'We Must Attack Syria, 'Cuz, Like, Um, Ya Know, Because...'

'Iran and their Hizballah will fall soon after Assad falls…'  

- mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 10:42 PM

'Assad will never fight Israel directly using his own army but Assad because he will be destroyed in few days...'

mnjg on September 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM

'American security interests are tired directly to the security of Israel, Turkey, and our allies in the Middle East. Assad is a partner of Iran and Hezbollah, and his military success represents a tremendous victory for Hezbollah, which is already saying that its ready to ride a Syrian victory into the Golan Heights and another battle against the Israelis.

Look, the war in Iraq has turned into an unmitigated disaster. Iraq was transformed into an Islamic theocracy and satellite state of Iran at huge cost in US lives in treasure. Afghanistan is most likely destined for a comparable level of failure. Conservatives are rightfully concerned about starting another war.

But it’s not time to turn into a nation of pu**y footed beatniks, too cautious to stand alongside Israel is acting against our common enemies.'

- bayam on September 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM

'The al Qaeda element in Assad is real, but it’s inaccurate to say that it’s representative of the opposition as a whole. Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah remain enemies worth fighting.'

bayam on September 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Oh, just stop it already!  Just. Please. Stop.  Reading the posts from both of you is about to cause me to reflexively start banging my head on my desk.

Obama’s plan isn’t to topple Assad. It’s to fire a ‘shot across the bow’ to scare and warn him against further use of WMD.

You get your knickers in a twist about Assad’s purported WMD, but ignore the fact that the Syrian Rebels have admitted using chemical weapons.

You – I’m a huge supporter of Israel and have a family history, so you really don’t want to go down the ‘Anti-Semite!’ road with me – want us to strike Syria, but Israel says that it can defend itself and any limited strike on the US will have the perverse effect of insuring the probability that Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah will retaliate against the country will soar. Hell, even Hamas will likely take advantage.

You, Obama, McCain, Kerry, et al, are under the delusional belief that you can control events on the ground, ie, which rebels (the ‘moderate’ rebels or the Al-Nusra/AQ’s Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) win control of the government – and you guys have a great track record: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt (the MoFoBros will NEVER seek election!) – should Assad fall without putting a massive number of boots on the ground.

You also seem to believe that we can control what happens to Assad’s chemical weapons from the air when the Pentagon has estimated that it will take at least 75,000 boots on the ground (remember the lowballing of estimated boots on the ground needed for Iraq?).

You apparently believe that a Sunni-controlled Syria is superior to one in the hands of the Alawites, who actually protect minorities like Christians, and won’t just fall into place within the Caliphate-building that AQ/ISIL/AQIM/AQAP/MoFoBros are engaged in across Northern Africa and the Middle East.

None of you has apparently thought what you will do if Iran attacks Israel or Russia intervenes on behalf of Assad.

None of you has apparently considered the plight of the Christians and Alawites in the event Assad falls. FYI: It’ll be genocide, as promised.

Neither of you has given me one national security interest other than:

1) US ‘standing in the world’ (Hey, the world isn’t behind you!)

2) The President’s credibility in the world and nationally (Hey, he made his own bed. #NoWar2SaveFace!)

3) It will embolden our enemies if we don’t act! (Riiight, cuz, like, um, ya know, that trick has worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, etc. Yawn. That lie don’t hunt anymore!)

4) ‘Cuz, well, it’s the Middle East, we’re the United States, and bombing is just what we sort of do there!

5) ???

So why???

Didn’t they tell us that the Iranian regime would fall if we armed, aided, and sided with Saddam Hussein? What happened?

Because Saddam never sent scuds into Israel when we attacked him. 

Because airstrikes have toppled dictators in a few days when? Where?

Because you know more, evidently, than President Eisenhower, who said about the possibility of intervening in Vietnam on behalf of the French:

‘Employment of airstrikes alone to support French troops in the jungle would create a double jeopardy: IT WOULD COMPRISE AN ACT OF WAR AND WOULD ALSO ENTAIL THE RISK OF HAVING INTERVENED AND LOST.’

– Pres Eisenhower on intervening in Vietnam on behalf of France

Because you know more, apparently, than General Dempsey.

Because you know more, evidently, than NATO. 

Because you know more, apparently, than the UN.

Because you know more, evidently, than the EU. 

Because you know more, apparently, than the UK.

Because you know more, evidently, than the Arab League. 

Because you know more, apparently, than the Russians.

Because you know more, evidently, than the Chinese. 

Because you know more, apparently, than the Pope.

Because you know more, evidently, than what looks like a majority – at this time – of the US House of Representatives. 

Because you know more, apparently, than 80%-plus of the American people.

Because helping out the Qataris and Saudis build a natural gas pipeline is in our national security interest…’cuz, like, um, ya know, we aren’t the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas or anything. 

Because Russia will do nothing.

Because Syria will do nothing either there or elsewhere, including here. 

Because Iran will do nothing either there or elsewhere, including here.

Because AQ will do nothing either there or elsewhere, including here. 

Because striking another country is not an act of war.

Because we’ll be able to control events on the ground from 30,000 feet. 

Because minorities, like Christians, won’t be slaughtered even though the rebels have promised otherwise.

Because we’ll be able to prevent Islamists from succeeding Assad.

Because, after all, we’ve ALWAYS been right in our prognostications concerning foreign policy and war.

Because Obama isn't Bush and this time will be different!  We pinky promise!

And, finally, because I’m supposed to support Obama and his feckless war, who created his own credibility crisis on his own, thank you very much, even though I didn’t support Bush’s ground war in Afghanistan or Iraq invasion…

Because racism or something!



http://tinyurl.com/mkydl56