Monday, September 2, 2013

Last Call For Regime Change

So nice of the NY Times to give an op-ed page to the historically under-represented batshit crazy neocon perpetual war point of view of Vali Nasr and friends.

It is in America’s strategic interest, then, to take decisive action to mortally wound the Assad regime. Ensuring that Syria does not become a haven for Al Qaeda — a legitimate fear — would have to immediately follow.

Mr. Assad may be right to think the Obama administration does not want involvement in Syria, but the horrors of this war have effectively forced America into it. The risks of intervention are great, and success is uncertain, but doing nothing would be, at this point, far worse.

America should act decisively and in a timely manner, and based on a strategic vision that includes a way out of this war. That would impress American allies and adversaries alike. That is what the world needs and what Mr. Obama should focus on.

If "regime change over WMD" followed by "preventing the country from then becoming a terrorist stronghold" sounds familiar to you, it was the exact plan for our "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doesn't another decade-long war sound great to you? It does to the NY Times.  Why these jackasses are still getting play in the media I can't tell you, but here we are pretending like Iraq and Afghanistan never happened, or worse, that they were awesome and great and cool and we need to do it again.

Frankly such nonsense is unconscionable, but here it is anyway.

That's A Funny Way Of "Protecting People", Rand

So tell me, we still standing with Rand after statements like this?

The link between American interests and Syria is not clear, Sen. Rand Paul said on Sunday.

"I think the war may escalate out of control, and then we have to ask ourselves, 'Who is on America's side over there?'" host the Kentucky Republican asked David Gregory on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I don't see American interests involved on either side of this Syrian war. I see [Bashar] Assad, who has protected Christians for a number of decades, and Islamic rebels on the other side who have been attacking Christians," Paul said.

In other words, A) Assad is the good guy here because he's killing Muslims, B) why would we want to stop him from killing Muslims?

Oh it gets better.

I think the failure of the Obama administration has been we haven’t engaged the Russians enough or the Chinese enough on this,” the Kentucky Republican said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“The Russians have every reason to want to keep their influence in Syria, and I think the only way they do is if there’s a change in government where Assad is gone” but other current members remain, Paul said. “That would also be good for the Christians.” He noted earlier that Assad has protected Christians “for decades.”

The senator went on to say that a failure to do so could result in an Islamic state that could persecute Christians in the country. And Russia, he said, could have an influence on the country if they told the government “no more weapons.”

To recap, Captain Isolationist here is upset we haven't given the Russians and Chinese enough swag, and really as long as Christians in Syria are protected, the savage brown miasma of Muslim scum can all just eat sarin and die.

Scratch Rand Paul's surface and you'll always find an Islamophobic racist warmonger Republican.  Period.

StupidiNews, Labor Day Edition!

Related Posts with Thumbnails