Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments Weekend Music Thread – War, What Is It Good For? Dogs of War – Pink Floyd » Posted By AdLib On September 7, 2013 @ 9:28 am Brothers in Arms – Dire Straits » Posted By AdLib On September 7, 2013 @ 9:26 am Fight – Rolling Stones » Posted By AdLib On September 7, 2013 @ 9:24 am Fortunate Son – Creedence Clearwater Revival » Posted By AdLib On September 7, 2013 @ 9:22 am Is Pres. Obama Trying to Win on Syria By Losing? Hi mairs! Agreed, it does seem that the more people around the world have time to consider what launching another military attack in the Middle East really can mean and lead to, the less they feel they can support it. Yep, the damage Bush did to U.S. credibility will continue to be a long term legacy of his. And his Admin’s blatant use of dishonesty, fear mongering and propaganda that stampeded us and many other nations into an unnecessary and devastating war has taught a very painful but valuable lesson about taking any politician’s word on how necessary wars are. » Posted By AdLib On September 7, 2013 @ 9:44 am Nirek, I too have enormous repect for Pres. Obama and remained amazed at how deftly he has handles one huge crisis after another. We truly were lucky to have him in office at this time! If there was a military attack, it can’t be just the U.S. or us and a couple of our allies. If the world is unwilling to stand behind this red line, then the difficult work for Obama is to get them to in the nrear future, hopefully, before another such mass murder. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 3:14 pm Murph, that really sums it all up. Obama proceeded as other presidents have and was surprised to find that Americans and the world weren’t following the precedent of a march to military action in such a case. There sure are times I wish we had a parliamentary system here in the US. Imagine how much Obama could have gotten done while President. However, in that case, Bush would have privatized Social Security just before the economic crash and Medicare would be essentially dead. I do like the open debate they have in the UK’s Parliament, the way they get Question Time with the PM and have actual discussions instead of in the US Congress where they have for the most part, prepared speeches. I liked the ACA roundtable Obama held with Congress. Why can’t we do that on other top issues, including Syria, immigration, gun control, jobs programs, etc.? Sure would breathe life into our system of democracy. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 3:11 pm Sabreen, with you on that, this is the disgusting and insulting game the MSM plays, trivializing what really matters, like the murder of 1400 people with chemical weapons and 100,000 over all with all kinds of weapons, in order to play their favorite game of “Gotcha!” That’s how the press tries to validate its existence, by how many times they can pull a “gotcha” on the President, even if it is a tortured or trivial argument. Here’s what the BS in this case is based on:
August 20, 2012 press conference: REPORTER: “Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safekeeping of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons are safe?” PRES. OBAMA: “… I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. And there were other reporters peppering Obama with questions about how the U.S. should respond if chemical weapons were used. The press “pressed” Obama until he gave them a strong enough response and now, a year later, he is being just as pressed over having given them what they wanted. Of course it would have made life easier for Obama today if he had just refused to give a substantive answer to that question but as a man of substance, that’s not his style. I do think that Obama would be justified in demanding that all the nations that have signed the Geneva Convention and other treaties against the use of chemical weapons step up and say what action they want taken to respond to this instead of cowering in the shadows as many are. Obama’s taking all the heat for the red line because most nations have instead chosen a yellow line…that runs right down their backs. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 12:29 pm If the vote in Congress and the U.N. Security Council don’t authorize an attack on Syria, there is nothing wrong with Obama stating, “I want to do punish and undermine Assad for these attacks but the nation and the world have blocked my ability to do so and I respect the laws and international agreements that allows them to do so. More mass murders of Syrians are very likely to occur due to an emboldened Assad and if they do, I can only hope that the world will come together with the U.S. in finally moving forward to prevent Assad from continuing his mass murders of his own people.” And in the meantime, Obama could be working with the rest of the world and Congress on non-military ways to harm and hobble Assad. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 11:49 am Hey Sabreen, I watch MSNBC less than I used to but now that Ed is on during the week, I have to change the channel as soon as I hear his dishonest, egotistical, drum banging voice. His self-importance and snobbery towards Obama and anyone who doesn’t live in his fantasy world where Left Wing purists are geniuses and the rest are traitors and fools, is just obnoxious. I too have no time for those self-righteous emoprogs out there, on MSNBC and elsewhere. This is NOT a simple decision for Obama and presenting it that way is the height of dishonesty for these types. The media is just looking for their “gotcha”s on Obama by trying to nail his feet to the “I don’t care what Congress votes, I’m going to bomb Syria anyway” meme they’ve advanced. Obama does not want to look weak by appearing subservient to Congress and I don’t blame him for not saying in advance that he won’t attack if they vote no. I saw the questioning by reporters, MSNBC and other MSM outlets are replaying it on a loop, they’re loving the presentation of Obama as potentially rogue even though he really did answer the question by affirming how meaningful the vote in Congress is. But navigating through logic, semantics and politics no longer seems a talent for “journalists”. From all I know of Obama after leading this nation for 5 years, I do expect him to respect the will of the people as reflected by Congress. I do think though that his “red line” remark was a mistake. However, the same journalists getting on him for saying it and not attacking conveniently forget what precipitated his saying that. There were claims at that time by the Syrian opposition that chemical weapons were used by Assad. It was THE MEDIA that dogpiled on Obama, pushing on him on coming out strongly against the attack. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to say that he shouldn’t have let the media goad him into making such a statement but in the moment, it’s difficult. And also, the rest of the civilized world has always stood behind the US in declaring punitive attacks would need to be taken against nations that use weapons of mass destruction. This time however, Obama speaks up for the red line the rest of the world supports then turned around and only France and Australia were standing behind him. On that front, he’s got to feel a bit betrayed. The rest of the world gives plenty of lip service against Assad but (especially the Arab nations) become vapor when the challenge comes to put their military where their mouth is. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 11:42 am Kes, like you, my perspective on this is very malleable right now, I do feel pulled in different directions. Up until this issue, most issues have seemed pretty black and white. Supporting the ACA/Obamacare, opposing actions, legislation and insults of the hateful racist Repubs around the country and in DC, supporting a fairer economic and tax system, etc. This just isn’t one of those binary issues where one can say without hesitation, “This is exactly what we should do!” The latest word I’m hearing is that it is still possible that The House could vote for a Syrian attack but the number of supporters are dwindling and nearing a minority. Some Repubs will vote “no” just to spite Obama, they would have happily voted yes if the Pres was from their party. Such twisted people should not be allowed in Congress…or near schools for that matter. The disappointing thing about Obama is that he has supported The Imperial Presidency and continues to do so, claiming while Congress is considering their votes, that he doesn’t need their authorization anyway. If the Imperial Presidency is under threat, it is because the people have stepped up against it. Obama has shown restraint in some areas but clearly wants to protect the power grab the Executive branch has already achieved. It’s not evil, it’s what most people in the WH would do but that’s why we need a more responsible Congress to push back against that. Right with you, I too wish Obama hadn’t made that “red line” comment because that alone is a huge reason for justifying an attack and that is messed up. Because Obama made a threat, in hopes of scaring Assad away from using chemical weapons, he an others now feel that if he doesn’t follow through on it because Assad has used them, Obama and America will look weak and cowardly. Personally, I think that if Syria or Iran think that inaction in this complicated situation means they can attack the US or its military without repercussions, they would have to learn that they’re wrong the hard way. The use of deadly force that endangers mass amounts of people has to be broadly justified and that’s just not the case in Syria. As I said above and keep saying, you can’t claim morality as a justification when you avenge or try to limit the killing of innocent people in a way that results in the killing of innocent people. I heard the military folks talking about how low they expect to keep collateral damage…no, you can’t succeed if there are ANY innocent people killed. Killing just one man, woman, child or baby will be a PR victory for Assad, demonizing the US and rallying even some of those now opposed to Assad to come to his side. In Star Trek it was called the Kobayashi Maru scenario, a test for potential commanders where no matter what choice you make, disaster and death results. This situation in Syria is the Kobayashi Maru for Obama. Do nothing and Assad will probably commit more mass murders including through the use of chemical weapons. Attack Syria and potentially turn sympathy towards Assad and antipathy towards the US and possibly explode that conflict into a Middle East-wide war. In the short term, it is the Kobayashi Maru. In the long term, if the U.S. proves it is hesitant to attack other nations and kill innocent people in the process and Assad proves more and more to be the monster he is, the world will be drawn together against Assad and towards action. You have to play the long game sometimes, knowing that bad things will happen in the short term but also knowing that even more horrible things could happen in the long run if action is taken too quickly without an eye towards the future. A terrible choice to have to make, I don’t envy Obama or Congress people of conscience. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 11:21 am The Return of American Isolationism? Kalima, may I first say thanks for providing such steady coverage on Syria as well as the rest of the ME over all this time on Morning Blog! The UN is a victim of its own elitist system. Why should a global organization be dominated by the five most powerful countries? How is that democratic and not an acquiescence to whatever corruption any of those countries may have become BECAUSE of how powerful they are? I know it was part of a compromise needed to found the UN in the first place and get the major nations on board but it created a necessarily corrupt structure. So we can’t count on the UN to exercise the will and conscience of the majority of the world in this and many cases. What then? Do we attack on our own and incur whatever that might yield? I don’t think so. If we can’t use the mechanism of the UN to rally much of the world together, we should do so outside of the UN. I do think though that the opposition to military action by most of the rest of the world has to be respected and considered seriously. As right as military action may feel to some in this situation, if the perception of the world is that the US would be seen as unjustified, how would that impact what happens after an attack? Al Qaeda was created out of the blowback from what we did in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the ME. Blowback is what affects things long term and is most neglected when military action is the focus. We do need to think about the big picture and not just when it comes to sending a message to Iran and North Korea. If the US loses global respect and support due to attacking Syria, how might that boomerang back at the US if it wants to later take military action again in the region or gets into a serious conflict with Iran? Might not Iran be able to use a US attack on Syria as propaganda to justify a conflict wi the US, to protect the region from unjustified US aggression? That would be BS of course but just trying to express that there are many more treacherous things that could result as blowback from the US acting by itself in attacking Iran, beyond what we can imagine rit now, so if we are to take action, I think it is absolutely necessary that global and public support is built up first. » Posted By AdLib On September 8, 2013 @ 1:35 pm Murph, I disagree with that as a justification. Is it possible that if the US fails to strike Sria militarily now that Iran and North Korea will be emboldened? Yes. It is also possible that both nations would take the same steps they otherwise would have. When it comes to justice, if the US doesn’t abide by principles in the short term to address a hypothetical problem in the long term, they would still be unprincipled. Do we believe in the justification of blowing up the house next door to a criminal’s house because it sends the desired message to the criminal? Do we remain in possession of morality when we can justify a deadly action against one party because of how it will scare another party? When it comes to Syria, we’re not dealing with an innocent party but I find it problematic if we make decisions on attacking other countries not based solely on the issues about that country and what the blowback from an attack would be but in order to instill fear in other countries, “See how bad we can be? And if you get out of line, this is what we’ll do to you.” I’m not saying that it isn’t a factor that has to be kept in mind but the moral dilemma for me is possibly committing an injustice (killing innocent Syrians as “collateral damage” in a US attack presented as defending innocent Syrians) in order to “send the right message” to other bad countries. » Posted By AdLib On September 8, 2013 @ 1:05 pm Sabreen, Russia will veto any proposal for a UN military attack against Syria for its use of chemical weapons but the proposition I was describing was one that demands Syria become a signatory to a chemical weapons ban. Russia is a signatory on that and if they want to stand up to insist that Syria should have the right to use chemical weapons, they should be forced to do so publicly and that could lead to the world, outside of the UN structure, coming together to stop Assad. Even Pres. Obama and John Kerry have said that they won’t be striking the chemical weapons storage and manufacturing sites due to the danger to Syrians that would pose so though they may destroy some missiles that could deliver them, Assad will still have all of his chemical weapons after any US attack. So if a US attack doesn’t actually stop the use of chemical weapons, at best, delaying it and if Assad is hell bent on using them, will it be worth it if any Syrians killed by the US as collateral damage? Here’s a quote I found from the Senate hearing on Syria and projected collateral damage: But Dempsey was clearly there to answer relatively technical questions. He answered a question about the risks of collateral damage — he told the committee he had been charged to choose weapons and targets in such combinations that the risk of collateral damage was “low”. http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/03/kerry-hagel-press-senate-to-approve-syrian-strikes/ As for what “low” means, your guess is as good as mine but being that Syria announced it would be copying Saddam in using human shields, freeing political prisoners from jails and placing them at military sites the US is targeting, I think it’s unavoidable that there will be innocent Syrians killed. And if one missile or more in a massive campaign goes off target, it could be really bad. I am angry at what is happening in Syria too, I wish that the US could use its power to end it right now but such a limited military strike admittedly won’t rid Syria of chemical weapons and could just pour more gasoline on the fire. If we do go in, I think we need to do so along with the rest of the world or what results could be greater mass murders. If the rest of the world won’t act unless Assad commits greater atrocities, I don’t see how we can act without any support of legal sanction. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 5:10 pm Sabreen, I have heard of other efforts being recommended so I don’t agree that it’s either military action or doing nothing. We’ve been very successful in hammering Iran through diplomatic and economic sanctions, we haven’t had to bomb them to hurt and punish them for their pursuit of nuclear weapons. We can do the same with Syria. Two other approaches I’ve heard proposed are pursuing a war crimes trial with the ICJ/World Court and having the UN and/or other nations present Syria with a choice of signing onto the chemical weapons ban or face severe economic and political consequences. Can anyone guarantee that after the US would launch a missile attack on Syria, that Assad wouldn’t use chemical weapons again? And if we need to stand up to Syria this time, how much bigger of a military campaign would we have to launch then? And if it continues, where does it end? And if Assad is defeated, Al Qaeda may take over the leadership and control of the nation, what then? It’s so complicated to me, Sabreen. I am outraged by the mass murders Assad has committed but I wonder if the answer is for the US to also kill innocent Syrians in a bombing campaign. Sometimes violence is the only sensible response to violence, especially in cases of self-defense, sometimes an eye for an eye can leave the whole world blind. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 3:36 pm jj, I do oppose a military attack on Syria but I am not for isolationism. There are a lot of powerful forces out there constantly trying to exploit other nations and populations that would eventually bring disaster to our doorstep. Afghanistan was the perfect example. We stayed unengaged as the Taliban took over and sheltered and supported the growth of Al Qaeda. Doing nothing ended up allowing a global terrorist network to be built and cause mass deaths of Americans and economic and social upheaval. We need to stay involved throughout the world IMO though we need a 21st Century approach to our involvement that changes from military force being the primary tool to political, economic and global approaches. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 3:22 pm Murph, well written and right on target! It is very much about the distrust Americans now have post-Iraq towards their government when it wants to march them to war. It’s also about the need for evolution. In the past, when we were upset at another country’s military actions, we attacked them. That’s the old, primitive way of thinking that was over-exploited and destroyed by Bush so in this era, a more evolved approach is required to be credible and acceptable to Americans. Sometimes violence is the only answer but too often it is the first choice resorted to. And just because retaliation isn’t military, it doesn’t mean it can’t be effective…even more effective. So eschewing the knee-jerk response of military action doesn’t mean America needs to retreat into an isolationist mentality. We don’t have to be violent to be effective in dealing with terrible people and their acts around the world. It’s not a Zero Sum game, moral involvement in what happens in our world doesn’t require that we use our military to act against others. I think it’s probable that there is going to be more horror wreaked upon innocent Syrians by Assad as he does whatever it takes to hold onto power. We do have a responsibility to lead the world to do what it can to stop Assad and we shouldn’t bail on that because we can’t use our military (or again have a mistaken idea that a conflict can be instantly solved by bombing the shit out of a country). We need to stay engaged in the world and do what’s right…including not joining the bad guys in killing innocent people. » Posted By AdLib On September 6, 2013 @ 12:15 pm WATCH NOW: Live Video of Senate Debate on Use of Force in Syria AB, this has been very difficult for me to figure out as well. However, I am coming to the conclusion that in such a situation where there are only bad choices, taking military action now would have worse outcomes than not doing so. If it emboldens Iran, Hezbollah or North Korea, we’ll have to deal with that then. I don’t know that Iran will truly look at the US as being a paper tiger just because one military act in a complex situation wasn’t taken. And who’s to say Iran will do anything differently whether or not we attack Syria. Where I’ve gravitated to is that the way to stop Assad and his allies is not through limited airstrikes that will kill innocent people and rally those opposing Assad to supporting him. We need to retain the moral high ground and use the chemical attacks to rally world support for punishing and isolating Assad through non- military means. The world needs to act together on this, not hiding behind the US and showing no moral principles themselves. I don’t think we can bomb things into turning out as we want them to be (and since we don’t want the rebels to win, isn’t this counterproductive anyway?), we’ve got to be smarter than that and look several moves ahead to nail them instead of seeking far more destructive and dangerous immediate gratification by bombing Assad’s government and innocent Syrians alike. » Posted By AdLib On September 5, 2013 @ 3:36 pm Funk, excellent analysis and right on the money. Our “need” to act militarily is openly connected to being in America’s self interest. There’s no expression of shame by the Obama Admin in saying so. In fact, that is a central justification used by the Obama Admin to gain support for the military action desired. If we don’t act, the Iranians or North Koreans might attack us orour military. So though it’s about Syria and their chemical weapons, it’s not. It does seem more like going to prison and assaulting the biggest guy there so others will be too scared to assault you. Doesn’t matter who the biggest guy is, it’s all about using them to scare others. Obama’s mistake here is in trying to follow the status quo on Presidential power and military action. In the post-Iraq world, that just doesn’t fly anymore. And the principle and logic that never was questioned previously, now needs to pass a meaningful threshold. What will limited attacks really accomplish? What if Assad launches another attack after them? If our military or any of our allies are attacked in retalliation, won’t we be drawn into a war with Syria and/or their allies? And a big moral problem is claiming that the reason for military action is outrage over the mass killing of innocent people…while admitting that our retaliation will likely kill innocent people. So…killing innocent people is wrong unless you kill them while retaliating for other innocent people being killed? It’s a good thing people no longer blindly take the word of politicians that military attacks have to be taken. Obama didn’t recognize that those days, which he helped contribute to over Iraq, are over. » Posted By AdLib On September 5, 2013 @ 3:17 pm Nice job, Kalima! Here’s the graphic at that link: [img]http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/fo1215_syriamissiles940b.jpg[/img] » Posted By AdLib On September 5, 2013 @ 2:54 pm Next week during budget discussions, McCain will conversely be playing Call of Duty on his PSP. » Posted By AdLib On September 5, 2013 @ 2:47 pm AB, the bravery of the misogynist, elitist, billionaire Arabs has never been more on display. “This is an outrage! (they turn to the US) How can you not do something about this?! Don’t be a coward!” Maybe the official symbol for the Arab League should be a frightened chicken running away. » Posted By AdLib On September 4, 2013 @ 4:04 pm Thanks for posting this, Kes. Here’s a companion post, Joe “You Lie” Wilson having to read his Bagger conspiracy theories off of a piece of paper because he’s too moronic to actually be able to remember more than two words:
» Posted By AdLib On September 4, 2013 @ 3:52 pm This is the game that my mom used to refer to as: “Let’s you and him fight.” Kes, that’s the perfect motto for our Arab allies! Also brings to mind the poker game scene in Goodfellas when Joe Pesci is goaded into shooting » Posted By AdLib On September 3, 2013 @ 7:07 pm Hey, they threw a shoe at Bush, why not throw ten thousand boots at Assad? » Posted By AdLib On September 3, 2013 @ 6:56 pm CL – And as they’re falling, people can be yelling “BOOTS!” and the nation will sound like it’s booing Assad, he will be devastated by that and resign! It’s genius! » Posted By AdLib On September 3, 2013 @ 5:35 pm Drop boots, not bombs! It is amazing how some of these Arab nations duck for cover when it comes to standing up against the Arabs they secretly are adamant about opposing. So, they condemn Syria for using chemical weapons, condemning military action publicly but whispering privately to the US, “Someone should attack them for doing this!” The politics of cowardice? » Posted By AdLib On September 3, 2013 @ 5:33 pm Kalima, I have no problem with our having boots on the ground in Syria as long as there are no US soldiers in those boots. » Posted By AdLib On September 3, 2013 @ 4:40 pm Nirek, IMO, Rubio sounded like a petty politician, using tortured logic to reprimand the Obama Admin while blatantly pandering to Baggers with his pro-war, pro-invasion insanity. Jeff Flake also looked foolish for his partisanship, attacking Obama for following the Constitution and asking Congress to vote on military action. Kerry did spank him pretty well. » Posted By AdLib On September 3, 2013 @ 4:39 pm U.S. Assessment of Syrian Gov’t Use of Chemical Weapons – Full Text I subscribe generally to Occam’s Razor, the more convoluted the theory, the less likely it probably is. The US claims Assad provably has chemical weapons, the evidence from surveillance shows Assad’s military preparing for days for the attack and on-the-ground evidence that rockets and artillery were used to deliver the chemical attack. Could this all be false? Yes but is it likely that it would be? IMO, no. Since the UN will soon be providing the details of their investigation, if the UN says the chemical attack came from devices that were planted instead of rockets and artillery, Obama’s credibility would be permanently destroyed. He’s got to know that. Also, we haven’t seen a track record of lying from the Obama Admin while we did see dishonesty from the Bush Admin from the start, cheating and stealing the Presidency. So, though I won’t go as far as to say anything is an absolute fact, I think that in the end we will find that the most likely situation is exactly what occurred and that means Assad likely launched this attack. Again, I qualify this, if legit evidence disputes this, especially from a reliable source like the UN, I could change my opinion. Sleep well, pal! See you soon! » Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 5:32 pmComments Posted By AdLib
Michael Imperioli, “You gonna take that from him?”
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats