At some point, you're going to have to get with the times and start saying "DejaVue Iraq."

The UK is the new France.

*snicker*

But we will surely know it's been successful this time, because (actual reason has been left as an exercise for the reader).

DejaVue Mission Accomplished.

Heard on radio

Henceforth, English muffins shall be known as "Freedom Muffins".

Obama might attack Syria just to piss off Putin for not giving Snowden back.

Yeahyeahyeah. I'll snicker your arse lady.

No, no idea what I mean either. Visions of Marianne Faithful, ewwww.
You're on report. And your radio. And your little dog too.

Tell you what made me seriously bray with laughter the other day.
War-hungry talking head on Sky News. The worry is that the UK has removed itself from the world stage. France is now America's closest ally.
And this (somehow) paves the way for America to ally itself to more powerful nations. Example given, the burgeoning power of China. Yeah, good luck with that one. Communist state who alongside Russia currently has its foot on the UN's neck regarding any action against Syria.

That is not my opinion on world politics.
It's just me being annoyed with British media. They do talk up some crap.

That is clearly the reason.

The sad thing is that resorting to violence is unnecessary. Bashar al-Assad is a doctor and Barack Obama is a lawyer. Obama should just bring a class action malpractice suit against al-Assad, for inappropriately dispensing harmful chemicals, on behalf of the Syrian people. Shades of Michael Jackson.

I would also like to see Obama attack Assad through non-military means - a class action malpractice suit would be hilarious - but the likely limited attack on Assad will accomplish two goals for Obama:

1) Attacking Assad for purely humanitarian reasons is one thing (something I disagree with) but once WMDs get involved then it is viewed differently. I do not feel as strongly but there are many policy makers that strongly believe any WMD use should be punished. Obama set the red line at chemical weapons (WMD) because of that - plus other reasons IMO - and now he must act on it. I'm not comfortable with our retaliation but allowing WMDs to be used is a potential slippery slope that many policy makers do not want to go down.

2) I think this attack will have as much realpolitik intentions as humanitarian. Right now our two biggest enemies in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda Islamist and Iran, are heavily invested in this civil war. While it is not in our (U.S.) interests to get involved right now, it is in our interests to make sure these two groups keep pouring their attention and money into the civil war instead of other activities. Lately, Assad has been gaining the upper advantage and a limited strike may balance the playing field. Also, on a side note, peace or balkanization is only possible if both sides feel they will not win alright so it also in our humanitarian interests to keep a level playing field.

While I do not believe Syria or Iran is dumb enough to retaliate against a US/French attack, this article shows the military buildup around Syria right now.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/...yrias_doorstep

But, but it dashes my plans to set up shops on the borders and sell gas masks to tourists!

As long as it's understood that it's just punishment and not deterrence. We took out Saddam; but, that didn't deter Bashar. It would be interesting to see what those policy makers would do if Russia or Israel used WMD on someone other than us.

Ah, so we're just using the Syrian people as patsies by maintaining an even keel and WMD is a red herring. Well, why doesn't the Prez should just say so and let us all sleep better at night? [rhetorical]

If you want to interpret it that way...

Obama's bright red line for Syria...

Well first extremists were screaming that Obama was letting hundreds of thousands be massacred in Syria. Then he decides to attack what Assad should not have and illegally used. Then those extremists complained that Obama was getting us into another Mission Accomplished.

So Obama said to extremists, "OK, you vote on it." What does a dumb dog do once he has caught the car? How many dogs thought it out?

It all boils down to Sunni vs Shia or you could say AQ vs Iran. I say we stay out of this and let them use all of the WMDs they want. It just means fewer extremists for us to deal with later.

The White House should give McCain the 2013 "Frog and the Mouse" award.

NBC News
9/4/13
McCain opposes Senate resolution authorizing Syria strikes
This from one day ago...

Roll Call
9/2/13
Voting Against Obama on Syria Would Be ‘Catastrophic,’ McCain Warns

When is Obama going to understand that you can't change the smell of a skunk.

McCain never saw a war he didn't like.

Washington Post had a poll this morning saying about 60% of Americans don't support going to war against Assad. Interestingly, 43% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats support a war. If Obama was a Republican, I bet it would be 65% or Republicans and 20% of Democrats support.

Meh, if the world truly believes that using chemicals for mass murder is bad, then the world should handle it. We can't do everything. Oh, and we'll have to raise taxes to pay for it.

It is time for the Arab League to step up. They have offered to finance our "attack", but why endanger our forces when this is clearly a sectarian situation. The Arab League has the forces to do the mission themselves.

It isn't as colorful as fiddling while Rome burns but...

Who dat?

The Honorable Senator from Arizona shows us how important he finds military interventions. These are not serious people we've elected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

McCain did his thing in changing the wording of the Resolution in the Senate Committee...

Although it passed in Committee by a 10-7 vote, only McCain and 2 other Republicans voted in favor.

The Guardian
Dan Roberts and Spencer Ackerman
9/4/13

Syria strikes: Senate committee approves resolution in boost for Obama
Essentially, McCain's changes to the resolution will become a poison pill

Interesting poll results. Seems legit.

As I read McCain's Section 5 of the Senate Resolution passed in Committee, the thought
occurred to me that if it is passed that way by the full Congress, Obama should veto it.

By doing so, he could either send it back to Congress to narrow the focus,
or go ahead and act as he intended (narrowly) as Commander in Chief.

It might send a message to McCain, but I doubt McCain could understand it.

Reach however hard as you like to believe that Obama is on your side.

Shades of Saddam Hussein...
Will Bashar al-Assad give an accounting that will satisfy the U.S.,
or will he too eventually be found hiding in a hole somewhere.

Washington Post
9/14/13

US, Russia reach agreement on seizure of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal

News today is that the Al-Qaeda and Al-Misra hardline Islamic brigades, have run the less radical Rebel brigades, out of a couple towns, between Damascus and the border with Turkey.

They now have complete control of this part of the Rebel controlled area. They have made it plain after murdering a few non hardline brigade leaders, that they are the strongest faction in the Rebel fight, and won't tolerate those who don't follow their lead.



Since they have withdrawn to these towns, it's believed the other Rebels will be especially hard pressed by Assad's regime, in the coming weeks and months.

I read an interesting article from an unreliable source about the Saudis spending $70 Million on congresscritters to get American intervention. I keep forgetting who pulled the 9/11 job.

Your source is correct. Saudi's work tirelessly to cut the influence of Iran, for two reasons:

1) Iran is shia - and so is Syria (largely). Saudi's are shiite, and to say that they don't get along, is the biggest understatement, you could ever make.

Most of the attacks in Iraq today, are shia vs. shiite.

2) Iran's military build up over the last several decades, has been alarming to every nation in the middle east. Now more than ever, since the potential that Iran will build nuclear weapons.

The last thing anyone except Iran wants in the volatile middle east, is a nuclear arms race. What Iran wants is never perfectly clear, but a greater military strength is clearly one major goal.

Correction to the above post ^^^ : Substitute Sunni, in the above post, in place of Shiite.

Shiite is another term for the Shia branch of Islam, and they are very common in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and a majority in Iraq, as well.

Sunni's are the most common branch of Islam, in the Saudi Kingdom, Pakistan, and etc.

Humans did it. Which proves all Americans were complicit. Should that be too general, then also too general is to associate any extremist Sunni or Shiite with the actions of any other non-atheist.

The conflicts are directly traceable to extremists. The enemy of all good and decent people - moderates. All extremsits - atheists or non-atheists - are the source of or give comfort to this problem. They use extremist propaganda and hearsay, rather than adult intelligence, to justify their actions and beliefs. They (and not any one religion) are the problem.

I did not know they were working under a deadline...

Washington Post
10/5/13

UN official says chemical weapons inspectors begin destroying Syrian stockpile, machinery

We're reporting that all is going well, atm. Props to Assad on this matter, at least.

He sure had a shitload of chemical weapons! Holy Moly!

Apparently our buddies in Syria lost their warehoused materials to a more Islamic outfit. We're thinking of solving this problem by backing them (the nutters) instead.