Globe

America Is Definitely Maybe Going To Bomb Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration is “refining its military options for possible strikes in Syria,” The Wall Street Journal is reporting. “Officers at the Pentagon on Thursday were updating target lists for possible airstrikes on a range of Syrian government and military installations, officials said, as part of contingency planning…

U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration is “refining its military options for possible strikes in Syria,” The Wall Street Journal is reporting.

“Officers at the Pentagon on Thursday were updating target lists for possible airstrikes on a range of Syrian government and military installations, officials said, as part of contingency planning should (Obama) decide to act after what experts said may be the worst chemical-weapons massacre in more than two decades,” the Journal reported.

American engagement in the Syrian conflict would come in response to reports that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people – which Obama previously referred to as a “red line.” Meanwhile fiscally liberal warmongers like U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain have been pushing Obama to send troops to Syria.

Obama is already providing weapons to Assad’s enemies … including al-Qaeda affiliates who have been savagely executing Christians.

As we’ve stated from the beginning of this conflict, Syria’s civil war is Syria’s problem. Just as Egypt’s emerging civil war is Egypt’s problem. American military engagement is going to do precisely one thing – create new enemies for our nation, which (news flash) makes our citizens less safe.

We believe it should be the policy of the United States to engage in tariff-free trading with all nations – as the free market would have us do – while providing taxpayer-subsidized aid to no one. Furthermore, our military might should be leveraged only when there is a compelling national security interest based on reliable intelligence (i.e. another nation is about to attack us) – and then only with specific objectives and an exit strategy.

There is no compelling American interest in Syria … which is why we should stay the hell out of its war. Getting involved is only going to breed a new wave of anti-American extremism and invite new attacks against our citizens. In addition to obligating money America’s government doesn’t have.

Yet according to Obama, America is the “one indispensable nation” in the Middle East – and  it is our job to ensure “weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region.”

Cue the bombs, people … and some ridiculous “Operation Patriotic Duty” campaign name inspired by the music of Lee Greenwood.

While a Syrian engagement is not in America’s interests, it is clearly in Obama’s interest. After all … he needs something (anything) to distract the media from his domestic spying, IRS discrimination and the looming disaster that is Obamacare.

Related posts

US & World

Amanda Cunningham: The Reach For Freedom

Amanda Cunningham
Globe

Letter: About That Semiconductor Guest Column …

FITSNews
Globe

Joe Biden Dials It Back In Ukraine

Will Folks

58 comments

Halfvast Conspirator August 23, 2013 at 9:44 am

Now where did that red line go? I know it was around here somewhere…

Reply
junior justice August 23, 2013 at 10:50 am

Right now it’s around Barry’s puckered asshole because he’s actually afraid that he will be forced to make a “presidential decision.”

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm

TBG thinks that they were using Muammar Qaddaffi’s “Gulf of Sidra Line of Death” that had been in storage since the ’80s. Apparently after applying it in Syria, Obama discovered, that over the last 30 years, it had dry rotted and it basically morphed overnight into a fine powder, which was then dispersed by the winds.

Reply
Frank Pytel August 23, 2013 at 9:44 am

No maybe about it. They better start boarding up their milk factories.

Reply
Frank Pytel August 23, 2013 at 9:45 am

“Obama is already providing weapons to Assad’s enemies … including al-Qaeda affiliates who have been savagely executing Christians.”

GREEKS ARE DYING YOU LAZY DOGS!!

Reply
EJB August 23, 2013 at 10:05 am

America should commit to no war without the express goal of winning at all costs, total war. There should be only one acceptable “exit strategy” winning.

Reply
CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 10:33 am

The greatest personage of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, summed up war aims as, “It is victory, victory at all costs, victory, however long and hard
the road may be.”. That should be our aim as well. But as can be seen from many posters on this site who are not willing to spend their blood, toil, tears and sweat, it won’t be.

Reply
? August 23, 2013 at 11:19 am

That you would praise Churchill doesn’t surprise me one bit, quote per wiki:

In the knowledge that ten days beforehand Adolf Hitler had become chancellor of Germany, he warmly commended German and Italian militarism in preference, as he continued:

“I think of Germany, with its splendid clear-eyed youths marching forward on all the roads of the Reich singing their ancient songs, demanding to be conscripted into an army; eagerly seeking the most terrible weapons of war; burning to suffer and die for their fatherland. I think of Italy, with her ardent Fascisti, her renowned Chief, and stern sense of national duty…”

Unfortunately, the people who don’t want to spend their “blood, toil, tears” etc. are not the ones in control, as documented by the many undeclared wars the US is now fighting.

Reply
CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 11:32 am

Surely you know that Churchill was most adept in biting sarcasm as exemplified by the above. Another Churchill quote about Germany for you, “Beware the Hun”.

Reply
? August 23, 2013 at 11:40 am

lol…biting sarcasm?

Did you not realize that his quote was in context of the Oxford Pledge?

You are completely and totally incorrect.

