Taiwanese Animators Weigh In On #Syria

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

They make the point that, in giving Congress time to fiddle around with a vote, the Syrians can pack up the munitions and, oh, truck them anywhere. Invites the Schrödinger’s WMD question:

If I bomb falls in the forest on a dead cat, which bounces higher?

33 comments

  1. This makes sense. Syria can send its WMD to Iraq to embarrass Obama, just as Iraq stashed its WMD in Syria to embarrass W.

  4. Our bet path is to let these neanderthals kill each other for as long as they can. What emerges will be weakened and pose much less threat to the USA for a considerable time. Syria is an Iranian ally so waiting on the sidelines while they kill each other is a win-win situation.

    True, it is monstrous that someone used gas on civilians but we sat back in Rwanda whilst they hacked 800,000 people to death with spears and swords and didn’t intervene. Is it really such a big deal that chemical weapons were used to commit this atrocity?

    The selective outrage exhibited by Obama is in itself outrageous.

  6. Once upon a time, we actually had a policy – a thing the Obama administration never seems to have heard of – that, if we could actually prove the use of any weapon of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical or biological) against a civilian target, we would destroy said regime.

    Then someone mentioned the sheer unfairness of targeting civilians who had nothing to do with such things, and we got all weak in the knees, and the evil regimes became emboldened.

    The horrible thing is that, at this point, we could, given electronic intelligence and so on, pick out the key actors, and target them for strikes, some of which would be nothing more than blocks of cement with a guidance package. I, personally, would have no problem with the administration – even this idiot’s – coming to congress to request such an authorization. That would be both just and limited. Further, it would be effective. Because if, perchance, we were to find evidence that a rebel command constellation used chemical weapons in an indiscriminate fashion to attempt to implicate the regime, we could apply an exact and identical sanction.

    My issue is that this administration, and, worse, this congress, cannot think that clearly. It makes me very angry. Nothing else we do would work at all, or express any kind of principle.

    Presently, and it makes me very angry, either side can massacre civilians, even target ethnic/religious groups specifically for murder, so long as they don’t use “weapons of mass destruction” and the worse they will receive is a bit of “tut-tut, very bad show!”. I want there to be something resembling a line – however idiotic – and an actual response that will be painful. No one, in this day and age, actually expects a serious, general, and “Oh, you don’t want this consequence? How about you don’t allow the action, idiot?” response; but could we contemplate taking out those who actually give the freaking orders?

    Rant ended.

  8. We need to stay out of this mess. As bad as things are we could make them worse. We the people aren’t interested. Frankly, I think the country is war weary. Any U.S. intervention would likely lead to more embassies being bombed, etc. Bad medicine, stay away.

  10. A lot of people are angry, and there’s no John Wayne in sight. But there are a lot more seriously bad consequences that would come from even a surgical strike than good. With rebels, Al Qaida infiltrators and Obama on one side and Assad’s army, Russian, China and Hezbollah on the other side, there isn’t really a win-win option even if Assad magically disappeared tomorrow, at least not for the Syrian people. But there is no excuse for why we aren’t helping them evacuate, or sending medical aid, anti toxins, gas masks or a U.N. Peacekeeping Force. What the hell else are we paying them for? And whatever strategy is decided on, if it does not include finding and destroying these chemical weapons and the means to produce them, we’re going to be living this bad play again. If we had a real leader in the oval orifice or real leadership in Congress it would make a difference. But going in with the morons we have and no good plan could make things a whole lot worse.

  13. Weasel Zippers posted a summary on this. There can be no absolute proof because we did not catch them red-handed but we know Iraq had and used WMDs and we know that Russian special forces escorted a convoy of trucks from a depot thought to be a WMD facility to Syria. We do not know what was in those trucks.

    That being said, we must acknowledge that the Turks caught some Syrian rebels with a 2 kilogram container of nerve gas.
    There are no good guys here.

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/02/flashback-chemical-weapons-in-syria-include-wmds-shipped-from-iraq/

  14. Just want to say something about the “policy” . I’m 60 so I actually remember when we had them and when we were the good guys fighting beside allies for the right reasons. But now you have a Muslim or Sunni Muslim sympathizer in power who does not go in for our side to win, ties the hands of our military, stabs our allies in the back while he’s supporting our enemies, lies so you can’t trust anything he says and has already shown our military that no one’s got their back. He shouldn’t be commanding an attack. He should be relieved of command.

  16. Ahhh, but they did. The evidence has been reported, but people such as yourself won’t listen to anything except your own talking points.

  20. I believe that evidence presented by Bush admin to UN included intercepted message from outraged officer that some of the stuff hadn’t been shippped out. A few (overlooked?) loose rounds were found in new warehouses recently cleaned out. A mobile lab for mixing Part A and Part B was found, but libs insist it made hydrogen gas for weather balloons for Saddam’s artillery. Which exemplifies the ludicrous lengths the corrupt press went to discredit Bush.

Comments are closed.