U.S. Should Stay Out of Syria

U.S. Should Stay Out of Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama sat back and watched the events unfold as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad unleashed the most heinous of atrocities against his own people. Yet, rather than be decisive when he needed to be, Barack Obama was anything but. So why now Mister President?

It serves no useful purpose as it offers no logical end game.

What people also don't realize is that if the United States were to engage the Assad Regime he would be fighting right along side Al-Qaeda. And that is something that should absolutely not sit right among Americans who watched in horror when they unleashed death and destruction upon them on 9 / 11. Have you forgotten that Mister President?

So far as I am concerned the U.S. Should Stay Out of Syria as well as anywhere else in the Middle East unless America comes under direct attack. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wants us to believe that intervention in Syria is somehow a security issue for us and I say really? Are you off your nut Mister Kerry? I don't see Syria attacking the United States anytime soon because they are incapable of that!

This illusion of Weapons of Mass Destruction was sold on us once before and when the smoke cleared in Iraq we found nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G! Talk about giving the American People a bum steer - but that is exactly what they did. But let's see what happened in the aftermath; Saddam Hussein was hanged and the country now enjoys a Secular Civil War the moment U.S. Forces were withdrawn.

American Soldiers died for nothing! And that is a tragedy that should never be repeated again especially when everyone in the world knew who the real target should have been back then - Afghanistan. Had the United States done the right thing we wouldn't have an Afghan President laughing all the way to the bank. And don't kid yourselves that is exactly what Hamid Karzai has done by playing the fence with friend and foe. The U.S. could have solved the Pakistani Problem as well by wiping out the lawless region of Waziristan where Islamist Extremists had set up shop with impunity. I am sure Pervez Musharraf would have most pleased regardless of what he said publicly.

Exactly why the United States continue to blunder in its foreign policy and prosecution of its real enemies is beyond comprehension, but it is like a fricking revolving door with these so-called policy wonks who just can't get it right. And I am beginning to wonder if the real agenda here is to put us all into a World War?

It is time the U.S. Government stop acting as mother to the world; her version of democracy simply may not be the same as another view. As for Syria, well our hearts should bleed for the innocent loss of life. It is incomprehensible. But this must play out among the people of the region as it appears sides have already been chosen regarding Assad.

Besides U.S. intervention now is too little too late.


Leave a comment
  • I have the feeling that Obama backed himself into a corner on this one by saying there was a red line. Maybe he can be like Claypool and say that the Red Line is closed for 5 months ;-).

    Essentially he is stuck between the liberals who say "how can we let this go on in the world" and wanted to intervene all over Africa and the like, and those who are absolute pacifists. The problem with the latter is that it is their guy, not George Bush.

    What hits me as different than Afghanistan and Iraq is that there isn't a clear strategic objective, but sort of more like Bill Clinton's "lets lob a couple of bombs into Afghanistan" as a diversion while Monica Levinsky is still in the news. At least the Bush administration had the objectives of toppling the Taliban and Saddam governments, and only used cruise missiles as a means.

    That also probably explains why Assad has gone to these lengths--he knows that if he loses he becomes as dead as Saddam and Khadaffi.

  • In reply to jack:

    I think you are right Jack. The thing about Bush, though, he knew Saddam had nothing and his advisors conned him into taking the bait that at least Iraq had targets whereas Afghanistan is basically mud bricks Then too comes the question of "pay back" for Saddam trying to kill GHWB while on a Middle East trip after leaving the White House. Perfect Storm I guess, but bad for Saddam. But yes if the locals get Assad he is toast.

    Obama, meanwhile, has shown no sense of strategic timing throughout this Arab Spring uprising. Hell even Libya was like pulling teeth. Don't know how dumb a smart man can be.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    As I understood Libya, that was mostly on England's and France's dime. Now France wants to get into Syria (again its former protectorate) but England voted no.

    As far as Arab spring, we thought last year that the Egyptian army was on our side, but this year is starting to look more and more like a coup. Some in Congress have said that that's sufficient reason to pull foreign aid, but nothing from the administration on that.

  • In reply to jack:

    That was the media spin anyway, not so sure what the final tab was for the American Taxpayer but a conservative estimate would be the cost of a missile multiplied by the number lobbed into Libya plus what ever incidentals to get there. Not sure if I would believe it was totally on the dime of the French and British.

    As for the French, well, hard to say what financial incentives are in say Libya aside from the oil (which is a sweet grade Euro loves for their diesel production) and doubt they would be given carte blanc anyhow. But it is interesting regarding France and its former colonies / colonial desires. Syria is interesting too since France has sold them a ton of arms and advanced technologies (nuclear reactors and the means to manufacture...???). Hard to say what the real agenda is but there is an agenda. Heck I wrote about ions ago.

    Egypt is no longer the ally (puppet) of the US under this military junta as it was under Mubarak. Sadly there are those who no wish they hadn't asked for his head. How Ironic. One thing is certain - the Middle East needs a stable Egypt and am not sure if that is possible any longer now that the Saudis are pumping money in. Yes the Saudis are US allies but an unusual one given they teach their young extreme Wahabism which isn't exactly conducive to liking the virtues of the West?

  • fb_avatar

    Obama has been put against the wall by the Zionists to act and respond to a vile attack even though now he knows that responsible are the opposition rebels. Too late to speak about it at this point and all the rest is propaganda. From here are Obama's hesitations and the reason why the UK pulled out of this War. An Anglo-Judaic group, at the head of the Secret Services in Israel, UK and USA, is single-handedly responsible for the most heinous acts of terror all over the World and will continue to use any mean to subvert the system of government in all Countries and to instigate a World War of Religion. For the most part, the circle of violence goes from the 3 Secret Services to the local secret service of the Country being targeted which will then use criminals, fanatics and extremists to execute their orders. Human Respect is opposite to the concept of the “chosen people” and in the name of that Machiavellian Belief all is allowed, even a surprise like 9/11.
    Welcome to the Zionist Plan for a Greater State of Israel.
    …. unless …
    from hell a young devil will put on a pair of wings and take a flight.
    From those sinister alcoves one of the secret service will have to expose the Zionists in a way even more detailed than Snowden did and tell the World what is really happening behind the farce of the media. And the World would have to learn to distinguish Jewish, American and English populations from their secret services in Israel, USA and UK.
    Then everyone will also know how to distinguish the Zionist from the Jew.

    Time for Awakening.


  • In reply to Ettore Greco:

    Ettore An interesting set of points and take on the events. Thanks for your comment.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Except there is no fact to back it up. I suppose that Ettore also believes Putin and Assad that the rebels set off the chemical weapons.

    There is no Zionist plan to take over Syria. There might be an Israeli self defense plan to take out the Iranian nuclear program.

  • In reply to jack:

    Have to agree; of course everyone has an opinion and I don't have a problem when someone expresses it. I learned long ago not everything is as it seems (and that had a lot to do with the been there - done that). Agendas abound when it comes to the Middle East Politik - too many sub plots. The way I see it just throw on out there and let's see what sticks - but yeah I don't think there is a Zionist Plan either. Defense Plan sounds about right.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    It gets back to the saying that there is no such thing as a wrong opinion, but certainly such a thing as an opinion based on incorrect facts.

    The time I got most teed based on that saying is when I was visiting my parents and said "The St. Petersburg Times prints absolute crap on its letters to the editor page." The instance was someone ranting about "If Charles Krauthammer were disabled," to which my response was "Doesn't one see that on Inside Washington [or some predecessor show], he has a wheelchair?" to which my mother said "I don't think we get that show here." And the St. Pete [Now Tampa Bay] Times is owned and operated by the Poynter Institute, a journalism research entity. I guess that might have been a foreshadowing of what the Internet would become.

  • In reply to jack:

    Couldn't agree more with your opening paragraph and your end conclusion of influence it has had on the web. My only point is that it is a fine line sometimes - do I make a conscience decision to moderate every comment or do I let people get what they have to say off their chest? Now there are many on Chicago Now that will "moderate and approve" every comment and that is their choice but I think that amounts to censorship.

    So I would rather let people vent and if I don't agree, or if it sounds half-baked my standard response is "thanks for interesting take." Besides letting people say their piece often opens up dialogue and their opinions based on non-facts quickly dispelled. That I think is how the web works (except of course for the sites that base everything on falsehoods and are followed by adherents).

    I was not aware about the Tampa / St. Pete Times being owned and operated by Poynter. Unfortunately all media is owned by someone with an specific agenda (editorially anyway). I think it is up to the people to determine if the facts fit the truth. Hopefully they do especially when the mission statement (Poynter's for instance) say "Poynter is a school that exists to ensure that our communities have access to excellent journalism—the kind of journalism that enables us to participate fully and effectively in our democracy."

    Now I don't know if there is a double meaning in between those lines especially the - "that enables us to participate fully and effectively in our democracy." As in pushing an agenda? Or speaking and reporting the unbiased truth? I am not sure anymore where our media is and often refer to other "World" sources with a good reputation - but even that gets dicey. Look what happened at the "all the news that's fit to print" ethos of the NY Times.

    About the only thing I am sure of Jack is that information and disinformation live in an parallel world and hopefully the target reader has enough common sense to say or ask "does this make sense?"

    But I hear you and think I have gotten better thanks to people like you keeping me honest and on fact in my commentary. But so far as letting someone stew - well unless it gets so bizarre or threatening I really don't want to take the extreme action of censorship - unless of course someone is invading my space with spam comments on how to make money on the internet or selling knock-off product - that goes the second I see it.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    On the other guy, I said what I was going to say as opposed to what I would have really said if unfiltered. I'm not interested in another flame war.

    On the media having different agendas, that's certainly true, but I would suppose that if the Poynter Institute had an agenda, it would be fairly neutral, or it would lose its nonprofit status. But I also assume that part of its agenda was to let the uninformed have their unfiltered voice without any fact checking.

    Now what gets strange here is what controls the agenda of the local papers. With the Sun-Times, besides the agenda of looting the place, Radner had some kind of suck up agenda which lead it to endorse Blago. It is not clear what agenda current ownership has, other than the newspaper is too broke to care.

    Who is in charge of the Tribune agenda is more unclear, in that the editorial board seems to have had full sway despite various changes of ownership. The only exception seems to be that no one had anything bad to say about Zell/Michaels ownership until the bankruptcy court said there was a fraudulent conveyance, and basically let the banks have ownership. When the banks sell (and they eventually will--that was foreshadowed by reports that WGN radio was keeping Brandmeier for an eventual FM station, which they can't buy so long as they control the paper), the question will be whether the next owner will be the reincarnation of Col.McCormick and say this paper speaks for me, or just let Bruce Dold and Clarance Page soldier on.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack I know how you feel went there once my self with Flame never again - too radical for this moderate. But hey like I said speak away here it is an open forum for the most part and I just leave it that.

    As for the Tampa Bay Times I don't read it often enough to judge what people submit there and/or what their policy is. I do however from time to time check out their Truth-O-Meter pieces - so they have a reputation in that regard.

    Didn't know they were broke, then again isn't most print media in the same boat? I suspect they are all trying to find that synergy between the web side and print side.

    The Trib, now that is interesting when you said no one had nothing bad to say when Zell owned them - - except for when after he left. Heck still hear it from Trib staff after Koch Brothers were rumored to be looking at taking over. But prior I think prior to what you said everyone was trying to protect their jobs and that's why no one heard a peep.

    Where they wind up though is anyone's guess. There seems to be confusion and a shift to the ultra liberal versus their conservative roots of old. So now we have two papers, well one rag and one paper on the left agenda wise and am not sure where that genesis was.

    Our papers though aren't exactly staying to true to the principles of good journalism and I find that disappointing. Seems all large media outlets in the US have spurned those principles.

  • With respect to "broke," I was referring to the Sun-Times. There were Black and Radler looting the place, then the Tyree group took it over for pennies on the dollar, then the Wrapports group took that over for pennies on those dollars, closed down regional news rooms (not just Pioneer Press, but newsrooms of daily papers like the [Gary] Post-Tribune and Southtown Star) and then laid off the photographers and told reporters to learn to use an iPhone camera. While there may be a point that the paper newspaper may have run its course, that isn't saying much with regard to the "journalism" they wish to sell to iPad users.

    On the Tribune, besides the point about the editorial board apparently being on its own with only a partially working rudder [i.e. what's the point about writing an editorial about an unopposed election of Tim Evans as Chief Judge of the Cook County Circuit Court in which only the judges can vote] my point on not going against Zell was based on the technical bankruptcy law points on which Oneal and Rosenthal were writing. The line basically was that the assignee of the junior creditors was just impeding the reorganization and Zell was entitled to something. That story changed when the bankruptcy court ruled that there was a fraudulent conveyance (i.e. so much corporate money was transferred to the detriment of existing creditors that the bankruptcy became almost inevitable). Similarly, the stories about the hijinks by Randy Michaels were, according to Tribune management the rantings of an unemployed blogger, Robert Feder, until the NY Times broke the story, at which point Michaels and WGN radio program director "Pig Virus" were gone. But maybe because the background of last two was in radio, they did the most damage to WGN-AM, which supposedly is going to be rectified this week.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack I think I read the one paragraph and somehow missed the Sun-Times - sorry. But I am also not sure how this trend of web vs print has affected the bottom line of the Tampa St Pete Times either. So I suppose that is another story and not sure how their demographics have changed (or not). If I recall it was mostly seniors when I used to pick it while travelling there and listening to folks at some of the breakfast joints you could tell they weren't too happy with its content (of course that was back in in like 2000 too). So as I said I think all print media is some distress. Hell Seattle is 100% online now which is a shame - and more to come.

    As for the Chicago Sun-Times yes, yes, yes! You are right. They have been raped and now Wrapparound or whatever the hell their name is has marginalized the smaller holdings you mentioned. We also have the Herald News here which have eliminated Saturday papers as well as reprinting Sun-Times articles as main copy with the exception of maybe one real local story, the Southtown Star is the same. It's basically all the Sun-Times so why they even bother to print the so-called local papers are questionable and a joke.

    The Tribune, well they are just as screwed-up. Editorial Boards that go contrary to their watchdog findings is just the tip of the iceberg for me, although the Times is no different. I just don't understand how they can keep endorsing the same old shit ass candidates after the damage they have done to taxpayers is astounding. So to say our media is politically in bed with the slime is deeply troubling it also lends to the idea they have no credibility.

    When I have to use an outside source to really report on the goings on here so far as corruption goes, well that speaks for itself.

    WGN, meanwhile, used to be a staple in this house - no more. They have imploded and despite the changes and any impending changes yet to come - will never hold the same level of quality as before. It is sad - but it is all about money isn't it. And doing the right thing journalistically sometimes gets in the way of the almighty dollar and/or political support they feel they need to function.

    Where or where is Lou Grant when you need him?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I hadn't seen the SP Times for about as long. The main issue of the demographics was that all the obits started with "Joe Blow, who came here from [somewhere, usually up north], passed away..."

    The one difference is that Wrapports said no more endorsements by the Sun-Times. Despite all the journalists claiming the death of journalism as a result, I concurred with dropping the endorsements, not only because of the Blago fiasco mentioned above, but it appeared that the political advertisements were using the newspapers' logos without compensating them for it.

    BTW, besides now being limited to Jay Leno's "Does this impress Ed," Lou Grant was never able to fire Ted Baxter.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yes Jack That was the impression I got from the Tampa - St. Pete Times, but then again Florida is a pretty transient state - as is Arizona. So I suppose that was a necessity.

    As for the decision to not offer endorsements, well I can see that especially if your Watchdog series is blasting the politicrooks. And that has always been my argument - how can any paper endorse a candidate they have stuck in the eye? It is hypocritical at best. But the problem I see with Wrapports is that the Sun-Times now resembles a rag - so they aren't exactly upholding their "higher standards" argument. For instance, the article on the Milliken Professor the first time was fine - but when it started becoming a vendetta.....well? As for compensation? Yes they deserve it especially if done without prior approval. So that is a valid argument I think.

    Your BTW was good - I forgot the Lou Grant character was on the Mary Tyler Moore show prior to what I was thinking when he spun off working for the LA Tribune and had to deal with "Joe Rossi." Should have been clearer eh?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I gave up on the sequels somewhere between Rhoda got married and divorced and the new owners of WJM fired everyone except Ted.

  • In reply to jack:

    Know what you mean wasn't a big fan of MTM show but I did like Lou Grant for it topical (at the time) issues unlike the monotony of the same old same old of Quincy MD.

  • Getting back here, my reaction to the last couple of days is that at least Putin gave Obama a way to back out of the corner. However, if that's what it is, it doesn't make Obama look that good, but I guess Russia had to find a way around backing its strategic partner/violator of international law, Assad.

  • In reply to jack:

    Especially since Secretary of State Kerry "unwittingly" lit the light bulb with what was obviously an facetious retort. Dimwit Diplomacy?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I assume you are referring to this?

    Well, if it got the ball started, I don't have an objection. The only question would be whether the strike would have been preventative, in which case turning over the chemical weapons would also be, while if the intent were punitive, I think we discussed whether that would be of questionable efficacy.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yes I was indeed. Like you I have no objection either but he is probably scratching his head pretty hard on that one as it was very clear to me that given his testimony the other day - a strike was imminent. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. lol.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Well, he wasn't when he ran for President, and that's vs. Bush 43.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yeah how ironic is that? Kerry's always been a strange bird though from his post Vietnam days upward - wiggle waggle on nearly every issue. But he did serve the country I give him that - at least he didn't run or shirk his obligation like so many did.

Leave a comment