Yep. Another failure of democracies. We can’t rely on governements to tell the truth even about the most serious matters. That’s completely unacceptable, in fact.
Irrelevant nonsense. I’m quite comfortable judging people who get murderously excited over religion as dangerously insane nutters. I’m comfortable to judge any society that tries to base itself on some book and start persecuting entire genders on that basis as gripped by a collective insanity.
And the whole Middle East is teeming with this shit. If Assad’s regime vanished tomorrow the civil war would just enter another phase. Just look at the squirming nest of insanity that Lebanon is as it gears itself up to relaunch its never ending civil war of all against all.
With the Balkans it was stupid ethnic conflicts frozen from any time from 1200 onwards. In the Middle East it is religion.
Leave them to it. I don’t care what happens because there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it.
“Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that.”
So what?
As a joke article, it’s funny. As a valid point, it’s merely interesting: cue those limited airstrikes – “no boots on the ground,” as it were – to deliver on the red-line claim; if he then refrains from using chemical weapons, I’ll be pleasantly surprised; if he then uses chemical weapons, cue limited airstrikes to key military installations.
Seems to me the Onion went for satire and got accuracy.
I wonder what the Pentagon name for the attack on Syria operation will be?
I suggest “Operation Nobel Peace Prize”.
Operation Red Line Gaffe.
It seems strange to me in the United States, where a strict reading of our Constitution would require a formal declaration of war by Congress (I’m 100% aware that is not how it has been interpreted since WWII) and our President truly does not have actual unilateral power to start conflicts the President is almost certainly going to strike against Syria regardless of what Congress thinks.
In the UK, where there is no constitutional bar to a PM launching missiles at whomever they want Cameron calls a vote anyway and loses, highly strange.
It seems the French have gone from ‘surrender monkeys’ to ‘America’s oldest ally’.
LOL. You couldn’t make this up.
Is John Kerry intentionally parodying Colin Powell?
I’m not really sure I understand why chemical weapons were ever a red line in the first place. Assad has killed thousands of civilians, that’s beyond dispute. It’s also widely accepted by France, the UK, and now the United States that he’s used chemical weapons both in the past and in this most recent incident. But honestly the whole reason we got up in arms a decade ago about WMD is namely their proliferation concerns and how they could be used in a terrorist attack if they were given to terrorist groups. A State actor like Assad using them against his own people opens none of those real concerns.
So whatever you believe/don’t believe about the most recent chemical attack, I don’t see why it should be viewed any differently. Assad is massacring people, we know that. But we choose not to intervene. If we can’t justify intervention in Syria despite 100,000+ dead (and I know not all of that is on the regime’s hands) I don’t see how specific incidences of brutality should change the calculus.
Additionally, for the United States I see no reason to intervene if European powers do not want to get their hands dirty. I’d love a U.S. policy in which we wash our hands of the Middle East and tell the EU they can deal with MENA, if they don’t want to do so that region can simply sort itself out.
The only compelling reason I’d see for our involvement in that region would be to hamper or weaken any Russian efforts there–in fact any attack on Assad I could only be persuaded at this point that it was wise if you sell me on how it might hurt Russia.
Well, the President’s entire foreign policy seems to involve going to places now and then, smiling, shaking hands and making speeches no one can remeber from pretty locations.
Right, nothing at all to do with Israel, oil, Iran, the potential to sink Wall Street or a whole series of now less compliant client states.
“Our oldest ally, the French”
Hilarious.
From a matter of self interest I don’t see oil being that persuasive an argument for staying involved in MENA. Nor do we need to intervene in Syria to continue taking actions against Iran. We can continue to drop money into Israel’s lap without intervening in the affairs of MENA states.
I’d be pissed if I was Morocco–our actual oldest ally.
I also wonder where Poland stands on the upcoming attack.
On edit: Poland will not join the attack. When you lose Poland, you might as well give it up.
Yep, you’re not going to get anywherw without their horse-drawn artillery.