Remember when Obama said Syria was free of chemical weapons?

[oggbashan]

Okay...I get the "it's none of our business."

But President Bumblebuttfuck stuck his nose in it by "drawing a line in the sand" and doing nothing when they gave him the middle finger.

He made it our business by talking tough then subsequently wimping out. He was good at that.

He was not helped by the UK Parliament voting NOT to do anything more in Syria. If he had proceeded to attack Assad he would have been doing it without allied support.

Our support might have been militarily minimal but our lack of support did isolate President Obama politically.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

We sat and watched semi loads of that crap go into Syria from Iraq by satelite.

they can transport chemical weapons by satellite now?

 

[water505]

I know...let's have the UN intervene!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Okay...I get the "it's none of our business."

But President Bumblebuttfuck stuck his nose in it by "drawing a line in the sand" and doing nothing when they gave him the middle finger.

He made it our business by talking tough then subsequently wimping out. He was good at that.

No, it's much deeper than the 'red line.'

It begins with his zeal to get all troops out of Iraq.

At that time Assad was a peace and protecting all religions equally.

Then we unleashed ISIS on him and were on a rampage against "bad guys" in the region.

Exacerbating the situation, because he was a bad man who defended his nation and people, we armed his enemies.

Like a cornered badger, he fought back with every means at his disposal, but it's never been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was he, or the terrorists, were the ones to use chemical weapons, we just decided that because he is a bad guy that it had to be him...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now...



... the entire region has been "religiously cleansed."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The most dangerous moments in foreign affairs often come after a major power seeks to reassert its lost deterrence.

The United States may be entering just such a perilous transitional period.

Rightly or wrongly, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Middle East-based terrorists concluded after 2009 that the U.S. saw itself in decline and preferred a recession from world affairs.

In that void, rival states were emboldened, assuming that America thought it could not — or should not — any longer exercise the sort of political and military leadership it had demonstrated in the past.

Enemies thought the U.S. was more focused on climate change, United Nations initiatives, resets, goodwill gestures to enemies such as Iran and Cuba, and soft-power race, class, and gender agendas than on protecting and upholding longtime U.S. alliances and global rules.

In reaction, North Korea increased its missile launches and loudly promised nuclear destruction of the West and its allies.

Russia violated its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and absorbed borderlands of former Soviet republics.

Iran harassed American ships in the Persian Gulf and issued serial threats against the U.S.

China built artificial island bases in the South China Sea to send a message about its imminent management of Asian commerce.

In Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State killed thousands in medieval fashion and sponsored terrorist attacks inside Western countries.

Amid such growing chaos, a return to former (and normal) U.S. deterrence would inflame such aggressors and be considered provocative by provocateurs.

Accordingly, we should remember a few old rules for these scary new crises on the horizon. :

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/446471/print

Victor Davis Hanson

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"5. Human nature is unchanging — and not always admirable. Like it or not, neutrals more often flock to crude strength than to elegant and humane weakness."
VDH

This is a quote for the ages...

 

[Rightguide]

Let's not forget, if Assad has chemical weapons the Russians are responsible.

 

[oggbashan]

Let's not forget, if Assad has chemical weapons the Russians are responsible.

Not necessarily. The Jihadists' Cookbook instructs people how to produce their own chemical weapons. It doesn't take much knowledge.

 

[Rightguide]

Not necessarily. The Jihadists' Cookbook instructs people how to produce their own chemical weapons. It doesn't take much knowledge.

True, but I said "Assad."