September 06, 2013
Who Says Hope Is Not A Strategy?
With supporters like these, are Republicans even necessary?
The United Nations estimates that more than 100,000 Syrians have died since the country’s civil war began in March 2011. More die every day. But the U.S. is not considering military action to save them.
The strikes that the Barack Obama administration favors, and that Congress is now debating, have a more limited purpose: to ensure that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad uses conventional weapons to massacre his people rather than the chemical variety that recently killed 1,400 in the suburbs of Damascus. The hope is that U.S. intervention will encourage future tyrants to kill by firepower rather than by sarin.
The Editorial Staff doesn't care who you are - that is just plain funny.
Posted by Cassandra at September 6, 2013 06:11 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
It's not only funny, but true. That's what the entire argument from Obama boils down to.
That's a large part of why I just can't understand exactly what our national security interest is supposed to be in this case.
Posted by: Rex at September 6, 2013 10:06 AM
Rex, you ignorant slut...
Clearly, you do not understand the nuanced brilliance of Smart Power. It's not even worth my time to explain it to you because you will never grasp the complexities of my foreign policy.
No, you will continue to ask impertinent questions, the very presence of which only serves to demonstrate your ignorance. And while some might say it was my job to explain my policies to the electorate, I have far more important things to worry about.
Like whether law schools should reduce their curricula to two years. Priorities, people. Priorities.
I've got a gazillion of them.
Posted by: Barack Obama at September 6, 2013 11:53 AM
"I've got a gazillion of them."
We need to leave now if we're going to make tee time.
Posted by: The Wyzzerd of Izz at September 6, 2013 12:00 PM
"I've got a gazillion of them."
So it's like your budget deficit then?
Posted by: Grim at September 6, 2013 06:04 PM
It sure sounds like typical State Department diplospeak. I certainly agreed with the character Jamie Retief in Keith Laumer's novels who said that the function of diplomacy is to keep tensions (or maybe he said relations) between nations just short of war.
As a retired Marine who started paying attention in 1968, Retief was certainly right. And the idea of bombing Syria to persuade the bad guys to kill their peoples with conventional weapons instead of WMD's, well, let's just say that the idea is worthy of any of the great comedians.
Here's where the analysis should begin:
(1) Since war is simply politics by other means, what is the political objective(s) that is hoped to be achieved?
(2) Exactly how will the use of our military force achieve the political objective(s)?
(3) Is the achievement of the political objective worth the lives of the servicemen (used in the old fashioned sense when the generic word "man" included "women" as well) who will inevitably be killed or maimed? And the same question should be addressed to the cost of the war.
Until that analysis has been done, we have no business going to war! Ever! Period, full stop, exclamation point!
Posted by: Rex at September 6, 2013 08:20 PM
they are too foolish to be mocked
Posted by: CAPT Mike at September 6, 2013 10:43 PM