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Churchill, being infinitely more wily than you, was playing Germany and Italy against Russia. Kill three birds with one stone. Why did the US send so much aid to Russia in WWII? Was it because we loved Uncle Joe?

? August 23, 2013 at 12:08 pm

You are making shit up to save face. You can attempt red herring after red herring…but it doesn’t change the context under which I quoted Churchill.

I really can’t even carry on further until you admit that you are totally and completely wrong in your claim that his statement was “sarcasm”.

Any person genuinely seeking an honest assessment can easily understand my point.

What he did after the German machine became a threat is a different set of circumstances.

If you can’t admit this, I can’t go any further with you for obvious reasons.

Trango Towers August 23, 2013 at 1:27 pm

You’ve got issues dude.

? August 23, 2013 at 1:29 pm

Yea, and you’ve got issues with the truth.

Trango Towers August 23, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Tell ya the truth: I didn’t scrutinize what you wrote other than “If you can’t admit this…..”. Don’t know what truth you refer to with regard to me, but you’ve definitely got general issues. Reminds me of a dude named Sid that used to post here.

TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 6:32 pm

TBG has subscriptions.

What’s your point?

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 1:31 pm

If you can’t see the opportunity for the Churchill statements to have double meaning then you are blind. BTW how did Randolph fare in the debate aftermath?

What office did WSC hold in 1933? None? Why was that?

? August 23, 2013 at 1:34 pm

Double meaning?

So are you admitting that his statement was a rebuke toward the Pledge if there were “two” meanings?

If so, good for you. What then would also be the 2nd meaning?

TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 12:34 pm

How did all of this work out for the British Empire?

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 1:24 pm

The empire, not so much. But that was inevitable anyway. The UK is not under foreign control today as Herr Hitler thought they would be. They are also smart enough to not drop their own monetary system for the Euro.

TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Hitler was way more interested in subjugating the Slavs and the Rus, than the Brits.
*cough* Rudolf Hess *cough*

You are probably correct about the inevitability of Britain losing her empire. You are absolutely correct about the Euro.

TBG re-recommends that you read PJB’s The Unnecessary War.
“The Unnecessary War” was actually what Winston Churchill referred to WWII as, later in life.

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 11:34 am

“the ones in control”. Exactly how did they get “in control’?

Reply
? August 23, 2013 at 11:41 am

It doesn’t matter how they got in control.

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 11:52 am

Really? What is your solution” Anarchy? The electorate put them in control.

? August 23, 2013 at 11:54 am

Why do I have to have a “solution”? I’m simply stating facts, clearing the record so to speak.

If you don’t like the facts, I can’t help you.

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 11:59 am

Facts? What facts? That those in control were illegally put in control? You don’t like what those in control are doing? You have no solution? All you propose is to sit in a corner and bitch?

? August 23, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Yes, I “bitch” about being factual.

In the mean time you “bitch”, about people correcting your misstatements.

TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 6:31 pm

? bitches because he cares.

? August 23, 2013 at 12:08 pm

I’m simply stating the truth, correcting the record.

I haven’t said I offer a solution, nor do I, nor should I have to.

You stated “posters on this site who are not willing to spend their blood, toil, tears and sweat” are responsible for not winning wars.

My comment was that those people are not in control, because if they were there would be no wars. PERIOD.

I can’t help you if you don’t like the facts.

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 1:21 pm

YOUR elected representatives made the determination to use military action. They did not vote themselves into office. YOU put them there. Don’t like their performance? Then vote them out. But start by WORKING to do so. Not sitting around bitching.

? August 23, 2013 at 1:28 pm

They aren’t “mine” because I didn’t vote for them. They are “YOURS”, and all the problems they create you partially own.

You are the big gov’t champion, don’t run away from it, own it and stop bitching that not enough people subscribe to your faulty governance system.

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Pardon my ignorance but I assumed that the majority ruled. The majority elected those “in control”. You may have not voted for them but you have to accept their “control” unless you want to renounce your citizenship and leave like Thomas Ravenel and Alec Baldwin said they would do. You know, take your toys and go home.

So who did I vote for? Were you in the voting booth with me?

? August 23, 2013 at 3:21 pm

“Pardon my ignorance”

I’m trying.

“You may have not voted for them but you have to accept their “control””.

That much is true until one day I leave, however there is the 1st amendment right to my free speech until then. In so much that they haven’t yet given you the authority to stop me from bitching with their force, you’ll just have to sit there and deal with it.

“So who did I vote for?”

That is not the issue, the issue is that the act of voting is an implicit endorsement of whatever decisions they make as a whole. You accept that as a result of believing in the system and obviously they know that; you have no control over their vote except for the one diluted vote you cast at the time of their election….which you cast against thousands of others who don’t even know 10% of what you know about history, economics, etc.

You are playing a fools game. I simply choose not to play even though I’m still subjected to the rules created by the mob participating in it.

Smirks August 23, 2013 at 2:16 pm

I only get to vote on two senators, a representative, and the president. I sure as hell didn’t vote for Graham, Wilson, or Scott. I also had no opportunity to vote for or against the other several hundred congressmen that are in office today. Did I put all of those people there?

