Syria

Published by

Clarissa

August 28, 2013

OK, so who used the chemical weapons in Syria? The government or the rebels? How likely is it that we are headed into yet another “We attacked a government for having WMDs but the WMDs are not there, oopsie daisy”?

I really hope we are not seeing the repetition of the Iraq invasion. Because how stupid will we be to fall for the same story about WMDs?

Whatever the answer is, however, it is disturbing to consider a possible US invasion of Syria at this point. If the United Nations really existed, it could handle such issues. What a beautiful idea the UN was and how pathetically it failed! It was the greatest, most pathetic failure of the post WWII era.

Rate this:

13 responses to “Syria”

Stille (@aperfectbalance)

August 28, 2013

Wartard is, as always, an interesting and irreverent read.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 28, 2013
  
  Very good article, thank you!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Titfortat

August 28, 2013

The US wont invade don’t worry about that. They will just cruise missile the bejeebies out of a few strategic areas.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Stille (@aperfectbalance)
  
  August 28, 2013
  
  I swear, one of the US’s problems is that they’ve never had a war on their territory since the Civil War. It’s probably why they can still buy the “wage war to rescue people from their dictators” idea. They don’t understand at a visceral level the costs of war, and they don’t get that WW2 was a special case.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    August 28, 2013
    
    Yes. Oh yes. I couldn’t agree more.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. Lear
    
    August 29, 2013
    
    It’s a difficult trade-off to calculate. Vietnam was definetly a loss. But I’d argue Iraq, is still a deal in spite of all the collateral damage.
    
    I doubt that they ever envisioned to “wage war to rescue people from their dictators.” Objective is both economical (direct), or simply being the bully (indirect) to win influence on other nations/markets.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 28, 2013
  
  I don’t even know any more if Obama is likely to go all Dubya on us. I hoped not but now I don’t know.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
David Gendron

August 28, 2013

Although I think the Al-Assad regime is responsible for these chemical attacks, I’m strongly against this militaro-terrorist intervention, especially when the “rebels” (sic) are closely related to islamo-terrorists.

So, there’s no more sequester nor austerity measures in the Occidental countries?

LikeLike

Reply
Steve

August 29, 2013

As someone put it:
Fifty years ago Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream”.
Now Obama says, “I have a drone.”

LikeLike

Reply
1. kelly
  
  August 30, 2013
  
  Unfortunately Steve, that seems to be the case. What a real deception in electing Obama and in celebrating his Nobel Prize when it happened!. Now he is determined to go “en solitaire” and attack Syria. I never thought he could be so stupid!.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
el

August 30, 2013

Report: Assad bombs school with napalm
Incendiary bomb kills 10, wounds dozens near Aleppo, BBC reports. Wounded suffer severe burns. Meanwhile, US survey shows Americans think Obama needs Congress’ green-light to go to Syria
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4424261,00.html

LikeLike

Reply
Stringer Bell

August 30, 2013

He’s got no approval from the congress, the UN, the British, or the international community. Polls say only 10%-20% americans approve of going to war with Syria. No problem. Yes, We Can.

Are we still calling Bush Jr a cowboy?

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 30, 2013
  
  For now, I have seen two convincing explanations of why he is so set in this war: he is afraid of being called weak by the Republicans and he is in thrall to the military-industrial lobby. I think both explanations are true.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply