Syria: WMD's

[Sean]

I listened on CPAN to the debate in the British Parliament about whether or not they would stand with us on this...

The PM certainly means well, but weak as water...

(Say what you want about about George W. Bush, he'd have had you lot in line, not looking for excuses to genuflex to the Russkies...)

You do realise, I hope, Jim that Britain is capable of making its own decisions and doesn't have to be 'with' the US or Russia...

[Joe Guy]

You do realise, I hope, Jim that Britain is capable of making its own decisions and doesn't have to be 'with' the US or Russia...

Well jolly good for them then! They had better not piss us off any further.

We just might stop exporting Lady Gaga to them.

[Lord Jim]

I spent a little time going back and forth between FOX and MSNBC's coverage on this...

Once again, the always oppose Obama crowd has teamed up with the always oppose any American use of force bunch....

The right-wing neo-isolationists are arm-in-arm with the left-wing pacifists singing, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance"...

I'm used to the ying-yang ninnies on the left , (they've been at this for decades) but to see this thumb-up-the-butt head-in-the-sand know nothingism being expressed by some in my own party is truly depressing...

I've held my nose for a lot in recent years with the GOP, but if we actually nominate some isolationist anti-security moron like Rand Paul, that will be a bridge too far for me....

One of the primary reasons I've been a Republican all my life is because come hell or high water since WW II we have always been the party of a strong national defense and a realistic view of the nature of the threats we face....

If the party abandons that, I'll be ready to head for the exit....

[Econoline]

If the GOP nominates Rand Paul, I'll send you free Hillary Clinton bumper sticker, Jim!

[Lord Jim]

Well Econo, I said before that if the party nominated Paul I'd vote for Hillary...

On national defense, compared to Paul, Hillary's nick name could be "Old blood and guts"....

[dgs49]

Attacking Syria is "strong national defense"? Are they a threat to us? Are they a threat to NATO? Other than generically, are they a threat to Israel.

The best possible outcome is that we land a decisive blow against the Regime, and the various "rebel" factions lay down their arms and agree to peacefully form a coalition government, pending national elections.

But even with that totally-unrealistic, rosy scenario, the record of "democracy" in the region is not good. The only organizations that seem to be able to mobilize to win elections are those that believe in the motto, "One man, one vote, one time."

Jimmy, Andrew, what good can come out of a strike against the Regime.

BTW, I firmly believe that Congress should give Our Beloved President full authority to do whatever he thinks correct. That is his job, after all.

[liberty]

Here is the problem: Syria itself is not a direct threat to us, but Syria is backed by Iran and Iran is our enemy and a threat and will be more of a threat as time passes and they gain more capability. It would be nice if Iran could loss in Syria. Nothing makes a Hitler more dangerous than victories. But perhaps I am too pessimistic, things could change; the Iranians could have a change of heart. Hitler could have had a change of heart before the holocaust. But somehow I doubt it. But look on the bright side as bad as thing can be in our country it could be worse; we could live in Iran.

Also if you want to understand how bad chemical warfare is try wearing a chemical ware suit for forty five minutes in July and I think you will start to understand.

[oldr_n_wsr]

If Obama had the "stones" he would have launched a few tomahawks before any kind of "open airing" of the matter. Before Assad had the heads up to move any of these weapons into populated areas.

[rubato]

Dropping explosives on stocks of volatile poisons is considered a bad idea unless your goal is to kill as many people as possible accidentally.



yrs,
rubato