Let’s be clear about something as it relates to our view of the ongoing crisis in Syria: We don’t give a f*ck. Seriously … if one group of Syrians wants to brutally murder another group of Syrians, we don’t give a f*ck.
Sure it’s terrible, and sure we wish it weren’t happening … but at the end of the day it is Syria’s problem, not ours.
In fact the entire Middle Eastern situation can be summed up thusly as far as we’re concerned …
Yeah …
And while so-called “veterans” like U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.) want to put American “boots on the ground” in Syria, we don’t see a compelling national interest justifying such an engagement. Hell, we don’t think America should be doing anything in Syria – including the expanded military aid offered this week by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.
Nonetheless Obama – eager to deflect attention from a rash of recent scandals at home – is arming Syrian rebels in response to unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons being used by the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Obama is also reportedly contemplating another open-ended commitment – the establishment of a U.S.-enforced “no-fly zone” in Syria that would involve the destruction of the country’s Russian-built air defense network.
Awesome …
We have news for warmongers like Graham and Obama … this country cannot afford such open-ended commitments, in lives or in tax dollars.
Our government has lost nearly 7,000 lives and spent more than $1.4 trillion over the past decade on a pair of totally unjustified, ineffective wars … conflicts that were waged with no clearly defined mission, no exit strategy and again, no compelling national interest. Oh, and one of these conflicts – the Iraq War – was based on faulty intelligence to boot.
Speaking of faulty intelligence, Syria and Russia are scoffing at America’s chemical weapons claims.
“I will say frankly that what was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing,” Russia’s top diplomat said this week. “It would be hard even to call them facts.”
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Frankly we don’t care who is right or who is wrong on that count: Even if Syria’s government is using chemical weapons against the rebel forces (which are also receiving support from terror network al-Qaeda), it is not the place of the American military to get involved in the conflict.
Our money, our weapons and our troops need to stay out of Syria … period. Not only are we unable to afford the immediate costs, we cannot afford more of the violent backlash associated with our unwarranted intrusion into the domestic affairs of other countries.
***
82 comments
That’s what I am talking bout………..good one Will! Only reason Syria on our radar, may be 3 drops of oil somewhere there!
Or if you are one of those nutty Iranians….you might look at a map and notice that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria all have something in common…
Oops!
*Rick Perry/Emily Litella Moment*
Syria does not share a border with Iran.
“Nevermind.”
That’s what I am talking bout………..good one Will! Only reason Syria on our radar, may be 3 drops of oil somewhere there!
Or if you are one of those nutty Iranians….you might look at a map and notice that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria all have something in common…
Oops!
*Rick Perry/Emily Litella Moment*
Syria does not share a border with Iran.
“Nevermind.”
This is EXACTLY what our country needs to get back on a good fiscal track; another undeclared war.
What a bunch of fucking geniuses.
150 people get gassed and we decide to pump $50 billion a month into the atrocity.
Jesus F Christ.
This is EXACTLY what our country needs to get back on a good fiscal track; another undeclared war.
What a bunch of fucking geniuses.
150 people get gassed and we decide to pump $50 billion a month into the atrocity.
Jesus F Christ.
Great. Just… great.
Great. Just… great.
I know there’s going to be a lot of oil talk. This is not what this is about. Most likely trying to offer comfort to turkey for Incirlik. Lord knows there having a helluva time over there.
Edit: Probably has a little to do with the DOW as well. When Bernanke decided to start raising interest rates the markets got a little jittery. This will help calm them down. Higher profit margins get people happy all the time. Doesn’t matter who’s getting gassed, as long as were supplying it.
A win for the military industrial complex.
I know there’s going to be a lot of oil talk. This is not what this is about. Most likely trying to offer comfort to turkey for Incirlik. Lord knows there having a helluva time over there.
Edit: Probably has a little to do with the DOW as well. When Bernanke decided to start raising interest rates the markets got a little jittery. This will help calm them down. Higher profit margins get people happy all the time. Doesn’t matter who’s getting gassed, as long as were supplying it.
A win for the military industrial complex.
It’s a good thing that every time we arm some rebel group, it NEVER comes back to bite us in the ass! Right?
It’s a good thing that every time we arm some rebel group, it NEVER comes back to bite us in the ass! Right?
Why this reminds of the 1930s. Warmongers wanted to attack Nazi Germany for killing all those Eastern Europeans and they were Jews. Obviously it had nothing to do with us. We should have stayed out of that one. Is that right Sic Willie?
Yes, Yes, I can see Syria sweeping across the European continent in its bid to take over the world. Just like Pinky and the Brain.
Even further, I can also see the equivalence in the gassing of 150 Syrians in a civil war by gov’t versus the systemic racial scapegoating and killing(mostly gassing) of 6 million Jews.
Yep, you laid it all out right there. Good job.
So there are numeric and racial decision points? What are they?
Let’s leave the decision making to the people killing and killing killed, k?
Instead, let us focus on say….ourselves, for example.
I believe ?’s point was that there is a very real difference between intervening in one country’s civil war vs. reacting to stop a huge war machine that is moving across a continent and subjugating other countries. Please correct me if I’m wrong, ?. I’m a bit conflicted on this, actually. I don’t support intervening in another country’s civil war for oil or any other reason and feeding the military industrial complex and sacrificing American lives in the process, but I’d like to know how to get some humanitarian aid over there.
There are always privately funded humanitarian groups.
That being said, let me simply answer your question further, since you asked:
I could give the benefit of the doubt to someone claiming that the Nazi war machine could have posed a significant national security threat to the United States though I still have personal reservations on the whole deal, but the Nazi sweep across Europe is UNDENIABLE-so in that context it’s a reasonable argument for getting involved.
Does Syria rise to that? No, it’s an absurdity. Not even remotely. It’s laughable.
Thanks. That’s what I was thinking you meant. What’s happening in Syria is just not analogous to Nazi occupation of and movement across Europe.
As to the privately funded humanitarian groups – which I would like to see intervene in this situation – who would you suggest protect them, because they’d obviously need protection? My votes would be NATO and UN forces.
“who would you suggest protect them, because they’d obviously need protection?”
Privately funded, why not privately hired mercs?
Read the article I linked to yesterday….. you are on track with your comment.
So there are numeric and racial decision points?
Yes.
What are they?
Don’t know. But Syria ain’t there.
Yes. We should have stayed out of it.
Speak German much?
So is it your contention that we should get involved every time some dictator slaughters his people? is there some “special connection” with the Syrian people we must protect.
The question here is for you: What is our national interest in the Syrian civil war? Why should we be involved?
Nice Roberto. Libitard silenced once again because it can not argue rationally. It must be the loudest in the room to prove it is right.
So I presume that you have attended all the daily national security briefings and have read all the intel from NSA, CIA, etc. Is that right? I haven’t, therefore I will let those in possession of the inside knowledge handle any situation. News flash for you. The leaders of Congress also get consulted on the plans before the fact. I for one do not think Frank Pytel has any special knowledge or insight. I would go so far as to believe our national interest is discussed in the meetings mentioned above.
So…..you think if we had entered the war earlier, siding with Stalin’s USSR, things would have worked out better for the Eastern Europeans?
While WWII worked out well for us (and, ironically, for the West Germans and Japanese) ….the results were not so peachy for the Eastern Europeans and the Chinese.
I could argue, for example, that the US and Great Britain should have allied with the Nazis AGAINST the Communists. We could have also stayed out and let the Germans and Russians slug it out…..potentially weakening both to the point of “regime change”. General Patton’s ideas at the end of the war also had merit.
I have grown weary of the “we need to invade [Insert country] and overthrow [Insert despot] RIGHT NOW, because they are like the Germans and Adolf Hitler were in 1938” argument. Comparing Saddam, Ahmadinejad, and Assad to Hitler, Stalin or Mao is ludicrous.
Spot on!
As to your statement, Patton was obviously right. Truman and company knew it but were concerned that the US was weary of war. Millions of Soviet citizens died as a result and as Churchill stated, an Iron Curtain descended over Eastern Europe. At what point are you concerned over despots murdering human beings? Is there a cutoff number?
Of course I’m concerned.
The question is when does it become our national interest to sacrifice our blood and treasure to intervene? There have been some pretty huge numbers where we didn’t intervene….the USSR, China, Cambodia, and a plethora of African nations come to mind. Yet, we intervened in Bosnia and Iraq.
Why this reminds of the 1930s. Warmongers wanted to attack Nazi Germany for killing all those Eastern Europeans and they were Jews. Obviously it had nothing to do with us. We should have stayed out of that one. Is that right Sic Willie?
Yes, Yes, I can see Syria sweeping across the European continent in its bid to take over the world. Just like Pinky and the Brain.
