The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Souriya Al-Assad]

The Republicans are seeing this as an opportunity to finish the President off.

Were a Republican President asking for this intervention under these exact circumstances ("red lines" and all), John Boehner would be whipping his Caucus harder that a dominatrix on crystal meth, and — with the exception of Rand Paul and a few random backbenchers — the entire GOP would be falling all over themselves to "support the President" (under threat of drawing the scorn of conservative talk radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh [who repeats RT's line about how it was the rebels who used chemical weapons and not Assad; were a Republican in power, he'd be condemning anyone who said what he's saying on the air today as a traitor and a Russian tool]). In the meantime, Democrats who might want to oppose the President would be edging towards support of the authorization on the grounds that opposing it might make them look weak, leaving only those Democrats in possession of safe seats to oppose the vote.

Under that scenario, I'd expect the final numbers to be 75-25 in the Senate and 320-115 in the House.

But we don't have a Republican President; we have a Democratic one. Consequently, I'd expect something like a 58-42 vote in the Senate (without a filibuster) and then a 185-250 vote (against) in the House. After that, the Republicans will spend the next several months declaring the Obama Presidency "over" and screaming loudly about how the President's "fecklessness" has done "irreparable harm" to the country.

I'm going to need to buy several bottles of Tums just to keep my stomach settled; the aftermath of this vote is going to be completely nauseating.

Will even today's brain-dead media be able to ignore the fact that most of the "nay" votes came from Republicans in the House?

The unfortunate thing is, the two-party right only criticises the two-party 'left' when elections approach, then they almost practically behave the same afterwards. Then vice versa.

Look at the similarities between Sarkozy & Hollande in our nation.

Look at how Cameron is imitating Blair.

Look at Obomber imitating Bush.

Look at how well McCain collaborated with Obomber to coordinate with the FSA death squads (remember, he slipped into Syria illegally then met with well known criminal elements of the death squads)

[The Sovergian Empire]

We know chemical weapons have been used. It gained nothing to no one. Since the USA is attacking them, which im for, they also need to realize the risks. Al Qaeda is fighting Assad, so Syria can fall into anarchy and they can put a puppet ruler in and use it as a base, which will cause problems for more problems in the future. Therefore, we should attack Assad AND Al Qaeda.

[Yue-Laou]

It's clear Assad must go. Does anyone really think he'll be able to lead Syria after all this? Obviously not. Assad will have to abuse and beat down syrians for years to maintain power.

[San-Silvacian]

Will even today's brain-dead media be able to ignore the fact that most of the "nay" votes came from Republicans in the House?

The unfortunate thing is, the two-party right only criticises the two-party 'left' when elections approach, then they almost practically behave the same afterwards. Then vice versa.

Look at the similarities between Sarkozy & Hollande in our nation.

Look at how Cameron is imitating Blair.

Look at Obomber imitating Bush.

Look at how well McCain collaborated with Obomber to coordinate with the FSA death squads (remember, he slipped into Syria illegally then met with well known criminal elements of the death squads)

ignoring all the silliness of your post i think EVERYONE can agree that the two party system is stupid.

[Oppressed Slaver Union]

The illuminate is orchestrating this entire thing.
If the USA goes to war, they will go alone, and the world will be against the USA
UK doesn't want to go
The french are willing to help but only if america goes.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Rt reports on Think Progress analysis suggests congress is leaning to a "no" vote. http://rt.com/usa/congress-syria-vote-no-466/

I hope it's true. I know it's a whole lot to ask US congress to vote in a common sense manor though.

Here's CNN's own report on votes: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/ ... house.html

[Vicswampia]

The illuminate is orchestrating this entire thing.
If the USA goes to war, they will go alone, and the world will be against the USA
UK doesn't want to go
The french are willing to help but only if america goes.

...

...

...okay?

[Grand Britannia]

The illuminate is orchestrating this entire thing.
If the USA goes to war, they will go alone, and the world will be against the USA
UK doesn't want to go
The french are willing to help but only if america goes.

Yeah, those damn communist lizard aliens from zulu.

[New Chalcedon]

The illuminate is orchestrating this entire thing.
If the USA goes to war, they will go alone, and the world will be against the USA
UK doesn't want to go
The french are willing to help but only if america goes.

The Illuminati?

Souriya, you should really get this guy to stop "helping" you. He's not doing your side of this argument any favours...

[Agritum]

The illuminate is orchestrating this entire thing.
If the USA goes to war, they will go alone, and the world will be against the USA
UK doesn't want to go
The french are willing to help but only if america goes.

The Illuminati?

Souriya, you should really get this guy to stop "helping" you. He's not doing your side of this argument any favours...

He actually makes Souriya look moderate.

[San-Silvacian]

The illuminate is orchestrating this entire thing.
If the USA goes to war, they will go alone, and the world will be against the USA
UK doesn't want to go
The french are willing to help but only if america goes.

Yeah, those damn communist lizard aliens from zulu.

damn them all

[Yue-Laou]

Here's a good article about life in the syrian army

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... f-war.html

[Olivaero]

Will even today's brain-dead media be able to ignore the fact that most of the "nay" votes came from Republicans in the House?

The unfortunate thing is, the two-party right only criticises the two-party 'left' when elections approach, then they almost practically behave the same afterwards. Then vice versa.

Look at the similarities between Sarkozy & Hollande in our nation.

Look at how Cameron is imitating Blair.

Look at Obomber imitating Bush.

Look at how well McCain collaborated with Obomber to coordinate with the FSA death squads (remember, he slipped into Syria illegally then met with well known criminal elements of the death squads)

Cameron imitating Blair? As much as I don't like the guy don't lay that on him. He's shown far more reverence to Parliament and democracy than Blair ever did.

[Imperializt Russia]

I heard that U.S.A bombed Syria... I don't believe it. What about you? Do you believe that this action took place?

Two days ago, the Israelis launched a Sparrow missile, out into the sea.
My understanding is that Sparrow is a "target" missile, capable of simulating "bulk chemical strike" to test missile defence systems, which implies it uses an electronic suite to adjust its radar signature.

Which probably explains why Russian air defence radar picked it up.
Though the astute geographer may make the point that Israel is not in the "middle of the [Mediterranean] sea".

We know chemical weapons have been used. It gained nothing to no one. Since the USA is attacking them, which im for, they also need to realize the risks. Al Qaeda is fighting Assad, so Syria can fall into anarchy and they can put a puppet ruler in and use it as a base, which will cause problems for more problems in the future. Therefore, we should attack Assad AND Al Qaeda.

If you've decided everyone needs fighting, why not just nuke Syria?

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Here's a good article about life in the syrian army

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... f-war.html

Another piece part of the rhetorical escalation against Syria, which has many flaws.

Lots of Syrian soldiers filmed by ANNA were seen shouting ‘Ya Allah‘ without fear before charging into battle.

Secondly, the Syrian Arab Army is not made of ‘conscripts‘ solely. Half are, however half are furthermore volunteers.

Thirdly, the characteristic of shooting into people‘s homes is something more characterised withthe insurgents (hundreds of real footage can prove their culpability) not the Syrian army. Lastly, as I said pages back, these so called defectors are being paid to leave & say anti-government statements Let me get an example of a famous one, where a government ‘defector‘ admitted on Israeli Channel II that he was paid to both defect as well as to propagate anti government statements.

[The Victorian Empire]

To the point & within the context memes are to the point & within the context...

(Image)
(Image)

Ew, propaganda.

[Alien Space Bats]

Will even today's brain-dead media be able to ignore the fact that most of the "nay" votes came from Republicans in the House?

No, but that will hardly make any difference. It's like the "most divisive President in American history" meme: Republicans will simply blame their unwillingness to support Barack Obama in any way on Barack Obama himself. I mean, it's not their fault that he's a Democrat, the bastard...

It's clear Assad must go. Does anyone really think he'll be able to lead Syria after all this? Obviously not. Assad will have to abuse and beat down syrians for years to maintain power.

That shouldn't be difficult. Once the Western effort to punish Assad for using chemical weapons falls apart, they'll be nothing to stop Russia from pouring a tidal wave of arms into Syria (to spite the West and rub their noses in their failure, if nothing else) and nothing to stop Assad from gassing his way from one end of the country to the other, paving the country with the bones of his enemies. The finality with which the rebels are annihilated should make any further insurgency utterly unthinkable for decades to come. After all, it took nearly 30 years after the shelling of Hama for anyone to dare even protest against the current government...

[Big Brain City]

Two things.
First, the use of chemical weapons by this dictator on the innocent, even if his enemies whom he fears would kill him in a ditch are among them, is barbaric. We should do something about it, something to stop him. But intervention- an intervention that President Obama's been shamed into by people reminding him of his redline speech, an "intervention" amounting to a bunch of missile strikes on military that's been televised for days- is ridiculous. If you're going to stop or ruin his ability to use the weapons, assuming he did, well, you don't trumpet it, otherwise your precious 200 Tomahawks might as well be a test-fire for an antimissile system. And even if they hit, it could be like the Dora Fields airstrike outside Baghdad- we could be mistaken. Furthermore, we let Saddam use gas on the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war, and then 43 stirred up antagonism against him for oil, for eternal electoral majority, for the defeat of Iran, whatever. Gwynne Dyer said that the American government's okay with chemical weapons as long as they're deployed for our benefit. Seeing as they're not being used that way in Syria, well, that's bullshit, it amounts to a collective psychopathic hypocrisy inherent to seemingly all nations and to a hypocritical empire especially. It explains why we're going to use this limited strike to hit Assad.
Second, I watched MSNBC last night, specifically All In With Chris Hayes, and he was right to say that the argument of "war or nothing" is a false choice. He suggested that we could support the refugee flood from Syria, and give them a faster path to citizen-refugee status here, as has Sweden. We could have not ordered the 200 Tomahawks or spent their hundreds of millions of dollars' worth on helping the UN take care of the refugees. That is a good idea. It won't satisfy those who argue that war is the only choice. Furthermore, Hayes stated that if our goal is a political settlement, the rebels will be just like the Republicans after the 1860 election. The Southerners demanded concessions from them if they didn't want seccession, and the Republicans and their supporters were against it, stating that it was surrender to a defeated enemy. The Syrian rebels will be like that if we ask them to set down their AK-47s or whatever weapons they have and negotiate with Assad for peace in their country. They won't want peace, they'll want to kill Bashar the butcher.
Now let me be honest: Assad's conduct, and that of the rebels, has been deplorable, with the summary executions of surrendering soldiers on both sides, armed thugs killing civilians, random shelling of noncombatants, and should not have happened. True, the rebels include the al-Qaeda aligned Al-Nusra Brigade, and we don't want an Islamic Emirate of Syria, do we? But to step into this fight is to get involved in a whirlwind of bloody and violent hell nobody truly understands.
If we do, we must have a strategy. We must set clear boundaries for our conduct in this war. And if things get bad for us, be prepared to end it if the need is there.
Personally, I oppose the missile strike in Syria. Militarily it likely won't be enough to stop Assad from gassing his people again, and it will only make the situation more hellish and confusing otherwise. We should help those who wish to escape chaos, so that the wounds of this civil war do not include those who have escaped from the battle zone in location, but will carry it, even if partly, in their hearts.

[Shofercia]

Just to quickly point something out: Hitler killed 90% of Jews in Nazi Germany, which is why he "only" killed 100,000 in 1945; they were either liberated, or he couldn't find anymore to kill, or both.

Now, in terms of Assad, the issue is one of commitment. NATO wasn't willing to commit to having a decent election in Afghanistan. How many resources can NATO actually commit to make life in Syria better? Americans, British, French, etc, are war weary. Others don't even want a war. How are you going to make life better in Syria, without boots on the ground?

That's true, to some extent. I wish I could grab at the deaths-per-annum of other groups throughout the Holocaust, but I still think that, with Russia turning the tide of the war early in 1943 in Stalingrad, Germany's genocide was toned down by virtue of war distractions.

As far as Assad, I think that one optimal solution that may perhaps be obtained is a Syrian government organized akin to the one that ruled before the Arab Spring, only presided by members of one or more of Assad's political opponents. This could potentially be set into motion by the defection of one or more of Assad's significant aides, which could be caused without the presence of US troops. It really depends, though, on how Assad's advisers and other players act in response to the first US attack, rather than on how the US attacks.

Because, at this point, we know the scope in which Obama intends to attack. The only things unknown are when and where.

Part of that is wrong. Nazis were more concerned about killing people, than conducting a proper retreat. Trains with "lesser race prisoners" had right of way over trains with supplies, if I'm remembering my history class correctly. Only when Concentration Camps were Liberated, and Nazi Jails Purged, did our fellow human beings escape Nazi tyranny, and that required boots on the ground.

Now, here's the thing: Assad's winning, and majority of Syrians want this to be over. If Assad was to promise post-war amnesty for the basic soldiers of the other side, he'd get massive support, which would enable Assad to maintain popular support in a Middle Eastern country where he's from a minority group. How's a defector going to change that?

[Imperializt Russia]

Two things.
First, the use of chemical weapons by this dictator on the innocent, even if his enemies whom he fears would kill him in a ditch are among them, is barbaric. We should do something about it, something to stop him. But intervention- an intervention that President Obama's been shamed into by people reminding him of his redline speech, an "intervention" amounting to a bunch of missile strikes on military that's been televised for days- is ridiculous. If you're going to stop or ruin his ability to use the weapons, assuming he did, well, you don't trumpet it, otherwise your precious 200 Tomahawks might as well be a test-fire for an antimissile system. And even if they hit, it could be like the Dora Fields airstrike outside Baghdad- we could be mistaken. Furthermore, we let Saddam use gas on the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war, and then 43 stirred up antagonism against him for oil, for eternal electoral majority, for the defeat of Iran, whatever. Gwynne Dyer said that the American government's okay with chemical weapons as long as they're deployed for our benefit. Seeing as they're not being used that way in Syria, well, that's bullshit, it amounts to a collective psychopathic hypocrisy inherent to seemingly all nations and to a hypocritical empire especially. It explains why we're going to use this limited strike to hit Assad.

America didn't just allow Saddam to get away with chemical attacks in the Iran-Iraq War and particularly Halabja, they were implicitly supported.
In fact, until the time came to write the 2003 "assessment", the CIA had always officially blamed Halabja on the Iranians, only changing their opinion to what is considered the correct sequence of events when falsifying intelligence reports under order.

[Shofercia]

By the way, how are things proceeding in congress?

The Republicans are seeing this as an opportunity to finish the President off.

Were a Republican President asking for this intervention under these exact circumstances ("red lines" and all), John Boehner would be whipping his Caucus harder that a dominatrix on crystal meth, and — with the exception of Rand Paul and a few random backbenchers — the entire GOP would be falling all over themselves to "support the President" (under threat of drawing the scorn of conservative talk radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh [who repeats RT's line about how it was the rebels who used chemical weapons and not Assad; were a Republican in power, he'd be condemning anyone who said what he's saying on the air today as a traitor and a Russian tool]). In the meantime, Democrats who might want to oppose the President would be edging towards support of the authorization on the grounds that opposing it might make them look weak, leaving only those Democrats in possession of safe seats to oppose the vote.

Under that scenario, I'd expect the final numbers to be 75-25 in the Senate and 320-115 in the House.

But we don't have a Republican President; we have a Democratic one. Consequently, I'd expect something like a 58-42 vote in the Senate (without a filibuster) and then a 185-250 vote (against) in the House. After that, the Republicans will spend the next several months declaring the Obama Presidency "over" and screaming loudly about how the President's "fecklessness" has done "irreparable harm" to the country.

I'm going to need to buy several bottles of Tums just to keep my stomach settled; the aftermath of this vote is going to be completely nauseating.

And if they pass it, then Obama would also be fucked. Here's a semi-childish post I made earlier, but it's relevant:

...committed to facilitating an orderly transition to a more stable democratic political order, including—

(A) protecting human rights, expanding political participation, and providing religious freedom to all Syrians, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, or gender;
(B) supporting the rule of law;
(C) rejecting terrorism and extremist ideologies;
(D) subordinating the military to civilian authority;
(E) protecting the Syrian population against sectarian violence and reprisals;
(F) cooperating with international counterterrorism and nonproliferation efforts;
(G) supporting regional stability and avoiding interference in the affairs of neighboring countries; and
(H) establishing a strong justice system and ensuring accountability for conflict-related crimes;

(8) to promote the territorial integrity of Syria and continuity of the Syrian state by supporting a post-Assad government that is capable of providing...

It's official. At least ten senators are extraordinarily clueless.

A: And which parts of the FSA support allowing women to convert to another religion? Any chance of them winning?
B: Which law? Sharia?
C: How? Assad is winning. You strike, you shift momentum, there will be more war, and war breeds extremism.
D: Glad that's working so well in Egypt!
E: Without boots on the ground? Ohhh, this will be interesting...
F: By pissing off Russia and China? Are they aware that "pissing off" is the opposite of cooperation?
G: That's contradicted by the "we hope this will weaken Iran" claim. Can they at least be consistent in their own document?
H: Like the ICTY?

8: Erm, senators, did you clear this with the Kurds?

I propose a Resolution of my own: rename the Senate to Custer's Charging Brigade!

On top of that, there's a time limit. Achieving any one of those objectives is impossible, given the restrictions and the time frame, thus giving Republicans the beautiful line: "Obama failed to achieve a single objective on the ground, in the time frame that he asked for, can we really trust a Democrat for president?"

Also, McCain, who's still butthurt that Obama creamed him, "helped", (when referring to McCain, the word "helped" must always be used with irony,) write that disaster. It's a sinker. On top of that, there's always the line "Obama, why didn't you listen to your generals?"

There's no way for Obama out of this one, without taking political damage. And recently Hillary "whoopsie" Clinton sounded off, saying that Assad used chemical weapons and should be gone, so she can no longer play it both ways. If I was a Democrat, I would oppose that disaster of a Resolution, because then I could say that "we, as a party, stood up to our President when he was wrong, while the Republicans sucked Bush's .... when it came to Iraq!" Won't save Obama, but it'll save the party. And Obama ain't going to be the one up for reelection in 2016.

[Alien Space Bats]

... I watched MSNBC last night, specifically All In With Chris Hayes, and he was right to say that the argument of "war or nothing" is a false choice. He suggested that we could support the refugee flood from Syria, and give them a faster path to citizen-refugee status here, as has Sweden. We could have not ordered the 200 Tomahawks or spent their hundreds of millions of dollars' worth on helping the UN take care of the refugees. That is a good idea. It won't satisfy those who argue that war is the only choice. Furthermore, Hayes stated that if our goal is a political settlement, the rebels will be just like the Republicans after the 1860 election. The Southerners demanded concessions from them if they didn't want seccession, and the Republicans and their supporters were against it, stating that it was surrender to a defeated enemy. The Syrian rebels will be like that if we ask them to set down their AK-47s or whatever weapons they have and negotiate with Assad for peace in their country. They won't want peace, they'll want to kill Bashar the butcher.

I respect Hayes' position; it's basically why I don't believe that intervention is really going to help us resolve this conflict in any way that's going to be to our liking. But it is very much in America's interest to try and stop chemical weapons from proliferating, and one of the ways to do that is to make certain that there are severe consequences for their use (if not for the regime ordering their use, then for the military units responsible for carrying out the orders for their use; flattening a few headquarters units and missile batteries would certainly instill a strong sense of responsibility in the minds of the survivors of such strikes, don't you think?).

There's been a lot of focus on Iran and Hezbollah; I'm not especially worried about either becoming emboldened by the failure of the West to uphold the "red line" against chemical weapons use. No, it's North Korea that bothers me most, because they're the one nation in all the world most likely to employ them should they ever elect to cross the DMZ in force. If they do, our response is going to have to be brutal — and that's not something that I want to see. I'd rather they stayed on their own side of the ceasefire line and left matters as they are; but keeping them there requires deterrence, and if we don't act here, I rather suspect that deterrence will slip a few notches.

All I can hope now — since I don't think we're actually going to act against Assad — is that it doesn't slip enough to loose the dogs of war.

ADDENDUM: In the meantime, yes: We should absolutely do everything that Hayes proposed in his on-air opinion piece. The refugee crisis resulting from this war is already staggering — and it's going to get worse. Likewise, in the wake of our failure to act and the massive offensive I expect to see Assad mount against the rebels (with Putin's help), I would like to see us move two combat brigades to Turkey and increase our naval presence in the Black Sea. The idea here is not to threaten Russia, but rather to make clear that no effort to destabilize and/or intimidate our allies in Ankara will be countenanced. If Russia is going to go to the mat to maintain the status quo in Syria, they need to understand that we will likewise go to the mat to maintain the status quo where it matters to us.

[New Chalcedon]

... I watched MSNBC last night, specifically All In With Chris Hayes, and he was right to say that the argument of "war or nothing" is a false choice. He suggested that we could support the refugee flood from Syria, and give them a faster path to citizen-refugee status here, as has Sweden. We could have not ordered the 200 Tomahawks or spent their hundreds of millions of dollars' worth on helping the UN take care of the refugees. That is a good idea. It won't satisfy those who argue that war is the only choice. Furthermore, Hayes stated that if our goal is a political settlement, the rebels will be just like the Republicans after the 1860 election. The Southerners demanded concessions from them if they didn't want seccession, and the Republicans and their supporters were against it, stating that it was surrender to a defeated enemy. The Syrian rebels will be like that if we ask them to set down their AK-47s or whatever weapons they have and negotiate with Assad for peace in their country. They won't want peace, they'll want to kill Bashar the butcher.

I respect Hayes' position; it's basically why I don't believe that intervention is really going to help us resolve this conflict in any way that's going to be to our liking. But it is very much in America's interest to try and stop chemical weapons from proliferating, and one of the ways to do that is to make certain that there are severe consequences for their use (if not for the regime ordering their use, then for the military units responsible for carrying out the orders for their use; flattening a few headquarters units and missile batteries would certainly instill a strong sense of responsibility in the minds of the survivors of such strikes, don't you think?).

There's been a lot of focus on Iran and Hezbollah; I'm not especially worried about either becoming emboldened by the failure of the West to uphold the "red line" against chemical weapons use. No, it's North Korea that bothers me most, because they're the one nation in all the world most likely to employ them should they ever elect to cross the DMZ in force. If they do, our response is going to have to be brutal — and that's not something that I want to see. I'd rather they stayed on their own side of the ceasefire line and left matters as they are; but keeping them there requires deterrence, and if we don't act here, I rather suspect that deterrence will slip a few notches.

All I can hope now — since I don't think we're actually going to act against Assad — is that it doesn't slip enough to loose the dogs of war.

ADDENDUM: In the meantime, yes: We should absolutely do everything that Hayes proposed in his on-air opinion piece. The refugee crisis resulting from this war is already staggering — and it's going to get worse. Likewise, in the wake of our failure to act and the massive offensive I expect to see Assad mount against the rebels (with Putin's help), I would like to see us move two combat brigades to Turkey and increase our naval presence in the Black Sea. The idea here is not to threaten Russia, but rather to make clear that no effort to destabilize and/or intimidate our allies in Ankara will be countenanced. If Russia is going to go to the mat to maintain the status quo in Syria, they need to understand that we will likewise go to the mat to maintain the status quo where it matters to us.

Just how useful is Turkey as an ally? I agree that Ankara has exceptional regional leverage for a variety of reasons, but they've shown a distinct reluctance to use it to help the USA for a long time now.

Is an investment in continued alliance with Turkey cost-effective?

[Tribes Republic]

... I watched MSNBC last night, specifically All In With Chris Hayes, and he was right to say that the argument of "war or nothing" is a false choice. He suggested that we could support the refugee flood from Syria, and give them a faster path to citizen-refugee status here, as has Sweden. We could have not ordered the 200 Tomahawks or spent their hundreds of millions of dollars' worth on helping the UN take care of the refugees. That is a good idea. It won't satisfy those who argue that war is the only choice. Furthermore, Hayes stated that if our goal is a political settlement, the rebels will be just like the Republicans after the 1860 election. The Southerners demanded concessions from them if they didn't want seccession, and the Republicans and their supporters were against it, stating that it was surrender to a defeated enemy. The Syrian rebels will be like that if we ask them to set down their AK-47s or whatever weapons they have and negotiate with Assad for peace in their country. They won't want peace, they'll want to kill Bashar the butcher.

I respect Hayes' position; it's basically why I don't believe that intervention is really going to help us resolve this conflict in any way that's going to be to our liking. But it is very much in America's interest to try and stop chemical weapons from proliferating, and one of the ways to do that is to make certain that there are severe consequences for their use (if not for the regime ordering their use, then for the military units responsible for carrying out the orders for their use; flattening a few headquarters units and missile batteries would certainly instill a strong sense of responsibility in the minds of the survivors of such strikes, don't you think?).

There's been a lot of focus on Iran and Hezbollah; I'm not especially worried about either becoming emboldened by the failure of the West to uphold the "red line" against chemical weapons use. No, it's North Korea that bothers me most, because they're the one nation in all the world most likely to employ them should they ever elect to cross the DMZ in force. If they do, our response is going to have to be brutal — and that's not something that I want to see. I'd rather they stayed on their own side of the ceasefire line and left matters as they are; but keeping them there requires deterrence, and if we don't act here, I rather suspect that deterrence will slip a few notches.

All I can hope now — since I don't think we're actually going to act against Assad — is that it doesn't slip enough to loose the dogs of war.

ADDENDUM: In the meantime, yes: We should absolutely do everything that Hayes proposed in his on-air opinion piece. The refugee crisis resulting from this war is already staggering — and it's going to get worse. Likewise, in the wake of our failure to act and the massive offensive I expect to see Assad mount against the rebels (with Putin's help), I would like to see us move two combat brigades to Turkey and increase our naval presence in the Black Sea. The idea here is not to threaten Russia, but rather to make clear that no effort to destabilize and/or intimidate our allies in Ankara will be countenanced. If Russia is going to go to the mat to maintain the status quo in Syria, they need to understand that we will likewise go to the mat to maintain the status quo where it matters to us.

You may be right, I think that we're just using Iran and Hezbollah to show North Korea that if you do something wrong there will be repercussions for your actions

[Alien Space Bats]

And if they pass it, then Obama would also be fucked. Here's a semi-childish post I made earlier, but it's relevant:

It's official. At least ten senators are extraordinarily clueless.

A: And which parts of the FSA support allowing women to convert to another religion? Any chance of them winning?
B: Which law? Sharia?
C: How? Assad is winning. You strike, you shift momentum, there will be more war, and war breeds extremism.
D: Glad that's working so well in Egypt!
E: Without boots on the ground? Ohhh, this will be interesting...
F: By pissing off Russia and China? Are they aware that "pissing off" is the opposite of cooperation?
G: That's contradicted by the "we hope this will weaken Iran" claim. Can they at least be consistent in their own document?
H: Like the ICTY?

8: Erm, senators, did you clear this with the Kurds?

I propose a Resolution of my own: rename the Senate to Custer's Charging Brigade!

On top of that, there's a time limit. Achieving any one of those objectives is impossible, given the restrictions and the time frame, thus giving Republicans the beautiful line: "Obama failed to achieve a single objective on the ground, in the time frame that he asked for, can we really trust a Democrat for president?"

Also, McCain, who's still butthurt that Obama creamed him, "helped", (when referring to McCain, the word "helped" must always be used with irony,) write that disaster. It's a sinker. On top of that, there's always the line "Obama, why didn't you listen to your generals?"

There's no way for Obama out of this one, without taking political damage. And recently Hillary "whoopsie" Clinton sounded off, saying that Assad used chemical weapons and should be gone, so she can no longer play it both ways. If I was a Democrat, I would oppose that disaster of a Resolution, because then I could say that "we, as a party, stood up to our President when he was wrong, while the Republicans sucked Bush's .... when it came to Iraq!" Won't save Obama, but it'll save the party. And Obama ain't going to be the one up for reelection in 2016.

I'm aware that the Senate Resolution is a pig. I'm aware that the Republicans wrote it to be a pig. I don't think, however, that things will get anywhere near as ridiculous with that resolution passed than they'll be if the resolution fails.

For one thing, the Administration can simply disavow all that nonsense, saying what everybody knows: That John McCain — a man who's never met a war he didn't like — decided that the Senate Resolution was a Christmas tree and loaded it with presents for himself. It can simply assert that it intends to pursue all of those goals through negotiation — as it has been all along.

As for Hillary's remarks, I don't know why anybody thinks that what she said was a mistake. For her to have said anything else would be so out of character for her as to be plainly dishonest, and Hillary doesn't benefit from pretending that her last name is "Romney".