ObunglerDamned if he does; Damned if he doesn't

The incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, probably recalling the problems Bush 1 and Bush 2 had with the populace when they invaded Iraq sans congressional approval, tells the world that he will attack Syria if the U.S. congress agrees.

It is debatable whether or not congress represents the American people who, reportedly, are against any excursions into Syria.

Obungler does not need congress' approval to lob a few rockets at Syrians; however, only congress can declare war.

Obungler is criticized by his Muslim buddies for being hesitant; these same "buddies" are pushing him to put American (read "infidel") lives on the line. There is no offer from the Arabs to put THEIR troops in harm's way or even to use any of their missiles to end the Syrian civil war - husbanding them, I suppose, to fire at Israel.

A-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Mushari Al-Thaidy writes that “Obama continues to try and understate the strike against the Assad forces, saying it is limited, measured and quick. He further claims it is not a war and not intended to topple the regime. The only thing left for him is to inform Bashar of the coordinates of the sites being targeted so that he can vacate them and of the length of the attack so that Bashar and Maher and the other pillars of the regime can take their summer vacation as soon as it ends!”

Britain, Canada, and Germany have told Obungler that they want no part of any attack on Syria, perhaps because

(a) They lack solid proof that the chemical attacks originated with Assad's troops

(b) They understand that some of the so-called rebels are Al-Qaida terrorists

(c) They understand that no matter whose side they support, in the end, the Muslims will band together against the infidels of England, Canada, and Germany, attacking them at home.

Islamist-oriented Turkey, suddenly America's ally, is like its Muslim neighbors pushing Obungler to order an attack, but like the other Muslims, offering only noise in support of the president.

Israel, finally realizing it is on its own, is wondering why Obungler can't act; he has put himself solidly between the proverbial rock and hard spot or, in Israel, between the hammer and the anvil. He's made noises about a "red line" and the Syrians - either or both sides - have blatantly crossed it, thumbing their noses at their friend in Washington.

Like most people, I too have wondered about Obungler's words failing to match actions.

Perhaps - just perhaps - he's waiting to get sufficient naval assets in the area. When the U.S. finally - and foolishly - attacks Syria, Iran may respond, attacking Israel and, less likely, U.S. warships in the area. Since he has repeatedly promised that an attack on Israel would be an attack on the U.S., he may be planning to order missile strikes on Iran under the pretext of retaliation. Then again, what he might do is anyone's guess.

The only problem with that scenario is U.S. intelligence, or more accurately, lack of intelligence. Despite being blatantly pro-Muslim for decades, the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community lack reliable resources in the middle east (and elsewhere). This is an on-going problem for the U.S.

In order for missiles to be effective, they must hit a target rather than landing harmlessly in a field. Not only is U.S. intelligence lacking, the Syrians (both sides) are relocating assets at all times. Some of the assets are making their way into Lebanon, but there is no talk of raining rockets on that country.

From my personal perspective, the U.S. has NO business getting involved in Syria's civil war; just as it had no business in Libya's and has no business getting involved in Egypt. It will likewise have no business in the coming strife in Jordan, Turkey, and Saudia.

For the U.S., getting involved in any Muslim civil war is a lose-lose situation. Even if the Sunnis murder Shiia and Shiia slaughter Sunnis, in the end, the U.S. will be hated by both Shiia and Sunni alike. There are no advantages or benefits for the U.S.

What am I missing?

 

As of 8:37 a.m. Eastern time Friday, May 20, 2011, the U.S. national debt was

$55,354,057,812,217

and each individual U.S. citizen - every man, woman, and child - owed

$177,767

By the time this is read, the debt will be substantially more.

You can watch it climb at http://www.usdebtclock.org/#.

At the same time the national debt - our indebtedness - is skyrocketing, the president (POTUS) is promising billions for potential - likely - enemies of the U.S. in hopes he can buy friends.

Mr. President: This has NEVER worked; not for Democrats and not for Republicans.

It certainly will not work dealing with Moslems who want to take over the world.

What MIGHT work is another Great White Fleet; the fleet that Teddy Roosevelt sent around the world proving his "Speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy worked. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet.)

For all that, where is Congress going to get the money so you can keep your rash promise?

While I support limited, emergency foreign aid - e.g., helping Haiti's poor recover from that country's several disasters - I fail to see any benefit of aid to Egypt (the U.S.' partner who was overthrown) or the so called PLO (whose former leader pocketed a large percentage of the loot); even Israel, a country that probably can stand on its own if it could be weaned from the U.S.' financial teat.

The U.S. is owned by others, primarily by China.

No longer are Americans an independent people nor is our country still ours.

We have been "sold out" by Washington - by both Democrats and Republicans - and you, Mr. President, are continuing the great - and stupid - tradition of selling our children's futures for your own glory - "Look how I helped <pick a country>." Never mind it was money generations to come must earn.

It might not be so bad were the promises not coming on the heels of an invasion of a country involved in a civil war, an invasion in which we had no right to participate. (Remember the Monroe Doctrine?)

And never mind that the rulers the rioters are overthrowing managed to keep the lid on internal strife - much like the Communists in the former Soviet Union.

And never mind that, if all the revolting countries follow in the path of Egypt and Gaza they will be dominated by terrorists determined to eliminate the Great Satan - the U.S. - and then all the infidels - until they run out of infidels then they'll start on each other.

Not only do your promises sell us and our children and their children into debtor's prison - for truly, owning debt we can never repay is a prison - you are selling us to a people who hate us, who WILL "bite the hand that feeds them."

Is there anyone in Congress with the intelligence and intestinal fortitude to prevent POTUS from giving away our future?

Promises vs. political foolishness

 

Obama's adventure in Libya

   vs. Medicare coverage.

Bush's misadventure in Iraq

   vs. Social Security benefits.

Presidential peccadillo in Afghanistan

   vs. education and other social needs.

OK, my ox is being gored. I admit it.

Surely, go after Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden and his cohorts, but do we need to send in thousands of military personnel on the ground and more thousands to support attacks from the air?

In a word: No.

The Iraq war has been over for some time; Bush II declared it over, remember? Unlike Japan and Germany after the second of the world wars of the 20th century, the locals are more intent on killing each other than they are in rebuilding their county, to which I add: Let the US remove itself from their country so that can get on with killing one another.

As for Libya, what is the US' interest there? Libya contributes only 2 percent of our inflated oil needs. Countries go to war for a purpose, the US' attacks on Libya are based on pure altruism - we have no business involving ourselves in Libya's civil strife. Unlike Egypt - where we managed to avoid military interference - the (Libyan) army has proven to be on the dictator's side; that has to say something to even the greatest Gaddafi hater.

Despite our growing deficit - the US is owned by China, which may account for the US governments continuing to allow dangerous goods from that country to find sales here - the political powers-that-be of both parties continue to make the US the world's policeman.

In the meantime, seniors and others receiving "entitlement" (remember that word, "entitlement") benefits from the US treasury are being squeezed from both ends.

Social Security Cost-of-Living (COL) increases will be smaller and smaller and the eligibility age will climb to - what?

Medicare benefits will be more and more difficult to receive, taking life and death decisions farther from the patient's and doctor's hands and making life-or-death a politico-financial decision.

As an aside, how is it that my Medicare payment that is given over to AvMed, a Medicare Supplement provider, buys me so much more than it would if I let Medicare keep the money? And why are medicines so much less expensive in Canada than in the US? Or how can Target and Wal-Mart and some others charge $10 for a prescription that until those companies' plans came into effect cost much, much more for people on Medicare?

If, as some insist, countries go to war for gain, what did the US gain from its incursion into Iraq?

What has it gained by its adventure in Afghanistan? What benefit will Americans gain from taking sides in Libya's civil war?

Is Gaddafi another Saddam Hussein who tortured his opponents and gassed non-Sunnis by the hundreds? Another Hafiz al-Assad of Hama fame, or his son Bashar al-Assad who carries on his father's "traditions." Perhaps Sudan's Omar al-Bashir of Darfur fame, whom the UN blames for “murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing, and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property.” Bashir’s military campaign has been accused of driving 2.7 million people from their homes since 2003." Or on the other side of the word, is Gaddafi another Kim Jong Il or his despot-in-training son, Kim Jong Un. Never mind comparing Gaddafi with the ayatollahs.

For a list of Parade magazine's pick of the "Worlds Worst Dictators" (of which Gaddafi is at the bottom of the Top 10), see http://www.parade.com/dictators/.