“Just vote them out.” Good luck getting the masses to go with that plan.

CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 2:20 pm

You are right on. But ? could get out and campaign, donate money, etc. for opponents to Graham and his house rep. None of us voted for Scott but you can work against his reelection. What I am unsuccessfully trying to explain to ? is that bitching on this web site ain’t going to do what he wants.

? August 23, 2013 at 3:24 pm

It’s pure folly CNSYD, I rest well knowing that.

The only reason I “bitch” is in the hope that if nothing else a small % of people have a better understand of the history instead of the propaganda.

? August 23, 2013 at 3:23 pm

Correct.

TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 6:29 pm

TBG can promise you that Lindsey Graham and Jim Clyburn are NOT his “elected officials”, Hoss.

Believe me, I attempt to vote them out every opportunity I get. By “sitting around and bitching”, I hope to convince others to do the same.

Soft Sigh from Hell August 24, 2013 at 3:50 pm

Wasn’t Churchill accused of poisonous gassing of Iraqis from the air in the 1930s?

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm

TBG just can’t seem to develop the *proper* enthusiasm for spending our ” blood, toil, tears and sweat” to help Al Qaeda achieve “victory, victory at all costs, victory, however long and hard the road may be” over the former ophthalmologist’s Syrian regime.

Reply
? August 23, 2013 at 12:27 pm

You aren’t a good ‘Merican then TBG.

You should be waving the flag for every undeclared war. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. et al

They are all worthy causes despite the cost in American lives and money.

Oh, and when we don’t “win” it’s your fault that we lost as well because you didn’t want to do it in the first place….even though THOSE IN CONTROL did.

“Perpetual war for perpetual peace”-The new American slogan.

Reply
hack August 26, 2013 at 9:06 am

War is Hope.

Original Good Old Boy August 23, 2013 at 2:11 pm

Apples to oranges. Churchill was speaking of a war that threatened the fate of Britain. He was not speaking of a possible war that may involve Britain’s interests in some indirect and obscure way.

Reply
CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm

Yes he was. My reason on using that quote was to say that if the majority has decided to take military action, then that is the only way to achieve victory.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 6:22 pm

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.”
— Hermann Goering

While TBG is all for the use of rapid, brutal, overwhelming force against an antagonists leaders and military…he has qualms about “total war” being used on civilians.

? August 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm

So put another way, those in control of waging war aren’t committed enough in dedicating lives & money to winning it, correct?

Hmmm…now why would those in power wage a war without fully committing to winning it….let’s see…why would they do that….hmmmmm.

Maybe, the perpetual war benefits them in some way so they want it go on as long as possible?

Nah, that’s crazy talk…and it would have to be a “conspiracy”…so we know it’s crazy.

Reply
CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 1:34 pm

Is it even remotely possible that those in “control” have access to more intel than you? No I guess not.

Reply
? August 23, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Ok, so explain that. They have more intel, how does that impact the commitment to winning a war? What’s your point?

Reply
CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 2:25 pm

The point is that you apparently oppose many if not all of the military actions of recent times. You claim you don’t think we belong there, etc. My suggestion is that perhaps you are not operating with all the available intel. Not available to you nor I but to those who you say are “in control”. Many times this intel can’t be shared with everyone in order to protect its sources. At some point you have to trust those “in control”.

? August 23, 2013 at 3:13 pm

“At some point you have to trust those “in control”.”

Yea, well that is in direct contradiction to your original statement:

“That should be our aim as well. But as can be seen from many posters on this site who are not willing to spend their blood, toil, tears and sweat, it won’t be.”

So which is it, “trusting” those in control or not?

TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 10:39 am

TBG smells the whiff of “kinetic military action” in the air.

As TBG awaits a Congressional Declaration of KMA with bated breath…he revels in the confidence that the troops will be home *before the leaves fall.”

Reply
Philip Branton August 23, 2013 at 10:44 am

Tonto…………you magnificent “biscuit”….you have read a “kinetic book…!!

Bravo…..

Reply
CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 10:46 am

Leaves are in short supply in the Middle east.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein August 23, 2013 at 6:35 pm

Ahhhhhh….but there is a lot of deciduousness in Mother Russia.

Besides, I was being somewhat snarky and referencing WWI and how things can get out of hand.

Reply
junior justice August 23, 2013 at 11:23 am

Some leaves started falling last week.

Reply
Jackie Chiles August 23, 2013 at 11:07 am

We’d better not bomb Syria.

Reply
CNSYD August 23, 2013 at 11:33 am

and if we do?

Reply
darth August 23, 2013 at 11:43 am

Yes, SEIU is going to strike Lybia, um Egypt, um ASSyria, but it isn’t politically correct to bomb so close to Gay, Lebanese, Bombastic or Transfixed (by Obama’s mystique, e.g. Jungle Fever)
Well, maybe you get “Operation Patriotic Booty” but purple shi(r)ts would be fine cannon fodder.

Reply

Leave a Comment