Sully goes full-bore firebagger in a post last night entitled, “Obama’s Betrayal on Syria.” Even if you hold the (understandable) position that Sullivan is best ignored, you can use the rhetoric below as a stand-in for what many others are saying, including plenty of folks in the comments section from my post last night:
You voted twice for Obama? You’re getting the policies of McCain and the Clintons, the candidates he defeated. I wish I could understand this – but, of course, my worry is that the pincer movement of Rice and Power is already pushing us into a war we do not need, and cannot win.
This is worse than a mistake. It’s a betrayal – delivered casually. Maybe he thinks his supporters will treat this declaration of war just as casually. In which case, he’s in for a big surprise.
Okay, can we just take a step back from the ledge here? I agree that putting US blood and treasure on the line in a sectarian conflict being waged largely by religious fanatics would be a huge mistake. Is that what Obama is contemplating? Here’s the statement from the White House that was issued last night:
Following on the credible evidence that the regime has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people, the President has augmented the provision of non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition, and also authorized the expansion of our assistance to the Supreme Military Council (SMC), and we will be consulting with Congress on these matters in the coming weeks. This effort is aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of the SMC, and helping to coordinate the provision of assistance by the United States and other partners and allies. Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the SMC. These efforts will increase going forward.
The United States and the international community have a number of other legal, financial, diplomatic, and military responses available. We are prepared for all contingencies, and we will make decisions on our own timeline. Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.
That’s a far cry from “a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.” I’m willing to be persuaded that Obama is worse than Bush and has betrayed us, but I’m just not seeing any evidence of that yet.
liberal
Of course the people who are saying, and have said, that Obama is worse than Bush are wrong. E.g. just look at the body counts in Iraq (hundreds of thousands) vs drone war (at most low tens of thousands).
But offering up “Obama isn’t worse than Bush” shouldn’t distract us from the utter stupidity of getting further involved in the Syrian civil war.
Baud
This is the Internet. People don’t disagree. They betray each other.
NickT
Another premature ejaculation by Sullivan. Perhaps he can get some treatment for his condition, now that he’s recovered from the terrible strain of living in New York.
Mandalay
Creating a red line on chemical weapons was a massive blunder. What will the Administration do if it turns out that the civilian opposition in Syria have also used chemical weapons?
Provide “non-lethal assistance” to Assad as well?
Ben W
I voted twice for Obama and wow the idea that Obama is the same as McCain is crazy.
Svensker
@liberal:
Pretty much.
El Caganer
The President has done a good job of distancing the US from the Syrian conflict, so I figure he already knows how big a mistake it would be for us to get involved militarily. Hopefully he can continue to keep us out of it.
Alex S.
I expected this, I somewhat support it. Syria is a clusterfuck though. There’s the Assad regime that used chemical weapons but has the support of syrian christians, of Russia and Hezbollah. There are islamic fundamentalists with the support of Al-Qaida and there are the mostly younger people who started the protests and want more democracy. I guess these american weapons are meant to support the democratic forces and I guess that the Obama government wants to find capable leaders that can hold the islamists at bay…good luck with that, it will be hard.
Betty Cracker
@liberal: I agree. “Not worse than Bush” isn’t my success benchmark for the Obama admin — foreign policy decisions that support our national interests, restoration of Congressional oversight of military conflicts, realistic assessment of possible outcomes, diplomacy as the primary tool, etc., are what I hope to see from any administration. I’m just suggesting the hysteria is a bit premature.
Hawes
Shouldn’t we be doing something REALLY important to help the Syrian people, like changing the color of our website?
debbie
McCain is out of control. I would like Obama to step up and remind McCain how well rushing in has worked out for the United States these past few decades.
cmorenc
Syria is a classic Hobson’s Choice of a military/foreign policy situation, if one believes at all that the United States has any role in the broader world than to look out purely for its international commercial interests. If so, there is no “win” to be had there, only the bad choice of leaving a prickly tyrannical regime in place or aiding rebels who (even if they prevail) are likely to be themselves dominated by dubious fanatical thugs – at our own considerable financial expense.
Chyron HR
Woah there, Sully, that’s fifth columnist talk. Where did you say this decadent enclave to which you moved is located, anyway? It’s not near any large bodies of water, is it?
NickT
People who are determined to bash Obama will bash Obama. It is, however, mildly amusing to see the number of amateur strategists who do not operate within the constraints of American political reality yapping on about how their superior understanding of the situation would be so, so much better – despite having never achieved anything in their own lives that merits the comparison.
Obama’s done rather well at resisting howls from the permanent war lobby and when he has intervened he did so decisively and at minimal cost in American lives. But why should facts matter to those determined to blame the president for anything and everything?
Suffern ACE
“our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.”
None of those objectives are shared by anyone currently fighting in Syria. Or currently supplying support to either side. Good luck.
Betty Cracker
@Mandalay: I agree with you on the “red line” thing. It’s never a good idea to tip your hand like that, but if you read the statement, it looks like they’re subtly trying to walk that back, referring to the red line as a long-established international standard and reserving the right to respond on their own timeline, etc. We’ll see how it shakes out, but I’m not seeing wholesale adoption of the McCain policy here.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
The McCain comparison isn’t meant to be accurate. It’s meant to be retweeted.
Alex S.
@NickT:
I don’t understand Sully. Does he still defend his support for the Iraq War? I read that he thinks that Libya was a mistake..I’d say that went relatively well. The war McCain would have wanted, that is, the war that is to happen according to the Neo-Conservative plan would involve invading Syria with an army (and then reduce troops to a minimum because Syria will accept democracy immediately). I don’t see Obama doing this, and well, now we just know that America will officially send weapons to Syria. But honestly, I think there was secret support all along. Obama is just sending a message to Russia.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Obama has betrayed us. He pronounces Syria correctly. It’s SER-e-uh, not si-RE-uh. (Yeah, I don’t actually know anyone who pronounces it the second way, and for that matter, I’m not even sure I’m getting the phonetics correct). But he insists on viewing the world through other people’s eyes.
Wag
Of course Obama is worse than Bush. Bush was a Decider’s decider. Obama is a Contemplator’s decider, which is a much trickier thing. Weighing all options and making rational decisions is so much worse than blundering around in the dark, because then you’re actually held accountable for your decisions. If Obama would just dispense with all the thought and proceed to direct action, he too would get the Woocudanode pass that absolves all responsibility.
Napoleon
Obama is doing the bare minimum that he can do after drawing the “red line” on chemical weapons so that he can say with a straight face that he responded when the jackals in the press hound him on this issue. He is miles away from where McCain and Romney would be if they were in the WH.
cleek
bitches gonna bitch
NickT
@Alex S.:
I think it’s just more of Sullivan’s pathological hypocrisy. He conveniently forgets his own record of rabid campaigning for most of the right wing’s follies over the last 20 years as soon as a chance to promote himself comes around.
Omnes Omnibus
@cmorenc: That is pretty much my take on the situation. I incline toward liberal interventionism, but I want there to be a point, a reasonable chance of a good outcome, and an endgame. Stopping the use of chemical weapons may be a valid point, but the other things just aren’t there.
Then, once one gets in to the details of how one would intervene – and do it without setting off something ugly involving either Russia, Iran, or both – just no…..
NickT
Apparently, the Brits have decided they don’t want to deal with Edward Snowden either:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22902098
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
Serious question here: Does anyone know exactly what support we’re giving them? I don’t see anywhere in there that it mentions weapons. Is it possible they’re getting non-weapon aid?
NickT
@Wag:
Basically our jackal-media will cheer for any blunder, provided it is done with sufficient drama and egomania.
Comrade Jake
I just have a really hard time seeing how this is possibly going to end well for us.
For those pointing to Libya, it was very different than Syria. Much less complicated. And Sully’s basically right that it was a mistake – it wasn’t in our national interests to intervene there. Yes, things seem to have worked out OK, but ends don’t justify the means.
There’s plenty of hyperbole in Sully’s statement there, but there’s more than a fair amount of truth as well. I’d much rather a President who would explain to the public – look, civil wars suck, this one’s bloody and awful, but it’s simply not in our national interests to get in the middle of it.
raven
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Small arms too. Grandpaw was whining about that.
U.S. officials said the administration could provide the rebels with a range of weapons, including small arms, ammunition, assault rifles and a variety of anti-tank weaponry such as shoulder-fired remote-propelled grenades and other missiles. However, a final decision on the inventory has not been made, the officials said.
raven
@Comrade Jake: I’ll take your comment last night as a compliment.
Jen
I am unsure how supplying weapons to rebels to maybe possibly a bit help them fight a dictator is in any way comparable to McCain’s “WE MUST SEND IN AMERICAN TROOPS AND STOMP THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’
jskyler
Being involved in the Syrian conflict beyond humanitarian aid is a terrible idea which could pose serious consequences to our country AND the Syrian people.
Focusing instead on Andrew Sullivan’s word choices and hyperventilation instead of the issue at hand is absurd.
Alex S.
@NickT:
Yes, for someone with a philosophical background, his thought process is strikingly inconsistent.
cleek
@Comrade Jake:
that’s pretty much how i interpret the fact that he’s gone 3 years without committing us to fighting in Syria.
Emma
All right, last night I was really ticked off. Today I am only “tick.” I read the statement and tried to see the nuance. Still, as many others have pointed out, Syria is a clusterf$ck. I don’t think there’s going to be any decent resolution any time soon. Or any time, period.
Maude
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):
I heard on the radio that along with other countries, the US is sending ammo along with small arms. Other aid is prolly on the drawing board. We already are helping Jordon with refugees, have 400 troops in Turkey with the defense missiles and send medical and other non lethal aid to the rebels.
This is very careful help.
There won’t be a no fly zone.
ETA Obama is not sending the weapons to all the rebels. He is talking to one head of some of the rebels.
f space that
@raven: Hey, Pat Lang ought be all for sending them a Second Amendment solution.
raven
@f space that: I think he’s all pissed off about this.
Comrade Jake
@raven: It was meant that way, no joke.
Brendan in NC
@Mandalay: according to the UN in May, they did. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/06/un-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons/
The report was greeted by “skepticism” from the US, since that might preclude us from intervening.
NickT
@Comrade Jake:
I think Sullivan was absolutely wrong about Libya. It was in our interest to intervene and be seen as supporting an Islamic people in their desire for some sort of control over their own destiny – especially because we could do so relatively cheaply and easily. Yes, the situation in Syria is very different, partly because it’s such a tangle of different groups and partly because Russia is involved – and ultimately because we can’t do this easily or cheaply. I think Obama recognized early on that we would get drawn in to some extent – and has done his best to make sure we don’t get drawn in too far or invest too much. Too many of the media and politicians on both sides of the aisle have a taste for military adventures for us to be able to stay out of it completely.
Comrade Jake
@cleek: Fair enough, but then: why get involved now?
Todd
Said it in an earlier thread – Syria is incredibly messy in ways that firebaggers can’t even conceive.
They’ve got young American dual nationals in their armed services due to conscription, an extremely large expat community spread throughout the US and the Anglosphere, a weird relationship and family kinships with just about everybody in Lebanon (which also has a large expat contingent in the US and the Anglosphere, and is politically active), there’s a shload of Christians (mostly Orthodox and Maronite), and then you’ve got the not so minor stuff with Israel and Iran and Iraq and Turkey. Further, Metropolitan Philip Saliba of the Antiochian Orthodox Church is HQed in New York, is constantly politically engaged, has an urban presence in large parishes around the country and answers to both a Patriarch in Damascus and his fellow bishops located throughout Syria and Lebanon. Metro Phil has at least a half dozen Congressmen in his pocket at any given time.
Nobody knows how this is going to turn out. When Bill Clinton says he has images of Rwanda in mind, it does inspire great fear – those people seriously needed our help, and we (and the world) blew it. I knew a couple (she’s deceased now from COPD) that were officials with the UN high commissioner – they were the responsible officials for refugee camp there. They were sharp people, retired USAF officers and weren’t shy about handing out orders and completing their mission. Their stories of how their camp got overrun despite their pleas for military assistance were appalling, and involve a lot of machetes. I think Clinton will regret that to the end of his days, fears that Syria could go in a bad way with the Christian minority taking the brunt of it and spreading the shit to Lebanon.
EconWatcher
Obama’s statement seems designed to allow anyone to see whatever he wants in it–either a commitment to dig in, or a statement of resolve not to be pushed into anything without due consideration for our national interests. It’s a classic “ending welfare as we know it” kind of formulation.
Why anyone would get excited about this is beyond me. It tells you nothing.
NickT
@Alex S.:
Sullivan may think he has a philosophical background, but when push comes to shove his emotions (and increasingly threadbare religious pretensions) will trump reason every time. Basically he’s a stand-up philosopher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec
eric
I am confused. Why all the nashing of teeth about Obama’s statement? Last time i checked, he was not the decider as to where and when the American military was engaged. Oh, you mean that topic remains out of bounds with our elite media. thus, while i find mccain odious, his views on syria are more important that obamas because he is one of the 535 that really should have the final say on this matter.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Comrade Jake:
In other words: I’d much rather have a president that did exactly what I think. Wouldn’t we all.
But, if they are using chemical weapons, we have an interest.
Maude
Just saw a headline that US is considering a no fly sone in Syria. That’s not what the assistant national security adviser said yesterday.
Beware the media. They are going for drama with their usual ignorant childishness.
At least the IRS is off the front pages.
schrodinger's cat
I wouldn’t pay any attention to Sullivan. His outrage meter is always dialed up to eleven.
Comrade Jake
@NickT:
I’m sorry, but this basically amounts to the argument that we needed to intervene because it was the “right thing to do”. That’s really not a strategic argument for intervention.
Read up on Obama’s decision making behind Libya. It really isn’t a lot much more than choosing to intervene because it was the right thing to do. All of his advisors were against it on strategic grounds.
Just Some Fuckhead
Opposing permawar is now a firebagger position?? WTF, those assholes ruin EVERYTHING.
jayjaybear
Boy, I sure hope I never meet the Obama these people have created in their heads. He sounds like a nasty character.
Sterling
I don’t blame Obama here, since he’s seemed to reluctant to send arms to Syria all along. He wasn’t all that enthusiastic about Libyan intervention, either.
Instead I’m bothered by Clinton pushing us into a war without ever having to worry about the consequences. He lends political credibility to the war-lovers, and his wife seems ready to leap into the presidency with guns blazing. These people. want a permanent war abroad while the country falls apart at home.
mai naem
Well, Bush Jr. certainly showed us proof of his manly manliness when he got us involved in that war in Iraq. You know the one where the Iraqis were going to greet us with chocolates and flowers.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
A thought: Bush went to war twice, once without reason means that Obama is going to put troops in Syria? Even Obama’s record in Libya doesn’t really give much credence to any direct military intervention at this time.
Wag
@NickT:
Exactly.
Jane2
@El Caganer: But he’s bringing you in to it. One day “chemical weapons used” claims in the US and UK paper. Next day, “arming rebels”. Even the US papers, usually so quick to believe it all, are using words like “claims” and “alleged”.
Here we go again.
RP
@Alex S.: THe funniest thing about this is that when I saw this post I assumed that Sullivan was arguing that Obama had betrayed us by not get more involved in Syria. So much for mr. democracy and Arab Spring.
Jane2
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): How do you know that, other than the usual claims? I’m just surprised they finally figured out that the WMD line wouldn’t fly again.
Jane2
@Comrade Jake: Well, that ship sailed the first time they tried the chemical weapons claims a couple of months ago.
Comrade Jake
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
This seems really fairly debatable to me. We have an interest in preventing the proliferation of chemical weapons, that I agree with. What I fail to see is how us providing arms to one side of a civil war is going to effect that.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Sterling:
Evidence?
ETA: I’m all for wondering how much influence Bill would have on Hillary, but from her actions as SoS, I just don’t see it.
The Red Pen
@Todd:
Whoa! Calm down!
If we succumbed to that kind of thinking then Iraq wouldn’t be the stable, peaceful, democracy it is now.
Comrade Jake
@Jane2: The red-line comment was, by all accounts, unscripted and a fuck-up.
Omnes Omnibus
@Comrade Jake: Doing, and being seen to do, the right thing for once in the MENA region could be seen as a strategic reason. Syria doesn’t really have a “right” thing. Best to keep our distance as much as possible.
Gex
When can we accuse Sullivan of being part of the Fifth Column? I’m fucking sick of this Tory Brit mouthing off about shit. Go hate on women who aren’t Thatcher and leave the grown ups to discuss policy.
Suffern ACE
I do have to chuckle that sully is typically so mad at the women involved in the pincer movement that he neglects to see Kerry’s role. I’m wondering if the Clinton he’s comparing to Bush is Hillary and not Bill
NickT
@Comrade Jake:
No, not really, but thanks for trying to reduce my point to your own simplistic approach.
EconWatcher
They laughed at Obama about “leading from behind” in Libya, and maybe the phrase wasn’t the best salesmanship for the policy. But it made a lot of sense: The Mediterannean is a European lake, so the Euros should take the main responsibility for policing it. And they (at least the British and the French) did.
We won’t know for a long time whether we end up with a good outcome in Libya. But I for one am very glad that we put a marker down, that other countries can’t just sit back and make us take all the heat for things that need to be done. They’ve got to put some skin in the game.
Obama’s moves usually have both a short-term tactical purpose and a long-term strategic aim. People who look only at the short term are usually missing something big.
I’ll be surprised if we don’t see some long-term thinking unfold in his Syria policy too. We have a thinking man for a president, firebaggers. Get used to it.
El Caganer
@Jane2: Yeah, the chemical-weapon claims sound kind of hinky to me, too. First, there’s the observer claims that the rebels are using them, then the “100-150 casualties.” We’re talking about a military with air power, artillery, etc. and they would use chemical weapons on a small scale like that (assuming they did use them)? Why?
Obama has managed to keep us out of this so far; I don’t know why it would be to our advantage to jump in now. There is absolutely nothing positive for the USA in getting involved, and probably not much benefit for anybody else.
Jay C
@NickT:
FTFY
Comrade Jake
Things aren’t exactly all roses and chocolate in Libya these days folks:
liberal
@Brendan in NC:
Yeah, that’s what I recall.
Betty Cracker
@Just Some Fuckhead: That’s not how I define firebaggers. My working definition: People on the left who oppose everything Obama does as reflexively and thoughtlessly as teabaggers oppose everything Obama does from the right.
Omnes Omnibus
@Comrade Jake: Anyone who expected Libya to suddenly become a democratic paradise is woefully naive. Let’s see how it shakes out in the long run.
liberal
@Comrade Jake:
Thing is, chemical weapons aren’t all that effective and aren’t really WMD. I attended a talk by Matthew Meselsohn once, and he pointed to studies that say they’re not more effective than high explosive, pound for pound.
Nuclear weapons are another story, but foreign policy in the past decade or so certainly isn’t encouraging states to think they’re more secure without them (or a breakout capability).
Fuzz
I think this has less to do with chemical weapons and more to do with a chance to hit back at the Iranians and Hezbollah now that they’re involved so deeply. The IRGC has advisers there, Hezbollah has already lost as many fighters in Syria as they did in 06 fighting the Israelis, so this may be seen as a way to do to them what they did to us in Iraq. Apparently the government has decided that the Iranians are more of a threat, or at least equal, to the jihadists/AQ types.
raven
@Comrade Jake: Thanks! I laughed.
joes527
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Who are “they?” There has been information that both the government and the rebels have used chemical weapons. As far as I can see, the claim that the government used chemical weapons has been carefully investigated, and the claim that the rebels used chemical weapons has been dismissed out of hand.
Short of depopulating Syria and repopulating it with Walmart greeters, I don’t see how we can help.
liberal
@Comrade Jake:
This is the kind of thought that is behind all liberal interventionist claims.
Problem is states don’t intervene because it’s “the right thing to do”. They intervene because they (rightly or wrongly) perceive it’s in their interest.
KXB
Assistance can mean anything from medical supplies to radios to handing off intelligence on Syrian troop movements. There is nothing so far to suggest that crates of weapons will soon be delivered to the rebels.
Note the behavior of Syria’s neighbors. Israel is worried about Hezbollah’s activities, but so far has been limited in its actions. Turkey has been the victim of Syrian-orchestrated car bombs on its territory, but did not rush troops in, because going to war with you neighbor is always a messy business. Jordan watches from the sidelines as it takes care of thousands of refugees. Meanwhile, Iraq is allowing its airspace to be used by Iran to send more weapons to Assad.
Good luck to anyone who thinks they can sort it out cleanly. It took 300 dead Marines for Reagan to say, “Forget this” and leave.
liberal
@Fuzz:
No, the government is listening to the Israelis (busy committed war crimes by transporting their population to an occupied territory) and the Saudis (a tyranny with half its population enslaved), and acting on their perceived interests, not our real interests, unfortunately.
EconWatcher
@liberal:
I consider the phrase “WMD” itself to be a giant fraud that should never be used again. It was a sneaky way for the Bush Admin to move the goalposts on Iraq, creating strategic ambiguity and deniability: Were we going to war to stop an advanced nuclear weapons program, or were we invading a country because of some rusty, left-over cannisters of chemical weapons?
It was hilarious (in a black humor way) that even after leaving themselves so much wiggle room, they came up with nothing.
Comrade Jake
@liberal: That’s the way they should intervene. But IIRC, the argument for intervention in Libya (as put forth by the administration) mostly centered on preventing a bloodbath.
It’s just not in our national interests to go around preventing bloodbaths all over the world.
liberal
@KXB:
LOL. Turkey already started to wage war on Syria by supporting the rebels.
joes527
@Fuzz: And as the cold war taught us, war by proxy works out so well.
Wait. Sorry. We aren’t supposed to learn from the past because this situation isn’t exactly that situation, so comparing them is out of bounds. I know this because I read it on Balloon Juice.
Patricia Kayden
@NickT: I pretty much gave up on Sullivan after his meltdown re the first debate between Romney and Obama. He went berserk (as did Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz).
If President Obama makes the mistake of sending troops into Syria, then I’ll freak out. That has yet to happen and I hope he holds firm and resists the warmongers like McCain.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Comrade Jake: Yeah, but people aren’t measuring the success in Libya in terms of how wonderful conditions would be on the ground after we intervened, but how little we actually did. We helped keep Gaddafi from slaughtering people in Benghazi, and then we were pretty much done.
This sounds very similar to the constraints Bush 1 had in Iraq: It didn’t matter that we left a dictator in power that we knew liked to invade other countries, we can only push him out of Kuwait and spend a lot of money keeping his airplanes from taking off for a decade.
liberal
@Comrade Jake:
Yes, and anyone who believes propaganda like that is unbelievably naive.
Comrade Jake
@Omnes Omnibus: I don’t have any problem waiting to see how things shake out in the long run. My problem is using that as some sort of justification for our intervention, post-haste.
Davis X. Machina
@liberal: Our troops will be there till the oil is gone. Just like Iraq.
becca
The whole region is combustible. As these strong-arm dictators, tacitly or untacitly supported by the West at least initially, are overthrown, chaos ensues. Pent-up grudges are unleashed.How long does it take for a new equilibrium to be reached?
Syria has a major water shortage, making the situation even more dangerous. I think the course is pretty well set and all efforts to mitigate the damage will bring their own set of risks.
Shakezula
I will give a shit what Sullivan the terminally wet-arsed racist doucheclog thinks on the same day I would consider voting for rebRand Paul. In short, after I have suffered a severe injury to my brain, that radically altered my personality and made me into as big a dickhole as he is.
gocart mozart
@Chyron HR: Sullivan is objectively pro-Assad and of all the columnists on the internet, he is the fifth.
liberal
@EconWatcher:
I’m pretty sure that if you look at the relevant statutes, a hand grenade is officially defined as WMD.
The only weapons that should be declared WMD IMHO would be nukes, and the few bioweapons (hypothetical or not) capable of killing 10^4+ people (particularly those that can spread from one infected person to someone not exposed to the original weapon, which IIRC rules out anthrax).
Comrade Jake
@liberal: It may very well have been propaganda. What I fail to see is what the strategic interests there actually were thought to be.
eric
@gocart mozart: he is the fifthiest columnist of them all
Patricia Kayden
@NickT: Wow. A little extreme? I guess the Brits don’t want to get into a fight with the US over extraditing Snowden,
BGinCHI
It’s the “casually” that pisses Sully off.
He wants to be man-handled; he wants to be bullied; he wants his politicians to treat him like rough trade.
This is why he’ll always be a Republican.
maya
This predicament can be broken down to its simplest components all derived from The Karate Kid:
The enemy of my enemy’s former best friend’s enemy is my friend unless he does something unfriendly-like in which case the equation reverses itself.
This has been our foreign policy for decades, if not a cuppala centuries.
liberal
@joes527:
IMHO that’s not the key issue, but rather that we’re doing these things because our foreign policy is too swayed by the Israelis and Saudis.
We have exactly one strategic interest in the middle east: not controlling the oil itself, but ensuring that no single other hegemon controls it. Why that dictates that we have unfriendly relations with Iran is, to put it mildly, not clear.
liberal
@Comrade Jake:
You failed to see them because they weren’t there.
LAC
@Comrade Jake: Maybe someone needs to whisper in Bubba’s ears about a bloodbath he sidestepped in Rwanda next time he wants to wag his genitalia with McCain about wussiness.
Omnes Omnibus
@liberal: There is a difference between how WMDs are defined in criminal and international law. In international law, they are pretty much NBC weapons.
liberal
@EconWatcher:
I claim that appointing Geithner to SecTreas was a tactical blunder and a strategic blunder.
liberal
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yes, and I claim that “C” and much of “B” should not be considered WMD.
Mandalay
@liberal:
If we measure our presidents by body counts then Jimmy Carter was a great president and FDR was pretty bad.
Villago Delenda Est
When, oh when, are the men in the white coats going to take Sullivan away to a padded cell where his idiotic ejaculations can be safely contained?
BGinCHI
@Villago Delenda Est: I see what you did there.
Gross.
NickT
@Patricia Kayden:
Given that Snowden has apparently moved from heroic champion of American liberty to possible vendor of secrets to the Chinese for the right price, I can see why the Brits might not want the embarrassment of having to try and extradite him. The Ecuadorian embassy is probably full to capacity at this point.
LAC
@BGinCHI: I need my gay males to help me with shoe shopping and telling me why I look bad in polka dots – not inserting themselves in what the US can and cannot do in foreign interventions. We start the week with Greenwald and end it with Sullivan. What’s is next week – Michael Kors weighing in? :) Tom Ford has an opinion?
NickT
@Villago Delenda Est:
I suspect that we’ll see the DailyPish crawling back to some Tina Brown publication at a reduced rate within a year.
Mandalay
@Brendan in NC:
Ha! Excellent. In that case we can provide assistance to both sides, and sit back and enjoy the show.
It will be the Iran-Iraq war all over again.
Omnes Omnibus
@liberal: In that, you are out of step with current international norms. Personally, I would add landmines to the list.
Mike in NC
We’re probably going to spend some time in Provincetown next month and I really hope not to run into Andrew Sullivan and his husband. Wanker.
Hawes
I always thought that Libya was about preserving hope for Egypt and Tunisia to manage a transition to “democracy” without hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring over their borders. What might concern NATO policy makers right now is whether Syria is having an effect on the protests against Turkey. Lebanon was pre-fucked and we fucked up Iraq but good.
Jordan and Turkey are about as good as it gets in the Middle East and the calculus changes if Syrian civil war boils over into those countries. I’m not saying that this means we suddenly have good options, but I think the main desire is to keep the horrors confined to the Lebanon/Syria/Iraq crescent.
Soonergrunt
I don’t know why we would expend one single nickel in support of either side of the Syrian civil war.
It’s like there’s no sense of recent history at all.
BGinCHI
@Soonergrunt: That second sentence doesn’t need those first two words.
pluege
Where we’ve been and are with obama is that he is basically a smarter bush, i.e., bush policies (and sometimes worse) delivered in a more refined way, but bush policies nonetheless. We are up to our eyeballs drowning in 5 years and counting of republican policies with obama continually putting lipstick on the pig. So sure, there is no evidence yet that obama will turn Syria into Iraq-III, but at this point obama has earned every bit of skepticism and jaundiced eye that can be mustered.
The reality is, is that for progressives, obama is a Trojan Horse. He implements the policies of the opposition, but kneecaps progressives’ ability to fight those policies because they come from someone who is supposed to be progressive or at least center-left (neither of which obama is). Yes, any republican: mcain, bush, romeny, etc. are worse. But not by that much and they don’t neuter the ability to fight there awful policies. What is inexcusable at this point (and really always was) is for any sentient being to be an obamabot. There is just no excuse for that other than ignorance and stupidity.
CaseyL
I’d prefer it if the President didn’t feel he had to respond to the War Chorus at all, but then he gets questions like “Why aren’t you taking the Syrian situation seriously?” from reporters.
Seems he’s trying to thread a very small needle: take action that he can point to when asked about it, and then use that as a reason to not do anything more.
NickT
@Soonergrunt:
We shouldn’t, but enough of our politicians, media and self-proclaimed elite find that some heroic meddling in the clusterfucks of others stirs their shriveled loins in ways that those magical pills just can’t manage anymore. I think Obama will have done a good job if he manages to limit our Syrian involvement to supplying small arms to whatever group of terrorists John McCain wants on his tire swing this weekend.
nineone
Step to it, hay-terz. Git yew some, har-har-har.
Mandalay
@jskyler:
Not to mention the knuckle dragging “progressives” here, who choose to focus on Sullivan’s sexuality.
Mnemosyne
@pluege:
And which policies are those, pray tell? Be specific. Was it making Plan B available OTC? Participating in Libya while having the British and French take the lead? Repealing DADT?
Seriously, you think Bush’s reaction to the situation in Syria would have been to stay on the sidelines and provide humanitarian aid, so therefore Obama=Bush?
Omnes Omnibus
@pluege: This happens to not be the case.
NickT
@Mandalay:
Name one person in this thread who focused on the fact that Sullivan is gay. Can you?
piratedan
@Soonergrunt am guessing that perhaps there’s a keen sense of regret that this administration feels post Rwanda, i.e. last Dem administration that sat on its hands while mass murder was being committed and our de facto position of the world’s policeman. The sense of unease if they sat back and watched Russia or China intervene on one or both sides in an area that already has enough players as it is…
NickT
@Omnes Omnibus:
Seldom is the question asked, is our trolls learning.
Alex S.
@pluege:
It’s very easy to declare any kind of foreign policy action “Bush policy”. And it’s very easy to equate progressivism with pacifism. In fact, with the exception of Carter, progressives have no pacifist record (and Carter was not really a progressive anyway). Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Obama, none of them was a pacifist.
Mandalay
@Soonergrunt:
Depends on which recent history you look at. For example, a strong case can be made that intervention in Libya was a good thing. Of course Libya and Syria are not identical scenarios, but there never are identical scenarios for intervention.
I think comment #12 captures the dilemma pretty well:
Omnes Omnibus
@Alex S.: Carter wasn’t a pacifist either.
Internationalism vs isolationism is not a left-right battle. Nor is it a binary construct.
Jane2
@Soonergrunt: Agree completely.
cleek
@pluege:
were you awake during the Bush years?
Jockey Full of Malbec
Oh well. Looks like the money-people have decided that the Old Girl has at least one more Asian land war left in her.
If you wrote a book about how the very notion of what it means to be a Republic was destroyed by some bizarre alliance of radical libertarians, the Chinese government, the Russian petro-mafia (ie the real reason we’ll be going into Syria), and a cadre of domestic leftists (who seem more than a little unclear on how 21st century Nation States need to conduct themselves to remain viable)… it wouldn’t get published. “Too unbelievable” would be the editor’s refrain.
Once the notion of a civic space or a common good becomes completely impossible to conceptualize, they’ll start carving America up like a Christmas turkey… selling the proverbial pieces off to the highest bidder as they go. Until there is nothing left of public power. Only private actors, with immense capital and no restrictions, will remain. With the rest of us begging to be their slaves, if only for that one square meal a day.
I’ve known for some time that this was the trajectory. I just never imagined that the Left would be so eager to help it along.
Mandalay
@NickT:
Sure.
Post 111:
Post 115:
NickT
@cleek:
And possessed of some minimally functional cognitive capacity.
NickT
@Mandalay:
You are seriously citing those lines as evidence that progressives are more interested in Sullivan’s sexuality than what he says – on a thread that is now 137 comments long?
That’s some piss-weak trollery you’ve got there.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mandalay: Yes, on 111. On 115, I am going with no.
Soonergrunt
@Mandalay: “Depends on which recent history you look at.” I’m looking at Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Iraq.
In both cases, we armed the opposition and then later on ended up going there with military personnel for years-long and mostly fruitless wars.
LAC
@pluege: Oh, do tell. How does he kneecap “progressives” into implementing policies? Does he glue their hands together so that they cannot vote? Does he hurt their widdle feelings and force them to stable their magical sparkle ponies? WTF are you talking about? Because, to save us time, you should have typed out the words “Obama” and “corporatist” nine times and hit send for all the sense you are making.
Suffern ACE
@NickT:
Um what is this?
@LAC:
NickT
@LAC:
He does it by casting the magic spell Expelliarmus Teleprompter Bipartisanus.
Surely every “true progressive” knows that by now!
cleek
@Omnes Omnibus:
also 99
El Caganer
@Mandalay: Intervention in Libya was a good thing? In what way? I thought maybe the news I had been hearing was out of date, so I just Googled up “Libya news.” The top stories are low revenues from lack of oil exports and bloody riots in Benghazi. That sounds like the express train to anarchy to me.
NickT
@Suffern ACE:
It’s one throwaway comment which doesn’t remotely add up to Mandalay’s claim that progressives are focusing on Sullivan’s sexuality. Why does Mandalay want to attack progressives, we might well ask.
LAC
@Mandalay: But…but some of my best friends are gay!
Sullivan could bang a room full of victoria secret models and still be the biggest twat in the room, okay?
NickT
@LAC:
Why are progressives focusing on Andrew Sullivan’s banging of Victoria’s Secret models etc etc etc….?
I demand more gratuitous outrage!
Loviatar, Firebagger
A question I’ve asked my Catholic friends quite a bit the last few years. What would it take to shake your faith?
———-
Obots, What would it take to shake your faith?
Lite reading while you consider that question. All the Infrastructure a Tyrant Would Need, Courtesy of Bush and Obama
Suffern ACE
@NickT: You’re worried about progressives. Manadalay was talking about “progressives.” Two different things.
Anyway, it’s just one of those problems I have. When someone says “Find One Example Where”, I am compelled to find it.
It’s amazing I stay partnered.
NickT
@Loviatar, Firebagger:
Remind us all just how it was that Obama forced the Supreme Court into issuing that ruling on DNA swabs.
Let’s see how you defend that claim before we deal with that bizarre list you’ve cobbled together from your frantic little imagination.
Chris Andersen
It seems like every 3-4 weeks Sully has to have a total meltdown of some sort.
If anything, we’re are overdue.
Mandalay
@NickT:
You asked for comments that “focused on the fact that Sullivan is gay” and I provided two clear examples.
And I certainly don’t classify people who choose to focus on Sullivan’s sexuality in a thread about Syria as progressives. I think of them as homophobic.
NickT
@Suffern ACE:
I am sure your partner and my partner would agree with that statement on both our behalves.
Omnes Omnibus
@El Caganer: Is it better than it would have been absent intervention? Unanswerable. Is it going to turn out okay? Too soon to tell. The country was ruled by a dictator with pretty serious quirks for a long time. I would expect that it will take some time before we can really see where the country is headed.
Cassidy
@Loviatar, Firebagger: ts;dr
NickT
@Mandalay:
No, you provided one example of a throwaway line, plus a reference to the fact that Sullivan has a husband, while making a ludicrously exaggerated claim.
That was in a thread of 130+ comments. Pretty weak sauce, even by your easily outraged standards.
LAC
@NickT: I know!! I have to stop – some of my best friends are people who would like to bang victoria secret models. I am sorry…:)
NickT
@LAC:
I’ll confess to mentioning Rick Perry’s hair in another thread – and everyone knows there are rumors that Rick Perry is gay, so clearly Mandalay has to denounce us all as homophobes and “progressives” because, well, it’s Friday!
Of course, the fact that Rick Perry is widely known as Governor Goodhair… why should that matter? Outrage is all.
LAC
@Mandalay: Oh, get off the cross, would you? Someone needs the wood. I made a throwaway joke about Sullivan. He is war mongering moron.
Omnes Omnibus
@Loviatar, Firebagger: Is Obama a perfect president? Nope. Was I expecting a perfect president? Nope.
Seriously, no one who is electable to high office in this country is particularly good on civil liberties. Is that fucked up? Yes, it is.
NickT
@LAC:
Your mention of ahem wood is clearly an attack on someone’s sexuality.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Alex S.:
There’s one (and only one) good thing about religious warfare: You end up with fewer religious fanatics than when you started.
When Christians and Muslims decide that they want to kill each other, I root for injuries.
El Caganer
@Omnes Omnibus: Agree 100% with what you say. Which seems to me to make the grounds for intervention pretty shaky. We’re going to get our regime-change thing going ’cause it’s currently pretty sucky over there and – hey, who knows – it might get better. Doesn’t give me a tingly leg, no, it doesn’t.
ruemara
I prefer to discuss facts not the opinions of very silly men, but I must admit that I love that illustration, Madame Cracker. I also feel very strange to say, “Madame Cracker”. Not very post-racial.
Omnes Omnibus
@El Caganer: I am not on board the intervene in Syria train. Libya was fairly straight forward and limited. Syria just wouldn’t be. And, quite honestly, none of the sides seem particularly worth supporting.
I might be persuadable on efforts aimed at keeping the fight from spilling over into neighboring countries, but that is about it.
different-church-lady
Reverse Cleek.
Loviatar, Firebagger
@Cassidy:
didn’t you mean ts;cr
Cassidy
@NickT: @LAC: Can’t say it’s any different than those who make fun of Christie being fat.
Cassidy
@Loviatar, Firebagger: nope
nineone
@Loviatar, Firebagger:
Well, obviously something more than what you and yours can provide. Apparently it is very important to y’all that it happen, as you all seem very…determined. Good luck with that. 5 years and counting. Some day, one day, I tells ya. Keep hope alive.
Oh, and for the record, it isn’t “faith”. But you know that already, don’t cha?
mk3872
Isn’t Sullivan the same creepy neo-con-turned-dove who predicted Obama would get trounced by Romney last year because Obama had a bad 1st debate?
Why do you even read his garbage?? Sullivan is destined to be the next NYT’s David Brooks.
eemom
I LOVE that picture! Plz to make it appear again.
Loviatar, Firebagger
@nineone:
unsurprisingly thats pretty much the same answer I get from my practicing Catholic friends.
Nothing can shake their faith, not even child raping priests.
LAC
@NickT: I just can’t stop. I need to apologize to someone – woodsmen, perhaps?
Seriously, I got to wash my “homophobic” mouth out with soap but Sullivan gets to write bullshit about racial superiority and revisit the “Bell Curve”?
Cacti
Considering this conflict is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with no clear “good guy” to speak of, and no compelling national interest of our own that’s impacted, I’m extremely skeptical of increasing our footprint there.
Cassidy
@Loviatar, Firebagger: Yup, because Obama is just like a pedophile priest. Gods you people are stupid. How sad do you have to be to try and come up with the most offensive metaphors your tiny minds can think of just to get attention and discredit one
uppity negroman?different-church-lady
@Betty Cracker:
It ought to be dialed back to its original definition: a person on the left who opposes everything Obama does so much that they’re willing to embrace and align with the rhetoric of the rabid right.
Which is not what Sullivan is doing here. Sullivan saying, “Obama’s doing something (a bit like what) McCain wants! Therefore it must be a wrong, horrible thing!”
different-church-lady
@Loviatar, Firebagger: Because if a priest rapes a child, and the Catholic Church does nothing, that proves Jesus never existed?
Cacti
@different-church-lady:
For an example, just visit (I hate the) Democratic (president) Underground sometime.
Mnemosyne
@Soonergrunt:
See, now, this actually seems like a rational argument here — the worry is not that Obama is going to be sending troops to Syria before the end of his term, but that a future president is going to have to try and clean up the mess later that intervention might cause.
GregB
This is what could end up being President Obama’s Waterloo. There will be nothing good that comes from this.
Fool’s errand is written all over this.
And Bill Clinton can go fuck himself.
different-church-lady
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):
Well why in the world would anyone need to know that before forming a rock-hard, intractable opinion on the matter?
Pococurante
@liberal:
Our country’s current definition of “WMD” would include the tennis ball cannons we made as kids. And in fact people are being prosecuted with definitions so loose that one wonders when did IEDs became WMDs.
Cacti
@Mnemosyne:
Also too, considering the Assad forces have Russia for a benefactor, I have no reason to think that this conflict will resolve quickly or easily.
nineone
@Loviatar, Firebagger: Ooooh, misdirection. I did NOT see that coming. What, no Hitler reference?
Yeah, you know. Ta.
Hoodie
I have no delusions that Obama is not an interventionist, but he seems to be more in the old school “arsenal for democracy” a la FDR, instead of taking pre-emptive action per Bush, McCain and the neocons. It may be more than a coinkydink that this is occurring as Assad is starting to get an upper hand with the involvement of Hezbollah. The “red line” stuff may have been to give Obama the option to up the ante because they may have known for quite a while that Assad used sarin. Because the Assad clan is from a minority, there was always a chance it would be paranoid and stupid enough to use chemical weapons. After all, why did they have them in the first place? Not sure what Obama’s long term strategy is, it may be to try to get some regional power, like the Turks, to step in. Libya was to some degree a European operation, with Obama “leading from behind.” He didn’t commit any real resources until the British and French committed to the action, and he kept American involvement limited to the areas in which we have clear superiority, e.g., destroying the antiaircraft system, armament and logistics. Arming the rebels will likely either spur Assad to negotiate or escalate, the latter of which may heighten the risk that someone like the Turks will be drawn in because overzealous Syrian forces will overstep the border or fire into Turkish territory too many times. I imagine Erdogan would’t exactly mind the distraction of a war with Syria, he just needs the proper provocation. Can’t imagine Turks are too comfortable with Assad using sarin next door. It’s a very dangerous game, and could end in disaster, but the whole place is a mess to begin with.
Cacti
@Hoodie:
And it will almost certainly persuade Russia to supply more offensive weaponry to Assad.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Cacti:
This (plus the promise of sweet, hard currency in exchange for Russian weapons) is really all you need to know about what drives Russia’s interests in Syria.
So… we’re back to the days of Proxy Wars. Arming rebels to undermine Russian interests in the region.
Won’t that end well.
Soonergrunt
@Omnes Omnibus: “I might be persuadable on efforts aimed at keeping the fight from spilling over into neighboring countries, but that is about it.”
And I’m not sure how you do that, absent a military intervention and the creation of no-go areas.
Omnes Omnibus
@Soonergrunt: Aye, there’s the rub. We don’t want it to become a regional war, but the steps we could take to prevent it might just suck us in. Hence, my reluctance to get in at all.
scott
I agree with Betty that it makes sense not make judgments on this until Obama actually did the thing that Sullivan fears. If he did launch military attacks in Syria, though, would he really be wrong? Once again, we’d be unleashing violence in the Middle East not in self-defense or (despite the hagiography to the contrary) because one side is transparently more saintly than the other, but because our neo-con Beltway masters have intimidated another administration into doing something stupid in the name of resolve, strength, credibility, etc. He’d be making a huge mistake that in any fair progressive or liberal reading would stain his record, but we’ll have to see whether he’s dumb enough to make it. I hope not.
Pococurante
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers?
Personally I have no problem supporting the group of rebels who in this case are the grass caught between extremist proxies that would love to continue Syria’s role as Next Best Destabilizer of The MENA.
But then I supported intervention in Yugoslavia (before Kosovo), Rwanda, Kuwait, Afghanistan II and, more recently, Libya.
I had no problem with the CW redline for that matter.
I suppose that makes me a liberal interventionist – I prefer Chaotic Good. :P
@ruemara:
To quote Roger Zelazney from Lord of Light, “… it smacks of an ancient jest!”
@Omnes Omnibus: “Intervene” is a sliding continuum. It doesn’t automatically equate to Iraq.
We “intervened” in Libya fairly passively, and we’re again passively intervening in Syria.
pluege
@LAC: please tell me you are not that stupid that you don’t know what kneecapping means. If you are that stupid, try looking it up. And even worse for you, if you do know what kneecapping means and you still don’t know or see how progressive objections to obama’s policies are muted, restrained, and silenced because obama calls himself a Democrat
Mike E
It seemed that the benchmark for the W Admin was, when challenged by the Brer Rabbit analog, they’d throw us in the briar patch every damn time. I have yet to see this with O, and this gives me a level of relief that I hadn’t reached in a full 8 year period a while back.
eta @pluege: stop it. Just, stop.
Pococurante
@Hoodie: Good point. Needs more Line Break™ though.
Omnes Omnibus
@Pococurante: I am aware of the varying degrees of involvement that are available. At present and under the current circumstances, I am not in favor of getting in any deeper. I doubt we can make the situation better through our involvement. That being the case, it is best to stay out.
Soonergrunt
@pluege: I know what you’re talking about. I don’t buy your bullshit premise. I don’t know anybody whose muting progressive objections. It’s not happening. The fact that nobody listens to you is because you are trying to advance unworkable blue-sky poly-sci 101 positions to people who live and work in the real world.
You being a piss-poor salesman of a defective product that nobody wants to buy is your group of problems to solve.
different-church-lady
@pluege:
I’d say “fixed that for you”, but fixing isn’t the right term, since what I’m actually doing is being snarky in the service of making a point.
some guy
Al Qaeda is getting their asses handed to them, so now is the time to come to their aid. freaking brilliant. US taxpayer supported beheadings, here we go!
El Cid
So, when you like Sullivan, he’s not like a firebagger or right wing petulant entitled race baiting snit, but when you don’t like him, he is?
qwerty42
Syria is a mistake, and will have no happy outcome. The amount of support necessary to accomplish anything will be greater than the country will support — no matter the favorable reviews this crazy decision gets from the Village. This will always be more popular inside the Beltway than anywhere else. And McCain’s rants would have us at war with the Syrian government. We did not handle the civil war in Iraq so well and this will be worse — I see no reason to expect anything better. There are any number of actors who will always have a greater interest in the outcome than the US ever will, and commitment of blood and treasure (and there will be blood) will end up being far more than the country will accept.
ranchandsyrup
To perpetuate Sully’s “biased but balanced” schtick, he’s gotta throw red meat to his conservative and librul readers from time to time. If he steps in it when doing so, he may apologize after a lengthy attempt at avoiding to apologize. Or he may go Greenwald and say everyone is too stupid to understand him.
some guy
@qwerty42:
This will always be more popular inside the Beltway than anywhere else.
the guests on the Diane Rehm show this morning were practically cumming in their pants at the very idea of supporting the jihadis in Syria. Up With Sharia, peoplez!
Omnes Omnibus
@El Cid: I think he is a full time douchecanoe.
some guy
In a video posted Tuesday on YouTube, a man shows the dead bodies of several Shiite Syrians in Hatla, and angrily calls on his fellow Sunnis to “massacre” their Shiite compatriots. The man speaking is not Syrian, he is Kuwaiti, and very few of the armed “rebels” seen with him in the video sound Syrian — the accents are largely Kuwaiti and Iraqi. There were other, similar videos posted of the alleged massacre in Hatla.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=783_1371048257
now with even more war crimes!
NickT
@pluege:
So your argument is that Barack Obama is shooting people in the kneecap with a pistol as a punishment on behalf of one side of an Irish sectarian quarrel?
Interesting. Deranged, but interesting.
Loneoak
“Obama betrayed us” simply means “My projected fantasies of Obama betrayed me.” The firebaggers and the Sullys of the world have rather divergent projected fantasies, yet somehow they were both betrayed.
Any day now Edward Snowden will disclose the precise mechanisms of this betrayal.
I for one preemptively blame Obama for betraying their projected fantasies.
Trollhattan
Gosh, I’m beginning to suspect Sully falls on the port side of his beloved bell curve.
Pococurante
@Omnes Omnibus: /shrug
Unfortunately there are any number of players who don’t share that compunction. Obama could call off whatever he is going to do and turn his back on the situation yet we will still incur bad outcomes.
We’re witnessing the long overdue bill on The Great Game mixed with the Islamic Reformation.
NickT
@Omnes Omnibus:
Why are you canoeistophobic?
LAC
@pluege: Still didn’t answer my question. So thanks for the overlong explanation saying nothing – it is what Fridays are all about, right?
Suffern ACE
@scott: You see, I don’t think that the neocon insistance of fighting Syria to defeat Iran is what is driving this decision. Yes, there has been a farily constant barrage of articles over the past three years on the need to intervene in Syria to weaken Iran. Heck, I believe Newt Gingrich called Syria “Iran’s Path to the Sea” for some reason.
I don’t think McCain factors at all in this decision. This is actually the outcome of debates between Democrats inside the administration. Sullivan is correct – team Biden lost this one. The problem with the non-interventionist position is that it needs to constantly win these debates to be effective. Against the desire to do something to help those poor Syrians, the realists who ask “why? how? what good would that do?” don’t stand a chance over the long haul, because once they lose, we are intervening. And of course, when our half-assed “only small arms” solution doesn’t bring the peace and stability that is the objective, they will get the blame for “holding us back from being effective.”
At the same time, the neocons are still shit. But this one is on the Democrats.
qwerty42
@some guy: Has Fred Hiatt delivered a pronouncement yet? In the end, of course, they can’t be satisfied with “just” weapons and a no-fly zone. They will want lots more. And when it fails, it will be because the administration did not do enough. So, I’m with Sullivan on this. It is a huge, avoidable mistake.
Trollhattan
@Cacti:
Yup. Proxy war seems like the most apt description and a messy one to boot, with a bazillion messy alliances and a lot of very nervous neighbors. I don’t doubt there’s a heavy CIA presence but will be very surprised if we sent in any troops or even aircraft, even now.
Wish Russia would piss the hell off, but they’re dug in deep.
Pococurante
@Suffern ACE:
@I’ll point you to my response to OO:
The problem with that representation of a “realist” is it ignores that we will incur a bad outcome regardless.
IM(!H)O that’s not realistic thinking and no less polemical than your hypothetical “interventionist”. If we’re going to catch the blowback it makes sense to have some involvement.
Beer Summits don’t qualify of course.
nineone
They are so cute when they are losing, no? Yo, you’re out of ammo. Throw the bully pulpit.
some guy
@qwerty42:
sort of disagree. the jihadis are losing on all fronts, and have resorted to revenge massacres and shelling civilians away from the front. the whole point of getting involved now is to keep Al Qaeda and the thieves anmd looters of the FSA in the game. Winning the civil war isn’t the objective, keeping the civil war going is. at least within the non-insane faction of the warmongers. Hiatt and his NeoCon pals will never be satisfied, period, and on that I do agree.
LAC
@scott: Well, if Obama didn’t rush into Libya despite McGrumpy and the beltway gang of war mongers screeching, why would he be intimidated to do it now in Syria?
Suffern ACE
@Trollhattan: Why should Russia piss off? It’s not Russia’s fault that the US supply routes into Afghanistan pass through his territory and the always stable Pakistan. Putin’s not the one who stayed there and throught it was a good idea to entrench himself there. Putin has quite a bit of leverage for the next few years because of that. And that isn’t his problem.
Soonergrunt
@Pococurante: “If we’re going to catch the blowback it makes sense to have some involvement.”
I would respectfully submit that if we’re going to catch blowback, then we should do it on the cheap and not spend any of the American taxpayers’ money nor the blood of our young on this fool’s errand.
Chyron HR
@El Cid:
Who the fuck LIKES Sullivan?
MomSense
@NickT:
You win!
some guy
I think a huge part of the problem is reporters like Anne Barnard of the Times, whose every “story” is just so much thinly-translated gruel, full of misinformation and racist, sectarian claptrap forwarded directly from the Hariri press office. is it too much to ask the Times to send a reporter who actually, you know, speaks or reads Arabic? or maybe does actual reporting rather than cheerleading?
Betty Cracker
@qwerty42: See, here’s where I’m either missing something or others who are opposed to the intervention (and I definitely am opposed to it too) are assuming facts not in evidence. You say there will definitely be blood. Really?
Look at the wording of that White House statement quoted above. It’s mealy-mouthed, it commits to nothing and it was issued by a person almost no one outside the Beltway has ever heard of. Shock ‘n Awe it ain’t.
Pococurante
A classic example of why I dislike Juan Cole:
Ghandi tactics. Nice.
For your amusement, Ghandi quotes that range from using the atomic bomb, endorsing violence over non-violence, and of course everyone’s favorite, that the Jews should have embraced the Holocaust.
Fortunately for Ghandi all he faced were the British. Cole’s Ghandian moderates live in this world and time.
@Soonergrunt: No argument here. I don’t think we need our troops anywhere near Syria.
NickT
@Betty Cracker:
They didn’t even say that the Syrians would greet us with flowers.
patroclus
I think Sully and the firebaggers are perhaps reading too much into what Obama is saying and might end up doing, but I’m actually glad that they’re raising a stink because I don’t want to get involved militarily in Syria. Period. Exclamation point. Humanitarian assistance is fine; helping Jordan and Turkey with the refugees is a good idea, but there’s a red line with me about military assistance and I don’t want Obama to cross it. If the Europeans want to do it, they’re making a big mistake too.
Pococurante
@Pococurante: Someday I’m going to remember that editing the same post more than twice puts it in moderation. :P
MomSense
@Omnes Omnibus:
This is exactly the problem and another concern is that you end up having additional countries fight proxy wars. Jordan seems to be the partner we are working with to get a better handle on who all the various factions are within the larger group we are calling “the rebels”.
Trollhattan
@Suffern ACE:
Russia doesn’t want to lose a big weapons export client. That’s why they’re backing Assad the younger and now have considerable blood and guts on their hands.
Trollhattan
@Chyron HR:
Sullivan!
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Pococurante:
Libya doesn’t have a coastline that Russia needs to sell oil.
The US role in Syria won’t stay ‘passive’ for long.
MomSense
@Betty Cracker:
May I add that from their opposite sides they share a reflexive dislike and mistrust for our government and a predilection to believe in conspiracy theories.
NickT
@MomSense:
Scully: “In short, Roky showed signs of what is known as a fantasy-prone personality.”
Jose Chung: “Agent Scully, you are so kind-hearted. He’s a nut.”
some guy
this kind of ignorance cracks me up. there is no secret who the rebel factions are to anybody who reads the non-US press. There are the local and foreign permutations of the Muslim Brotherhood militias, funded by the Saudi’s, and there is al Nusrah, funded by the Qatari’s. the “battalions” and the “brigades” of both groups have made it abundantly clear who they are and what kind of Islamist state they desire. just because you haven’t read it in the Times or the Post (or the US TV networks) doesn’t mean the rest of the world is clueless to the rabidly sectarian nature of the Syrian rebels, or their reputation for looting, thievery, and their continued massacres of civilians.
MomSense
@NickT:
Perfect.
I have teabaggers and firebaggers as facebook friends and they say almost the exact same things only with slightly different “reasoning”.
Soonergrunt
@Pococurante: cleared.
NickT
@MomSense:
Speaking of everyone’s favorite band of conspiracy theorists:
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/snowden-and-greenwald-beginning-to-self-destruct-the-nation-and-mother-jones-raise-questions/
Pococurante
@Soonergrunt: Thanks, sorry about that.
different-church-lady
@MomSense:
For about a year now I’ve been thinking, “The far left and the far right are equally paranoid. The only difference is the far right is paranoid about guns and the far left is paranoid about information.”
Suffern ACE
@Pococurante: O.K. the whole piece isn’t that bad, but jeepers. Why not just say you don’t know what to do? The Syrian opposition fighters have asked for BOOOM BOOOM and PEW! PEW! and they’ll already be a little disappointed that they are probably only going to get rat-a-tat-tat. I’m sure they would be very pissed as well as confused were we to get back to them with rugs to lay down on.
Pococurante
@MomSense: I found myself last night defending fluoridated water to a firebagger friend.
@Suffern ACE: Yup. :)
Higgs Boson's Mate
One of the effects of the revolution in Libya is that the central government is now too weak to exert control over many of the militias which are now holding onto their weapons and the territory they captured. It would not surprise me to see the same thing happen in Syria should we intervene on behalf of the rebels.
CaseyL
I’d be interested in knowing if the Obama Administration has a strategic vision at all in this thing, and if the decision to arm the anti-Assad forces is in service to that. By “strategic,” I mean something more long-term than shutting up the War Chorus (for now) and scratching that interventionist itch… and more about serving American interests than Israeli ones.
The Arab world is engaged in a long war between Shia and Sunni factions. Years of repressive rule by one or the other is followed by years of repressive rule by the opposite faction. The cycle never stops; whoever is in charge revenges the prior atrocities by committing new ones.
This would not be of geopolitical importance elsewhere except for two things: oil and non-state terrorism. Well, three, if you count Israel, but I really do think the Obama Administration wants to move beyond an Israel-centric Mid-East policy. So my guess is that the first two factors are the main drivers.
If nothing can be done to reconcile the two factions, then the next best thing is to contain the internecine conflict, keep it from affecting other regions. One way to do that is to keep the fight focused on one another. That was the theory behind “terrorist flypaper,” one of the many rationalizations for the war in Iraq. It failed on a Grand Guignol scale. But if you start with the premise that the idea has some strategic value, the question is whether the theory failed in Iraq because it was unworkable, or because the execution was incompetent.
(I’m not going to address moral-ethical and humanitarian concerns here; the Mid East is where moral-ethical and humanitarian concerns die a ghastly death. No regime in the Mid East can be described as practicing “good government” in the Western sense of the term. That’s why I, personally, wish we could just leave the region and let it work out its destiny on its own; and we likely would, if not for the oil and non-state terrorism issues.)
So. If Obama has any long-term strategic goals here, is it possible he’s going for a competent variant of the containment theory? That would be awfully realpolitik of him.
MomSense
@Pococurante:
I’m waiting for the firebaggers to discover haarp rings and then I’ll know the asteroid is just about to hit.
Keith G
@Maude: A no fly zone is no small deal. It will require thousands of personnel, a big footprint somewhere, security forces rescue force, and an initial air to ground assault on many locations within Syria. This May be thought of as the least awful alternative, but it is still awful.
Unfortunately Sully’s hysteria derails the reality that there is much to worry about.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Keith G:
Incirlik Air Base is located near Adana, Turkey. Aircraft stationed there could easily over fly all of Syria. At present US Airmen make up the majority of base personnel. There are approximately 5000 US personnel stationed at Incirlik.
Trollhattan
@Keith G:
Further, IIUC Syria has a pretty sophisticated air defense system, far more than Libya had. Too, there’s the thorny location of Lebanon, so annoyingly in the way between Damascus and the Mediterranean. Big deal is quite right.
Pococurante
@Higgs Boson’s Mate: It’s a bad situation in Libya. It’s pretty bad in Iraq still.
But at least now there is a better chance the population will grow the government they want rather than have despotism imposed on them with support from realpolitik great powers.
I agree it will be the same situation with Syria.
It takes a long time, generations really, for this kind of evolution. It’s a kind of media fatigue, I think, that causes a lot of us to wish this away before events really have time to shake out.
@MomSense: Ah, that and genetic altering jet contrails. My firebagger friends and family already have discovered them, but they’ve learned to take me off those distribution lists. :)
Soonergrunt
@Pococurante: no problem.
Soonergrunt
@Suffern ACE: I for one would rather have rat-a-tat-tat than pew-pew any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
But we shouldn’t be giving anybody the boom-boom.
Corner Stone
@Keith G:
This is moving forward with the assumption that other regional powers would allow us to install a no fly zone, at this point.
Corner Stone
@Suffern ACE: The Republicans are coalescing on the meme that the Obama admin waited too long and that will make everything much harder.
Mnemosyne
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
IIRC, the group that killed the US ambassador and three others at Benghazi was a Libyan Islamist militia that didn’t have any al-Qaeda ties.
Suffern ACE
@Corner Stone: It is very unlikely that the UN would agree to a no fly zone. We MAY be able to convince Russia and China to let us do that, but the trading that would need to go on to get that vote is hardly worth it. Since they’re so gung ho about it, why doesn’t the UK agree to let the Russian share a navy base with them in Malta?
Without the UN at least blessing a no fly zone, I believe that the idea that Obama was “worse than Bush” would actually be true.
Soonergrunt
@Higgs Boson’s Mate: And it is HIGHLY unlikely that Turkey will allow Incirlik to be used to attack Syria.
I went through Incirlik once. Was returning to Afghanistan from leave on chartered commercial flight to Kuwait and one of the troops on the plane got sick. Rumor was appendicitis. This was right after Bush announced the surge policy into Iraq. The pilot declared an inflight medical emergency, and we landed at Incirlik. You would have thought the US government had attempted to invade our “ally” Turkey. The plane was met by Turkish vehicles with crew-served weapons. The US base commander had to negotiate to get the sick troop off the plane and to the hospital. Then, after three hours, we all had to deplane at the end of the runway, and have our bags and the entire aircraft searched. Since this was a flight of personnel on leave, there were no weapons or equipment on the plane. Just us and our personal property like laptops, mp3 players, etc. Then we were escorted to temporary billets on the opposite side of the runway from any of the facilities, and held there for two days, not allowed to leave the compound. We were told that we risked being arrested or shot. After a couple of days, we were allowed to get back on the plane and continue to Kuwait.
Soonergrunt
@Corner Stone: fuck them. Fuck all of them with an anthrax-coated, nail-spiked baseball bat.
Davis X. Machina
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
Does Russia need Syria to move Russian oil?
Or does Russia need Syrian oil for herself, despite being responsible for 13% of world production?
It’s not clear what’s implied here.
Ruckus
@Pococurante:
If the outcome is going to be the same(bad or good) what is the point of being involved at all?
@Omnes Omnibus:
Is right. Being involved doesn’t look like it will bring any positives, short or long term.
So once again, what’s the point?
ETA In for a pint, in for a pound? Enjoying a good fight? Getting our names up on a bronze plaque somewhere?
MeDrewNotYou
@Soonergrunt: I’m not dead set against giving people the boom-boom. Allow me to introduce a ticking time bomb scenario.
You’re at the bar with friends, drinking and having a good time. Across the room you see an attractive male/female. As the night goes on, he/she keeps looking your way and smiling. You finally walk over and the two of you hit it off, leaving for ‘coffee.’ If boom-boom is beneficial to both of your interests, is it not morally acceptable to provide them with the boom-boom in this situation? Perhaps even morally required?
Just make sure you minimize collateral damage and use protection.
Jockey Full of Malbec
@Davis X. Machina:
Syria has provided Russia (and before that the old USSR) with its only Mediterranean naval base for decades (Tartus). And they are quite eager to get a certain pipeline repaired or replaced so they can get their (Russian) oil to more markets by sea.
There’s also the small matter of $4 Billions’ worth of Russian weapons contracts with Syria, and $1-2 Billion in other exports.
Just imagine: Russia sells oil to the Mediterranean market (including Israel). The Israelis then use the oil to fuel US-built planes, some of which will get shot down by Russian S-300s over Syria.
Putin gets oil money, arms money, AND a free live weapons test, to boot. Not to mention a boost in domestic popularity (the Russian Orthodox Church –which he’s been leveraging much as Franco leveraged the Catholic Church in Spain– will loudly approve of the ‘support the Christian regime” angle). For Putin, this is a no-brainer.
I have no idea why Pres Obama would think this is a good idea. Someone who has his ear has been giving him some very, very bad advice.
Soonergrunt
@MeDrewNotYou: If I gave him/her the boom boom, it would be under strenuous protest from a partner entity, so I have to declare that in my case, it would in fact be morally unacceptable to provide the boom boom. As a matter of fact, just thinking about providing the boom boom is highly likely to cause severe problems with the citizenry.
ffredpalakon
I really envy the barista who makes a mistake with Andrew Sullivan’s latte and gets to hear a monologue from Julius Caesar. Oh, and btw, “Local Man Cannot Operate Beard Trimmer”.
Corner Stone
@MeDrewNotYou: Sadly, I’m thinking rat-a-tat-tat may be all the support I could offer.
They may then decide to retaliate with pew pew.
Damn, foreign relations are very difficult.
liberal
@Hoodie:
I would have thought that Turkey’s supporting the rebels is in fact already an act of war, though I’m not an international law expert.
MeDrewNotYou
@Soonergrunt: You’re thinking of providing the boom-boom unilaterally and of course that’s going to piss some people off. What you need to do is convince your allies and partners that providing the boom-boom is in everyone’s interest. Doing things multilaterally can be tricky, but it’s the best way to deal with the boom-boom. It ain’t always easy, but that’s life.
@Corner Stone: Well, I suppose not every situation requires the boom-boom. It isn’t as spectacular, but a strategic rat-a-tat-tat is sometimes all that’s needed. Besides, providing the boom-boom requires a lot of planning and build up and isn’t always worth it.
Corner Stone
Beyond Russia, which is the real wildcard here, why do we think Iran isn’t willing to escalate their support and presence in support for Assad?
cokane
Sullivan can’t help but make political issues about himself. Civil war in Syria with huge civilian casualties. What does he write about? “I vote for Obama twice, but I didn’t vote for this!”
Not saying USA should get involved. But, if you’re going to write about Syria, maybe should write something about what’s happening in Syria. And this is “journalism” Sullivan expects people to pay for?
MeDrewNotYou
@Corner Stone: Completely pulling this out of my ass, but maybe Iran doesn’t want to get too involved and risk pissing of the Israelis more than usual. I’m sure Netanyahu would love to have an excuse to launch aerial strikes on Iran (nuclear program and supply routes/depots destined for Syria) and further Iranian commitment could provide a decent one.
On the other hand, Bibi seems reluctant to do anything without US support and President Obama has made pretty clear that we won’t have their backs if they try to bomb Iranian nuke sites. Personally I doubt any degree of entanglement in Syria would lead to us approving Israeli strikes into Iran; Obama’s primary goal seems to be to keep things from spiraling out of control and that would be a surefire way to do just that.
e.a.f.
As the old expression goes, Charity begins at home. The U.S.A. ought to stay out of Syria and spent the taxpayers’ money on things which are needed in America. The U.S.A. is running such a huge deficiet they now “sequeister”. There is no need for that if the military budget was less. Stay home. Americans need services. Enough Americans have paid for foreign wars with their bodies and minds. there are so many wounded veterans they can’t all be treated.
Let the rest of the world deal with Syria. It is not the U.S.A.’s responsibility to get involved. Yes, a lot of civilians are being killed in Syria but so are American civilivans being killed in their own country by guns. The government might want to spend a few dollars on mental health so there might be less mass shootings.
The number of Americans killed each year by drunk drivers, guns, and an inadequate medical system most likely is equal to those killed in Syria. American tax dollars ought to be spent on Americans, not foreign wars.
Corner Stone
@MeDrewNotYou: Personally, IMO, Iran will never allow Assad to fall. That doesn’t mean that Assad will “not” fall, but to me, I feel that Iran has been and will continue to give all support possible to Assad. They aren’t going to allow a Sunni majority between them and the Med.
If they can stop it.
MeDrewNotYou
@Corner Stone: I only have a superficial understanding of most of the MENA, but what you say rings true. A lot of Iran’s foreign policy and actions seems motivated by the desire to keep Sunnis at bay. I don’t know too much of the regions history either (big surprise, I know) but I know that the Sunni vs Shia conflict is as bad as the Catholic vs Protestant conflict during the Reformation. Things aren’t as bloody, but both sides have long memories of how they were treated by the other and you can’t really blame the Shia minority for being quite wary.
Ed Drone
A sage and logical comment from a truly informed source.
Check out his this-is-the-way-to-go-but-no-one-will-recommend-it solution (get in it for the long haul, by avoiding the military route as much as possible). I’m not sure the Ghandi route works in the Muslim world, but it’s a damned sight better than the bucket-of-shit-with-no-bucket we’re being peddled.
Ed
fuckwit
I think the Rethugs latest strategy is to try to destroy the left with hysteria and panic.
They studied, and noticed that outrage tends to drive the left. It sure does drive my fucking inbox: just about every appeal for fundraising is some “OUTRAGEOUS” or “SHOCKING” thing.
So here they’re in classic Karl Rove fashion trying to turn this lefty tendency towards hysteria against itself.
Outrage! Shocking!
Pfui.
fuckwit
As for boom boom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj4ciJk34
glasnost
Without even attempting to follow the twists and turns of this debate, arming the Sunni rebels in Syria is a no-brainer, should have been done years ago, and a no-fly-zone imposed by the U.S. Air Force is a very plausibly worth it policy.
For those who haven’t noticed, not only has years of the continuance of this war made all sides involved more violent and more extreme than when they start, but the entire region is breaking out in Sunni-Shiite massacres. That’s what continuing wars do – get crazier and crazier. Especially asymettric, civil, and sectarian wars.
Wars breed terrorists and terrorists breed wars. The existence of war anywhere makes America less safe. A safe america is a planet without war.
So it needs to end, and every day it goes on the risk of it spreading and growing gets bigger. Unfortunately, we’ve been trying to get the sides involved to voluntarily come to the table and it’s not working out. So someone needs to lose.
arming the Sunni rebels costs us virtually nothing and makes the day Assad loses come sooner than not doing it. Assad losing needs to happen pronto, regardless of what comes next. There is no governance outcome in Syria worse than Assad not losing. He’s not holding onto power without massacring or forced-evicting 80% of the Syrian population. There are some Assad losing outcomes where the losers don’t get straight-out genocided. There are no Assad winning outcomes like that. And 10 million refugees permanently stuck in Turkey is a nice little setup for, oh, four more decades of war and terrorism-breeding permanent fistfight.
Assad’s loyal clique is 20% of the population, and nobody in their right mind supports 20% of the population’s quest to crush 80%. So, since, as we established, someone has to lose, it has to be Assad. and it costs us a rounding error. It’s a goddamn fucking no brainer.
All the blowback and adverse consequences you might worry about in other circumstances, legitimately, are moot in this one. You won’t accidentally make the war bloodier; it’s already total war. You won’t have more people dying in the end- the current military stalemate is as deadly as it gets. Both sides are already getting amply sufficient weapons to kill each other for 10 more years if we do nothing. iran can’t realistically up its involvement any further than it already has without invading Iraq/Jordan, and unless you expect Russia to bring the Russian Air Force in to protect a third-rate client, regional blowback is unlikely.
So this is a no-brainer, and the smart realist logic for intervention goes in the same direction as the humanitarian one, as is often the case. Furthermore, a no-fly zone is also pretty cheap compared to our other misadventures and, as a bonus, actually stands a good chance of whittling the war extension period to 6-12 months.
It’s frustrating the extent to which people blindly associate situations that have something in common as if they have everything in common. Here’s a handy wall chart. Giving people weapons and using the U.S. Air Force: inexpensive, kills few or none americans, rarely lasts very long. Boots on the ground: Expensive, kills a lot of americans, never seems to end.
That’s not a blanket endorsement of bombing random international forces we don’t like, either. Again, we’re not starting a war here, we’re facing a need to stop one that has ramped itself quite a long way up despite our total passivity. Starting war DNE stopping war. This is a fundamental difference.
I have never thought of myself as a liberal hawk, but if liberal hawk just means “wants to use the U.S. air force to stop civil wars in the smallish number of situations where an evil minority ruling power can be cast down amidst an otherwise horrific stalemate”, then I guess you can buy me the tote bag.
Suffern ACE
@glasnost: well that just might work. However, the no fly zone that the wsj reported on is basically 25 miles into Syria from Jordan. We can do that because Jordan will be protecting itself from attack because it is training refugees to be soldiers. 25 miles is not going to be enough so all we would be doing is sending more militias to continue the war to a stalemate.
If we want to do more, the UN would need to authorize us or perhaps Congress would declare war on Syria or well, we could just do it because we can and we felt like it. Or maybe we will just accidentally keep flying over Syria and claim we are lost. But don’t tell me you’d be ok with an illegal war.
We are doing all of this so that only one in five people will be killed or exiled. That does not seem worth it.
Davis X. Machina
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
Couch cushion change. They sell more natural gas than that to Germany in a month.
mclaren
Sub-par trolling, Betty. Instead “step back from the ledge” you need to try something more along the lines of lines “you’re off your meds” or “don’t worry, the rabies vaccine is on the way.” Maybe that’ll get a reaction.
mclaren
@glasnost:
No, America going in and destroying states and leaving them in chaos is what breeds terrorists.
As for “terrorists breed wars,” that’s so laughable it’s beyond ridiculous. Name one (1) group of terrorists who have invaded a major nation and bombed its cities into rubble within the last 30 years. America has of course done this many times, ever since the Vietnam war.
Any observer even marginally in touch with reality realizes that it is America with its military spending which accounts for circa 60% of global military spending right now which starts wars. America bombs cities and burns brown babies and it’s the only country in the world right now that does this on a major scale. Terrorists blow up a few dozen innocent women and children people per year. America kills thousands of innocent women and children per year. The death toll from America’s Iraq invasion was estimated by The Lancet at well over a million. All the terrorist attacks over the last 50 years are a rounding error compared to the Himalayan mountains of corpses America has piled up in its various wars from the 1960s onward.