I don't mean to offend. It's probably going to happen anyway.

Saturday, August 31, 2013


I find this whole thing tiresome. JayG has a good post about it here to give a bit of context to the abhorrent hypocrisy involved here.

All I really want to say is that hypocrisy is unpleasant from all quarters. As such, those who would criticize Obama for going in to Syria, consider your own response to Bush going into Iraq.

I am finding myself increasingly fond of isolationist policies. This country has been a little too gung-ho about policing other nations for my taste. There are always arguments to be made both in favor and against each, but I take any military action with a heaping serving of salt these days. I won't say I can't be convinced that military action is the right course, but merely that my initial bias is against.

In direct regards to Syria, do we really think it's a good idea to be arming and aiding these people? The logic seems to be 'enemy of my enemy' which is a terrible notion in international politics. So far, it seems that all these north african and middle eastern rebellions have made things worse internally and much worse for US relations. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson with the Mujahideen.

I can't say I know enough about the Syrian situation to say who's in the right. I can say that it seems like both sides are pretty skeazy. I can say that it's almost certainly none of our business.

Feh. Nobel peace prize means a whole lot these days, no?


  1. Yes, I am feeling much the same. I have a feeling that we will see more and more people with isolationist sympathies. I grow more that way myself with each passing year.
    We certainly can't be completely isolationist, but I think we need to be more thoughtful as a nation on where we throw our sizable weight.

    1. We can't be isolationist because it's not good for us as a nation. Syria seems to pose little to no threat on any level, diplomatic, defensive, or economic. We have no stake there, so getting involved is ridiculous to my isolationist mindset.

  2. So, If I supported Bush's attack of Iraq -- based on the continuing U.N. resolutions against Iraq, the multiple times his military fired on U.S. soldiers performing missions under the UN command I am hypocritical for not wanting to get involved in Syria?

    Look, I'm against getting involved in Syria. I thought we should have bombed Iraq into a parking lot and let them start over again from there but there is more than a little difference between the two situations.

    1. Not at all. I was merely encouraging people to consider their responses. Clearly, you have considered, and come to the same conclusion I personally did. I meant no offense. I merely have little patience for the people who take partisan lines on conflict, no matter what party they subscribe to. The situations are different. If your differential reasoning is situationally dependent, great. You're ideologically consistent. If the only difference that matters is the letter behind the name, then we have a problem.

      The situations are actually getting laughably different. When only France will go along with it, and Russia of all places is giving us crap about breaking international law, parallels with a massive coalition operation with longstanding lead up and attempts to work in less violent means start drying up.

    2. I thought that was your position but just wanted to be sure.

      I think America has a guilt complex that needs to be resolved; we have the power but no one wants us to fully use it as it is needed.

      If we are going to be the "World's Cop" -- then be that. Fully completely and unapologetic-ally. Frankly I don't think we should be that. I do think we should uabashedly look out for our own interests around the world.
      Threaten America or American; get stomped flat. Attack us; welcome to the stone age.
      Be our friend; great but if you stab us in the back; see above.

      I think it is the guilt complex that causes people to take partisan positions with the liberal/far left creating some of the most untenable positions -- they want us to 'fix' the world but not really interfere with how things are done in any other country.

      The conservatives/far right are just as bad; they want us to 'fix' the world by making everyone think like we do.

      Neither is possible. I prefer the Libertarian Approach to World Domination -- We want to take over the world and then leave you alone.


Please comment, but please be respectful. I reserve the right to delete any comment at any time for any reason, but I don't anticipate having to do that. Let's try to have real discussions?