ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Right wing warmongers

John Hawkins takes a poll of 46 right-wing bloggers, including me, concerning the proposed military adventure in Syria:
#1) Do you think Congress should give Obama authorization for ANY sort of military operation in Syria?
No: 84.8% (39 votes)
Yes: 15.2% (7 votes)

#2) If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria, would you support bombing Syria?
No: 76.1% (35 votes)
Yes: 23.9% (11 votes)
It's informative to see that the warmongering Right is considerably less enthusiastic about the use of military force than either the antiwar Left or the Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House.  But fortunately, the United States has an elected leader it can trust to lead it into war.

"I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line."
- Barack Obama,  September 4, 2013

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized."
- Barack Obama, August 21, 2012

Labels:

92 Comments:

Anonymous boomer September 05, 2013 6:50 AM  

When your bored and got nothing else to do you go out and kill some people.
Should we go to war. Congress and the president are no different then the three youths that shot and killed someone because they were bored

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein September 05, 2013 6:57 AM  

It's informative to see that the warmongering Right is considerably less enthusiastic about the use of military force when an "antiwar" Leftist, Nobel Peace Prize winner is in the White House.


Fixed it for ya!

Anonymous Josh September 05, 2013 6:58 AM  

AIPAC is doing a really bad job selling this war.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer September 05, 2013 7:45 AM  

I think the term is Imperial overreach.

If you tell someone that country X is 6 months away from a nuclear weapon every six months for five years, pretty soon people wonder if you're telling the truth. Maybe the same thing is happening here.

Blogger  Trust Ted get misled. Gamma secret kings reddit September 05, 2013 7:55 AM  

What about the be-headings, kidnappings and problems of Mexico? No fix.

It appears that the destabilization or leaderships removals of 5 to 7 (lost count) countries have not garnered the desired outcomes or perhaps they have depending upon whom one asks.

The unsurprising media diversions and distortions to create war after war only serve as avoidances from America's domestic problems. Russia's Putin and China's leadership are fully aware of this.

Anonymous Tardo September 05, 2013 8:09 AM  

Evi evill neocons like John Bolton... and Rand Paul.

Anonymous Instapundit circa 2003 September 05, 2013 8:10 AM  

They're not antiwar, just the other side.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 05, 2013 8:10 AM  

A whole bunch of weapons! And uh, er, stuff. Yeah!

Blogger J Curtis September 05, 2013 8:27 AM  

How cheese eating, French surrender monkeys became interventionist gorillas

Blogger James Dixon September 05, 2013 8:29 AM  

I have to agree that for most of them, it's just that it's not their guy in office.

There's another factor though besides that. When a republican says something, I usually listen to what they're saying and assume I'm hearing a very biased version of what they perceive to be the truth. Usually so biased that it bears little resemblance to the real thing, but nonetheless what they think to be the truth. When a democrat says something (with a few exceptions), I assume they're lying.

I believe this is also true for the right wing bloggers. They simply don't believe Obama is telling the truth. The fact that they have good reason to not believe him is icing on the cake.

Blogger IM2L844 September 05, 2013 8:35 AM  

This is a test. I expect congress will not support Obama, but Obama will go ahead with the military option thus acclimating the general public frog in the pot to another degree or two closer to the dictatorial boiling point without them even noticing the trend.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 8:41 AM  

I have to agree that for most of them, it's just that it's not their guy in office.

I'm sure that's true for some. But I have to wonder: if Bush had been followed by another Republican -- say McCain -- and he'd pursued Obama's foreign policy, how many right-wingers would still back him? Many didn't like him even then during the campaign, since he was already a well-known neo-con hawk and a traitor on border security. I think it would have been pretty tough for a guy like Limbaugh, for instance, to have cheered a President McCain through Libya and so on, especially when you include the domestic civil rights abuses that have gone hand-in-hand with Obama's extension of the war on terror.

At this point, I'm not sure I believe Obama's smart enough to be lying all the time. I guess he could be reciting lies written by others, though.

Anonymous dB September 05, 2013 8:43 AM  

Vox,

This seems to dovetail into your notion that because of current economics, there is bound to be war. How do you think this expands if Obama gets what he wants? Since Russia seems to be buddies with Syria, and Syria is blackmailing with an Israel attack, this could get real interesting. I also do see the MSM (no surprise) not even questioning how to pay for a new conflict.

Anonymous Roundtine September 05, 2013 8:43 AM  

I would guess about 50% of the anti-interventionism from the right is political. The other half is genuine and would have opposed Romney too.

Anonymous sprach von Teufelhunden September 05, 2013 8:48 AM  

The 'right-wing' would oppose any military action initiated by a Democrat. Particularly by a liberal/leftist Democrat. Of course, the same 'right-wing' would expect same said Democrat to continue policy initiated by previous 'right-wing' Republican. This is the Hegelian trap.

There is a third question that needs to be added to the poll:

#3) Understanding that any military intervention in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean theater may well invite a response from Russia. Understanding that Russia possesses on their current naval fleet deployed in the area the Granit (P-700) anti-ship cruise missile. This missile deployed in large volume, would decimate an entire U.S. Navy battle group in a matter of minutes. There is no counter-measure against a Granit. [1] Would you support bombing Syria?

I would guess that the No response would jump to near 100%. If you are a reasonable thinking human being. (Of course, the very first response to that kind of question would be -- WHAT?!? Could you repeat that please? Unless you are a Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus type, and then your head would just commence to explode. Like that in Scanners)



----------
[1] Mentioning the Granit is significant for more than one reason. The fact that it can be deployed in mass in the very near future against U.S. forces. Also, the fact that it has already been deployed against the U.S. in the past. [2][3][4] Not to also mention, that Russia may well have ready for deployment the BrahMos II. A missile in excess of 7 mach. Further, there is circumstantial evidence of another in excess of 9 mach. (9/2/13-9/3/13 monologue)

[2] This especially in light of coming anniversary in six days.

[3] As I compose this, I am watching and downloading said video. I recommend Firefox with 1-Click Youtube Video Downloader 2.1.3. If this gets too popular, it will be deleted at some point by Google.

[4] Fascinating, that about half way through the presentation, the question of "why" comes up. The fact that the answer comes via 1984 (the book and film) should not surprise the truly learned individual.

Anonymous me September 05, 2013 8:52 AM  

I could never be president. I could never make the decision to put our troops in danger. I don't care for this president much, but he made the right decision to take it to congress. That's what our Constitution says to do.

"It's informative to see that the warmongering Right is considerably less enthusiastic about the use of military force when an "antiwar" Leftist, Nobel Peace Prize winner is in the White House."

Somebody speaks the Truth. Suddenly the hawks are doves and the doves are hawks. And people accuse me of being confused. Sheesh!

On the other hand, a strong and united America can produce stability in the world. We are a moral leader. All this waffling around creates more conflict and potential problems. Peace through strength is a valid strategy.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 9:13 AM  

Sad state of affairs when I find Putin more believable - and support his resistance.

CSHIZZLE

Anonymous zen0 September 05, 2013 9:21 AM  

On the other hand, a strong and united America can produce stability in the world. We are a moral leader.

And then someone threw a large hunk of raw meat into to the midst of the ravenous beasts....

Anonymous David Stockman Quoter September 05, 2013 9:24 AM  

We are a moral leader

After having rained napalm, white phosphorous, bunker-busters, drone missiles and the most violent machinery of conventional warfare ever assembled upon millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians, Serbs, Somalis, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemeni, Libyans and countless more, Washington now presupposes to be in the moral sanctions business?

Blogger Luke (alias "Lines With Chrome") September 05, 2013 9:29 AM  

"Who the bloody 'ell is 'we, you wanker?"
-British Parliament, 29 August 2013

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn September 05, 2013 9:30 AM  

What about the be-headings, kidnappings and problems of Mexico? No fix.

Clearly, the "fix" is to invite the poor innocent souls to move in, indeed to turn your entire nation into one great victim shelter--funded by taxpayer moneys, no less.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 05, 2013 9:31 AM  

War as economic solution!

Use up stored weapons like missiles.
Use fuel.
Now replenish by buying new missiles and fuel. FED me money!!
Maintenance of working machines after war. FED me money!!

Caching$$$$!!!

Blogger Dystopic September 05, 2013 9:32 AM  

We are a moral leader

Pull the other one. Look, America isn't Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia (though we certainly seem to be heading that way), but that doesn't mean America is somehow morally pure either. If America is attacked, America has the right to defend itself. Afghanistan was a justifiable war, since that regime sheltered enemies who attacked America. Now, the ensuing occupation was not as clearly justified. You kill those who attempt to kill you (or they surrender), then you leave. That's how a "moral" war works.

Syria did not attack America. Syria did not attack nations with which America has mutual defense agreements. Clearly, America has no moral obligation (or right) to get involved. Why is it that America is supposed to deal with these issues? There are nations in that region which have much more justifiable reasons to get involved. Syria is next door to Turkey. Turkey may have a "moral" casus belli to get involved. Syria was once a French colony, so perhaps the French bear a measure of responsibility and have a reason to be involved. America does NOT. America has no casus belli, no justifiable reason and worst of all... America doesn't even stand to benefit from it in any way whatsoever.

Anonymous Annalitic September 05, 2013 9:33 AM  

Use up stored weapons like missiles.
Use fuel.
Now replenish by buying new missiles and fuel. FED me money!!
Maintenance of working machines after war. FED me money!!

Caching$$$$!!!


PROFIT!

Anonymous Toby Temple September 05, 2013 9:36 AM  

Why is it that America is supposed to deal with these issues?

America need to spend big. BIG!!! Because economy!

What about the be-headings, kidnappings and problems of Mexico? No fix.

That, my friend, is the War on Drugs.

War on Drugs: Making money for the US since 1982.

Anonymous Stilicho September 05, 2013 9:40 AM  


"I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line."
- Barack Obama, September 4, 2013

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized."
- Barack Obama, August 21, 2012


Quasi-female solipsism at its best: "we are the world" has morphed into "I am the world" for this joker.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 9:41 AM  

We are a moral leader

Yes, we express this moral leadership through such exemplary moral paragons as Hillary Clinton, Disney, Monsanto, Walmart, IBM, and Planned Parenthood.

On second thought, I'm just going to assume you were joking.

Anonymous Will Best September 05, 2013 9:44 AM  

He should just get up there and say "Look I was trying to bluff in some part so Syrian citizens would only have to suffer conventional monstrosities but mostly to distract the US right from the immigration debate so the spineless chimps in the House could do what it takes to hand control of the country to Democrat corporate interests for the next 40 years. The US really doesn't have any interest whatsoever in the outcome of this because whoever replaces Assad will be just as bad as him."

Anonymous Toby Temple September 05, 2013 9:52 AM  

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized."
- Barack Obama, August 21, 2012


There had been a lot of weapons moving around and being utilized by the United States Armed Forces.

I mean, what do you call the things that you used in Afghanistan and Iraq that blow things up and killing lots and lots of people? Toys?

Anonymous Not Steve Sailer September 05, 2013 9:56 AM  

Maybe this just proves the binary hawk/dove divide was/is total bullshit.

Pretty stunning turnaround, however. Only example I can think of is the New Deal Left going from "anti-war" with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact... to rabidly pro-war overnight after Operation Barbarossa.

Anonymous Samuel Scott September 05, 2013 10:00 AM  

Copying some answers here I just put in the prior Syria thread. (And a lot more thoughts there on Israel and Judaism in response to comments, for those who are interested.)

There is NO vital American interests in Syria and there never has been.

Objectively speaking, it's not just about America (or Israel). It's about not letting anyone -- anywhere -- use weapons of mass destruction and get away with it. It's disruptive to the international geo-political order.

So, the international community must do something -- and as the leader of the international community, the US is the representative and enforcer. (Especially when the UN is useless.)

Shouldn't the Saudis and the Israelis have the money and brainpower to handle this themselves? [Reference to proxy war with Iran.]

Well, it's very hard for Israel to do it alone. Israel doesn't have the types of bombs that would destroy the deep-underground facilities -- the US does. No Arab countries would grant Israel fly-over rights -- but they would give it to the US.

For legitimate reasons that are certainly debatable, we are waging that proxy war on behalf of two political allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

According to nearly all reports here, the Israeli government wants the US (and anyone else) to attack Syria (or at least Assad). But behind the scenes, Israel is wary of any outcome.

Yes, Assad is a jerk. But he's a sane jerk. He would never attack Israel directly, not even after Israel allegedly destroyed his nuclear facility a few years ago. It's a case of "the devil you know."

That being said, Syria has served as a conduit for missiles from Iran to Hizbollah in Lebanon. By taking out Assad or at least disrupting the country, fewer missiles will get to Hizbollah (which launched hundreds or thousands of them into Israel's north in 2006).

However, the opposition includes Sunni extremists who may be affiliated with al-Qaeda. If they take power, Syria could become more dangerous than the country under Assad. In case that happens, Israel has been operating medical facilities on the border with Syria to treat rebels -- most likely as a way to establish as good relations as possible should they take control.

Short answer: There's likely no real good outcome for Israel. So the country is just sitting back at the moment to see what happens. (Netanyahu instructed his cabinet ministers not to make any comments after Obama said he was going to seek approval from Congress.)

Anonymous dudemanhey September 05, 2013 10:01 AM  

As someone opposed to atacking Syria, and someone who was adamantly oppsed to the W Bush's Iraq war in 2002/2003, it is incredibly frustrating and annoying to see the two sides flip-flop.

In the winter of 2003, while i was telling anyone who would listen how horrible of an idea invading Iraq was, the Republican side called me a hippie, lefty, commie, and unpatriotic, etc. All my "liberal" and Democrat friends cheered me on.

Now that Obama is the warmongerer (and i call him out on it every chance i get) and the Republicans loathe him so much, my Democrat friends & family call me a Republican, or a Tea Bagger, or a racist extremist.

I am so sick of partisan politics.

So to all of those Democrat & Republican idiot warmongerers: F YOU!

Anonymous Josh September 05, 2013 10:02 AM  

I mean, what do you call the things that you used in Afghanistan and Iraq that blow things up and killing lots and lots of people? Toys?

Kinetic support items

Anonymous Annalitic September 05, 2013 10:07 AM  

Objectively speaking, it's not just about America (or Israel). It's about not letting anyone -- anywhere -- use weapons of mass destruction and get away with it.

Uhh...the U.S. uses them all the time. And gets away with it.

Anonymous Josh September 05, 2013 10:12 AM  

So, the international community must do something -- and as the leader of the international community, the US is the representative and enforcer. (Especially when the UN is useless.)

Yeah, how's that gonna work if, in the future, the international community decides that y'all have crossed a red line and need to be responded to?

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 10:14 AM  

When Clinton was bombing one of those places that was a looming threat to the security of the USA and the world during his time -- Bosnia, Sudan, Iraq, I forget which -- I remember catching some news show that had dragged in all the anti-war celebrities they could find. (The one I remember was Venus from WKRP.) They were conspicuous in their lack of numbers and fame, to say the least, and the media mostly ignored them when they protested in body bags.

There are very, very few people who are anti-bombing-annoying-people regardless of who is in charge. I suspect they're actually more numerous on the right than on the left, but they're also less visible, being completely off the media's liberal/conservative chart.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 05, 2013 10:15 AM  

Kinetic support items

Sounds legit. I buhleeev ya!

Anonymous Sigyn September 05, 2013 10:20 AM  

Objectively speaking, it's not just about America (or Israel). It's about not letting anyone -- anywhere -- use weapons of mass destruction and get away with it. It's disruptive to the international geo-political order.

So the rebels use the things (by accident) and we go after...Assad, their enemy. That'll teach 'em, all right--to use WMDs in any nation whose government they want to overthrow.

So, the international community must do something

Maybe get out of the way so Assad can put down the WMD-toting rebels?

Anonymous Samuel Scott September 05, 2013 10:25 AM  

Josh September 05, 2013 10:12 AM

Yeah, how's that gonna work if, in the future, the international community decides that y'all have crossed a red line and need to be responded to?


Fair point. But in the end, it also comes down to real politik and who one's friends are. The "international community" -- or, the United States, for the most part, would never do that en masse because the US is friends with Israel.

The most that would happen in the near future is more EU boycotts of Israeli goods and protests and whatnot.

Anonymous boomer September 05, 2013 10:25 AM  

It has been said when a president popularity is in trouble at home they need to create or find some sort of international problem to improve their image. However, its not just the president that is in trouble its the whole government that is in trouble. The corruption in Washington DC is a far bigger threat to this country then any international crisis.
We have a government whose story changes with what happen in Libya. They call what happen in the NSA, IRS phony stories. All the other federal agency's are also in collusion against the citizens of the USA.
Its nonsensical for the most powerful country in the world to get into wars that it has no intention of winning.

Anonymous Samuel Scott September 05, 2013 10:27 AM  

Annalitic September 05, 2013 10:07 AM

Uhh...the U.S. uses them all the time. And gets away with it.


The US has used chemical weapons in the recent past? I don't follow US news as much as I used to, so I'd love any links or citations from credible sources.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 05, 2013 10:27 AM  

Its nonsensical for the most powerful country in the world to get into wars that it has no intention of winning.

Unless the intention is to spend money. Because economy.

Anonymous Josh September 05, 2013 10:31 AM  

The "international community" -- or, the United States, for the most part, would never do that en masse because the US is friends with Israel.

Only because the US has the most powerful military and can currently fund military adventures. What happens when that changes?

Anonymous boomer September 05, 2013 10:31 AM  

Syria is a phony story

Anonymous Susan September 05, 2013 10:35 AM  

Sorry Samuel, but there is no compelling reason for this Country to go to Syria. One of the reasons AQ attacked us in 2001 was that we had bases in SA. What do you think they will do when we go and start slapping the Syrian government around?

It's like that old cliché, I can punch my brother all I want, but you outsiders had better not!(paraphrased)

Don't get me wrong here Samuel. I am a strong supporter of Israel. But I do not want our military put in the way of people who not only behead, they eat the remains. Kind of like zombies.

Anonymous Josh September 05, 2013 10:35 AM  

The US has used chemical weapons in the recent past?

Well...all bombs contain chemicals...

But in all seriousness, I don't understand why the use of chemical weapons now is some great big bad thing. Iraq used them numerous times against both Iran and the kurds, and no one immediately started bombing them. And we've probably killed more people with drone strikes than Syria had with chemical gas. And that's assuming that Syria actually did it.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 05, 2013 10:38 AM  

The US has used chemical weapons in the recent past? I don't follow US news as much as I used to, so I'd love any links or citations from credible sources.

Sammy. The term you used is weapons of mass destruction.

Nice sleight of hand attempt there, by the way.

Anonymous Annalitic September 05, 2013 10:40 AM  

You said WMD's.

If teh Boston bomber's pressure cooker is a WMD, then yes, the US uses far worse things far more often.

Or are WMD's ok as long as your the "good guys"?

And chemical weapons? The Davidian house in Waco comes to mind...

Anonymous Will Best September 05, 2013 10:40 AM  

Objectively speaking, it's not just about America (or Israel). It's about not letting anyone -- anywhere -- use weapons of mass destruction and get away with it. It's disruptive to the international geo-political order.

This is idiotic. There is no legitimate reason you to say weapon A that kills X people/destruction is bad when there is a weapon B that kills the same number of people/destruction but is good. The only real difference between A and B in this case is we have developed and can afford B and the rest of the world hasn't.

The US has no business attacking anybody unless:
a) We are empire building (which has been taken off the table)
b) somebody has attacked our interest (which Assad hasn't done)

Let the rest of the world defend their interests, and if they can't, then perhaps they shouldn't have them in the first place.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis September 05, 2013 10:40 AM  

VD, I don't Obama wanted the war so much as he blundered into it. You yourself have noted his lackluster when executing the office of president versus how virguously he campaigns for the presidency. My money is on the idea that Obama thought he could politically manuever through this situation by making a threat that would appease the humaitarian warmongers of the democratic party with a minimal risk of actually follow through.

After all, it wasn't too long ago the United States invaded another country on the pretex if chemical and biological weapons. And the President himself recently used military force to oust another dictator in North Africa. I think Obama thought he had enough 'street cred' that if Assad was thinking of using chemical weapons, then the mere threat alone would be enough to dissuade him of that idea. I bet Obama never expected Assad, or someone else, to call his bluff. Now Obama has to engage in some sort of military action or risk losing some of the much vaunted soft power the democrats are always talking about.

Anonymous Annalitic September 05, 2013 10:41 AM  

That reply was to Sam Scott.

Anonymous Samuel Scott September 05, 2013 10:49 AM  

Toby Temple September 05, 2013 10:38 AM

Sammy. The term you used is weapons of mass destruction.


My fault for not being precise -- was thinking in the context of Syria.

So, when has the U.S. government* used weapons of mass destruction** in recent history?

* Reference to the Boston Bomber in a later comment.
** Depends how you define the term -- anything from a machine gun to a nuclear bomb could be considered a WMD. I suppose here I mean nuclear, chemical, or biological.

Anonymous Josh September 05, 2013 10:54 AM  

What if there's a conventional bomb that has more destructive power than a very low yield tactical nuke? Is that a wmd?

Anonymous Roundtine September 05, 2013 10:58 AM  

I oppose intervention because it is the worst option, not because non-intervention will lead to good outcomes. If the U.S. fails to lead it will create a power vacuum and the results are not going to be pretty. There could be major costs of non-intervention such as much higher oil prices if Russia and China take control over the energy supply chains. Then all these hawk Republicans will come out for the big war.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 11:01 AM  

I wonder if any remaining potential tentative allies to the US in the area are finding their "system overwhelmed" by the recent flood of "invading" Syrian (&al.) refugees fleeing reports of "certain" action by the US?

Well, "Syria" has less mouths to feed, no matter what.
Win-win? Mouse That Roared?
I wonder if the "reparations" bill has already been loaded up by the teleprompter "operators"(hyphen)local 154 yet?

CaptDMO

Anonymous Roundtine September 05, 2013 11:04 AM  

What if there's a conventional bomb that has more destructive power than a very low yield tactical nuke? Is that a wmd?

The West is run by rabbits. If you had a conventional bomb that could wipe Oregon off the map, it would not cause any panic. But if your car caught fire on the street in NY, you have a couple of new smoke detectors from Home Depot in the backseat and they set off the nuke alert system, the nation would panic.

Anonymous Samuel Scott September 05, 2013 11:04 AM  

Will Best September 05, 2013 10:40 AM

This is idiotic. There is no legitimate reason you to say weapon A that kills X people/destruction is bad when there is a weapon B that kills the same number of people/destruction but is good.


The issue is not the number of people killed at the present; it is the potential for the use of the WMD in the future.

Say country A kills 100,000 people with machine guns over six months. Then, say country B kills 100,000 people with a WMD in a single instance.

Country B is worse for the international order and global stability because it's very difficult to attack another country with machine guns, but it's very easy to surprise-attack another country with a WMD.

