With Bev religiously incapacitated tonight, I thought I would drop a couple quick thoughts.
Thought One: Syria. There has been a lot of hand wringing lately that the Russians sending combat planes to Syria and flying missions to support the Assad regime is interfering with US policy. This raises a couple questions. First, we have a Syria policy? I really don't believe it. Obama's policy is to hope nothing happens until he can dump it on whoever gets the job next?
That said, I really think that our policy is to support Assad while claiming we are supporting the rebels. Seriously. The problem is this. Assad is unacceptable because of Obama's false self-righteous position about not supporting dictators and because his allies are Iran and Russia. But so long as he is in charge, little bad is going to happen except for a couple dead rebels. On the other hand, supporting the others is bat-shit crazy. Between crazy and unpleasant, you always choose unpleasant, and I think Obama realizes that. He wants to tell the world he won't support Assad, but our policy seems to be looking the other way as the Russians and Iranians help Assad fight the modern world's version of the Reavers from Firefly. Honestly, that's a good policy.
Thought Two: So he is the devil! I'm sick of talking about the Pope... but check out these photos.
Note the horns on the Prince of Worthless. How funny is that? While meeting the Pope! Between this and the rainbow over ground zero on 9/11 while the mosque crane crashed, the universe is clearly picking sides.
Thoughts?
Thought One: Syria. There has been a lot of hand wringing lately that the Russians sending combat planes to Syria and flying missions to support the Assad regime is interfering with US policy. This raises a couple questions. First, we have a Syria policy? I really don't believe it. Obama's policy is to hope nothing happens until he can dump it on whoever gets the job next?
That said, I really think that our policy is to support Assad while claiming we are supporting the rebels. Seriously. The problem is this. Assad is unacceptable because of Obama's false self-righteous position about not supporting dictators and because his allies are Iran and Russia. But so long as he is in charge, little bad is going to happen except for a couple dead rebels. On the other hand, supporting the others is bat-shit crazy. Between crazy and unpleasant, you always choose unpleasant, and I think Obama realizes that. He wants to tell the world he won't support Assad, but our policy seems to be looking the other way as the Russians and Iranians help Assad fight the modern world's version of the Reavers from Firefly. Honestly, that's a good policy.
Thought Two: So he is the devil! I'm sick of talking about the Pope... but check out these photos.
Note the horns on the Prince of Worthless. How funny is that? While meeting the Pope! Between this and the rainbow over ground zero on 9/11 while the mosque crane crashed, the universe is clearly picking sides.
Thoughts?
24 comments:
How can you claim that we're not seriously working to topple Assad when we have 'four or five' soldiers in the field actively opposing his army of 250,000?
Andrew,
"He wants to tell the world he won't support Asad, but our policy seems to be looking the other way as the Russians and Iranians help Asad fight the modern world's version of the Reavers from Firefly. Honestly, that's a good policy."
I disagree. while I can see the argument for supporting Assad, the problem is that by letting the Russians do it you let them get a footprint, a possibly large one, in the Middle East. They want to maintain their naval base in Tartus, Syria.
Which gives them a sizable foothold in the Mediterranean. And the Russians are back to being a major geopolitical rival, now. So none of this is good.
Now, granted, none of this might have been a problem if Obama had been at least a somewhat competent president. So, who knows?
LL, LOL! I was never good at math, does that not work out somehow? ;-)
Kit, If the choice is between a relatively stable country that is in a state of perpetual war as Assad bombs the locals versus "land of the Reavers" right on the Mediterranean, I think Assad is ultimately seen as preferable, and I can't really disagree with that. Stability trumps violent insanity.
As for the Russians, they can have a base in Cuba for all I care. They are a pointless power whose military can't go any further than they can drive on one tank of gas and lacks the power to project force anywhere in the world outside of their own borders. Even their best equipment is second rate despite their recent upgrades. Their troops are disastrously untrained and unmotivated. Their economy is a mess. Their biggest threat is the power to cut off pipelines in Europe. And frankly, putting them in the region only sucks them into the war against Islamic terrorism, so let them do the dying for a change.
Andrew - I agree with you somewhat. I think Assad is more stable than the rest the players. But Obama has no credibility in this issue. He gave that up when he drew a red-line like the big bad man and then skulked away like a weakling. This I will say, I would much rather be spending time, money, and human-power (can't use "manpower" anymore) to make the continent of Africa and the Middle East a less hostile and bloody place so that their citizens can live there rather than having to flee by the millions.
I don't think the Russians are the answer to anyone's prayers...ask the Ukrainians, Poles, and Finns...well, anyone who lives in the region really.
OT: Btw, thanks for posting...not only was I fasting and praying yesterday, but Verizon cut off my internet and phone service for the week because of some neighborhood upgrade project. Grrrr...
By the way, tonight I'll be posting on Pope Francis' speech before Congress.
Bev, Jonah Goldberg of National Review also had a similar w/ Verizon.
You're welcome, Bev! :)
I don't think the Russians are the answer to anyone's prayers either, except Obama. I think the sad truth is that Syria is essentially the next Lebanon. And unless we want to spend a great many American lives to fix it, our choices really are just to watch the chaos as two unacceptable sides fight it out. So in this case, I think Obama is happy to let the Russians do the fighting and I can't honestly blame him.
In terms of making the Middle East and Africa safe, I have long thought that would be an excellent policy. If we could create thriving middle class countries over there, then most of the world's ills would go away.
In terms of making the Middle East and Africa safe, I have long thought that would be an excellent policy.
Hmm, it seems like we once had such a policy and the left hated it. Called it imperialist or something.
On the devil horns thing: not only is it hilarious, but it turned me on to whole new corners of the internet devoted to conspiracy theories surrounding those photos. Some say the photos are doctored by Obama-haters. Others say the White House specifically arranged the shots as a message to the followers of Baphomet.
I find it amusing because the fringe right made such a fuss over Obama halo pictures that you'd think anyone publishing pictures of the president would take care to avoid anything looking like horns. Furthermore, it's just bad shot composition. What kind of amateurs do we have photographing the president?
tryanmax, I think there's a lot we could do with some of these countries without going the whole imperialist route, but I'm sure the left would be outraged no matter what we do. Oh well, the world will fix itself one day.
I have to agree about the compositions. They are really poorly done.
In terms of conspiracy theories, anyone who think Obama is Satan is an idiot. For one thing, Satan's not real. Sorry. For the other, even if he was, the Bible says he's kind of smart and crafty... not an unlikable, lazy moron who couldn't work his way out of a paper bag. If that's your Satan, then perhaps it's time to rethink his role in the whole Good v. Evil thing.
"What kind of amateurs do we have photographing the president?"
Well, when you are a photographer you take a lot of photographs with the idea that for every 10 mediocre or downright crappy photographs you take at least one will be good.
Which begs the question: Why didn't they toss that one out?
Hmm, it seems like we once had such a policy and the left hated it. Called it imperialist or something.
Ya' know, there used to be this international organization that was set up sometime in the mid/late 20th Century called...hmmm, I believe it was the United Nations...yeah, the UN, for short.
And all of the countries that were part of the UN would hold member countries (like Syria, Iran, USSR, China etc.) accountable for their action. And if necessary form a contingency of international forces which almost always included the US, UK, France, Australia, Canada, Polish etc. that would intercede on behalf of the free peoples of the world. Remember that whole kerfuffle in Serbia in the '90's?
Japan and Germany were not included because well, they have not been allowed to have more than a national guard...well, you remember why. Actually, just last few weeks, Japan has been approved for a new military.
Anyway, where is this "UN" that used be so active in these matters??
Bev, Last I heard of the UN, they were busy fighting the Jewish menace. And you know how busy that can keep you.
Kit, In all honesty, I suspect the photograph did this intentionally. The strange angle and the distance suggest the guy looked for a spot where he could do this. But it's still funny. :)
The television one is better, and that's all on Obama's people. Ha ha!
Hey, did any of you ever read the "Left Behind" series of book from the late '90's. It was all about the book of Revelations in a real-world, 20th Century setting. Yeah, the US Pres as Satan in cahoots with the Pope while the UN sanctions Israel...blah, blah, blah. Weirdly similar...but them I have an active imagination. 8-\
>>Anyway, where is this "UN" that used be so active in these matters?? >>
With apologies to Joss Ackland, diplomatic impunity!
Of course Satan exists: http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8459534
I say we declare Lebanon a Christian country and move all of the displaced Christians from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc. into it and kindly remove all the Muslims with extreme prejudice.
I don't foresee any problem with this policy. Israel has been well accepted.
Just saw Ted Cruz dropped out. No surprise there.
Koshcat, Yes, Israel has been well accepted indeed. LOL! Bravo! :)
Bev, He should go home. We don't need no dirty Canadian foreigners stealing our Presidential jobs anyhow!! ;-p
VKoshcat, I would take it one step further and move the UN to Jeruselem and declare it an international city. Of course that assumes that the UN was even relevant anymore.
"Of course that assumes that the UN was even relevant anymore."
There's a UN?
Doesn't the UN just run around trading rape for food?
Post a Comment