Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb Syria

Politics International Politics
201

Not one person has said he didn’t make a mistake in the past with his red line non sense. As usual Jotham, you are arguing against a non existent opponent. But there are some people who aren’t actually cheering him on to make an even bigger mistake now by following through on his previous mistake like you seem to be. I suppose you skipped that day back in grade 2 when we were all taught that two wrongs don’t make a right? Your beloved Bush definitely skipped that day. He’d be full throttle missiles in the air right now.

Yeah I’m sure you’re right. Innocents never die during these types of campaigns :astonished: And we should definitely be helping these Rebels too, they’re saints. We should be doing everything we can to help these missionaries bringing peace, love, and compassion to the region :discodance:

Yeah you’re absolutely right, the US saved us 70 years ago so how is it any of our business to question what they’ve done since then and what they are currently doing right now. They saved us before, so they get a free pass forever. Brilliant !

202

Not one person has said he didn’t make a mistake in the past with his red line non sense. As usual Jotham, you are arguing against a non existent opponent. But there are some people who aren’t actually cheering him on to make an even bigger mistake now by following through on his previous mistake like you seem to be. I suppose you skipped that day back in grade 2 when we were all taught that two wrongs don’t make a right? Your beloved Bush definitely skipped that day. He’d be full throttle missiles in the air right now.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support Syria strikes and I’m relieved if we aren’t doing them. The president, however, drew a red line foolishly and stepped back, which means he hasn’t got a whole lot of credibility after it’s all said and done. The Israelis can’t depend on his word to deal with Iran because they now know he’ll come up with excuses to make red lines not red anymore. So Israel will be forced to deal with Middle East problems no matter how urgently Obama tries to persuade them to stay out because he can deal with it which we now know he can’t. I actually think that aspect is good. I think Israel can deal with Middle East problems better than we can even with a strong president, who can actually do it.

Bush would never draw a red line unless some principle were involved that needed to be stood upon no matter what the vagaries of world opinion were. Even so, we had world opinion on our side in Iraq with a coalition of 50 nations – probably because Bush really believed in it and was successful at persuading, (which this president doesn’t believe in his own red line, and he can’t persuade anyone of anything). We just didn’t have the vote in the UN because of Germany and Russia, two nations blocking, their influence being disproportionate to actual world opinion.

Yeah I’m sure you’re right. Innocents never die during these types of campaigns :astonished: And we should definitely be helping these Rebels too, they’re saints. We should be doing everything we can to help these missionaries bringing peace, love, and compassion to the region :discodance: [/quote]
I’m with you on this – don’t get me wrong.

Yeah you’re absolutely right, the US saved us 70 years ago so how is it any of our business to question what they’ve done since then and what they are currently doing right now. They saved us before, so they get a free pass forever. Brilliant ![/quote]
There are realities that never changed. World War II happened because European nations, including Chamberlain, were peace-loving and just let a dictator walk all over them. Actually, Democrat Roosevelt was peace-loving too and didn’t want to be involved, until Japan forced our hand. Being peace-loving to the point of stupidity isn’t a good thing either.

America should have been awake and involved much earlier if not to save democracy in Europe, at least to help our strong ally Great Britain, which almost lost. Shame on our president for not keeping our military in preparation and keeping watch and getting involved early to snip things in the bud before they ever reached the climax of disproportionate problems that it became. It took many long years to conclude those wars when they could have been much smaller if we had intervened smartly before.

It’s just like Democrats to poo-poo and keep us out of conflicts that we really need to be responsibly watching for and they get us into conflicts that either we don’t need to be in, like Syria and Bosnia, or we were forced to be in unprepared, such as WWII, or we fought stupidly, like Vietnam or Korean War – and we lost many lives on both sides because we didn’t do it the Republican way, which is quick and total victory.

203

Not one person has said he didn’t make a mistake in the past with his red line non sense. As usual Jotham, you are arguing against a non existent opponent. But there are some people who aren’t actually cheering him on to make an even bigger mistake now by following through on his previous mistake like you seem to be. I suppose you skipped that day back in grade 2 when we were all taught that two wrongs don’t make a right? Your beloved Bush definitely skipped that day. He’d be full throttle missiles in the air right now.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support Syria strikes and I’m relieved if we aren’t doing them. The president, however, drew a red line foolishly and stepped back, which means he hasn’t got a whole lot of credibility after it’s all said and done. The Israelis can’t depend on his word to deal with Iran because they now know he’ll come up with excuses to make red lines not red anymore. So Israel will be forced to deal with Middle East problems no matter how urgently Obama tries to persuade them to stay out because he can deal with it which we now know he can’t. I actually think that aspect is good. I think Israel can deal with Middle East problems better than we can even with a strong president, who can actually do it.

Bush would never draw a red line unless some principle were involved that needed to be stood upon no matter what the vagaries of world opinion were. Even so, we had world opinion on our side in Iraq with a coalition of 50 nations – probably because Bush really believed in it and was successful at persuading, (which this president doesn’t believe in his own red line, and he can’t persuade anyone of anything). We just didn’t have the vote in the UN because of Germany and Russia, two nations blocking, their influence being disproportionate to actual world opinion.

Yeah I’m sure you’re right. Innocents never die during these types of campaigns :astonished: And we should definitely be helping these Rebels too, they’re saints. We should be doing everything we can to help these missionaries bringing peace, love, and compassion to the region :discodance: [/quote]
I’m with you on this – don’t get me wrong.

Yeah you’re absolutely right, the US saved us 70 years ago so how is it any of our business to question what they’ve done since then and what they are currently doing right now. They saved us before, so they get a free pass forever. Brilliant ![/quote]
There are realities that never changed. World War II happened because European nations, including Chamberlain, were peace-loving and just let a dictator walk all over them. Actually, Democrat Roosevelt was peace-loving too and didn’t want to be involved, until Japan forced our hand. Being peace-loving to the point of stupidity isn’t a good thing either.

America should have been awake and involved much earlier if not to save democracy in Europe, at least to help our strong ally Great Britain, which almost lost. Shame on our president for not keeping our military in preparation and keeping watch and getting involved early to snip things in the bud before they ever reached the climax of disproportionate problems that it became. It took many long years to conclude those wars when they could have been much smaller if we had intervened smartly before.

It’s just like Democrats to poo-poo and keep us out of conflicts that we really need to be responsibly watching for and they get us into conflicts that either we don’t need to be in, like Syria and Bosnia, or we were forced to be in unprepared, such as WWII, or we fought stupidly, like Vietnam or Korean War – and we lost many lives on both sides because we didn’t do it the Republican way, which is quick and total victory.[/quote]

You mean Bush was a better liar, mind you he did have his sidekick Tony Blair to help him. Did you know Jotham that Tony Blair cant even walk in the street anymore without somebody calling him a murderer or a war criminal he is despised that much. If Bush and Blair were ever put up for war crimes I doubt many in Britain would bat an eyelid we would be celebrating in the streets. All ive seen Jotham is the Americans getting involved in conflicts with the British in tow which really pisses a lot of us off and nothing ever gets resolved. I mean Iraq and Afghanistan are aren’t exactly at the top of the holiday hotspots league are they and would you fancy an all inclusive trip to Mogadishu?

204

Obama hasn’t stepped back. He maintains that he has the authority to bomb Syria and will if they don’t cooperate. Without the threat of force, Syria would never have claimed their chemical weapons (which they have now done after years of denials), nor would they be willing to surrend them (which they appear willing to do). Claims that Obama has lost credibility are ludicrous. Obama appears willing to accomplish his objective - to prevent Syria from using chemical weapons again - based on nothing but his credibility. If Syria is acting in good faith and really gives up its chemical weapons, then he will achieve his stated objective without spilling a drop of blood. Again, this would not be possible if Syria did not take Obama’s threat credibly. I for one support a victory without bloodshed. If that happens, it will also be a major victory for Israel, far more than the strikes would ever accomplish.

205

Wait a minute, let me get this straight: so you were for getting congressional approval for strikes that you want, before you were against it, so now you think Obama’s “threat” without congressional approval is legitimate now? You think Syria’s scared of a fool like Obama after Kerry said it would be an “unbelievably small” attack? ha ha ha. That requires a suspension of disbelief.

When Kerry made a gaffe because he didn’t get any sleep and told the world that Syria could get out of their conundrum by giving up all their hypothetical chemical weapons, he was being ironic because they would never do that. But Russia and Syria, the two allies, got together and said, if they wanna be stupid, let’s play along. So Syria says, okay, we’ll give up our hypothetical chemical weapons, suuuuuuuckkkkkerrrrrrr! Bwa ha ha. And Obama pretends this is real serious policy going on here to fool people like Gao Baohan.

In fact, after all this has happened, there is no way that Obama is ever gonna go back and strike Syria now. This is just such a circus ring and farce. They checkmated us, Syrian strikes are over now folks. Syria’s gonna give up their hypothetical caches now, ha ha. And Obama will just have to accept it, whatever that entails.

206

[quote=“gareth186”]
You mean Bush was a better liar, mind you he did have his sidekick Tony Blair to help him. Did you know Jotham that Tony Blair cant even walk in the street anymore without somebody calling him a murderer or a war criminal he is despised that much. If Bush and Blair were ever put up for war crimes I doubt many in Britain would bat an eyelid we would be celebrating in the streets. All ive seen Jotham is the Americans getting involved in conflicts with the British in tow which really pisses a lot of us off and nothing ever gets resolved. I mean Iraq and Afghanistan are aren’t exactly at the top of the holiday hotspots league are they and would you fancy an all inclusive trip to Mogadishu?[/quote]
That’s just politicking. There’s crazies everywhere who will put a pie in someone’s face to garner some political attention. I wouldn’t put much stock in that, I doubt it’s so serious as you think.

As for Afghanistan, the United States was attacked because we represent the center of Western capitalism that fundamentalist Muslims hate so much and prefer the world subject to their Sharia law instead. Attacking the United States is synonymous to attacking all democracies and the West, and Britain did the right thing to show solidarity in that action. If United States were not the world power and the UK was, like it had been before, then it would be the UK being attacked.

Even though the evidence in Iraq didn’t show up after we attacked (some said it got spirited away into Syria before Americans landed), Iraq is a solid democracy in the region now and I wouldn’t say that is a failure.

 I'm not sure what you mean by Mogadishu.  Did the British help us with that?  That was a UN peacekeeping mission and when things started to go wrong, Clinton flinched and high-tailed it out of there October 1993, just like Obama flinched on Syria.  This was the surrender that Osama bin Laden saw and said that Americans are just "[url=http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/osama-bin-laden-fast-facts/index.html]paper tigers[/url]." And the Arab world is saying similar things now because of Obama's indecisiveness.

Obama should choose his battles and red lines wisely, and there is debate about whether he did that or not. But once he doesn’t stand on his word and flinches, then the Arab world smells weakness and defeat. And they are right.

207

dailymail.co.uk/news/article … asion.html

Jotham this is one of our national newspapers one of the better ones and not tabloid crap like the sun and the star, read the readers comments at the bottom they should give you a very good idea of just how much people hate him in the UK.
Have a read of this one about your Uncle George at the time he was still in office.

theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/ … northkorea

I read another article once where he admitted he got carried away with the fame that doesn’t surprise me the guy was power mad.

I thought The Afghan war was all about going after Bin Laden and then it just dragged on and became a mess and you say Iraq has now got a strong democracy. Why is it then so dangerous to travel in that country, Government websites advise people not to go there and anybody that does travel there is advised to employ a security company to protect them ie a pick up truck with 6 rifleman sat in the back?? Oh yeah you were right about Somalia I think the Brits refused to go there and I think you lot soon realised why after once again getting your fingers burnt.

208

[quote=“jotham”][quote=“gareth186”]
You mean Bush was a better liar, mind you he did have his sidekick Tony Blair to help him. Did you know Jotham that Tony Blair cant even walk in the street anymore without somebody calling him a murderer or a war criminal he is despised that much. If Bush and Blair were ever put up for war crimes I doubt many in Britain would bat an eyelid we would be celebrating in the streets. All ive seen Jotham is the Americans getting involved in conflicts with the British in tow which really pisses a lot of us off and nothing ever gets resolved. I mean Iraq and Afghanistan are aren’t exactly at the top of the holiday hotspots league are they and would you fancy an all inclusive trip to Mogadishu?[/quote]
That’s just politicking. There’s crazies everywhere who will put a pie in someone’s face to garner some political attention. I wouldn’t put much stock in that, I doubt it’s so serious as you think.

As for Afghanistan, the United States was attacked because we represent the center of Western capitalism that fundamentalist Muslims hate so much and prefer the world subject to their Sharia law instead. Attacking the United States is synonymous to attacking all democracies and the West, and Britain did the right thing to show solidarity in that action. If United States were not the world power and the UK was, like it had been before, then it would be the UK being attacked.

Even though the evidence in Iraq didn’t show up after we attacked (some said it got spirited away into Syria before Americans landed), Iraq is a solid democracy in the region now and I wouldn’t say that is a failure.

 I'm not sure what you mean by Mogadishu.  Did the British help us with that?  That was a UN peacekeeping mission and when things started to go wrong, Clinton flinched and high-tailed it out of there October 1993, just like Obama flinched on Syria.  This was the surrender that Osama bin Laden saw and said that Americans are just "[url=http://edition.CNN.com/2013/08/30/world/osama-bin-laden-fast-facts/index.html]paper tigers[/url]." And the Arab world is saying similar things now because of Obama's indecisiveness.

Obama should choose his battles and red lines wisely, and there is debate about whether he did that or not. But once he doesn’t stand on his word and flinches, then the Arab world smells weakness and defeat. And they are right.[/quote]

Just about every post of yours reads like the same drivel rephrased with random inserts about how Bush would do this and how Obama did something else.

Very very boring

209

The best I can figure in this age of insanity we seem to be in is that we’re in the ‘wars and rumors of wars’ stage and need to remain calm.

210

[quote=“jotham”]
There are realities that never changed. World War II happened because European nations, including Chamberlain, were peace-loving and just let a dictator walk all over them. Actually, Democrat Roosevelt was peace-loving too and didn’t want to be involved, until Japan forced our hand. Being peace-loving to the point of stupidity isn’t a good thing either.

America should have been awake and involved much earlier if not to save democracy in Europe, at least to help our strong ally Great Britain, which almost lost. Shame on our president for not keeping our military in preparation and keeping watch and getting involved early to snip things in the bud before they ever reached the climax of disproportionate problems that it became. It took many long years to conclude those wars when they could have been much smaller if we had intervened smartly before.

It’s just like Democrats to poo-poo and keep us out of conflicts that we really need to be responsibly watching for and they get us into conflicts that either we don’t need to be in, like Syria and Bosnia, or we were forced to be in unprepared, such as WWII, or we fought stupidly, like Vietnam or Korean War – and we lost many lives on both sides because we didn’t do it the Republican way, which is quick and total victory.[/quote]

Jesus, the level of ignorance in this post is jaw-dropping.

While the Europeans were too trusting of Hitler, if the League of Nations hadn’t been torpedoed by Republican isolationists, there would have been a much better chance of establishing a precedent for international pressure against aggressors.

And while Hitler rose to power and started his road to war, was America urging action to stop him? No, America was sitting behind its ocean saying “Not our business”.

Again, anybody who knows the slightest thing about modern history knows Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to get America into the war, with the support of Churchill, while Republican isolationists were opposing “sending American boys to die for the British Empire”; so successfully that America sat and watched Hitler take over Europe without lifting a finger in anger.

If Hitler hadn’t declared war on the U.S., Republicans could quite well have stymied Roosevelt’s desire to enter the European war; luckily, Adolf was out of the control of his generals at the time.

Try to learn something about history from sources other than Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

211

[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“jotham”]
There are realities that never changed. World War II happened because European nations, including Chamberlain, were peace-loving and just let a dictator walk all over them. Actually, Democrat Roosevelt was peace-loving too and didn’t want to be involved, until Japan forced our hand. Being peace-loving to the point of stupidity isn’t a good thing either.

America should have been awake and involved much earlier if not to save democracy in Europe, at least to help our strong ally Great Britain, which almost lost. Shame on our president for not keeping our military in preparation and keeping watch and getting involved early to snip things in the bud before they ever reached the climax of disproportionate problems that it became. It took many long years to conclude those wars when they could have been much smaller if we had intervened smartly before.

It’s just like Democrats to poo-poo and keep us out of conflicts that we really need to be responsibly watching for and they get us into conflicts that either we don’t need to be in, like Syria and Bosnia, or we were forced to be in unprepared, such as WWII, or we fought stupidly, like Vietnam or Korean War – and we lost many lives on both sides because we didn’t do it the Republican way, which is quick and total victory.[/quote]

Jesus, the level of ignorance in this post is jaw-dropping.

While the Europeans were too trusting of Hitler, if the League of Nations hadn’t been torpedoed by Republican isolationists, there would have been a much better chance of establishing a precedent for international pressure against aggressors.

And while Hitler rose to power and started his road to war, was America urging action to stop him? No, America was sitting behind its ocean saying “Not our business”.

Again, anybody who knows the slightest thing about modern history knows Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to get America into the war, with the support of Churchill, while Republican isolationists were opposing “sending American boys to die for the British Empire”; so successfully that America sat and watched Hitler take over Europe without lifting a finger in anger.

If Hitler hadn’t declared war on the U.S., Republicans could quite well have stymied Roosevelt’s desire to enter the European war; luckily, Adolf was out of the control of his generals at the time.

Try to learn something about history from sources other than Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.[/quote]

U.S. going into WWII was necessary to activate all the military industry, create jobs and boost the economy, and Roosevelt knew that. Also, every time the U.S. economy is slowing down… media point at some dictator or foreign country who needs help/to be punished, and here they go again. And after the war, the country becomes indebted to the U.S. and they have to pay back (with interest). Lucky for the U.S. government, there are always bad guys who deserve to be kicked in the balls (like Al-Assad).

And the useful bad guys… well, they keep them until they become a nuisance. Like Saddam Hussein, for example. There’s that famous quote: “Sure he’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”, which could be applied to many dictators, like Somoza, Franco, Pinochet…

Remember that after WWII, no one (neither european countries or the U.S.) tried to help depose Franco from the power in Spain. He was really good friends with both Hitler and Mussolini, but he wasn’t an expansionist, and he was conducting communist hunts inside Spain. No one wanted a communist country in that position, so they let him be for 40 years. The U.S. bargained with him to let Spain enter the U.N. in exchange for some military bases in the country, even when Franco was a dictator that repressed the civil population for 40 years.

And let’s not forget that the actual king was appointed Franco’s successor by the dictator himself, and that many politicians from the People’s Party (the ones in power now) come either from the fascist party or from influential families with a lot of power in the dictatorship. A former president, José Maria Aznar, also supported W. and Blair on going to Iraq, even when more than the 90% of the population in Spain was against it. Runs in the family.

212

As someone earlier said, let the Israelis deal with the Syrian problem. They’re the only ones with the stones anyway.

They have already stopped two shipments to Hezbollah, and it’s only a matter of time before that chinless monkey does something to really piss them off.

213

[quote=“bigduke6”]As someone earlier said, let the Israelis deal with the Syrian problem. They’re the only ones with the stones anyway.

They have already stopped two shipments to Hezbollah, and it’s only a matter of time before that chinless monkey does something to really piss them off.[/quote]

And when they kill 1400 Syrian men, women and children in some trigger happy bombing campaign involving white phosphorus and cluster bombs the U.S. can be relied upon to veto any UN Security Council resolutions condemning their actions for violating international law and the farce goes on.

214

[quote=“Winston Smith”][quote=“bigduke6”]As someone earlier said, let the Israelis deal with the Syrian problem. They’re the only ones with the stones anyway.

They have already stopped two shipments to Hezbollah, and it’s only a matter of time before that chinless monkey does something to really piss them off.[/quote]

And when they kill 1400 Syrian men, women and children in some trigger happy bombing campaign involving white phosphorus and cluster bombs the U.S. can be relied upon to veto any UN Security Council resolutions condemning their actions for violating international law and the farce goes on.[/quote]

In that case rather let Assad continue to kill tens of thousands of his own people. That’s obviously ok with you.

215

[quote=“bigduke6”][quote=“Winston Smith”][quote=“bigduke6”]As someone earlier said, let the Israelis deal with the Syrian problem. They’re the only ones with the stones anyway.

They have already stopped two shipments to Hezbollah, and it’s only a matter of time before that chinless monkey does something to really piss them off.[/quote]

And when they kill 1400 Syrian men, women and children in some trigger happy bombing campaign involving white phosphorus and cluster bombs the U.S. can be relied upon to veto any UN Security Council resolutions condemning their actions for violating international law and the farce goes on.[/quote]

In that case rather let Assad continue to kill tens of thousands of his own people. That’s obviously ok with you.[/quote]

Between them the U.S. and its ally, Israel, have killed more civilians in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza and the West Bank than Assad has killed so sending them in to “save” the Syrian people would be an exercise in cynicism/futility. What’s ok with me is an honest peace broker who would provide secure safe havens for civilians while the bad guys knocked each other out. Unfortunately there is no such honest broker so the people of Syria will just end up being the geopolitical pawns of self righteous realpolitik schemes just like the people of Iraq.

216

Again it’s a little worrisome when people try to equate bombing a country with “stones” or “saving face” or being “tough.” Call me crazy, but I think making intelligent and informed decisions trumps having the “stones.”

Never mind the fact that it’s doubtful Israel could “deal” with the Syrian problem on their own. If the US did a full stop retreat and pulled all support, I think it would become apparent very quickly that Israel’s only recourse would be diplomatic.

We the western world have tried a lot of shit that seemed to do a lot more harm than good for the past 70 or so years. It seems to me the only thing we haven’t tried is unilaterally minding our own business. This in-between shit where we mind our own business here but directly get involved there, not support that leader but fully support this leader is NOT working. What would the world be like in 10 years if the US simply went home? Didn’t engage in any military activity for 10 years unless they are directly threatened? I feel terrible for the people caught in-between Assad and the Rebels, but there’s nothing we can do anyway so the last thing we should do is make it worse by choosing sides…

217

Did anybody actually see what ‘the rebels’ are doing in some of their areas, chopping heads off in front of kids. Well then again Saudi Arabia does that all the time.
What a disaster.

I think the US and the West is finally beginning to realise that ‘the rebels’ cure could easily be worse than the disease. Just as I predicted it would turn into an all out civil war in which no side has the moral authority to rule.

218

Again it’s a little worrisome when people try to equate bombing a country with “stones” or “saving face” or being “tough.” Call me crazy, but I think making intelligent and informed decisions trumps having the “stones.”

Never mind the fact that it’s doubtful Israel could “deal” with the Syrian problem on their own. If the US did a full stop retreat and pulled all support, I think it would become apparent very quickly that Israel’s only recourse would be diplomatic.

We the western world have tried a lot of shit that seemed to do a lot more harm than good for the past 70 or so years. It seems to me the only thing we haven’t tried is unilaterally minding our own business. This in-between shit where we mind our own business here but directly get involved there, not support that leader but fully support this leader is NOT working. What would the world be like in 10 years if the US simply went home? Didn’t engage in any military activity for 10 years unless they are directly threatened? I feel terrible for the people caught in-between Assad and the Rebels, but there’s nothing we can do anyway so the last thing we should do is make it worse by choosing sides…[/quote]

Well, Israel would now consist also of Egypt, Syria, jordan, and Lebanon if it was not for the Americans pressuring them to pull back. In every middle eastern war involving Israel, they have been stopped within spitting distance of each Amman, Damascus, and Cairo. They did take Beirut.

The facts of the matter are simple. Hundreds of thousands will be killed in Syria while the debate goes off on a tangent about the American political system. Most posters seem to regard this as more important.
The Israelis could easily stop the war in a week if they so desire. They could give Hezbollah a good hiding while they are at it, seeing they are fighting for Assad. I would think that a concern for them is the fact that Islamists have joined the rebel cause, which was a major miscalculation on the rebels part. While I agree that it is getting difficult to see who will be worse in running the country, Assad or a rebel coalition, the war needs to be stopped. This will require a major show of force from a third party. No-one else seems capable. Eventually Assad will do something stupid, forcing the Israelis to get involved in order to try to suck in as many Arabs countries as he can. Even though he is an insane butcher, the other Arab countries who are criticizing him, have a pathological hatred for Israel. Saddam tried to go this route in the first gulf war.

I remember saying how the Egyptian revolution will end in a major clusterfuck when it was underway. I was right, as I have an interest in studying the middle east.

219

jotham,

I would appreciate it if you’d stop following me around like a puppy. I have asked you not to, so please stop embarassing yourself.

220

I find it sad that so many Republicans in Congress are trying to spin this deal as a loss for the United States. Republicans are fond of saying that politics stops at the water’s edge, and yet in the world of satellites and 24/7 news, there is no difference between going abroad and lambasting the president or doing so from an arm chair on Fox News. The purpose of the planned retalitory strike was to prevent Syria from using its chemical weapons again. If Syria is acting in good faith, those weapons will be turned over to international control by mid-2014. Syria can’t use chemical weapons again if it doesn’t have any to use. Obama has accomplished his goal far more effectively by taking the diplomatic route, and without bloodshed.

None of that would have been possible without the threat of force to force a diplomatic solution. I still think congressional approval is required, but Obama doesn’t, and Syria knows he doesn’t. One wonders how Obama’s Republican critics would have handled the situation. We know what the war hawks would have done - bombed Syria relentlessly, killing many thousands of human beings in the process. And the others? Just sit on their hands, I suppose.