The goal is to prevent the latter scenario by acting against the acquirement and/or use of WMDs from the outset.

Blogger RobertT September 05, 2013 11:05 AM  

here's some more shockers. suddenly the aclu is making sense. the war mongers are doves, we find ourselves on the same side as the aclu, and our best hope of stopping the war mongering libs is putin. putin is our savior? who woulda thunk?

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni September 05, 2013 11:09 AM  

"...or being utilized..." What kind of a lazy, stupid, Harvard Law School Bar Review President would not know to use "use" here instead of "utilize"? Or am I being racist?

For the record, Bush got Democratic and Congressional support (Hillary, anyone?) for the invasion of Iraq. If you pretend you don't know that, you're lying or utterly stupid and probably use "utilize" when you could use "use".

Anonymous Roundtine September 05, 2013 11:09 AM  

My expectation is that a portion of these GOPers aren't going to trust the government anymore. Sure, some of them just completely distrust Obama, but some are going beyond. I caught a clip of Limbaugh online, and he's talking about the Syrian rebels having set off the chemical weapons. That's not a position that one comes to without having heavy exposure to the alt-right.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 11:24 AM  

I don't Obama wanted the war so much as he blundered into it.

That's quite possible, but now that the news that the horrible deed was actually done by the rebels is out there, all he'd have to do is point to that. He could even point to the fast-changing stories coming out and say something like, "The responsibility to protect lives is too great to rush into action without all the facts. I call on the UN to investigate blah blah blah...."

It would be extremely easy for him to stay out of Syria, even now, if he (or his handlers) wanted to. I'm still not sure why they want to get involved, but it's clear that they really, really want to.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein September 05, 2013 11:28 AM  

WMDs?

The US government takes a nuanced approach when it comes to defining and regulating WMDs.
For example, WMDs can include, but are not limited to nuclear and chemical weapons all the way down to small bombs made from pressure cookers. Possession of WMDs depends on many factors. For instance, we can possess (and use, if we say it's OK) any of them. Israel can possess nukes outside of the regulatory framework, but Iraq cannot. In the 1980s Iraq was allowed (some say encouraged) to use chemical weapons but a couple decades later they were not allowed to possess such weapons that they did not possess. We invaded and occupied them for that impudence. Syria is allowed to possess chemical weapons, but their use, by either the regime or the armed insurrectionists opposing the regime will result in the US attacking the regime with weaponry somewhere between homemade pressure cooker bombs and tactical nukes. These will not be WMDs because..well we say so. However, should some Jihadis get ahold of a Tomahawk and fire it on DC...then it would be a WMD.

Hope this clears things up. You ILK are always trying to make things so complicated.

Anonymous Josh September 05, 2013 11:28 AM  

Country B is worse for the international order and global stability because it's very difficult to attack another country with machine guns, but it's very easy to surprise-attack another country with a WMD.

Like...say...it would be very easy for Israel to nuke Mecca...or Tehran...or the Aswan dam...

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein September 05, 2013 11:32 AM  

That's quite possible, but now that the news that the horrible deed was actually done by the rebels is out there, all he'd have to do is point to that.

Well, yeah. But, to be fair, shouldn't we then switch our support from Al Qaeda to the Assad regime since it was the rebels that "crossed the line"?

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 05, 2013 11:37 AM  

"we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized."

President Camacho



Am I the only one who sees that this president even more closely resembles President Camacho in speech patterns that Pres Bush?

Anonymous Roundtine September 05, 2013 11:41 AM  

Am I the only one who sees that this president even more closely resembles President Camacho in speech patterns that Pres Bush?

President Assad acted stupidly. Putin is just the bored kid in the class. If I had a son, he would look like a rebel fighter in Syria.

Anonymous Samuel Scott September 05, 2013 11:44 AM  

Josh September 05, 2013 11:28 AM

Country B is worse for the international order and global stability because it's very difficult to attack another country with machine guns, but it's very easy to surprise-attack another country with a WMD.

Like...say...it would be very easy for Israel to nuke Mecca...or Tehran...or the Aswan dam...


Israel would never do that because it would be suicide. To even imagine it is ludicrous.

And even disregarding that aspect, authoritarian governments -- compared to democratic ones -- are more dangerous because the regimes care only about survival at all costs.

Netanyahu's Likud Party would never use WMDs if it were on the verge of losing an election. Assad, Iran's mullahs, and so on would be more likely to use them because they want to stay in power through any means necessary. That's why it's imperative to prevent them from obtaining and/or using WMDs.

Anonymous MendoScot September 05, 2013 11:45 AM  

Quasi-female solipsism at its best: "we are the world" has morphed into "I am the world" for this joker.

Le monde, c'est moi!