Even further, I can also see the equivalence in the gassing of 150 Syrians in a civil war by gov’t versus the systemic racial scapegoating and killing(mostly gassing) of 6 million Jews.
Yep, you laid it all out right there. Good job.
So there are numeric and racial decision points? What are they?
Let’s leave the decision making to the people killing and killing killed, k?
Instead, let us focus on say….ourselves, for example.
I believe ?’s point was that there is a very real difference between intervening in one country’s civil war vs. reacting to stop a huge war machine that is moving across a continent and subjugating other countries. Please correct me if I’m wrong, ?. I’m a bit conflicted on this, actually. I don’t support intervening in another country’s civil war for oil or any other reason and feeding the military industrial complex and sacrificing American lives in the process, but I’d like to know how to get some humanitarian aid over there.
There are always privately funded humanitarian groups.
That being said, let me simply answer your question further, since you asked:
I could give the benefit of the doubt to someone claiming that the Nazi war machine could have posed a significant national security threat to the United States though I still have personal reservations on the whole deal, but the Nazi sweep across Europe is UNDENIABLE-so in that context it’s a reasonable argument for getting involved.
Does Syria rise to that? No, it’s an absurdity. Not even remotely. It’s laughable.
Thanks. That’s what I was thinking you meant. What’s happening in Syria is just not analogous to Nazi occupation of and movement across Europe.
As to the privately funded humanitarian groups – which I would like to see intervene in this situation – who would you suggest protect them, because they’d obviously need protection? My votes would be NATO and UN forces.
“who would you suggest protect them, because they’d obviously need protection?”
Privately funded, why not privately hired mercs?
Read this article I linked to yesterday….. you are on track with your comment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341340/Could-Syria-ignite-World-War-3-Thats-terrifying-question-hatred-Muslim-ideologies-sucks-worlds-superpowers.html
So there are numeric and racial decision points?
Yes.
What are they?
Don’t know. But Syria ain’t there.
Yes. We should have stayed out of it.
Speak German much?
So is it your contention that we should get involved every time some dictator slaughters his people? is there some “special connection” with the Syrian people we must protect.
The question here is for you: What is our national interest in the Syrian civil war? Why should we be involved?
Nice Roberto. Libitard silenced once again because it can not argue rationally. It must be the loudest in the room to prove it is right.
So I presume that you have attended all the daily national security briefings and have read all the intel from NSA, CIA, etc. Is that right? I haven’t, therefore I will let those in possession of the inside knowledge handle any situation. News flash for you. The leaders of Congress also get consulted on the plans before the fact. I for one do not think Frank Pytel has any special knowledge or insight. I would go so far as to believe our national interest is discussed in the meetings mentioned above.
So…..you think if we had entered the war earlier, siding with Stalin’s USSR, things would have worked out better for the Eastern Europeans?
While WWII worked out well for us (and, ironically, for the West Germans and Japanese) ….the results were not so peachy for the Eastern Europeans and the Chinese.
I could argue, for example, that the US and Great Britain should have allied with the Nazis AGAINST the Communists. We could have also stayed out and let the Germans and Russians slug it out…..potentially weakening both to the point of “regime change”. General Patton’s ideas at the end of the war also had merit.
I have grown weary of the “we need to invade [Insert country] and overthrow [Insert despot] RIGHT NOW, because they are like the Germans and Adolf Hitler were in 1938” argument. Comparing Saddam, Ahmadinejad, and Assad to Hitler, Stalin or Mao is ludicrous.
Spot on!
As to your statement, Patton was obviously right. Truman and company knew it but were concerned that the US was weary of war. Millions of Soviet citizens died as a result and as Churchill stated, an Iron Curtain descended over Eastern Europe. At what point are you concerned over despots murdering human beings? Is there a cutoff number?
Of course I’m concerned.
The question is when does it become our national interest to sacrifice our blood and treasure to intervene? There have been some pretty huge numbers where we didn’t intervene….the USSR, China, Cambodia, and a plethora of African nations come to mind. Yet, we intervened in Bosnia and Iraq.
You should have used GNR’s “Civil War”, when referring to Syria. Because as Axel says “I dont need your civil war, It feeds the rich why it bury’s the poor.”
You should have used GNR’s “Civil War”, when referring to Syria. Because as Axel says “I dont need your civil war, It feeds the rich why it bury’s the poor.”
Recommended reading for ? and Frank Pytel. Martin Niemoller’s famous poem.
Recommended reading for CNSYD. Patrick J Buchanan’s “The Unnecessary War” and Sherry Sontag’s “Blind Man’s Bluff”.
Seriously….I think you’ll like them.
Am very familiar with Blind Man’s Bluff from my Nuc Navy days. Might be wrong but anything by Buchanan would concern me.
Reasonably certain that, were he still with us, Martin Niemoller would oppose US involvement in Syria.
Recommended reading for ? and Frank Pytel. Martin Niemoller’s famous poem.
Recommended reading for CNSYD. Patrick J Buchanan’s “The Unnecessary War” and Sherry Sontag’s “Blind Man’s Bluff”.
Seriously….I think you’ll like them.
Am very familiar with Blind Man’s Bluff from my Nuc Navy days. Might be wrong but anything by Buchanan would concern me.
Reasonably certain that, were he still with us, Martin Niemoller would oppose US involvement in Syria.
Has Israel taken any position on what the US should do regarding Syria?
*cough* Obviously. *cough*
Yeah ’cause it the JEEEEEEEEWWWWWSSSS!!!
It’s obvious that they would have strong interest but not so obvious as to what they would be pushing for. They hate and fear the Syrian regime (well armed, lots of poison-gas weapons, lots of tanks, and help arm Hezbollah on Israel’s border with Lebanon). But the opposition is unpredictable and include some less pliable or less cowed characters. And any opposition-based winning side would quickly demand the Golan Heights back. Even with demilitarization quarantines, Israel will not want to return Golan. It is an important watershed. In some ways it would seem easier on Israel if Assad won, especially if greatly weakened.
Has Israel made any indicative statements or moves?
Israel will never give the Golan Heights back and I don’t blame them.
I assume that Israel believes that any government that comes after Assad will be weaker and (best case) “indebted” to the US.
I also believe that most US foreign policy in the Middle East is instigated (or at the minimum, approved) by the Israelis, as well as the Saudis. Neither the Saudis or the Israelis have much love for Iran. A weakened Syria diminishes Iran’s clout in the region and also could be used as a stepping stone to Tehran…..
Ha! Brilliant.
Has Israel taken any position on what the US should do regarding Syria?
*cough* Obviously. *cough*
Yeah ’cause it the JEEEEEEEEWWWWWSSSS!!!
It’s obvious that they would have strong interest but not so obvious as to what they would be pushing for. They hate and fear the Syrian regime (well armed, lots of poison-gas weapons, lots of tanks, and help arm Hezbollah on Israel’s border with Lebanon). But the opposition is unpredictable and include some less pliable or less cowed characters. And any opposition-based winning side would quickly demand the Golan Heights back. Even with demilitarization quarantines, Israel will not want to return Golan. It is an important watershed. In some ways it would seem easier on Israel if Assad won, especially if greatly weakened.
Has Israel made any indicative statements or moves?
Israel will never give the Golan Heights back and I don’t blame them.
I assume that Israel believes that any government that comes after Assad will be weaker and (best case) “indebted” to the US.
I also believe that most US foreign policy in the Middle East is instigated (or at the minimum, approved) by the Israelis, as well as the Saudis. Neither the Saudis or the Israelis have much love for Iran. A weakened Syria diminishes Iran’s clout in the region and also could be used as a stepping stone to Tehran…..
Ha! Brilliant.
Here is a link to an article with a different point of view. It’s long but well worth reading.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341340/Could-Syria-ignite-World-War-3-Thats-terrifying-question-hatred-Muslim-ideologies-sucks-worlds-superpowers.html
Here is a link to an article with a different point of view. It’s long but well worth reading. Read the summary blocks for each country.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341340/Could-Syria-ignite-World-War-3-Thats-terrifying-question-hatred-Muslim-ideologies-sucks-worlds-superpowers.html
Give the president another “peace” prize!!
Give the president another “peace” prize!!
The same Republicans who now clamor for intervention in Syria
will be in high dudgeon five years from now when our weapons are used in a
terrorist attack perpetrated by Hezbollah or Al Qaeda affiliates. I hoped Obama would have the guts to “just
say no!”
The same Republicans who now clamor for intervention in Syria
will be in high dudgeon five years from now when our weapons are used in a
terrorist attack perpetrated by Hezbollah or Al Qaeda affiliates. I hoped Obama would have the guts to “just
say no!”