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

[Londo_Jowo]

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.

I agree with your assessment.

I also am fearful that these so called pinpoint missile strikes that would be used may hit a chemical weapon cache that will be dispersed into the atmosphere causing far more casualties than has been to date.

 

[FerrelGeek]

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.

'They' are idiots. And I think you hit the nail on the head. Confront congress with a crisis so the forget about Obamacare too.

Obama thinks there's no downside risk to lobbing a few missiles at Asshead. All he thinks about is himself.

 

[Genx87]

Way to reach across the aisle Shira

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

Pointless, or hurting Assad and thus helping terrorists seize a country with WMDs.

Lose / Lose.

 

[bshole]

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.

Laughable, utterly laughable. No country can do that? But America is free to drop "smart" bombs in any country it wants at will, killing about 80 innocents per incident?

We drop bombs in countries that we are not at war with. We do this without the consent of the sovereign states whose citizens we are terrorizing. America has killed more innocent civillians in the last 10 years than all the terrorists in the world combined. You want America to drop some more ordnance from on high (a terroristic act) to combat a terroristic act?

America gave up the moral high ground long ago. I sincerely believe we are becoming a powerful force for evil in the world and killing our children to do it.

 

[nehalem256]

Laughable, utterly laughable. No country can do that? But America is free to drop "smart" bombs in any country it wants at will, killing about 80 innocents per incident?

As long as the innocents are not killed with chemical weapons :thumbsup:


/sarcasm

 

[networkman]

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.

So many people keep forgetting those poor Kurds living in the northern part of Iraq that Saddam Hussein DID use chemical weapons against, as well various population centers in Iran when they were at war with Iraq earlier.

In the end, Bush will be proved correct that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs in the form of various chemical weapons types and that those weapons were either buried in various caches all over the country as well shipped off to various proxy states like Syria for "safe-keeping."

And we still don't know for certain that Assad authorized the use of chemical weapons, as any number of "rebel" or Al-queda linked groups could have been the ones to use them. That they were used isn't in doubt - the question is WHO used them! Punishing the wrong person or group isn't going to advance policy or justice.

 

[Murloc]

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



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.

except that there are reports saying that assad didn't give the order (the answer is always negative in all intercepts), and they're not even sure it was his military who did it.

 

[cubby1223]

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

Republicans and Democrats combined are opposed to military action.

I believe it's more that politicians in general are more focused on keeping their own jobs than it is doing what is right for the world. This isn't a "right" or "left" thing, it's just what politics is. If Republicans currently had the political upper-hand in this country, you'd see them more open to support military action. But they are not and are covering their own asses first before anything else.

And democrats do it too.

Personally I support bombing Assad's regime, but that's just my opinion.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Saddam used chemical weapons on his own citizens, and a limited strike will not prevent further use of chemical weapons by Assad.

 

[BoberFett]

Shira is a complete failure in every thread, and this one is no exception.