At the beginning of this tirade I asked "do we need to send in thousands of military personnel on the ground and more thousands to support attacks from the air" to eliminate Bin Laden?

No, no, and no again.

What the US should have done - and perhaps should be doing - is sending in a relative few well-trained people to assassinate Bin Laden and his top associates. Navy Seals perhaps? Problem is, finding an American who can infiltrate Bin Laden's inner circle is more than a little difficult; perhaps "renting" an assassin is in order.

Apparently someone in Washington had the same idea; in the May 2nd blog entry, Bin Laden is reportedly killed by a team of Navy SEALs; see http://tinyurl.com/3tsyhmd.

I cannot see the US getting involved in internal conflicts such as Egypt or Libya or Iraq or the Balkans. Iran, because it threatens the world, yes. North Korea the same answer for the same reason. But Saudia or Syria?

It does nothing for the US and after things settle down, the US is hated no matter which side prevails.

And my ox lies bleeding, dying for presidential misadventures.

Why Gadaffi?

 

The U.S. and the tired old ladies of Europe are supporting the overthrow of Libya's government.

In fact, they actively are supporting the rebels.

If Communism was still America's bug-a-boo and if someone would suggest the rebels were Communists or Communist tools, the Red, White, and Blue would be solidly behind Gadaffi.

No one will argue that Gadaffi is unbalanced or that he once, if not now, supported terrorists and terrorism - Pan Am 103's explosion over Lockerbie Scotland on December 21, 1988 has been laid at is door (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103) - but of late, he's behaved in an apparently acceptable manner.

If the United States is to war on Gadaffi and the Libyans who support him - an undeclared war at that - why not attack other regimes that pose a greater threat to world peace and human rights?

Shall we start with Iran that is - no question - a threat to all its neighbors, a place that supports terrorists worldwide, and a place where human rights are trampled?

Of course not.

What's the difference between Iran and Libya? Oil.

What about Syria? It's despot's daddy wiped out a whole village because it failed to support Hafez al-Assad. completely (see http://www.newsmax.com/deBorchgrave/Assad-Syria-Facebook-protests/2011/03/09/id/388872).

The current despot, Bashar al-Assad, has so far refrained from killing his own people, but supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, a small country that, before Hezbollah, was a cultural center that thrived on Christian-Moslem tolerance.

Syria is the place that Iraq sent its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) while the world waited for an agreement to remove Saddam Hussein from power, WMDs that suddenly never existed if Washington is to believed.

Moving to the east of Iran, we have North Korea, The only differences between Iran and North Korea are (a) Iran has oil and (b) North Korea has the bomb.

In neither location is dissent tolerated.

But we don't attack or even seriously threaten either Iran or North Korea.

And then there is China.

China has the bomb; it has severe human rights violations and does not countenance dissent; it conquered Tibet and suppresses its culture. It also has designs on Taiwan, a small Chinese island where the U.S. set up another despot, Chiang Kai-shek to counter Communist Mao, reportedly the Chinese people's choice.

Why doesn't the U.S. and the old biddies of Europe remove China's leadership and institute "democracy" (but whose democracy - Europe or the U.S.).

Actually, if repression and general human rights violations are legitimate causes for war, then most of the Islamic regimes and many African states - the worst offenders seem to be Moslem dominated - should be again taken over by the more humane and democratic countries. Surely no one has forgotten French, British, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese rule and how these advanced nations treated their foreign subjects.

A quick aside: The U.S. allegedly is in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and ...) chasing Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. For that the U.S. does not need armies of thousands; it needs a few highly trained assassins who can infiltrate bin Laden's court and behead the snake. But the U.S. is reluctant to target individual terrorists (although it does that), preferring to send in thousands and collateral causalities be damned. Someone in Washington seems to think bin Laden and Company are soldiers and deserve Geneva Convention rules. They are not and they do not.

Let Gadaffi alone.

What is going on in Libya is a Libyan affair.

There is little likelihood it will spread to "the world," even the Arab world where open displeasure with governments probably will be a short-lived thing.

Unless the U.S. and the European pantywaists are prepared to put down every despotic government in the Moslem world, the U.S. lacks the moral high ground to interfere in any way with what is transpiring in Libya.