Which is not to say that the latest US failure to overthrow a mid-east government was a total failure. As Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma says "probably 60 to 80 percent of the arms that America shoveled in have gone to al-Qaida and its affiliates." Which is at least great news for the military-industrial complex. It means more "terrorist attacks" on U.S. "friends and allies", and perhaps even on U.S. soil - all courtesy of the US government supplying the weapons - are imminent.
10 comments:
Perhaps time for a re-run of "You Americans are worse than the French"?
So far, all this hapless idiotic moron has done is waste our tax money on another useless endeavor to unseat a dictator. In fact, all of the US involvement in middle east mini-wars have been attempts to replace dictators with our brand of total chaos; and we're damn good at that!
re: 80% of the weapons America supplied to the Syrian resistance ended up in the hands of Al-Qaida and it's affiliates-
I would imagine that a large percentage of these weapons include those that were sent from Libya, under the guidance of a certain Democrat presidential candidate. But then, what difference at this point in time does it make, right Hillary?
We've been soooo successful at 'regime change' in other places (not) that perhaps it's time we let somebody else try their hand. It would be refreshing (and salubrious to our foreign policy) were ... say ... Russia to come in and mop the place up in a fortnight or so.
Perhaps the American people might then begin to ask probing questions like "WTF are we spending all that money for???" and that would lead, inevitably, to "WTF are we spending all those American LIVES for???"
Yes, it could be very good for our foreign policy.
Comparing this to the Bay of Pigs fiasco is a little unfair.
The unfairness of it doesn't all stack up neatly on one side, which just means that it is a worse comparison overall, not that it is any less unfair.
Shortly put, nothing Obama was doing in Syria was remotely in the interests of the U.S. or being handled competently anyway, so overall pretty much anything that convinces him to stop doing it works out as a win, however embarrassing it looks. The long-term geopolitical consequences of letting Russia fill the competence vacuum in the region is not worse than the long-term consequences of continuing Obama's idiotic policies there. That doesn't mean they are not really, really bad, just that we have no right to expect anything better from anything Obama was running.
Please don't "bless" Assad....some claims say he's the Anti-Christ. He fits the biblical profile.
Brigada Alasto 2506 I didnt forget you.
"Shortly put, nothing Obama does is remotely in the interests of the U.S."
So Obama has extended the Gunwalking concept to Syria.
While in broad terms I think that it is true that Obama has done very for the essential interests of the U.S., I have to admit that he is one hell of a gun salesman. The wider resurgence in the perceived value of rugged independence and resistance to government intrusion and overreach has been nice as well. Domestically, Obama has done a lot to strip the mask away from modern left, and while that has not always been pleasant and in no way makes up for the massive damage he's inflicted on America, there are things he has done which were not integral to his program of destruction of this country and have had salutary effects...despite his intentions.
Shortly put, persuading Americans to hate and despise the Federal government is far better for America than making Syrians and the international community hate and despise the U.S. as a whole.
Post a Comment