Blowback - More evidence for the wisdom of non-interventionism

Posted by $ jbrenner 3 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
70 comments | Share | Flag

There are a number of reasons to not like (or vote for) President Trump. It was only four or five years ago since Trump correctly criticized Obama's foreign policy in North Africa and the Middle East (particularly Syria). Then, in the first 100 days of his presidency, he pulled his most hypocritical move to date - the bombing of the Syrian air base used to launch (chemical?) attacks on ISIS in northeastern Syria (or should I just call it ISIS?).

We all know of the recent bombing in Manchester, England. Today the bomber's sister said that the suicide attack in England was revenge for Trump's launching of cruise missiles on the Syrian air base.

This is as good an example of what Ron and Rand Paul call "blowback" as there is.
SOURCE URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/salman-abedi-wanted-revenge-us-air-strikes-syriamanchester-bombers/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years, 9 months ago
    It wasn't the cruise missile attack that supposedly set him off (his own words, despite what the sister says). It was the American air strikes in support of the anti-ISIS coalition fighters (particularly the Kurds). If it was the Americans that upset him, why kill Brits?

    The extremist elements of Islam have waged war against Western society since Mohammed decided that conversion by the sword was righteous in the eyes of Allah. Every effort to seek a peaceful solution by the West has only been viewed as time to "buff up" in preparation for the next jihad by the extremist Islamists.

    As the most successful example of Western civilization, America has been a key target for the Islamists. We helped Osama Bin Laden defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, saved the Holy city of Mecca from the Iraqi dictator, stopped the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs, and we got 9/11 in return.

    Chamberlainesque thinking of somehow avoiding conflict and staying out of the fray to secure "peace in our time" is dead end thinking. It doesn't work. Never has. Strong support of Muslims trying to achieve a non-violent society is one thing that will help, but unfortunately non-involvement is not an option open to us.

    Like it or not, if we understand the oppressive end of a worldwide caliphate, we have to be prepared to aid all nations under assault by jihadists. That includes Muslim nations, a deteriorating Europe, Russia, China, and the Philippines.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by zonoz 3 years, 9 months ago
      100% correct. Diplomacy only works if both sides are willing to be diplomatic. Look at Japan. While their delegates were in DC diplomacizing with us their military was planning and doing quite the opposite.

      And as for the Middle East? They've been fighting and killing each other over religion, even between different sects of the same religion, for centuries upon centuries. Who in their right mind would ever presume to change that kind of thinking by "talking it out"? Only a politician with an extremely high opinion of himself. No, the only way to deal with a people like that is the same way you deal with schoolyard bullies. You stomp their ass into a mudhole and then you stomp it dry. Once that is accomplished most are usually ready and willing to "talk about it".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
    "(Chemical?) attacks"

    From human rights watch:
    All available evidence strongly suggests that on April 4, 2017, a Syrian government warplane attacked Khan Sheikhoun, a town in the northwestern governorate of Idlib, with a nerve agent, killing at least 92 people, 30 of them children. The death toll likely makes this the deadliest chemical attack since an attack killed hundreds in Ghouta, near Damascus, in August 2013.

    The Khan Sheikhoun attack sparked international outrage, but the attack on Khan Sheikhoun was not the only recent chemical attack by the Syrian government. Three developments since late 2016 show that the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons has become widespread and systematic:

    Government warplanes appear to have dropped bombs with nerve agents on at least four occasions since December 12, including in Khan Sheikhoun;
    The government’s use of helicopter-dropped chlorine-filled munitions has become more systematic;
    Government or pro-government ground-forces have started using improvised ground-launched munitions containing chlorine.
    In at least some of the attacks, the intention appears to have been to inflict severe suffering on the civilian population, which would amount to crimes against humanity.

    I wonder how it would go over with Trump asking Putin to help out with this like Barrack Husein Obama did.
    "A number of reason to not like Trump"
    But zero reasons to like the liar in chief Obozo and ditto for the evil hag!

    This is a radicalized family hard to think another excuse would not be used for this treachery had the Trump tomahawk strikes not occured.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      Sorry. The "(chemical?)" part was meant to be sarcastic. Of course, the attack was chemical. That still doesn't mean that we should have intervened. What do we have to gain by intervening in Syria?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
        Thanks for your reply.
        Nothing to gain . I agree that we have added fuel to the extremist fires with our Mid East actions. Both Bushes Iraqi invasions were a disaster and same with Obama taking out Ghaddafi in Libya.
        I am no expert Jbrenner. Using chemical weapons
        Is something that should not be done any where.
        I would have preferred a couple of tomahawks land on Assads head as a deterrent to any who would kill so indiscriminately with those outlawed
        Methods. If the leaders knew they would be targets they would most definitely think twice.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
          One of my former students (a Marine before starting at my university and CIA afterwards) found some of Saddam's chemical weapons in Syria as his first job with CIA.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
            That is interesting as we repeatedly were told that no weapons of mass destruction were had by Saddam. I would say we told him we were coming for those and he had a lot of time (months) to hide them.
            Just having them is not a good reason to invade.
            Really the biggest problem for humanity is the shadow govt., that profits from arms dealings and the wars they create to use them. They have no "care" for people.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
              Colin Powell took one for the team with regard to Saddam's weapons. When the weapons were found (about when Colin Powell asserted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction) in Syria, letting the general public believe the fake news that were no such weapons was in the best interest of the military/intelligence communities.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Bethesda-gal 3 years, 9 months ago
          I disagree. Bush 43 overthrew a vicious dictator and HAD established a nascent democracy. By the time he left office there had been in the neighborhood of a dozen FREE AND FAIR elections (my husband was over there to help oversee the first one after our second raid on Fallujah). And it was Obama and Biden who even proclaimed that "Iraq was a great success" when they unilaterally withdrew 100% of the U.S. troops (Don't bother me with the SOFA excuse)
          Anyone with vision can imagine the entirely different direction the middle east could be heading in, had the U.S. and coalition forces been kept in place to provide enough support for Iraq to fully cement their democracy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
            Well Obama and HRC left the country in a vacuum.

            Fully cementing a democracy sounds good but with the Sunnis ,Shia and Kurds all hating each other splitting the country might have been the only way.

            Many Sunni sheikhs say once the American soldiers left, the minority Sunni population of Iraq suffered under a government dominated by the Shiite majority. That government stopped paying most of them, and even arrested many.

            (As an aside, we should note that there was a political, as well as a military, dimension to American influence in Iraq: Obama continued to support the government even as Sunni fear and anger grew. "We were encouraged," he said in 2013, "by the work that Prime Minister Maliki has done in the past to ensure that all people inside of Iraq — Sunni, Shia and Kurd — feel that they have a voice in their government."

            (But they did not feel that. Sheikh Zeidan al-Jabri led a series of Sunni protests and sit-ins in Anbar, which were eventually violently dispersed by security forces at the end of 2013.

            ("For a year, we did not attack anyone; we were an example of democracy on an international level," he told me from exile in Jordan. "And what did the world do? The world simply turned its face from us and gave Maliki the permission to attack the demonstrations and kill hundreds of innocent demonstrators.")
            I am glad your husband returned safely.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Bethesda-gal 3 years, 9 months ago
              Thank you. I'm glad he returned safely too.
              There is no way to know if the different factions could have ever learned to live peacefully side by side, but certainly without any enforcement of peace, it was guaranteed not to work.
              I hate Obama and everything his administration did and his throwing the peace achieved in Iraq is at the top of the list.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
                Of course. Obama was and is the enemy within.
                So many sacrifices of lives and limbs in addition to the $Trillion. Our soldiers have to operate in a civilized and controlled manner to their detriment. For the jihadists anything goes. Same of course with the dictators.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
            Iraq is the poster child for non-interventionism. We threw away a trillion dollars for what later turned out to be absolutely nothing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jdg 3 years, 9 months ago
              Iraq, to me, was the poster child for lessons we should have learnt much earlier than this. (1) If we're going to intervene in a conflict, we should first understand what it's about and have chosen a specific set of goals we will achieve. (2) Having decided to intervene, we should be committed to stay (and the American people should be prepared to accept the necessary casualties) until we achieve the goals. This includes follow-through by occupying the aggressor countries after the war, as we did after WW2, until we can trust them not to try again once we leave. (3) We should be willing to censor the news so that the public don't prevent (2) from happening (this was our major failure in Vietnam and in most wars since then).

              If we're not committed to carry out all of the above before we begin an intervention in a foreign country, then to begin at all is nothing but a stupid waste of American blood and treasure.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by zonoz 3 years, 9 months ago
                I agree with all that you said with perhaps one small difference. "until we have chosen a specific set if goals" is not something that should really take any thought as far as the initial goal, which would be to fully and completely defeat the enemy/agressor and its ability to wage any kind if war in the future. Much the same as was done with Germany and Japan after WWII. There should be absolutely no thought given to obtaining a truce or establishing red lines. Only the defeat of the enemy. Once accomplished if US forces are to stay in affected countries as peace keepers and/or to help with rebuilding efforts they need to be funded by those countries, if not immediately then by legal, enforceable contract at some point in the not too distant future. Most any country has some kind of resources, either natural or man-made that are of monetary value and can be used to pay off the debt of saving their country, their lives, and assisting in the continuing protection and rebuilding thereof.

                Which brings a thought to mind; have we ever been asked to intervene in any of these situations or have we just stuck our noses in uninvited?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
              The problem with Iraq wasn't the war, but the reconstruction. The war was an unrivaled and absolutely dominating success. Reconstruction got bogged down because of mismanagement and a fundamental misunderstanding about congruity between governmental/economic structures and religious tolerance. Islamic-based nations can't sustain an economy based on choice because their ideological mindset is communistic - not individualistic. We (being America) made the cardinal mistake of believing that everyone who wants "freedom" wants free markets and representative government. They don't. Their religious hierarchy is incompatible with the tenets of a free market and representative government which respects freedom of speech and religion. That is where we stumbled (and we made exactly the same mistake in Afghanistan, only there we misunderstood the extreme tribalism as opposed to sectarian identity we see in Iraq with Shiites and Sunnis).

              The only way a country like that was going to change was for us to run the entire country for two generations - similar to what we did in Japan and West Germany following WWII. Nation-building doesn't happen overnight or in the space of a couple of years, but over 3-4 generations.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
                Nation-building is not our responsibility. Tasks that take longer than our lifetimes require a nation that operates on the principles laid out in America's founding documents and/or Rand's books.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 3 years, 9 months ago
                  How big exactly would nazi Germany have grown to before it would have "affected us"? What if it had nuclear bombs? Wasn't it prudent to stop it before it got too big to defeat?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
                    A position of neutrality in wars has always been worthwhile. Look at Switzerland. Did you notice that they evaded two world wars?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 3 years, 9 months ago
                      Switzerland is too small and weak to get involved in a world war. If hitler wanted bswitzerland, he would have just takebvit
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
                        My point is that Switzerland was not involved in the world wars despite the fact that Germany could have easily conquered it. The idea that a few countries such as the Axis powers could take over the entire world is ridiculous. Even the United States, with its seemingly overwhelming superiority, cannot even subjugate a backwards country like Afghanistan, and neither could the Soviet Union. History is littered with the ashes of dynasties that thought they could take over the entire world.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
                  The choice is whether or not we want to encourage the spread of capitalistic markets and natural rights or simply allow other nations to devolve into socialism/communism and thereby become our enemies. If one looks at it in this fashion, it is indubitably in our best interest to engage other nations in the pursuit of true freedom. Since we destroyed the nation of Iraq (in all real terms) and we effectively controlled it, we had every opportunity to effect changes during its reconstruction (such as the terms we dictated to Japan), but as I outlined above, we had neither the political will nor was the entire process understood by which the changes would actually be effective.

                  To me, we absolutely had the right of the conqueror to do whatever we wanted. But we massively fumbled the ball in fundamentally misunderstanding what would be required and then mobilizing the will of the American People behind a long-term solution - and I will freely admit it was a dicey proposition at best. As it was carried out, it was a project doomed to fail from the beginning and we would have been better to ask Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to assist in the governance roles rather than allow Iran to gain control by subterfuge and intrigue.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Is building new capitalistic markets the responsibility of any government? It can certainly be argued that it is not our government's responsibility to do build capitalistic markets in other countries. At best, this enables the Orren Boyles of the world; at worst, we get what we have gotten in the Middle East and northern Aftica.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
                      "It can certainly be argued that it is not our government's responsibility to do build capitalistic markets in other countries."

                      Sure, one can argue that standpoint, but one also concedes that that nation will turn to communism and actively oppose the formation of other capitalist societies. Capitalism does not happen by itself. The Founding of the United States was a freak anomaly resulting from just the right conditions - not the normal progress of civilization. I look no further than to the Western World since WW II to see descent toward socialism from a time in which true freedom (for the entire world) hinged on the outcome. The United States has been somewhat slower to descend than Europe, but we are descending nonetheless.

                      "Is building new capitalistic markets the responsibility of any government?"

                      The proper role of government is to protect rights and provide an atmosphere of limited government in which may be realized the expression of natural rights and a market economy. One of the failures in Iraq stemmed from the Keynesians in government who believed that if Government sets policy the People will follow. That is not always the case (and certainly wasn't the case in Iraq).

                      The government certainly must choose a foreign policy and among those decisions is the active promotion of market economics vs one of protectionism. And there are certainly enough foreign policy blunders on either side to provide cannon fodder for a robust debate. To me, the heart of the matter is this: if it is something you want for yourself, why wouldn't you want to share it with others?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
                        The reasons you wouldn't want to share something with others are as follows:

                        1) In some cases, sharing something with others will not be in your best interest, particularly if the sharer becomes your competitor instead of your customer.

                        2) Sharing new technology with a culture not ready for it, either technologically or philosophically, is fraught with danger, as shown in the montage of Star Trek TNG Prime Directive moments, particularly at 6:54 to 8:00 of

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-qRR...

                        3) It is not the government's responsibility to create a market; it is your responsibility. When the government gets involved, some citizens may approve, but certainly others will not. This goes to the foundation of a limited government.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
                          Competition is part and parcel of a market society. It forces us to continue to improve and better serve our customers. One can either see a new market as an opportunity or as a threat. Please note that of course all of this remains contingent upon the new entrants' adherence to the rules of a market society, such as respect for intellectual property rights and value of trade relationships. I am not advocating for reverse exploitation (see your second point).

                          2. The nations of Africa can certainly point to the introduction of modern firearms as the impetus behind military juntas - which not only deny natural rights but redirect resources to the support of the few in power. It is a perversion of the appropriate role of government. I agree with you that there are inherent dangers in introducing certain technologies to the uninitiated. But there again the situation runs into the problems of who is going to restrain (or even identify) the items on the "banned" list? The Prime Directive moments are frequently about civilizations so technologically disparate that ignorance is the key to avoidance. No such tremendous difference (and therefore ignorance) exists in today's world, so the supposition that one can "hide" from other Earth cultures is unfounded. There is also the moral question: are we really doing any favors to those who's technological advancement is inferior to ours? While the thrust of the "Prime Directive" mentality is to not force the matter, does the opposite (allowing them to remain in ignorance) actually favor them? If the technological gap is becoming greater as time passes, under what circumstances would the inferior culture "catch up"? As a corollary, by doing nothing, we also allow the passing tyrant to more easily take advantage of the situation. I do not propose to have the answers, only that I don't see either course of action as a clear-cut moral "win".

                          3. If a government is instituted of and by the People, then it is the People who are creating the market even if the method is government. Now this is not to divert from the proper role of government which is to protect rights and can certainly devolve into coercion if not properly exercised, but that is what we face even within our own government: there is no guarantee. Does that give us the right to interfere in other nations without their permission? Absolutely not. But in nations where there is a legitimate question of which policies to pursue, we should absolutely back those forces which encourage adoption of limited governments which protect natural rights and market economies. Is it a tight rope to walk? Sure. But if we do not venture, we do nothing but allow for the forces of socialism and communism to win the day. It is an ideological struggle which can not be won by doing nothing.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
                            Your key point is "Please note that of course all of this remains contingent upon the new entrants' adherence to the rules of a market society, such as respect for intellectual property rights and value of trade relationships." That is the key premise. The reason why most cultures are in the backwards conditions that they are in is because they violate your stated premise. This is why America is (or at least used to be) unique.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
                              "The reason why most cultures are in the backwards conditions that they are in is because they violate your stated premise."

                              Do they do so because of ignorance or because their cultural values are in actuality antithetical to those necessary for a free government? I knew several members of the military (officers) who were in Iraq and Afghanistan and noted that many there participated in the democratic elections with open pride. They wanted the freedom of self-rule. The problem was that their religious leadership and tenets were not compatible with the principles of a democratic/republican society and this was seen in their Constitution as well as the forced agreement of allowing the Shia to participate in what had been a Sunni-dominated government. Those elected to power (because they were now in the majority) were all too easily persuaded to then target those who had oppressed them in the past - aided in no small part by their ideological compatriots in neighboring Iran. It was a poisoned well to begin with and we did not identify that.

                              In contrast I would point to Vietnam, where recently that nation threw off the oppression of Communist rule and became a free-market and republican society. That they had been subjected to 40 years of Communism was because of the failure of the United States - and all those who espoused freedom - to fight on their behalf (noting that Vietnam was really a proxy war with the USSR and China). Now there certainly may be two arguments made here: one, that no freedom which isn't earned is real freedom. The other is that that nation truly wanted freedom in either case - all we did is allow an entire generation to fall under Communism by backing out.

                              I for one am well aware that without "skin in the game", no one appreciates what they have. It is what I watched when I was careful to park the bicycle I had worked so hard to earn in the garage while my brothers' bikes (Christmas presents I helped assemble) rusted in the rain. It may be that the Iraqi people after having fought this violent insurgency finally gain the collective will to establish and protect freedom. Or they may simply devolve back into the tribalism and religious zealotry which is the hallmark of the entire region. Only time will tell.

                              I am a firm believer that nothing should be given freely but I staunchly question the wisdom of inaction when it comes to an ideological struggle. In WW II, there was a coalition of nations who banded together to reject National Socialism (leaving Russia for its own discussion entirely). If that same struggle erupts today, however (and I believe that it takes the form of Islamic religious zealotry in ways even more dangerous than National Socialism), I am counting the number of erstwhile allies in ever-dwindling numbers. England in many cases refuses to call the most recent concert attack an act of terrorism. France has entire portions of its capital city which are off-limits to their own people. Sweden is awash with a rape epidemic due to the influx/invasion of "refugees" and even the United States is seeing similar things - especially when one factors in the drug gangs like MS-13 from across our southern border. Canada has passed "hate speech" laws that muzzle freedom and Australia revoked self-defense privileges from its citizens (via firearms). Our list of allies grows thin indeed. How much more before we cease to be a free nation entirely? I fear our end is not nearly as far as we think.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 3 years, 9 months ago
    My brother, living in the UK, tells me the extensive media coverage for the Manchester attack has analysed the hell out of socio-economic background and psychological reasons. There has been almost no mention of his religious beliefs. As if there is some kind of media blackout on that point.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      There IS such a media blackout on this point.

      From Rand's "For the New Intellectual":
      Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.”

      Rand's prescience on this point is one of her greatest observations on the condition of some "humans".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
    I would add that we shouldn't intervene unless we are asked to. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we were officially requested to aid the Kuwaitis and we did so with direct purpose. There has been no such request made by either side in Syria. As such, we shouldn't stick our noses in.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dwlievert 3 years, 9 months ago
    Jbrenner, Herb, and all, I have thoroughly enjoyed this thoughtful and respectful discussion! It is one of the signposts of what we humans are capable.

    My one comment on the entirety of this thread is that each of us individually, but of far greater potential consequence, collectively - especially taking into account the realities of today, should mind our own business. Self defense (individually and collectively) at the ready, retaliatory force whenever determined necessary and productive.

    The Middle East would, dominated by those who collectively continue to make it home to primitive and savage societies, were we to end our political/military attempts at manipulation of their lives, quickly resume the slaughter of each other as they have for over 1200 years, with little remaining focus or concern with "us."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 9 months ago
    You didn't take it quite far enough. If, as you say, we fear the blowback effect what response, if any, would you recommend, particularly when the atrocities are most horrible? There is no doubt that you would agree to come to the aid of our traditional allies, but how far should we allow ISIS, or Hezbollah or Hamas to go before we act? I am not trying to be contentious because I agree with you, but eventually there will come a point where it will be in our best interest to act.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      No, actually I do not necessarily agree that we should come to the aid of our traditional allies. Horrible atrocities do not necessarily affect us directly. If those horrible atrocities DO affect us directly, then it is in our best interest to act.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 9 months ago
        You are a tough cookie.
        I like it.
        Why indeed should we get involved in the world's atrocities? Well then, the next question becomes: If by our inaction ISIS for example grows bigger and stronger and creates a world wide caliphate, shouldn't we have tried to wipe them out when they were relatively smaller and weaker?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
          I (and hopefully the country I live in) will live and conduct transactions by the principle of value-for-value transaction. If the rest of the world (or even the universe) chooses to live the way they live, that is their own business. As soon as it interferes with MY business, then I will act. If that means that I have to build a Galt's Gulch to live according to my values, I will do so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 years, 9 months ago
    I think that was just another example of a demented brain venting excess stupidity. However, Ron and Rand aside how could one sleep at night knowing that those innocent people were being gassed. How else could the USA reassert it's strength after appearing so weak for so long.
    The government has made it's bed and now has to lay in it at our expense.
    In a word...it SUCKS!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 3 years, 9 months ago
    Blaming ourselves, or our own country's leaders, for so-called blowback is stupid. It just hamstrings ourselves without really helping victims at all. Anyone who's read AR should know better. The motivations of crazy bad guys are their own problem.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      Blaming our leaders (not ourselves) for so-called blowback is not stupid. It is calling a foolish act as being foolish. It is calling A as A.

      The motivations of crazy bad guys are their own problem, indeed, and frankly none of our business until it directly affects us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 9 months ago
        So...all those images of human suffering, children being tortured and murdered don't make you feel as if we should do something about it? Ride into the Middle East mounted on a white Humvee pulling a canon that shoots small H Bombs that can blow up a radius of a mile and a heat wave another mile out from that which can turn all those miscreants (and everyone else) into roast.pork?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
          The personalization of such human suffering is an attempt to persuade us to use our emotions instead of our brains, and often such persuasion works on many people. In this case, the photos of such human suffering moved Trump to take action that, in the end, has only exacerbated the situation. That is the entire point of this post.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jdg 3 years, 9 months ago
        Blaming our leaders has the effect (if they heed it) of giving the crazy bad guys a veto over our foreign policy. It's irresponsible to allow that to happen.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 9 months ago
    It sounds trite, but I think it's hard to understand the decision of intervening in Syria without being POTUS. I am sympathetic with President Trump's decision to attack Syria even though I disagree with intervention. I try to imagine have the full responsibility and what I say (token send-a-message attack, diplomatic back channels, undercover operation, do nothing) actually happens. I think I would have a hard time giving the order, "yes, no military response at this time, unless there's a new development."

    That's illogical on my part. Based on that one data point, you don't even have to be a pathetic $hit trying to make yourself feel less pathetic to want to dismiss me mentally ill.

    I read what Abedi's sister said. It makes logical sense, but I discount it. Criminals always have their bogus excuses.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      As I remember, the main basis for Trump's decision was a photograph of chemically attacked innocents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
        Yes. And the previous chemical attacks blamed on Assad were actually ISIS groups who mishandled weapons they had found and smuggled in, intending to use them against government buildings.

        I don't trust either side of that war, which is why I think we should stay out of it entirely.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo