For once, I agree with right-wing commentator Jennifer Rubin

[shira]

Usually, I find Rubin's columns rather shrill, but this one seems well-reasoned and spot-on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/09/08/rubio-and-others-run-from-internationalism-when-it-matters/?hpid=z3

In sum, Republican objection to action against Syria has less to do with Obama and much more to do with political courage and the influence of pseudo-populists who are in favor of all sorts of daft things. We live in a political era in which there are few giants in the Senate or anywhere else. That problem will, unfortunately, not disappear when Obama leaves office. Blaming him for Republican reluctance on Syria is convenient, but it doesn’t explain the collapse of determined internationalism on the right. For that, conservatives have only themselves to blame.

My own opinion about Syria is this: No country can be allowed to use chemical weapons with impunity. To allow Assad to "get away with it" is a message to the rest of the world that a significant rule of war has been relaxed.

Acting against Assad - a strike that inflicts enough damage that Assad will think a long time before again using chemical weapons - is the principled and correct thing to do.

 

[Anarchist420]

My own opinion about Syria is this: No country can be allowed to use chemical weapons with impunity. To allow Assad to "get away with it" is a message to the rest of the world that a significant rule of war has been relaxed.

Assad didn't use the weapons.

That said, you make Michelle Bachmann look smart.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

The real problem is that trust in government is so badly shaken at this point that you'll more likely find people feel they are being sold a micky-mouse war than getting facts by the powers that be.

The use of WMDs is not really the larger issue here.

 

[shira]

The real problem is that trust in government is so badly shaken at this point that you'll more likely find people feel they are being sold a micky-mouse war than getting facts by the powers that be.

The use of WMDs is not really the larger issue here.

I understand that the American public is justifiably skeptical of government's motives when military actions are proposed, but in this case they're wrong. Furthermore, true leaders don't allow themselves to be influenced by the ignorance of the lowest common denominator.

The distrust of the American people is a distraction here, and unlike in Iraq, WMDs - WMDs that were actually used - is in fact the main issue here.

 

[Anarchist420]

understand that the American public is justifiably skeptical of government's motives when military actions are proposed, but in this case they're wrong. Furthermore, true leaders don't allow themselves to be influenced by the ignorance of the lowest common denominator.

You are quite the aristocrat.

 

[Agent11]

This is not the place to intervene. I say we transition out of Afghanistan and keep our powder dry for inevitable conflict with Iran.

Let Russia keep Syria in check, and avoid making UN gaffs or further destabilizations of the region until then.

 

[Jaskalas]

Usually, I find Rubin's columns rather shrill, but this one seems well-reasoned and spot-on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rom-internationalism-when-it-matters/?hpid=z3

So you miss the good old days of Bush and the Neocons invading the Middle East. Feel free to vote that way, but I will never support them or anyone with them.

That includes Obama.

My own opinion about Syria is this: No country can be allowed to use chemical weapons with impunity. To allow Assad to "get away with it" is a message to the rest of the world that a significant rule of war has been relaxed.

Acting against Assad - a strike that inflicts enough damage that Assad will think a long time before again using chemical weapons - is the principled and correct thing to do.

You're going to leave Assad in place. You're going to leave his chemical weapons in place. WTF IS THE POINT!? You'd commit acts of war without purpose. Without due cause or an objective goal to achieve. Fuck anyone who kills frivolously or for the hell of it. Saving face is no excuse.

Obama should eat his words rather than commit acts of war.

 

[shira]

So you miss the good old days of Bush and the Neocons invading the Middle East. Feel free to vote that way, but I will never support them or anyone with them.

That includes Obama.

No. In fact in my previous post I made a clear distinction between the situation now and in 2003. Furthermore, there's another clear distinction between an invasion and a limited strike.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So you agree with a neo-conservative blogger whose view is attempting to solidify the neo-conservative authority on the issue within the gop of whom are locked in a battle for control over the party with Libertarian-esque gop members.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

No. In fact in my previous post I made a clear distinction between the situation now and in 2003. Furthermore, there's another clear distinction between an invasion and a limited strike.

The distinction is that this "limited strike" won't be successful at anything if it is truly limited which is where the doubt creeps up on what Obama and his cavalcade of chickenhawks mean by "limited strike".

 

[shira]

So you agree with a neo-conservative blogger whose view is attempting to solidify the neo-conservative authority on the issue within the gop of whom are locked in a battle for control over the party with Libertarian-esque gop members.

In the case of this particular issue, yes.

 

[justoh]

No. In fact in my previous post I made a clear distinction between the situation now and in 2003. Furthermore, there's another clear distinction between an invasion and a limited strike.

Yeah, a clear distinction, conveniently delineated by the dude doing the invading or striking. Are you a some kind of neo-conservative double talking mole sent to help misdirect us from the sinister truth? Aliens.

 

[shira]

The distinction is that this "limited strike" won't be successful at anything if it is truly limited which is where the doubt creeps up on what Obama and his cavalcade of chickenhawks mean by "limited strike".

You may be correct. And another problem is that the result of any truly "limited" strike will be subject to interpretation and spin. In fact, I predict that after a limited strike, those already opposed to the strike will claim it had little if any effect on Assad, and those supporting the strike will claim that it had its intended effect.

Example: Suppose a strike destroys several Syrian fuel depots, military airways, command and control centers, and chemical weapons stockpiles. Then over the next year, we don't see another use of chemical weapons.

Would the above scenario "prove" that the strike had its intended effect? Would everyone on ATPN agree that Obama was correct to strike? The answer is obvious, because it would be impossible to prove cause and effect. In fact, I'll boldly predict that every single poster on ATPN who thinks Obama is incompetent is going to find ample evidence from a strike and it's results that Obama continues to be incompetent, and the same will hold true for everyone who think Obama's a God.

So what? Good leaders must do what they think is right. This is a no-win situation and all Obama can do is make his best guess.

 

[shira]

Yeah, a clear distinction, conveniently delineated by the dude doing the invading or striking. Are you a some kind of neo-conservative double talking mole sent to help misdirect us from the sinister truth? Aliens.

I would hope that the specific military objectives and the time frame are clearly defined before the strike occurs.

And of course, if those stated goals are strictly adhered to, no one will criticize Obama afterward.

 

[justoh]

I would hope that the specific military objectives and the time frame are clearly defined before the strike occurs.

And of course, if those stated goals are strictly adhered to, no one will criticize Obama afterward.

The real motivation won't be revealed, which cannot be chemical weapons usage. The only thing we can be critical of is this dishonest narrative being bought and sold by people.

 

[shira]

The real motivation won't be revealed, which cannot be chemical weapons usage. The only thing we can be critical of is this dishonest narrative being bought and sold by people.

So if it's not chemical weapons, what is the objective? Surely you don't think Obama is naive enough to believe that there's any "solution" to Syria at this point? About the best that anyone can hope for is a slow-burn civil war that drags on and on and on, waged on a control-map that doesn't provide Al Qaeda or any other Islamist group with a safe haven.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I understand that the American public is justifiably skeptical of government's motives when military actions are proposed, but in this case they're wrong. Furthermore, true leaders don't allow themselves to be influenced by the ignorance of the lowest common denominator.

The distrust of the American people is a distraction here, and unlike in Iraq, WMDs - WMDs that were actually used - is in fact the main issue here.

-A true leader doesn't just do whatever the hell he wants, he gets people to do what he wants. The former is a dictator, the later is a president. In this case, the leader's credibility is strained to the limit due to several betrayals of trust, so he is going to have a much harder time convincing people to do what he wants. Just the way it goes.

The debate on what happened in Syria is hardly as settled as you seem to imply that it is.

 

[justoh]

The real motivation won't be revealed, which cannot be chemical weapons usage. The only thing we can be critical of is this dishonest narrative being bought and sold by people.

So if it's not chemical weapons, what is the objective? Surely you don't think Obama is naive enough to believe that there's any "solution" to Syria at this point? About the best that anyone can hope for is a slow-burn civil war that drags on and on and on, waged on a control-map that doesn't provide Al Qaeda or any other Islamist group with a safe haven.

How would I know? Da fuq? National interest strategy and private greed, or both. They can't be honest about it, since it's sensitive information.

It would be foolish to share the real reasons, even if it's mostly just actions taken to promote the best interests of the US, since the best interests of the US are often contrary to the interests of others.

It's difficult to convince the public that war might be necessary to maintain global dominance, advantage or even survival, and much more difficult to justify, so there's always some bullshit excuse they sell to fools.

 

[Doppel]

I absolutely revel in how some democrats are still targeting republicans as the problem here. This despite a nearly international unanimity against military action, despite an overwhelming public sentiment against it, and despite virtually no allies of the US willing to go into Syria either.

And yet with all this, somehow democrats are still attacking republicans as either partisan or weak. They have become precisely, exactly what they feigned to hate when Bush was in power. They epitomize cognitive dissonance. It's amazing to watch. Sad, sure, but amazing.

 

[sourn]

Until you people realize that these idiots (reps and dems) are one and the same and simply playing chess with each other while using us as pawns nothing will change.

But hey keep bitching back and fourth like that's gonna help. I'll sit back and laugh at all of you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I understand that the American public is justifiably skeptical of government's motives when military actions are proposed, but in this case they're wrong. Furthermore, true leaders don't allow themselves to be influenced by the ignorance of the lowest common denominator.

The distrust of the American people is a distraction here, and unlike in Iraq, WMDs - WMDs that were actually used - is in fact the main issue here.

There's reason to doubt who is responsible. The rebels might be behind this, and there's another possibility as well. here
There is enough doubt and reason to distrust a push by the administration which seems to operate under the principle of Infallibility. But you know all that's wrong and everyone but Obama and those who have faith on him are distractions to be ignored.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The distinction is that this "limited strike" won't be successful at anything if it is truly limited which is where the doubt creeps up on what Obama and his cavalcade of chickenhawks mean by "limited strike".

We must do all we can to ensure that Obama doesn't look like a fool on the world stage. That's all this is about.

Too bad it's way too late for that. Nobody on the world stage takes Obama seriously anymore; he's already lost face. We didn't do anything when 100k people were killed by conventional means. And there's no credible proof that Asshead's team used the chemical weapons. We got suckered into Kosovo and I'd bet the same is happening here.

What I'm really interested in is what Obama will do if he fails to get authorization from Congress.

 

[Smoblikat]

Usually, I find Rubin's columns rather shrill, but this one seems well-reasoned and spot-on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rom-internationalism-when-it-matters/?hpid=z3



My own opinion about Syria is this: No country can be allowed to use chemical weapons with impunity. To allow Assad to "get away with it" is a message to the rest of the world that a significant rule of war has been relaxed.

Acting against Assad - a strike that inflicts enough damage that Assad will think a long time before again using chemical weapons - is the principled and correct thing to do.

Where is the proof that he used weapons?

 

[PokerGuy]

I understand that the American public is justifiably skeptical of government's motives when military actions are proposed, but in this case they're wrong.

Well phew, if an authority on the matter like you says they're wrong, then surely that's the end of it, they're wrong. Glad that's settled. Were you cheering just as hard for war in Iraq because they had to teach Saddam a lesson and send a message to all other regimes that were thinking about nukes etc? Of course not, because at that point the guy in the white house had an (R) behind his name.

Furthermore, true leaders don't allow themselves to be influenced by the ignorance of the lowest common denominator.

When has obummer ever been mistaken for a "true leader"? :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

The distrust of the American people is a distraction here, and unlike in Iraq, WMDs - WMDs that were actually used - is in fact the main issue here.

No, the main issue should be that the American people are tired of playing police force of the world. This is a lose lose proposition, with a Russian/Chinese supported dictator fighting various terrorist factions. Heads they win, tails we lose. There is no sense getting involved here.

 

[shortylickens]

The real problem is that trust in government is so badly shaken at this point that you'll more likely find people feel they are being sold a micky-mouse war than getting facts by the powers that be.

The use of WMDs is not really the larger issue here.

Thats pretty much me.

Perhaps hitting Syria is the right thing to do but I am so distrustful of my government right now I dont actually WANT them to do it. It smells a little too convenient for Obama. Like he's trying to take one last shot at being a heroic president while also shifting attention away from taxes,n spending, immigration, and the NSA.

They say he came in to more problems than any other president in history.
I say he will be leaving more problems behind than any other president so far.