August 27, 2013
It seems more and more likely that the United States will take some kind of military action against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad. On Aug. 26, Secretary of State John Kerry all but said the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of civilians, a move the Obama administration says it will not tolerate.Mapped: Air strikes on Libya
March 21, 2011
A coalition of Western Allies has launched a series of air strikes against military targets in Libya. US and British warships and submarines in the Mediterranean, as well as British, US and French fighter jets, took part in the raids.more after the jump
Mapped: Damage to the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya
September 12, 2012
The United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi was attacked Tuesday night. Four Americans were killed, including J. Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya.
26 comments:
Nice.
I just posted this on Pastafarian's Syrian post, and thought I'd recycle it. For Mother Gaia. Or the children. Or because I'm too lazy to type. Or perhaps you fail to capture the contents of my remarkable mind.
Anyway.
Yes, Carla Del Ponte of the UN stated back in May that the concrete evidence that she had seen indicated the rebels had used sarin gas. Naturally, the US disputes that. Naturally, the Russian government (and probably the Chinese) believe it.
So if we attack the Assad forces now, that will be seen by a large portion of the world as us acting in SUPPORT of the use of chemical weapons on civilians.
So score another big win for President Peace Prize and the morons that voted for him.
PS Note that phx speaks of the US "breaking things" in Syria, as though we wouldn't be killing people. Murdering them, really, as the people killed will have done far less to any of us than Saint Trayvon did to George Zimmerman, which was the crime of the millennium according to every Democrat in the country.
If killing is necessary, so be it. But pretending that isn't what is being done is morally repugnant. And oh-so-typical of Obama supporters, who have to appear to be above moral reproach even when making repellant arguments.
Who had THAT trifecta?
And here's a bit of strange trivia: Bashar al-Assad's birthday happens to be September 11.
Stop this dick before he fucks up again.
LOL, you're asking him to violate his intrinsic nature!
And from the not-so-LOL file, this is what the majority of the country's* voters wanted. So expect Obama to go in and give the AQ guy a hydrogen bomb before it's all said and done.
I see they're smart enough to leave the rented site Russia keeps their only Mediterranean naval base...Tartus.
If you're going to hit them, what's the point if you're not going after those terrible WMDs that are the cause of all this?
And why are you not going after Baby Assad?
Reagan went after Qadaffy and that put him in his box for a long time even though we missed.
Oh my.
Whoops, that was meant for another thread, but I'll leave it all cryptic-like.
Nice maps.
Among the American public, support for military action in Syria is less common than the belief that Osama bin Laden was framed for 9/11.
There. Is. No. Fucking. Reason. For. The. USA. To. Attack. Anyone. In. Syria.
Not one of the current participants is anyone we should promote or protect. Let them kill each other.
Worse, the moment we act and say it is to "stop the genocide" (waaaagh) the narrative will leap immediately to the far worse genocides we did nothing to halt in Africa. Mr first black Prez of the USA needs to give this some more thought, if he's capable.
I live in an Arab community and this time, unlike prior to the Invasion of Iraq, there is virtually no talk on "the street" where back in the pre-Iraq days there was a lot of it and I attended meetings with advocates and opponents, mostly Arabs debating the issue.
No debate now. No comment period except by the usual suspects posing their personal agendas...none of which represent ordinary Arabs here. They are smart enough to know there is no winning in Syria.
... I'll leave it all cryptic-like.
I think it's a little less cryptic with the explanation.
"Oh my" ...indeed.
Among the American public, support for military action in Syria is less common than the belief that Osama bin Laden was framed for 9/11.
But it's also less than the number of people that thought the country was going in the wrong direction last fall but voted for Obama again anyway. So there's that.
It seems more and more likely that the United States will take some kind of military action against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad.
Fucking stupid idea. First, Assad is the least bad of the bad guys. Second, how is his civil war arming American interests. It isn't, not one bit.
There is substantial doubt the Assad used chem warfare. AQ is more likely the perpetrator, in an attempt to draw the UIS into the mess.
harming, not arming
@Icepick: well, sure
@Aridog: ;-)
I say we go in for a quick, surgical strike. We go in and remove Assad's bunion. If that doesn't work, we go back and take out his appendix. He'll get the message.
But it's also less than the number of people that thought the country was going in the wrong direction last fall but voted for Obama again anyway. So there's that.
Both of the major candidates wanted the country to go in the wrong direction. They differed in how firmly the gas pedal should be pressed to the floor. :)
I say we go in for a quick, surgical strike. We go in and remove Assad's bunion. If that doesn't work, we go back and take out his appendix. He'll get the message
Dude, you forgot the step where we take care of his ingrown toenail*. That's like skipping the double dog dare....
* Is Assad covered under Obamacare?
Both of the major candidates wanted the country to go in the wrong direction. They differed in how firmly the gas pedal should be pressed to the floor.
And they voted for the guy with the PROVEN track record of failure. We're still over five million full-time jobs BELOW where we were in 2007, but with an additional 13,000,000 people in the workforce.
:)
I don't see what you're smiling about.
Well, for starters, there IS NO such thing as a "quick surgical strike" if one isn't going to hit the Chem storage facilities, which we are not for fear of spreading the chemicals and causing widespread civilian casualties. SO.....if one isn't a) going after the storage facilities (if they even exist and haven't been dispersed by now) and B) are not going after Assad himself, that leaves only a grab-bag amorphous "C" consisting of Syrian chem warfare troops (which are easily replaced/trained) and their Air Force. But when all is said and done if that is ALL that is done we are left with things pretty much as before except we now will be operating under "pottery barn rules" and now will in someway be held responsible for all hereafter and will also have expended millions of dollars worth of scarce munitions for naught.
NOT a smart move..
Let me just add, that when dealing with nations that contain several powerful warring tribes, like Syria, Iraq, etc., it is always best en grosso mondo that one of the minority tribes hold power as was the case under Saddam and Assad. This is because, while the minority element holding power may suppress the majority somewhat with admittedly ruthless tactics, the majority is in no danger of being exterminated. But once the majority tribe is in power, the minority tribes may be more easily exterminated--which is why the Sunis in Iraq fight so fiercely against the majority Shia.
There is also no little savage irony in the fact that the majority of the backers of both Saddam and Assad--the educated middle class and the ones being wiped out--were/are the very class of people most like Americans and most likely to identify with America and its values. LOTS of
irony in that..
* Is Assad covered under Obamacare?
Yes, but of course.
Let them rot in hell. Every dead Syrian is one less we would have to send a drone for. It is none of our business.
Why doesn't the Jug Eared Jesus worry about what is happening in our country.
Did you know that one of the animals that killed the 80 year old vet said he was selling them crack?
Where did he learn to make excuses like that?
He really could be Obama's son.
"CDR SALAMANDER" over at his blog of the same name (he is a ret O-5 amphibious warfare Navy officer) has a column that says it best in its title. "Syria: Subjective Desires fed by Ambiguous Intel never turns out well."
Head on over and read his column and some 70 comments by both active and ret Navy, Marine officers, enlisted, etc.
Post a Comment