OK, why are we all of a sudden opposed to US’s complete withdrawal from Syria? I think it’s a great decision because no good is being done by staying. And the worry that it would please Putin is ridiculous. First of all, it won’t. And besides, why would you suddenly care about it?

I’m beyond puzzled by all my peacenik hippie generation colleagues ranting against the withdrawal from Syria because they are now all about the US “remaining a major player in the region.”

This is what I mean when I talk about people not being guided by principles in their politics. It’s like if Trump says that minimum wage should be raised to $20, they will begin to rant against the impact it will have on job creators.


22 thoughts on “Withdrawal”

  1. So many progressives now seem like the political equivalents of flatworms… completely reactive to an environment they play no part in shaping…. sad. Conservatives have looooong been that way (they completely started losing their shit in the early 00s and now progressives have followed suit).


  2. Also I’m fine with the US never invading or interfering in a middle eastern country (sensu largo including North Africa and central Asia) again. There’s not one single positive outcome yet that I can perceive.


  3. “Why are we all of a sudden opposed to US’s complete withdrawal from Syria?”

    For multiple reasons that have nothing to do with who the president is. In the short haul, a complete withdrawal would allow ISIS to build back up and continue to be a major terrorist threat to both Europe and the U.S. In the greater geopolitical scheme, it would effectively cede control of the Middle East to Russia and Iran, two very bad actors on the world stage.

    Obama started the disastrous U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East almost a decade ago, and if Trump follows through, it will be the worst mistake of his presidency to date.


    1. Obama was obliged to withdraw American forces from Iraq under a treaty signed by 43. As for Syria, have the Saudis do the heavy lifting from now on. The sands of the Middle East aren’t our concern.


            1. A darker colour would be nice, since this is almost bright enough to give one snowblindness. S0 would more compact comments, but tbh the smaller indentation is useful – it makes deep comment threads actually feasible


          1. My view too, but I just don’t like change. It’s a little bit harder to find the comments sections with theme though also.


  4. I hate Trump, but I’m also 100% in favor of withdrawing the troops from Syria. And I also bet a lot of Americans really don’t care one way or the other.


  5. Don’t care much for the theme. The comments are not as compact as before, so it takes a lot of scrolling to get through a post with even a small number of comments. Responses to comments are also not too indented, making it harder to follow a comment thread.


    1. \ The comments are not as compact as before, so it takes a lot of scrolling to get through a post with even a small number of comments. Responses to comments are also not too indented, making it harder to follow a comment thread.


      Now I understood what the problem was. Thanks!


      1. I have already published this comment under “IMPORTANT,” but since saturation advertising has been proven to be an effective technique, here it is again:

        April 7, 2018 at 04:09
        “Complaint: Clarissa’s new style makes the ads way more prominent — it is almost hard to find text of post.”

        That’s what free app programs like “Ad-Blocker” are for.

        I started using the totally free “Ad-Blocker” app a couple months ago to make it reasonably possible to get through ad-infested nightmare sites like Salon.com. Thanks to that app, Clarissa’s old format only showed one major ad (just below the top posting ) on its homepage.

        Clarissa’s terrific new format, combined with the original “Ad-Blocker” program, doesn’t show ANY ads on Clarissa’s pages at all.

        Only a Luddite would want to go back to Clarissa’s old format. With her new layout, the text is bright and clear, the comments are as compact as in a modern word processor, and anybody who can’t see the obvious indention for the secondary replies needs to accept that fact that he/she has reached the age when it’s time to invest in a pair of dime-store reading classes.

        KEEP IT!! Or admit that so-called “progressives” on Clarissa’s Blog are more afraid of updated technology than an elderly conservative like me!


  6. Have you seen the TV news today? Assad just carried out a major chemical weapons attack on civilian shelters filled with children, apparently very similar to the attack almost exactly one year ago that prompted a cruise missile counterattack by Trump.

    I wonder if it’s just coincidental that Assad, with obvious Russian approval, carried out this attack right after Trump said that he wanted to withdraw completely from Syria. Surely, Assad and Putin knew that this would get Trump’s attention…


      1. Well, somebody has started shooting back!

        Today (8 April) Syria is stating that missiles and aircraft have launched attacks against Syrian targets. Syria is blaming the U.S., of course, but the Pentagon is denying that we’re involved. The U.S. doesn’t deny attacks when it’s responsible (everybody would know, anyway) — so the missiles have to be coming from our stanch ally Israel.

        Hopefully our President will now take the lead, and reassert American leadership in the Middle East.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.