Wehrwolfen
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 402
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not "regime change") — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.
So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.
Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn't commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.
Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.
The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.
There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration.
Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.
[Excerpt]
Read More:
Is Obama Being Shamed Into A War With Syria He Doesn't Want? - Investors.com
Obama and Bo's tail wagging the dog.
Nobody "wants" the war with Syria. Nobody wanted the Arab Spring either. It's unsettling a number of comfortable arm chair arrangements between wealthy business leaders and politicians. The fundamental principle of foreign relations with the Middle East is that the West support tyrants in exchange for lucrative trade deals. The Arab Spring exposes and parades these past misdeeds (when the West depends on its reputation as the driving force of human progress to facilitate our diplomatic efforts) in order to set up governments that are at worst actively hostile to secularism and Western values or at worst going to drive a harder bargain gas pumps (the avoidance of which was the purpose of supporting dictators all along) so that they can realize their own version of an egalitarian democracy. It's a nightmare situation that was decades in the coming.
So much for the element of surprise.
There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration.
.
Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.
wow wehr, mindlessly posting a Krauthammer editorial is really a step in class for you. Sadly though, just all the other editorials you post, chuck is unable to come up with anything honest or intelligent.
that sentence works great on the weak minded. It seems Assad will no longer be shopping at Kroger thanks to all the warnings. Dang. It would have made it so much easier to get him. too bad we didn't have a secret vote in congress and at the UN like we did for Iraq.
why is "blowback" only an issue when cons are instructed to be against something?
wow, he's already concluded that we will be perceived as weak and ineffective. oh my. we should definitely launch a thousand cruise missiles to show how tough we are. color me confused but making excuses and trying to blame Iran for saddam gassing the kurds didn't demonstrate our "machismo". Telling people to rise up against saddam after the first gulf war and then letting him slaughter his enemies didn't demonstrate our "machismo". methinks chuck has some 'man' issues he wants President Obama to solve for him. Here's me backing up my points.
"Suddenly the U.S. was responsible for all of those rebels answering Bush's call to arms. Yet at the Safwan negotiations, Schwarzkopf carelessly authorized the Iraqis to use helicopter gunships on their side of the cease-fire line. The Iraqi generals were so surprised by that concession—which permitted them to strafe and rocket Kurds and shi ites from the air—that one of the Iraqi generals incredulously asked: "So you mean even the helicopters that are armed can fly in the Iraqi skies?"
First Gulf War's Mistakes Explain U.S. Presence in Iraq - The Daily Beast
"the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces. "
https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
Do you support attacking syria?
You guys are going to have a long month then.Not now. Not ever.
right now, no. do you?
The problem I have is how no matter what President Obama decides cons will be instructed to think it was the wrong thing. I never got an explanation how cons could support Iraq 100 % and Libya 0 %.
Can one con explain why they supported invading Iraq to "get rid of a dictator who 'has' WMDs" but would not support any military action to "get rid of a dictator who actually has WMDs and has used them".
Using past bad behavior to justify present bad behavior is a juvenile tactic.
Are you in favor of attacking syria? If so, why?
That's not what I did.no, 'misparaphrasing' what I said is a juvenile tactic.
I want a con to explain "how" they can mindlessly ignore their own values and rail against a possible military strike in Syria.
Really? Are you sure, or is this an excuse to display bias and propagandize?We both know the answer is "because they were told to".
Until 50 % of America stops parroting what they are told think we will never have an honest and intelligent conversation.
That's not what I did.
Anyone who is against attacking syria is a "con"? hmmmm..are you sure?
.
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not "regime change") — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.
So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.
Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn't commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.
Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.
The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.
There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration.
Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.
[Excerpt]
Read More:
Is Obama Being Shamed Into A War With Syria He Doesn't Want? - Investors.com
Obama and Bo's tail wagging the dog.
the country is polarized because one side refuses to engage in an honest and intelligent conversation.
President Portman will be able to blame everything ill in his tenure on Obama, so it could be worse I suppose.
Why did the 0 great one put himself [US ]in such a narrow box though? Maybe the folks around him should take up chess to develop some ability to see moves ahead, or even play some pool so we can set the cue ball up properly for the next shot. Or is that too much to ask?
right..it's all somebody else's fault. "one side" is pure and blameless the other side is dishonest and unintelligent.. got it..
Bias noted. :roll:
do you honestly think Portman will win in 2024? and I think you meant Hillary, not Obama ...
Lets sum up your posts
'misparaphrase' and deflect.
'misparaphrase' and deflect.
'misparaphrase' and deflect.
mission accomplished P, take the rest of the day off.
vern said:the country is polarized because one side refuses to engage in an honest and intelligent conversation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?