane was downed and even shot at… The Syrian defense system is greatly exaggerated…. The only reason Assad regime is still holding on is because those who are fighting him have much less weapons compared to him, they do not have airplanes, tanks, or heavy artillery…

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Didn’t we just have a war over WMD which weren’t used against us?

Akzed on August 26, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Libs like to forget there were actual WMDs the UN accounted for, sealed and monitored. They sent caravans of inspector Clouseau types in big televised events to prove Saddam’s WMDs were still safely sealed in the bunkers.

And all that material got shipped to Syria.

Yes, Zero will launch an attack on Assad to keep all his scandals out of the news cycle. He has no authority to make such an attack and no real national security reason for doing it.

If he launches weapons or puts boots on the ground in Syria, he must be impeached.

dogsoldier on August 26, 2013 at 11:21 AM

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 11:18 AM

And Israel did not spend weeks telling Syria that they were on the way.

coldwarrior on August 26, 2013 at 11:21 AM

mnjg on August 26, 2013 at 11:18 AM

You’re correct, but we have no interests or friends there and no reason to attack Assad. Pelosi must be beside herself! She went over and made nice with the dictator.

dogsoldier on August 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM

The United States itself possesses and uses internationally condemned weapons, including white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium. Whether you praise these actions, avoid thinking about them, or join me in condemning them, they are not a legal or moral justification for any foreign nation to bomb us, or to bomb some other nation where the U.S. military is operating.

Killing people to prevent their being killed with the wrong kind of weapons is a policy that must come out of some sort of sickness.

Both sides in Syria have used horrible weapons and committed horrible atrocities. Surely even those who imagine people should be killed to prevent their being killed with different weapons can see the insanity of arming both sides to protect each other side. Why is it not, then, just as insane to arm one side in a conflict that involves similar abuses by both?

Making the Syrian people worse off is not a way to help them.

But — guess what? — the evidence suggests strongly that the latest chemical weapons claims are as phony as all the previous ones.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on August 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Using UK forces may be a temporary end-run around the constitution, but do not believe public sentiment is behind this intervention in either country.

For years we do nothing about genocide in Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopa, death camps in North Korea, and suddenly we are concerned with the Syrian civil war.

We are ready to subvert the UN, Congress and set up for a proxy war with Russia (at least in Iraq and Afghanistan we did not risk that).

Hey lefties! How about that “Coexist” bumper sticker? How about stopping this “Endless War”? Is this the “right war”, liberals? How come Haliburton hasn’t been mentioned? Are Dick Cheney and Wolfowitz behind this? Can we at least have some Oil for our blood?

Oh yes, I forgot. The president is focused on jobs.

virgo on August 26, 2013 at 11:34 AM

For years we do nothing about genocide in Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopa, death camps in North Korea, and suddenly we are concerned with the Syrian civil war.

virgo on August 26, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Each and everyday 3,000 babies are chemically scalded or sliced and diced in America’s abortion mills…… day in and day out…. and not a peep.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on August 26, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Obviously in a stand up toe to toe fight, the US military would kick the Syrian’s behind. But the world is past that now, and every thugocracy and two bit dictator in the world knows that if you want to knee-cap the US and render the military for all intents and purposes ineffectual – you fight an insurgency. That cat is well out of the bag, it’s called Asymmetric Warfare. And it worked, we’ll leave Afghanistan having accomplished not a damn thing.

The other foolish notion that I’m seeing bandied about is the idea that were just going walts in there, drop some bombs and send in some cruise missiles (Bill Clinton style) and set up some no fly zones. All fine and dandy, except that Russia and Iran have a vested interest in Assad, and a near uncontrollable urge to emabarrass the US. I think that an attempt at a no fly zone will be costly. Troops are probably out of the question, the Army times is reporting that the DoD wants to cut about 110,000 more troops – but if we decide to go that route, that will be costly too, every bad actor in the world is in Syria.

John_G on August 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM

1) Al Qaeda in Syria uses some of its stolen chemical munitions on its own people to create martyrs.

2) Obama shoots off his mouth about a WMD “red line” prior to this co-incidence.

3) International Idiocy erupts to “Do something!” about Syria.

4) Who benefits?

Other than companies supplying the arms to these matched sets of scorpions?

profitsbeard on August 26, 2013 at 11:42 AM

4) Who benefits?

Other than companies supplying the arms to these matched sets of scorpions?

Well, there is a certain segment of a death cult…..as well as the politicians those companies buy off to make such decisions.

hawkeye54 on August 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

The Obama doctrine:show weakness and incompetence and then, at the very last moment when thousands are dead and the USA is viewed as a complete joke, swoop in with some airstrikes that end up creating a bigger mess than originally started with. Smart power!

Jack_Burton on August 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM

I’m sorry….are you suggesting that Obama supporters are the first people who discovered their chosen Presidential candidate wasn’t what he purported to be.

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Could you point out where the poster stated that?

What he said is you guys have found out he was a huckster and now are just defending your choice out of desperation, or at least that is an inference he made.
And you got suckered…

A sucker is a sucker because they never admit that got suckered…that what makes you guys such easy marks.

Basically your are an Obama “truther”, facts and common sense won’t make a difference, because what you believe to be the truth is more important to you, than the actual truth.

However, that being said, it is always fun to read your posts, it makes me understand how liberals try to manage their beliefs with foolish ideas. It reminds me of the props on a western movie, where the facade is always so realistic, but behind the facade there is nothing but some sticks holding up the front…

Here

right2bright on August 26, 2013 at 11:53 AM

It’s Bush’s fault for not finding the WMD’s and destroying them…

right2bright on August 26, 2013 at 11:54 AM

This reminds me of 2002-2003 and the build-up to the Iraq invasion. It was pretty clear early on that Bush was gonna invade Iraq one way or another. But at least he had public support and congressional authorization.

I thought it was a mistake then and I think it is a mistake now.

Once again, I can’t help but wonder how many innocent men, women and children we are going to kill while “liberating” them.

myiq2xu on August 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM

I’m sorry….are you suggesting that Obama supporters are the first people who discovered their chosen Presidential candidate wasn’t what he purported to be. Because that seems like a really insane claim. But believing it does some kind of important emotional work for you. I don’t know why, but please don’t let me get in the way of your issues.

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

So. Because that Imperialist Reagan didn’t intervene on the behalf of the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war, it makes Obama being the worst President in our history, somehow a little better? Because we know that the innocent Iranians didn’t use chemical agents?

So the Iranians use of cyanide and mustard gas was OK? And you would come own on their side? So if Reagan “gave approval” to Saddam, did he give “approval” to Iran?

Do you ever try to think a step ahead, or do you just let your emotions run away from you to try to make ridiculous points? Then you run away like a scared child when the simplest of questions are asked.

Hey – have you had a chance to listen to Rachel Jeantel’s trial testimony and Piers Morgan interview yet? I’d think as a Gay man you’d be really involved in telling the story of how Trayvon went back, initiated contact, intended a gay beat down, then moved on to “your going to die tonight” all because he thought the Gay George Zimmerman deserved a gay beatdown.

No time yet? Can’t spend 20 minutes listening to Rachel?

oldroy on August 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Hey – weren’t you going to school us on the intentions of one of our founding fathers?

oldroy on August 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

American imperial hypocrisy continues unabated…..

libfreeordie on August 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Reagan was right.

Saddam was a better bet than Iran and no intervention should have taken place.

sharrukin on August 26, 2013 at 12:09 PM

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

American imperial hypocrisy continues unabated…..

lowinformationperfesser on August 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Reagan was right.

Saddam was a better bet than Iran and no intervention should have taken place.

sharrukin on August 26, 2013 at 12:09 PM

We were right to support Saddam against the mullahs of Iran, and we should have done more.

slickwillie2001 on August 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM

How many thousand Americans have been killed in Afghanistan fighting a third world armed force using tactics going back to the 10th century?

Matter of fact, over the decades how many third world third rate military forces have given us a run for our money…and proven costly, in American lives to extirpate?

It is bad enough to have to fight them on their home turf….its even more difficult to fight them saddled with our rules of engagement and with questionable local allies too often turning on our personnel on our own bases. Wearing down our military physically and emotionally.

We should have left Afghanistan long ago and should not get militarily involved in Syria.

hawkeye54 on August 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Reagan was right.

Saddam was a better bet than Iran and no intervention should have taken place.

sharrukin on August 26, 2013 at 12:09 PM

In addition – the chemical “bad actors” from Iraq are now gone. Many are still in place in Iran, as are the WMD.

So we know that Iraq had WMD that they used, but somehow the left argues that it never existed, until someone like libfree “enlightens” us as to their existence, and Reagan’s red carpet treatment of Sadaam, but oh, it’s OK if Iran used the same weapons and still have them.

In fact, we know that the famous “Saddam bombs Halabja with WMD” incedent, was both Iraq and Iran bombing Halabja with WMD.

Truly a dizzying intellect that our libfree has.

oldroy on August 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM

We were right to support Saddam against the mullahs of Iran, and we should have done more.

slickwillie2001 on August 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Absolutely agree!

It is always dangerous to support ANY Muslims, but a secular dictator like Saddam is usually the better option.

sharrukin on August 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

So we know that Iraq had WMD that they used, but somehow the left argues that it never existed, until someone like libfree “enlightens” us as to their existence, and Reagan’s red carpet treatment of Sadaam, but oh, it’s OK if Iran used the same weapons and still have them.

The lefts motto is ‘any stick will do to beat the dog‘. Logic or consistency have nothing to do with it.

oldroy on August 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM

I just don’t think that chemical weapons are something to get that upset about unless they are aimed towards the west. Chemical weapons aren’t particularly effective as a weapon of war unless you have the ability to precisely target them. They are great against civilians but if they want to slaughter civilians then machetes and clubs will do the job as we saw in Rwanda.

sharrukin on August 26, 2013 at 12:23 PM

They are great against civilians but if they want to slaughter civilians then machetes and clubs will do the job as we saw in Rwanda.

sharrukin on August 26, 2013 at 12:23 PM

We should just have the UN ban the slaughter of civilians in any civil war – be it by WMD or machete.

oldroy on August 26, 2013 at 12:26 PM

We should just have the UN ban the slaughter of civilians in any civil war – be it by WMD or machete.

oldroy on August 26, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Great idea…wait? Didn’t they already do that? /sarc

sharrukin on August 26, 2013 at 12:28 PM

OH Great. John Kerry – who served in Viet Nam briefly, will make a statement on Syria in a couple of hours.

oldroy on August 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM

OH Great. John Kerry – who served in Viet Nam briefly, will make a statement on Syria in a couple of hours.

oldroy on August 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Kerry: “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you that President Obama has signed legislation that will outlaw Syria forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

hawkeye54 on August 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Let the Arab League intervene !!

Let’s finally get these questions decided:
Shi’a vs. Shiite vs. Alewite vs. Wahabbi
Hezbollah vs. al Queda vs. ??

Only the Arabs can resolve them. Lets have them do it!! (and the Russians and us can keeps selling them weapons.)

KenInIL on August 26, 2013 at 3:07 PM