Anonymous Josh September 05, 2013 11:51 AM  


Assad, Iran's mullahs, and so on would be more likely to use them because they want to stay in power through any means necessary. That's why it's imperative to prevent them from obtaining and/or using WMDs.


Iran would never do that because it would be suicide. To even imagine it is ludicrous.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 12:15 PM  

Well, yeah. But, to be fair, shouldn't we then switch our support from Al Qaeda to the Assad regime since it was the rebels that "crossed the line"?

Well, if we're going to support anyone, it seems we have a choice between:

A) An elected, somewhat secular regime which has mostly played ball with the uneasy peace that's prevailed in the region in recent decades, or

B) A bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth radical Muslims whose counterparts in other countries have openly and proudly killed our ambassadors and begun purging Christians from lands they've held for centuries.

Uh, I think I'll take A. Although I'd be even happier with just staying out of it. Any Americans who wish to go fight or contribute to one side or the other as private citizens are welcome to do so.

Blogger JohnG September 05, 2013 12:21 PM  

I don't think that all of the Republican dovish'ness lately is simply reflexive anti-Obama sentiment. In the background over the last few years, the Army has been sending senior reps into the training institutions, quietly telling us to convert our training materials and scenarios back to "conventional war" - some of you vets might remember the "Caspian Sea" scenario. COIN is dead, has been for a while, just nobody is going to be too loud about it, Petreus is still fairly respected. The official excuse is that our tankers don't know how to shoot at other tanks and similar implausibility. Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, even your hardcore Republicans can see a $trillion bucks wasted on COIN with zero results - there's been major bombings constantly in Iraq since we "pulled out" and Afghanistan is either going into another civil war or will have the Taliban back in power.

@Mr. Scott - the line about stopping proliferation is nonsence. We've got intelligence analysts reporting daily through their SIGINT and IMINT (with some HUMINT)platforms on proliferation of arms, munitions, materials, people all over the world, all of which is published on the G2/J2 webpages of all the US major commands and agencies. The politicians choose to use, react to or ignore the info. They were reporting immediately on Khadaffis 40,000 SA7s and SA14's growing legs and walking away after he was killed. Nobody said or did boo (well, with the exception of our CIA nabbing up a bunch of them and sending them to Syria).

Anonymous insane white rabbit warren September 05, 2013 12:35 PM  

the arabian cutouts will do anything to maintain control of their kingdom (gassing children); the qatar pipeline must go thru syria to turkey to keep the eurotrash economy alive . the jew nation cutouts will be second tiered for this nat gas, only the frogs will support our intervention (for taxes on the gas). very dangerous: the russkis do not want this pipeline, their economy depends on control of gas to the euroscum. it is all about energy, which is currently money (and control) for the satanic banker overlords.

Blogger IM2L844 September 05, 2013 12:55 PM  

They were reporting immediately on Khadaffis 40,000 SA7s and SA14's growing legs and walking away after he was killed. Nobody said or did boo (well, with the exception of our CIA nabbing up a bunch of them and sending them to Syria).

This reminds me...whatever happened to Khadaffi's gold?

Anonymous Hitler September 05, 2013 2:02 PM  

because it's very difficult to attack another country with machine guns

Really? I thought I did quite well, actually.

Anonymous John Hagee September 05, 2013 2:03 PM  

Almighty GAWD Commands War!

Anonymous Noah B. September 05, 2013 2:07 PM  

"The goal is to prevent the latter scenario by acting against the acquirement and/or use of WMDs from the outset."

Most likely, Iran already has nuclear weapons. (It took 4 years for the US to produce three nuclear weapons using 1940's technology, starting from first principles. Iran has had 8 years and has much more modern technology and access to Pakistani nuclear expertise.) They are now aiming for an endogenous nuclear fuel cycle, not willing to trust the West for access to fissile material and accept the constraints that are imposed along with such access.

Anonymous Dan in Tx September 05, 2013 2:49 PM  

So in reference to the same amount of people being killed via so called "conventional weapons" vs chemical weapons; what I'm taking away is that chemical weapons are the "hate crime" of the international community.

Anonymous Blume September 05, 2013 4:39 PM  

Amen brother!

Anonymous Anonagain September 05, 2013 4:48 PM  

whatever happened to Khadaffi's gold?

Sounds like a plot for a Clive Cussler novel.

Anonymous me September 05, 2013 5:51 PM  

"We are a moral leader"

No seriously, we are, but our "morality" is not the point, we are a moral authority due to our power and prestige in the world. We are a huge superpower. For us to pretend we aren't qualified, aren't worthy, is a bad idea. It's simply a fact that we are. We can abuse our authority or not abuse it, but that doesn't change the fact that we have it. And compared to much of the world, the US is pretty darn worthy to claim the moral upper hand.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 6:43 PM  

So the biggest kid on the playground is responsible for the moral education and failings of the others. Got it.

Anonymous me September 05, 2013 7:10 PM  

"So the biggest kid on the playground is responsible for the moral education and failings of the others. Got it."

Sad, but true. It's simply reality. You could put the scrawny kid in charge, but the playground won't belong to him for long.

Of course, if you're the Son of God, or even Ghandi, or MLK, people who really do have the moral upperhand because of peace and love, you might get around the playground rules. Jesus did say, love your enemies.

Heck if I know what to do about the war. I just know that the US does the entire world a great deal of harm by refusing to admit our status and declare ourselves worthy of having it. It is what it is. America and Americans need to quit apologizing for it.

Anonymous Red Comet September 05, 2013 7:29 PM  

I agree with the sentiment that a lot of these guys are only against military action because their guy isn't in charge.

Fortunately, this ensures conservative types will remain anti-military adventure since demographics and the Bernakification of women have ensured a Republican (as they exist today) will never be president ever again, and will likely steadily decrease in numbers in Congress too.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 7:41 PM  

Sad, but true. It's simply reality. You could put the scrawny kid in charge, but the playground won't belong to him for long.

Syria doesn't belong to us, and I don't know why we'd want it to.

Anonymous Anonymous September 05, 2013 7:59 PM  

You're saying "moral leader," but you appear to mean "moral enforcer." We can be a moral leader without ever travelling beyond our borders -- by having just laws, setting the example of a productive and peaceful citizenry, trading honorably with our neighbors, defending our borders, and so on.

We could even extend our power beyond our borders in support of our allies by making it clear that anyone who attacks them attacks us, and we will respond by destroying their cities and killing their leaders. (In which case we should make allies rarely and cautiously.)

And yet, none of that kind of leadership has anything to do with what's gone on in Libya, Egypt, Syria, or anywhere else we've acted since the first few weeks of Desert Storm. That was the last time you could even make the case (even a weak one) that we were acting as any kind of moral leader, defending allies against attackers. Everything since then has been meddling in the internal affairs of various countries to please our Jewish masters or Muslim backers, depending on whom you ask. Drone attacks, labelling whistleblowers as traitors, and arming groups that are still considered enemy combatants are not ways to express moral leadership.

As annoying as the pontificating about the Prime Directive got on Star Trek TNG, our current leaders could do worse than to adopt it and say, "Sorry, but Syrians killing Syrians is internal no matter what methods they use; we're not allowed to interfere."

Anonymous Ferd September 05, 2013 10:52 PM  

Does anyone have any thoughts or documentation of Barry's I.Q.? It apparently is not at a level to perform his elected office.

He can sure read a teleprompter. 40 months to go,,loads of mischief can be accomplished.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 06, 2013 12:16 AM  

has anybody noticed that Obama's "I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line" was prefigured by a previous Obama statement?


" If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Obama didn't build that red line, the World did.

Anonymous Samuel Scott September 06, 2013 5:58 AM  

bob k. mando September 06, 2013 12:16 AM

"If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."


And you fell for the biggest Republican lie of the 2012 election.

If you had heard this line in context, you'd see that the "that" was referring to the societal infrastructure that businesses use -- roads, electricity, etc. Not the businesses themselves.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 7:46 AM  

Does anyone have any thoughts or documentation of Barry's I.Q.? It apparently is not at a level to perform his elected office.

Vox laid out what little evidence there is in a previous post; search this blog for "obama iq" to find it, I think.

I used to think it was probably around 115-120 -- 2 SD above the black American average. Now I'm not so sure. Not that smart people can't have really stupid ideas, of course. But usually they're better at making their stupid ideas seem smart.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 06, 2013 8:07 AM  

Samuel Scott September 06, 2013 5:58 AM
And you fell for the biggest Republican lie of the 2012 election.
If you had heard this line in context...



who fell for what lie again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.[7]"



the *infrastructure* IS 'the help' that Obama is saying that the businessmen received, just as much as the 'great teacher' is something else that 'helped' the business man. it's all part of what Obama considers "this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive."

as though as if there are no successful businessmen anywhere else in the world.

YOU fell for the lie the Dems and Obama and the media told while they tried to walk that particular piece of stupidity back.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 8:45 AM  

Yes, Obama made the huge shift in the last two sentences from saying that you didn't create your business without prior investment from others -- which is obviously true -- to saying "you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen," which gives you no credit for your own work at all, and implies that you have no particular right to control it or hold the profits from it. We understood him just fine, Samuel, but nice try.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 06, 2013 8:58 AM  

Warmongerer's Motto

I believe
That war is the answer.

I believe
That war will find a way.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts