Syria: None of Our Business?

Yes, all the arguments against intervening in the Syrian massacre are valid, or maybe, they are valid, or somewhat valid. The massacres in Syria are none of our business, they conclude. The fact that libertarian and left-liberal oppositions sound the same is a little bothersome though. It looks to me like the joining of amorality with immorality.

In my book, if you see a tiny rabid dog attacking a small person and you don’t interpose yourself with a stick, you are already guilty of assault. Assad’s Syria is only like Nazi Germany in terms of its evilness. It’s a small poor country with a small air force. A small air force can still inflict much hurt on fighters possessing no anti-aircraft weapons. A small air force can slaughter civilians by the hundreds of thousands. It’s especially easy if one bombs the civilians with gas.

This country, the US, has several times over the means to destroy the Syrian air force at little or no risk to itself. Simple humanity requires that the western democracies interfere with the on-going massacre.

I understand well the distaste toward another military involvement, after Iraq and Afghanistan although I don’t share it. (Personally, I believe the US and NATO should occupy the latter country for thirty or forty years. I know I can afford it.) But bombing selected targets inside Syria does not mean that we will “own it.” (That was a stupid formula coined by a political general who was greatly overestimated.) The defeat of the fascist Saddam Hussein in Iraq took two weeks plus one sand storm. Our troubles there began only when we decided to occupy the country. The US does not have to occupy Syria. It can attack and deplete Assaf’s military assets so as to give the opposition breathing space and them, just go home.

How about the violent jihadists who are included among the opponents- they say? Two questions about the jihadists:

1 Is the US more likely to render effective help to the secular, democratic part of the opposition to Assad by sitting out the war or by giving that fraction of the opposition active and visible support?

Don’t run away; don’t evade; don’t hide yourself; answer the question.

2 What are you saying? Do you actually prefer the familiar evil of of the fascist Syrian Baath Party (same as in Iraq) to the novel evils of violent jihadism? Has it gotten to this? Has the democratic West, has the US become so pathetic that we are reduced to chose through our inaction one form of great evil against another?

Th US sat out the Khmer Rouge grotesque self-genocide in Cambodia in 1975-1978 (one million-plus executions of people with glasses, for example, not counting many more deaths by starvation). The US watched passively the bricks and cane knife massacre in Rwanda where on group slaughtered 500,000 (or 1,000,000) in three months flat (Actually we were on the wrong side of the first mass crime.) Was it really the right thing to do in both cases, in either case? Think inside your head and look into your heart. Both organs matter to be a human being.

President Obama may be preparing to do the right thing at last. What do you know? Anything can happen.

Update 9/1/13. This is an overall tacit response to several critical comments: I was hoping aloud for armed Western intervention in Syria before there was any talk of gassing of civilians there.

Not well covered above: Any time the civilized world does not punish barbarous behavior, barbaric tyrants are encouraged to think they can do it too tomorrow. That’s a reason to intervene even if you are indifferent to the deliberate painful assassination of children.

Advertisements

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Socio-Political Essays and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Syria: None of Our Business?

  1. Jim Kress says:

    Perpetual war (which is what you are advocating when you desire the US to police the world) will destroy our country. History is replete with examples but Rome and the British Empire are probably the best

    We have no business getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries. If people are so worried about the atrocities being perpetrated in Syria, what about all the other countries in which similar atrocities are being performed? The entire continent of Africa contains situations like this. Do we intervene there, too? Russia is regressing back into a totalitarian state. Do we invade Russia? China is murdering farmers who object to the government mandated economic expansion projects. Do we send in the cruise missiles there? Hezbollah fires rockets into Israel. Why not get involved in that, too? Muslims murder Christians in a variety of European countries for no other reason than they “defiled” the image of Mohammad. Send in the bombers!

    The US should only engage in military activities when we are attacked, our international commerce is deliberately militarily restricted by a foreign power or we are required to by treaty.

  2. Jim: Some situations are both morally repulsive and easy to suppress. In such cases, there is no moral excuse for not intervening in a limited way (“Wreck and leave.”)

    This is merely a moral judgment. You don’t share it, obviously. I think it’s good to be clear about it. That’s why I posted this short essay.

    The Pax Americana has prevailed during my while life. Do you want to look forward to the Pax Sinica?

    • The Pax Americana has prevailed during my while life. Do you want to look forward to the Pax Sinica?

      More garbage. This blog is beginning to stink. This is yet another example of the many logical fallacies thrown about in the name of war on this blog: argumentum ad metum (hint: it’s an appeal to one’s fear).

      For example, how many aircraft carriers do the Chinese have? Of those, how many of them are not revamped Soviet-era throwbacks?

      How much longer are you going to tell lies and apply fallacious reasoning to your readership?

  3. Hello Jacques, – you’ll be pleased to hear I agree with you completely, and I find this piece to be one of your very best. – Your expression: “the joining of amorality with immorality” is pure gold, and although I’m only a closet-conservative.. :), – in this case I totally stand with you against both libertarians and lefties.

    I am discussing the same thing at my own blog, and here’s part of a comment I’ve just written:

    “..at times a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant, like when a brutal regime gasses its own people.., – at least that’s how I feel. – As I said, I’m a novice in military matters, and maybe you’re right: staying passive and keeping the hell out is the most sensible “response”, but it wouldn’t be right, and it would encourage the regime to carry on with it..”

    http://transhumanisten.com/2013/08/29/idiots-guide-to-the-middle-east-chart-updated/#comments

    I also wrote a short piece: Syria, – enough is enough : http://transhumanisten.com/2013/08/27/syria-enough-is-enough/

    • Finally, my Danish friend you see the light. I would like to credit myself but it looks unlikely. All the same, I give myself the benefit of doubt.

      Feel free to cross-link if you know how.

      • Wrong Jacques, you are mixing up things here, as I have not suddenly seen the light, – not when it comes to questions of morality and ethical behavior. Remember the first comment I wrote on your blog, which was a clap on your shoulder for defending Israel. What was the title now.. – Israel bad, Assad cool, or something like that. – When it comes to the merits – dare I say superiority.. – of our Scandinavian, Social-Liberal model, I’m afraid you still have some convincing to do.. – I know you tried your best, but so far to no avail 🙂

      • Ah, well, you are not completely wrong. I was just trying. It’s tough to leave behind completely the bad faith that comes with my origins!

  4. Come to think of it, I am going to reblog your article, and I hope it will make at least some lefties ashamed of themselves !

  5. Reblogged this on Transhumanisten and commented:
    If only I had the same writing skills as Jacques Delacroix, a man of true integrity !

  6. Dirk Bruere says:

    “In my book, if you see a tiny rabid dog attacking a small person and you don’t interpose yourself with a stick, you are already guilty of assault.”

    It’s a large pack of rabids dog fighting a psychopathetic serial killer – which one do you support?

    • Dirk: I support the very tiny pack of very small dogs some of which are not rabid.

      Are you old enough to remember the fearsome Iraqi Republican Guard that was going to cut to pieces any American land army to dared touch land in Iraq? It vanished into thin air.

      Today, no one at all iseven asking for an invasion of Syria, a smaller version of Iraq ten years ago.

      • Dirk Bruere says:

        The end result will be to put an Islamic dictatorship in place of the secular one. It is being done because Syria is the last ally of Iran in the region and Al Quaeda, which would form at least some of the new govt if not all, is anti-Iranian.

      • Dirk: You have just given another good reason to intervene in Syria. Anything that is unpleasant to the Islamic Republic can’t be all bad.

    • Dirk Bruere says:

      You mean you favor putting an Al Quaeda backed Islamic government in power in Syria, just because it would be an enemy of Iran? [who have not attacked anyone in the past 200 years]

      • Dirk:I am not in favor of helping Al Quaida. The risk that it might be helped is not sufficient to extinguish all humanitarian impulses .

        I don’t know how to deal with your statement that Iran has not attacked anyone. That’s patently absurd. The Islamic Republic has sheltered Al Qaida, among other misdeeds. Sponsoring terrorists counts. Threatening other nations counts. Building nuclear weapons while pretending not to counts.

      • Dirk Bruere says:

        Good job the USA has never done any of that.

      • The Islamic Republic has sheltered Al Qaida, among other misdeeds. Sponsoring terrorists counts. Threatening other nations counts. Building nuclear weapons while pretending not to counts.

        More garbage. This is pathetic. Iran and al-Qaeda have been enemies since the latter was formed. One is a nationalist Shia outfit and the other an internationalist Sunni organization. Tehran has never sheltered al-Qaeda. In fact, after the 9/11 attacks on the United States Iran sent special forces into Afghanistan to aid the US’s work in fighting al-Qaeda there (the Bush administration’s illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq put a stop to this cooperation, of course).

        The US sponsors countless terrorist organizations. Does this mean Santa Cruz deserves to be bombed by Peru? Because if we apply your logic to this situation, it surely does.

        There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. NONE. You are lying to yourself and to your readers again…

  7. Dirk, – I get your point, loud and clear : ) – but thing is I support neither. Neither do I support amorality / immorality,,

    Jacques, – I posted your article to Reddit, – hope it will attract more readers..

  8. In my book, if you see a tiny rabid dog attacking a small person and you don’t interpose yourself with a stick, you are already guilty of assault.

    This kind of thinking explains well not only the fascism inherent in neoconservatism, but also Dr J’s penchant for, uh, “stretching the truth” when it comes to foreign policy.

    There is nothing factually accurate in this blog post. I’ve already dealt with Dr J’s penchant for stretching the truth, and I got banned for it.

    This is garbage, and any American reading this should be alarmed at the eagerness of Europeans to spend our money and spill our blood in the name of something as vague as “humanitarianism.”

    • I read Brandon’s vituperation. I have nothing to say. Everything has already been said.

      • I CRUSHED your arguments for murdering innocent Syrians abroad.

        Like the soccer player who rolls around on the ground looking for a call (or to buy some time for his losing side), you are feigning injury rather than attempting to address my devastating case against murdering innocent Syrians.

        Your silence is deafening.

      • Brandon: There is not much point in arguing either with your pseudo-facts or with the real facts you present in support of I don’t know what because what separates us is an issue of values. Such issues cannot be resolved through discussion.

        I believe there is nothing that would persuade you that US military intervention to save anyone is legitimate. That’s nothing.

        If Americans had been like you in 1944, I almost certainly wouldn’t be here to argue anything with you.

        You are a complete prisoner of dogmatism. That’s why you are so happy with your own performance.

      • If they were pseudo-facts you’d be readily able to debunk them, but you cannot. So you feign hurt feelings and continue to spread your lies to the gullible, including calling me ‘dogmatic.’

        Your moral vision of society is atrocious not because I disagree with it, but because it is based on lies, logical fallacies and fairy dust.

      • No “hurt feeling,” Brandon. You and I have gone over the same grounds many times. Doing it again is not compelling.

        I am glad you get to use this blog to argue with others.

      • You cannot reason with the already converted. My aim in arguing with you is to show others just how fallacious and out of touch with reality your foreign policy prescriptions are. In this way I think our arguments and, by extension, your inability to back up your assertions are useful to others.

        The only person I argue with on this blog is you. My own project is geared more towards learning and discussing ideas and events (as yours used to be), rather than peddling populist lies.

        Syria is not Nazi Germany, for example.

        Damascus is not responsible for the chemical weapons attacks, Washington’s rebels are (want to bet?).

        The “democratic” West is not as powerful as you believe it to be, else Syria would be a mere province of the French empire and Iraq a popular tourist destination for Irish software engineers.

        If you could truly afford Western military occupation of non-Western lands then you wouldn’t need to lobby for government programs to do your bidding for you.

        Again your moral vision of society is atrocious not because I disagree with it, but because it is based on lies, logical fallacies and fairy dust.

      • Dear readers: I am in no way responsible for Brandon Christensen’s rants. I neither approve nor disapprove of them. His role on this blog is largely to demonstrate that a dedication to free speech is often meritorious. Plus, he makes me look like a saint!

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Brandon
        “Damascus is not responsible for the chemical weapons attacks, Washington’s rebels are (want to bet?).”

        I’ll take a piece of that action.

      • Alright Dr A, it looks like it’s just you and me. Let it be known that Dr J chickened out on a bet over whether or not Damascus or Washington’s Islamist, al Qaeda-affiliated allies are to blame for the chemical weapons attacks (he changed the subject instead).

        I’ll let Dr A name the terms of the debate.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Brandon
        The terms of the debate are that we can’t call Jacques a liar or we get booted. We’ve both had enough experience pointing out lack of facts to have quite a repertoire of euphemisms. He’s also amazingly prudish about language (I attribute it to a lifetime of sexual repression) so we probably shouldn’t call his fantasies ‘total bullshit’.

        I would like to bring up Iran. In several ways the current hassle is as much about Iran as it is Syria; whenever you hear talking heads going on about a ‘loss of credibility’ if the president doesn’t order a military strike in Syria they are talking about Iran and the development of nuclear weapons. I think you went out on a limb when you asserted:
        “There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. NONE. You are lying to yourself and to your readers again…”
        Are you comfortable out on that limb?

      • Correction: You may not call anyone a liar. You may not call anyone anything at all on this blog. Describe what you think are facts and let the readers come to their conclusions.

        Got it?

        On the sexual language side, I would prefer you did not use any descriptor that is not in the Bible (King James version).

        Other than that, feel free to roll in the gutter with other commentators on this blog.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Jacques
        If it is true that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines” then your mind is very expansive.

        Not long ago you wrote a post titled “Lying for a Good Cause?”
        Why? “The answer matters because I believe that when your cause is good, you don’t have to lie for it. Often, whether its proponents lie or not is all you need to know about a cause. The Founding Fathers lied little or none; both Communists and Nazis lied all the time and they justified lying in the name of a greater cause.”

        Calling climate scientists liars [along with Communists & Nazis] is [was?] ok a few days ago. As you’ve said: your blog, your rules. And the current rules are that you can’t call anyone anything. Correct?

  9. Terry Amburgey says:

    ” The fact that libertarian and left-liberal oppositions sound the same is a little bothersome though. It looks to me like the joining of amorality with immorality.”

    It looks to me like a matter of which mores get emphasized. If my favorite progressive site is any indication (and it’s among the largest so I believe it is) the kerfuffle over Syria is just the latest cause célèbre in the civil war among progressives that boiled over with the NSA scandals. There are the rally-around-the-president progressives and there are the Obama-is-acting-like-Cheney progressives.
    http://www.dailykos.com/#

    I’ll oversimplify a bit; one place of agreement between many progressives & libertarians is a loathing of bloated surveillance states and military adventurism [which progressives tend to believe is at the behest of the military-industrial-complex]. While the topic of the day is civil liberties & being the world policeman there is a lot of agreement. If the conversation was about social insurance programs & tax policies I doubt there would be the same agreement.

    BTW, like Jacques I personally believe that the U.S. should have a series of military strikes in Syria. I don’t know Jacques position but I would go further: although it’s unlikely to be successful I think the U.S. should do it’s best to kill the upper levels of the Syrian regime.

    • although it’s unlikely to be successful I think the U.S. should do it’s best to kill the upper levels of the Syrian regime.

      Dr A,

      Why do think such an operation is unlikely to be successful?

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Brandon
        Too many hidey holes. They gave it a shot in Iraq & Libya to no avail. But destroying command/control infrastructure is worth a few cruise missles.

        I see that the President is going to seek congressional approval. I suspect he won’t get it but it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

    • Response to Terry on” foolish consistency” and on calling people liars.

      Nazis lied, Communists (including those I knew) lied ceaselessly. I am less sure about climate scientists who tell untruths or who are grossly careless with facts. I must say hat early in my academic career, I fought people (neo-Marxists) who made crudely false statements, who tipped the scales with their feet, but who honestly thought they were honest.( I mean people who were thus not technically liars.) Yet, when scientists who are also activists conspire with their buddies by email to harm a journal they think not sufficiently sold on their cause, it’s hard to believe they do it in good faith. But, OK, because of your intervention, I will try to remember to suggest that people are “blind religious fanatics” before I call them liars.

      As for my general decorum requirement on this blog remember that the beauty of the Internet is that it offer thousands of blogs. Some are very crude. Myself, I believe – without proof – that insulting individuals is just a way to avoid developing arguments and presenting facts, with their source. I think it’s a good practice over all to be restrained in that area. I think it helps develop useful dialogues.

      In addition, I know for a fact that this blog has many visitors from countries outside North America where people might be used to old-fashioned good manners. I want such visitors to feel at home on this blog even if its rules of civility cause unbearable pain to the likes of yourself and Brandon.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Jacques

        My understanding of your current rules of decorum [and I quote directly] is:

        “You may not call anyone anything at all on this blog. Describe what you think are facts and let the readers come to their conclusions.”

        Nonetheless, in your very next post I see [and again I quote directly]:
        “But, OK, because of your intervention, I will try to remember to suggest that people are “blind religious fanatics” before I call them liars.”

        Is “blind religious fanatic” consistent with your rules of decorum? Are there any other perjorative terms that also pass muster? Your profanity rule is pretty unambiguous: no descriptor that is not in the King James version of the bible.

      • Terry: “Blind religious fanatics ” is a kind description of your buddies. I consider it a form of flattery.

        You are wasting my time and yours. How many times in your long presence on this blog have I censored you?

        Let me repeat myself: A miracle of the Internet is the multiplication of blogs. I think my loose rules promote discussion. I may be wrong. It may be hurling mindless insults at others that promotes discussion. If I am wrong, it does not matter in the broadest scheme.

  10. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Jacques
    “You are wasting my time and your. How many times in your long presence on this blog have I censored you?”

    Never. I want to keep it that way. So blind religious fanatic is ok. Check. BTW, the King James version of the Bible has some good descriptors. I’m itching to let loose on Brandon, that Great Whore that sitteth upon many waters (The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth is also pretty good).

  11. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Brandon
    Now that Jacques has clarified the rules of decorum, I’d like to get back to your assertion about Iran….

    “There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. NONE. You are lying to yourself and to your readers again…”

    • Good question Dr A:

      I would like to bring up Iran. In several ways the current hassle is as much about Iran as it is Syria; whenever you hear talking heads going on about a ‘loss of credibility’ if the president doesn’t order a military strike in Syria they are talking about Iran and the development of nuclear weapons. I think you went out on a limb when you asserted:

      “There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. NONE. You are lying to yourself and to your readers again…”

      Are you comfortable out on that limb?

      Yes, and very much so. Remember, there is a huuuuuuge difference between ‘proof’ and ‘speculation.’ Maybe Dr J will provide us with some etymological insights into these two words, but in mean time here is an example: there was lots of speculation that Iraq had WMDs, but no proof. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people died and the US lost its place as the undisputed moral leader of the world as a result of pursuing policies that bowed to speculation rather than proof.

      Iran could be more of an ally than an enemy (as it has been in the past), but for some reason Washington believes that harboring a 35 year-old grudge is smarter than capitalizing on the current regime’s weaknesses (which are many). I don’t understand this at all.

      This is not to say that I think Tehran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. I’m sure Tehran remembers well what the West did to Ghaddafi and how it treats North Korea.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Brandon
        Yes, anyone spending time here soon learns the difference between proof and speculation. Let me impersonate a well known recent Democratic president [hint: it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is…]. I’d say there is plenty of evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon ‘capability’. Is there evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb? No. By all accounts they are not capable of building one at this time.

        You might be tempted to say ‘capability schmapabilty who cares about capability’? The Israelis, that’s who. Remember Netanyahu with his dorky red marker ‘red line’ on a picture of a bomb? Netanyahu still remembers…

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/14/us-nuclear-israel-iran-idUSBRE96D08H20130714

        My speculation is that the Israelis aren’t going to wait for proof that mechanics are tightening the bolts on a nuke. Those warm & friendly Iranians have made their views on Israel quite clear.

        Why does this matter? If the government in Israel thinks the US will weasel out of the Obama no nukes in Iran ‘redline’ they have to go alone. And they’ve made it clear that their clock and the US clock aren’t synchronous: they have to go earlier than the US would because their capabilities are less.

        Capabilities matter in more ways than one.

      • General philosophical comment on the alleged difference between proof and speculation:

        There is no strict difference. When I assert that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, it’s a speculation with a high probability of becoming true.

        If I asserted that orthodox Libertarian Brandon usually thinks before he writes, it would also be a speculation, one with a lower probability of being true.

        If I asserted that the average liberal usually stops himself from making an assertion because it might turn out to be false….Well, you can complete the thought by yourselves..

  12. JC Mullis says:

    Great topic. I have two concerns with a limited “aerial” attack in Syria. First, we don’t have a weapons platform/munition that can destroy chemical stockpiles from the air. The best we can do is damage their storage facilities, risking chemical leaks that could potentially kill a massive amount of innocent people. Yes, we can also damage their air bases and launch capabilities, but experience in Iraq has shown us that these systems can be re-set up almost immediately after an attack. It’s also important to note that most chemical weapons can be fired by howitzer style guns, mortars, and rocket launchers, not only jets. My second and frankly biggest concern is that our limited interference will allow tons of chemical weapons and more importantly, their production capabilities to fall into the hands of the “wrong” rebels (i.e. our enemies) who will carry them across the border for later use against us. The only way to do this with limited civilian casualties and ensure a positive outcome is a full scale invasion similar to Iraq. This is something the US and our current allies don’t have the stomach for and I doubt Iran, Russia, and China would sit still for. Now, what I think is actually going to happen is the Obama administration is seeking to buy cooperation from “everyone”, then they will bomb a something innocuous like a baby-milk factory and declare victory.

  13. Terry Amburgey says:

    @JC Mullis
    “First, we don’t have a weapons platform/munition that can destroy chemical stockpiles from the air. The best we can do is damage their storage facilities, risking chemical leaks that could potentially kill a massive amount of innocent people.”

    I would agree as long as the strike is restricted to cruise missles. However if manned aircraft get involved I’d say that thermobaric munitions would excel at the task since the chemicals would be incinerated rather than dispersed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

    • JC Mullis says:

      Terry,
      The blast wave of a thermobaric weapon goes out appx 3 km and pretty much kills everyone in the blast zone (if not from blast affects such as over-pressure and collapsing buildings, than asphyxiation). This might work if they hid their weapons in the deep desert. Unfortunately, they don’t. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/syria-said-be-hiding-weapons-moving-troops

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        JC,
        Depends on the munition. For example the Russian FOAB is as bad as a small tactical nuke…
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs
        But the US doesn’t have to use MOAB there are a variety of choices. Apparently the Russians have man-portable thermobaric munitions including a 43 mm grenade with a lethality radius of 3 meters and the US has a 40 mm equivalent. Not that grenades would be useful 😉

        Possibly a Hellfire II? From drones?

  14. JC Mullis says:

    Terry, The smaller tactical versions of these weapons are designed to destroy tanks and buildings (similar to RPGs). They would not be able to reliably destroy all the chemical weapons stored within a multiple building facility (bomb dump). You would destroy some of them, crack open some of them, and leave some whole. Remember that these weapons are designed not to leak under severe conditions (being fired from a large gun), the chemicals are encased in hardened steel casings, placed in hardened steel containers, and stored in multiple steel re-enforced structures (and apparently some private homes). From what I heard on the news last night. We have sent teams of US trained rebels (?) into Syria in a effort to capture and remove their chemical weapons. If so God bless them.

  15. Terry Amburgey says:

    A comment on Jacques alleged philosophical musings. Did the sun rise in the east today?

  16. Terry: The fact that you ask is quite telling. It’s not just a joke that fails to be funny, it’s a symptom. Soon, I will write a post on you.

  17. David says:

    i say turn half the middle east into a cinderblock/piece of glass. that’ll take care of several issues in one fowl swoop. won’t have to worry about a war in the middle east, no need to worry about who will replace who since it will be a complete wasteland, no need to worry about what our allies/enemies think because they wouldn’t exist, it would nearly completely remove our dependence on foreigh oil, since most of it would be inaccessible; no one would likely do anything against us because of fear of being turned into piles of glass ash. (…Fear of this battle station..) Frankly enough the only way to stop this kind of behavior is to scorch the very earth these people occupy. (think Europe/Japan post WWII) Europe stopped killing each other en masse only after their continent was levelled. Twice. It took two atomic bombs to stop Japan. Proportional force responses only led to more war. Break the back of your enemy, it makes it a lot harder for them to walk. Total war is ugly, but it’s the only type of warfare that has an end. All other types of wars keep the gruesome aspects of war ongoing. (WWII lasted less time than iraq.) Much larger goals in a much shorter time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s