Monday, September 09, 2013

Bombing For Peace

That clever Barack Obama with his Kenyan, colonialist, socialist tactics. I see what he's doing. He's using an old cold-war Manchurian mind-control trick he learned in an Indonesian madrassa when he was in training to take over the world. Obama is using the ancient technique of turning someones greatest desires against them, in this case the back-bench Republicans, who would love nothing more than to see the election of 2008 declared unconstitutional and Obama deported. Like using reverse psychology on a child, the Svengali president is using the irrational, frothing hatred of the Tea Party Republicans against the very idea of a Barack Obama in order to obtain his genuine goals. Look at the record. This man distinguished himself in the Illinois Senate by declaring against the Bush Iraq War resolution when other Democrats were too timid. He came into office vowing to end that same Iraq War, and he has. Troops in Afghanistan are loading up the trucks for a trip back down the old Khyber Pass, getting the hell out of hell. Obama doesn't want war in Syria. He's a pacifist who pals around with people like William Ayers, the peace terrorist. This whole "getting congressional approval for a military strike" is a sham. Obama's a peacenick. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize. If he tells this Congress he wants health, they'll vote for sickness. If he says he wants war, they'll give him peace.

It's not as if President Assad is the first lunatic to use chemical weapons. I can still hear echos of George W. Bush sputtering in exasperation, "but he gassed the Kurds," in reference to Saddam Hussein. That wasn't a sufficient reason to invade Iraq then, and it's not reason enough to invade Syria now. The President has assured us that no such thing would ever take place- no "boots on the ground," in the current politspeak. The problem is that the trust factor of the American people in their elected leaders has been so eroded by the Bush lies, they are hesitant to provide that trust to anyone again. Obama cites Bill Clinton's successes in Bosnia and Kosovo, where a bombing campaign ended a brutal dictator's reign and stopped a genocidal Serb forces' terror. Folks that can still remember that far back may also recall Mr. Clinton's response to the Al Qaeda bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa. When Clinton lobbed a couple of Cruise missiles into terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons plant in the Sudan, he was in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and his opponents claimed the strikes were just a diversion from the ongoing testimony of the sordid details from his sex life- "Wag the Dog," they called it, after the popular Dustin Hoffman movie.

Bashar al Assad was hoped to be a more enlightened leader than his dad, Hafez al Assad, who ruled Syria by violently suppressing dissent. Bashar is an Opthamologist who lived in London for awhile and even once made a statement praising democracy, yet he's just proven himself to be a more efficient killer than his father. The pictures coming out of Syria of victims of chemical attacks are undeniably heartbreaking and are deserving of a response. Where's the Muslim Brotherhood when you need them? Syria is surrounded by states capable of attacking their weapons cache, so why does the U.S. have to do it? In 2007, Israel made a secretive air strike against a partially constructed nuclear reactor deep within the Syrian desert. Because the operation was subject to a news blackout, tensions in the region remained unchanged- and what was the ferocious Syrian retaliation? Syria complained that Israeli jets had violated their airspace. If Israel felt threatened by Syria's chemical weapons today, would they not act again? There are atrocities committed around the world every day. Although the U.S. claims the moral authority, we no longer have the wherewithal to be the international dispenser of justice. I can still recall DuPont manufactured chemical weapons called Agent Orange and Napalm that were used on civilian populations in Vietnam. They were classified as defoliants, but they killed just the same. Which, among the angry nations of the world, should have decided what our punishment would have been, and who would have delivered it?

Obama's caution is understandable. When he ordered missile strikes against Libyan air defenses for murdering anti-Gaddafi protesters in March 2011, his objective was achieved, but it led to Benghazi. If he's looking for a precedent, all he need do is look to the Republican hero, John Wayne- I mean Ronald Reagan. In 1986, in response to a bombing in West Berlin by a terrorist group based in Libya, Reagan ordered the strafing of Muammar Gaddafi's personal residence. The result was the expulsion of the terrorists from Libyan soil. There's never been a war that the Republicans weren't willing to join, yet suddenly, usually hawkish conservatives are sounding like John Lennon. Tea Party heroes like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have led the opposition to any proposed action, while old guard Republicans like John McCain and John Boehner favor strikes. Obama stepped into his own trap with this "red-line" stuff, and it was wise to leave it up to a Congress that would refuse him ice water in the desert. Rand Paul said, "No on wants to go into Syria," despite the president's assurances that we were not "going in" anywhere. Yet there are always those unintended consequences.

As of this writing, the president has not yet addressed the nation, but it's beginning to look like public, as well as congressional, sentiment is turning against him. And as we grow closer to hostilities, the Tea Party is accusing Obama of "wagging the dog," to detract from their singular pursuit of the Fox News created Benghazi scandal, and for taking up precious time that could be spent attempting to disassemble Obamacare. The chemical attacks in the Damascus suburbs are an outrage to humanity- just the sort of thing for which the United Nations was formed to address. If they refuse to act, the fleet's already there. We're the nation that killed the whole Hussein family, what's another missile or two between murderous tyrants? The president could accept an alliance with France just to drive critics like Donald Rumsfeld nuts. But Obama doesn't want to go to war. If he wanted to end the massacre of civilians in Syria, he could fire a targeted Cruise or Tomahawk, or whatever missile is the latest thing, and send it right up Bashar's Assad. Problem solved- or as Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson put it, "It's better to apologise than to ask permission."



Anonymous said...

The Yanks are Coming!

Or, is that just at my Dentist's Office?

Anonymous said...

The Yanks are Coming!

Or, is that just at my Dentist's Office?

Anonymous said...

Well we finally agree on something. That's a hornet's nest we don't want to poke. I supported Bush on going into Iraq but I was wrong. We could have used different methods to handle that situation other than boots on the ground. Now I believe that we should use aggression only if the USA is attacked. Obama will twist this anyway he can to make himself look good. He is a pathetic leader. This idea that if one disagrees with O automatically brands them a racist is really tiresome. I don't give a shit what color he is, where he was born or his religion. My problem with this ass hole is his policy. And before you start attacking me about the republicans IMO they are just as bad. Neither are going to turn this country around from the on coming crisis. Oh they may slow it down a little but that's all.

performs said...

"My problem with this ass hole is his policy. "

I find it is the puppetry that is even more basic and problematic.

Anonymous said...

We need to quit being the world's police or we'll go down just like the USSR. Our military budget is killing us financially. Saudia Arabia is supporting these air strikes. I say, "Let them do it." Im sure we've given them everything they need to be successful. Oh, wait, they're an oppressive dictatorship, too. So we take all the chances so they can continue to pump oil undisturbed by their own people's desire for freedom.

Your Tutor said...

Performs you get another 'smiley face' if by puppetry you are referring to the fact that Obama serves the global Oligarchs and their New World Order rather than the American people. Actually, most progressive politicians do the same. Obama is nothing more than a hand puppet for the Oligarchy, as Hillary will be. Now, back to the sewer. So, you comment on Obama's joke of a Nobel Peace Prize. Please tell me that you were chortling as you wrote that. Not even the gullible folks on this blog will swallow that with a straight face. Actually, it was insulting to the legacy of the prize to give it to Obama a week or so after he took office and before he could start really start appeasing the Marxists who give out the phony award. The statement that no one trusts Obama because of Bush was another knee slapper. That is the biggest snake of shit that you have passed out of your oral sphincter in quite a while. About half of the country sees Obama for the incompetent, subversive rat that he is and he has given them lots of reasons to distrust him...Bush my ass. You have zero credibility. You are so sure that Assad ordered the gassing in Syria. Many believe that the Syrian rebels did the gassing so that Assad would get the blame. You do know what a false flag engagement is, don't you? Every major armed American conflict of the 20th century was started by an American false flag engagement or concoction...the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Viet Nam (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was used to escalate the Viet Nam War and was a bogus set up by the U.S. military...shame on us). Do you ever look before you leap? The Fox News channel created the Benghazi scandal? Do you still take acid or are you just another apologist and spin artist for the Leftists? I don't want to dignify such absolute bullshit with my typing fingers. I am disappointed. I thought that you might be growing somewhat in wisdom, but I was dead wrong. This is the worst piece of crap that you have written in a long time and you are still delusional. The thing that freaks me out is that apparently some people on this blog take you seriously...birds of a feather, I guess. Good thing that you and your poorly informed Egors have no power over people. Stick with strumming your guitar.

jkloville said...

I've been saying "reverse psychology" for a week. Psychopathic GOP fell right into his hands.

performs said...

This is the last portion of a message sent out by Steve Bhaerman. It seems on theme.

So here is the news that the mainstream media (liberal to conservative, from Fox to NPR) will be the last to report: There is a new conversation emerging that is bringing left and right front and center to address one common realization -- we have all been hoodwinked by the same cadre of winking hoods.

What will happen when awakening progressives and awakening conservatives begin to speak with one another and compare notes? What lies did they tell YOU? What lies were YOU told? You can bet that a likelier story will emerge, and we will have the long-awaited chance to overgrow the current toxic and dysfunctional system.

And ... while it's true that the truth shall upset you free ... this evolutionary upwising that has begun requires a spiritual, psychological and political maturity that the body politic has never yet demonstrated. If we want to "overgrow" the system, we -- individually and collectively -- must grow up. Instead of blaming institutions, individuals and forces outside ourselves, now it the time to "gather under one big intent" and ask how we can face the music and dance together.

I happened to be at a conference in Washington, D.C. a week or so after Obama was elected in 2008. In my 40 years of connection with Washington, I had never seen the city in such a state of joy and ebullience. It was as if the Irony Curtain itself had come down, and that now finally we could be liberated from the most deadly political disease of all time, the Military Industrial Complex.

A lad and a lack, it was not to be. Not then, anyway ... no white knight (albeit a slightly darker white knight) would come and save us on a dark night. We have since lost false hope, and that's a good thing. Now finally we can wake up to a truer truth. We have met the leader we have been waiting for ... and it is US.

Alan said...

Let's check the Obama Truth Meter.
Greg Hicks (#2 man in Libya) is being punished for being a whistle blower.
Lois Lerner's newly surfaced email shows that the IRS scandal was centered and controlled by Washington.
Newest revelations from NSA as confirmed by the FISA Court, show the administration lied about the extent of surveilance on American citizens.

I could go on and on. this should be enough for you to start to have a few doubts about the people in power.

Anonymous said...

Performs, I hate to admit it, but you are making more sense these days. I love your quote,'We have all been hoodwinked by the same cadre of winking hoods'. That is a huge, over-arching truth. I may put that on a t-shirt. Of course there are things that I don't agree with you on, but I am going to try to stick with what we do agree on...mainly the conspiracy of the Oligarchy and the fact that both parties play into their hands. We do need a new paradigm, but be careful about bad-mouthing Democrats. Sput's entire universe revolves around them and you can get a spanking if you mess with his supreme deity. Some people can become suicidal if you destroy their idols.

Anonymous said...

Alan, forgive me for saying this again, but you are the wisest and most informed person by far on this blog. Too bad that Sput won't give you the time of day. I would think that he would be proud of you. I think that it pisses him off when you tear down his liberal fantasies. Most liberals don't do well under the light of Truth. It makes it harder for them to fabricate bullshit. Facts are hard to refute and makes the libs have to spin and blow smoke harder. That is why most of them are for a controlled (censored) media. They don't want people to hear ideas that oppose their own. They pout like children when refuted and don't get their way. This is why liberalism is seen by some mental health professionals as a form of arrested development.

Libtard Therapist said...

The following quote may have a bearing on this commentary, which some may consider to be nothing more than bird cage liner. I just read an article about some bombastic liberal shit and the sane author ended the article by referring to "the diseased mind of the libtard sophists". Now that is a well-turned phrase. I had not thought of this before, but 'libtard sophist' may provide an explanation for the genesis of this blog. The mystery is how one becomes a libtard sophist. The malady runs so deep that it may be genetic in nature, or maybe something akin to demonic possession. I lean toward the latter explanation.

performs said...

The basic plight that afflicts most human beings is wrong valuation or the taking of what is really important as being unimportant and that which is truly unimportant as being important. High on the list of what is taken as being important are one’s beliefs and opinions, which are not lasting and can change as circumstances create the “need.” Consider the compartmentalizing person who holds certain opinions in certain situations and relationships for purposes of satisfying their desires and assuaging their fears. I think Bill Clinton is a classic and reputed example of this. In the culture of American politics this way of being, which is devoid of integrity (compartmentalizing being the opposite of integration of values), is the perfect host for corrupting influences. Hypocrisy becomes rampant.

If one identifies strongly with their limited and restrictive opinions and beliefs, it will be at the expense of what is truly important which is seeking lasting truth. Were folks, for example on this blog discussion, to hold forth with their opinions and beliefs revealing, and owning, their own critical reasoning and values that support their opinions respectfully listening with open minds and hearts, the discussion could actually lead to some lasting truth being revealed. This would take the form of disillusionment and a freeing from some portion of one’s ego identification with false valuation which is inconvenient and uncomfortable. It is, however in the end, fulfilling, much like an addict getting free from his habit.

I bring this up after reading Libtard Therapist’s entry which lacks any critical thinking in support of any owned opinion, but instead, merely lashes out at those who are identified as the “enemy” or the inferior person, which only serves to aggrandize ego-identity by vaguely suggesting that his way of thinking must by inference be superior. It is a popular game in the world of finite games that accomplishes nothing of real value and reveals nothing of lasting truth.

I believe readers never feel truly uplifted or enlightened after reading a post of this type. They only serve to rile emotions and prompt others to play the worthless and divisive game.

Anonymous said...

I think that Libtard Therapist is funny. I think that he pokes fun at liberals hoping that they will take him seriously. He probably enjoys it when he pulls the chain and the liberals freak out like tormented and caged monkeys. He is a joker who delights in screwing with liberal minds. Keep playing the game so that he will stick around for a while. I like off-beat wit. It causes Performs to get very serious and wax poetic.

performs said...

Tormenting others as a means for expressing one's imagined superiority is a common habit. It is a behavior that can allow scope for a practitioner to become skillful and seek the praise from others of his ilk. It serves only one purpose which is to keep people in conflict and at odds with one another as it skirts anything of real substance. Because this uselessness is rather clear, it is usually covered up and rationalized by claiming that it is done all in good fun, just joking around, can't you take a joke? where's your sense of humor?

Check out the following entry from C.S. Lewis' classic, "Screwtape Letters."