Syria’s War: Who Is Fighting And Why

The question I feel most appropriate for this forum would be:

Syria’s War: We’re Now Fighting, But Why?

If we actually cared about children dying, why aren’t we carpet bombing the South side of Chicago? Darfour has seen bloodshed on a biblical scale.

Hell, even Syria has seen 1000 times the death & brutality, so where were all of the cheerleaders when Obama wanted to invade a couple years ago?

I distinctly recall this crowd tearing President Obama down for doing the very same things President Trump is doing, but now that it’s “our” guy, everyone on “our” side excuses his actions.

This lack of intellectual integrity, borne of tribalism, by the majority of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, supports my misanthropic view of human nature.

I’m thoroughly disappointed with the right. I always knew the left had no intellectual integrity, but to see it laid bare from the so-called conservative wing of the country is terribly disappointing.

From the crooked timber of humanity…

Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Syria’s War: Who Is Fighting And Why

  1. R.D. Walker says:

    Your commentary is dead on. We are perfectly aligned.

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    Alex Jones blames the Syria attack on Mr. and Mrs Ivanka….

    Alex Jones and Roger Stone blamed “President” Jared Kushner for the Syrian airstrike ordered by his father-in-law, Donald Trump.

    The InfoWars founder hosted the political dirty trickster — who’s under investigation for possible ties to Russian intelligence — on his program Friday to discuss the military action.

    The conversation followed a conspiratorial trail that led from Syria through the West Wing to the Upper West Side, and all the way to Silicon Valley, and fell apart when Jones blamed Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, for every bad decision made so far by the president.

    “It’s them, it’s them — it’s his daughter and son-in-law who are literally enemies of the Republic!” Jones shouted.

  3. Jennnnnnnyyyyy says:

    Great video. What a freaking mess. Is there any actual solution to this? As said before, we turn our heads all the time to these atrocities. And believe me, they are horrible. But why do WE have to be the ones getting involved? Let the Arab nations sort it out amongst themselves. They need to lead in this war because it is essentially “their” war. So much of it is religion. And that has nothing to do with us. These European countries that are being attacked by ISIS need to be the ones stepping up and helping. I say all of that but of course the big elephants in the room are: 1) Russia if they attack our allies or innocents as Putin has been rattling our cage for yrs and BO just let him, 2) any of these idiots attack our military, or 3) our allies get into this skirmish and we have to step in to save them (ala WWII). Sometimes it just plain sucks being the strongest country in the world.

  4. mr_bill says:

    Good video and post.

    Just a couple days ago, I was impressed that Trump had managed a mature, measured response to this latest development in Syria. Hours later, he tied on his blindfold and mounted his palsied donkey to go for a ride.

  5. Inventive says:

    Dead is dead… Does it really matter how they died? It’s either not our concern… Or it should be our concern regardless of the manner of death.

  6. notamobster says:

    I have never understood why the manner of killing is important. I just made that very comment on another forum. A body is a body. Somehow it becomes important when they’re killed a certain way?

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Indiscriminate killing of noncombatants is bad. Of course you can do that with bombs as well as gas.

      I suppose there is an argument to be made for keeping the chemical weapons genie in the bottle. It is indiscriminate as hell.

    • Uke says:

      I would argue that methods matter somewhat, in addition to ends.

      We do, in fact, have an amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

    • MadBrad says:

      The difference between killing people with chemical weapons -vs- artillery is that when you use artillery the victims are ripped apart and there’s nothing identifiable to take pictures of to gain world sympathy with.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        I’d rather be hit with an artillery round than, say, boiled alive or burned at the stake.

        • Jim22 says:

          Yeah, and if you take that thought its conclusion any explosion, even nuclear, would be instantaneous and thus painless. But still we don’t want a nuclear end.

          • Uke says:

            Nuclear has a lot of implications beyond ground zero that carry with them much slower, more painful forms of death that an artillery round does not.

      • Son of the Rabbit People says:

        It matters. Chemical weapons were so horrifying that after the First World War everyone agreed not to use them anymore. Not even Hitler employed them in battle. Of course Syria was not really involved in any meaningful way in 1914-18, other than as an outpost of the Ottoman Turkish Empire.

        • notamobster says:

          None of any of that has anything to do with Trump’s supporters reasons for supporting his decision… That I’m seeing. They’re just celebrating that he isn’t the bitch that Obama was. They’re too eager for war & killing/death.

  7. Jim22 says:

    The change in Trump’s mind was so sudden and so unexpected It makes me wonder what is behind it. It made me read the book of Revelations. But Revelations is so obscure that I can find no parallels. It just seems to me that some entity got Trump’s mind to change. The troubles in Syria have no good ending so what he did was irrational.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      He has no guiding ethos or philosophy. He is making it up as he goes.

      • Joe says:

        While I am not ready to you have been right about his lack of ethos, I will say I am concerned you may be right.

        I also see some flaws with the constant 5th dimensional chess argument over at CTH attempting to justify all of Trump’s actions as a good thing.

        The decision to strike is directly counter to Trump’s pre-election platform. I also have reservations when Graham and McCain are entirely on board. In my opinion , McCain is one of the chief architects of the Middle East disfunction. So I tend to be 180 out from what he recommends in the region.

        • Joe says:

          “While I am not ready to say you have been right”

        • R.D. Walker says:

          I guess time will tell.

        • notamobster says:

          Me too, Joe. As a default position, if MC Cain & Graham are for it, I default to being against it until I give it further study.

          I got the 5th dimension answer again today from a Trump supporter friend. He said give it 2 to 3 months to see his plan play out. 2 to 3 freaking months this man is playing ahead of the rest of us!

          Delusions, I say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *