atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#3953: Syria, the new hot topic

There's a bunch of stuff going on with regard to Syria as we head into the holiday weekend, so I suppose I'd best just get it started.

By now, we know that Obama is intending to hit Syria, because WMDs, and he's not bothering with any pesky "declarations of war" or "congressional approval" or anything beforehand.

In 2002 Obama was against going into Iraq. But that was 2002, you know, when an icky Republican was in the White House.

Who knows what Bush was going to do if he went into Iraq? We had to oppose that cowboy because he's a Republican, for crying out loud, and you know how they run wars! They actually kill people and break things, you know, and try to win! That's why the war in Iraq had to be stopped even after Bush got a declaration of war and international approval!

But Obama can be trusted with this awesome new power that he's arrogated for himself, because he's a Democrat and he cares and will never do anything illegal or ethically questionable, and Assad Used Nerve Gas!

And so here we are: the very people who were against a consitutionally declared war in 2002 are now speaking in approving terms of an unconstitutional, undeclared war against a country which has not attacked the US nor its interests abroad, over a conflict which has absolutely nothing to do with us whatsoever.

I really like how it's vital that we do something about Syria, which has nothing to do with the US, while it's equally vital that we not do anything about Iran's nuclear aspirations when Iran has said repeatedly they wish great harm upon the United States. Then again, expecting rational behavior from a Democrat--particularly when it comes to national security!--is like expecting poetry from a frog.

The quote from Obama in 2002 could easily be reworked with details from the current situation, but for the bit about the stock market.

But France is on board! That's why we must do it! Cowboy Bush couldn't get France to agree, but they're all up ons for this!

Parliament said "no" to a PM's request for war for the first time since 1782. What is that, 231 years?

The US media is not bothering to report on that, though because it might make Obama look bad.

Karl Denninger takes down the people arguing that we must get involved in Syria because Obama ran his fat, stupid mouth last year, and now we must go in lest the US look bad.

Gee, suddenly these patriots are telling us that when our President talks the talk, we must walk the walk? How much difference a few years (and a different party in control of the White House) make!

...and that one is simply a must-read, by the way.

I'm going to wrap this up with today's post from Alan Caruba:
If Obama decides not to proceed he will confirm what everyone in diplomatic and military circles worldwide already knows. He is a moron. Because only a moron would do nothing for two years while 100,000 Syrians are killed and then have a snit when a few hundred more die by another means.
Regardless of what Obama does. Regardless of what he does, his actions will confirm (have already!) that he's dumb as a box of rocks. He's clever, he has street smarts, he's got a high social quotient...but he's stupid, and running his gums about "red lines" has now led to him being stuck; either he attacks Assad's forces in Syria or he does not.

Attacking Assad is a bad move, as it helps Al Qaeda and his advisors must know that even if he himself does not). Failing to take action--after saying he would--makes him look weak.

I'd submit that Obama is weak, though. His weakness shows in his response to criticism; if you're strong and confident a few naysayers don't get under your skin. And so he must attack Syria, if only to demonstrate that he's really not weak, that he's strong, that he's smart and confident, that he can run with the big boys, that he really is more than a stuffed shirt who needs a teleprompter when he gives a press conference.

...so I think it very likely that we will get involved in the war in Syria, but our involvement is going to be as tepid and incoherent as our President is. If Obama manages everything just right--and I believe he'll manage it!--maybe we can have a full-on shooting war with a major opponent, and then we can all have fun. Right? Crank up the draft, lock down the country (all in the name of "national security", of course!) and perhaps even have some kind of nuclear exchange! Why not? The feds have very nice bomb shelters for the important people!

*rolleyes*
Subscribe

  • #7604: Well, she died doing what she loved, I guess?

    What else can you say? Heavily edited quote: "[R]adical pro-abortion supporter Maria de Valle Gonzalez Lopez died during ... her "dream"…

  • #7603: Absolutely correct

    I have never liked that band. Apparently the music of Rush works well as a contraceptive. The music of Rush is marked by erratic signature changes,…

  • #7602: Still not gonna take it.

    "The flu has mysteriously vanished while the number of people who got covid was within the normal range of the number of people who get the flu…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments