Your title says it all. We need to disentangle ourselves from that part of the world as much as possible.

This is like trying to separate a gang of scorpions from a gang of black widow spiders. Both sides will bite you as soon as look at you.

"The United States faces no serious military threats today,"

Uhhh, really?

If you consider that Islamist extremists are in actuality an army without a uniform, then I would say that North America as a whole is under a serious threat.

I am partially convinced that chemical weapons were used. I am not at all convinced that their use can be traced back to the Assad regime.
I find it just as likely that they were used by one of the other factions in an effort to draw the US into the war on their side.

At any rate Obama still hasnt learned to stop running around the world yapping about red lines.

In short, his mouth is writing checks that his ass can't cash..
Assad is smarter than Obama, and it shows.

I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can believe that punishing Assad (or taking him out) will stop the killing. It's a sectarian nightmare. Assad is an Alawite. If and when his regime is toppled, 14 million or so Sunnis will blame 2.5 million Alawites for every atrocity committed against them, and their vengeance could make the Rwandan genocide look like a picnic.

Does Obama have a clue what he's getting himself and his country into?

I've got just one thing to say about any of this - thanks to all the asshats who voted for this fool and made him President of these grand ol' states, not once, but twice!

You've fuck us and the world but good. Happy now?

(p.s., sorry Amy, I know that doesn't contribute to a "serious" conversation in any meaningful way; but, it felt good to type it. Thanks!)

He says it's urgent that we act, then goes golfing. He says it's urgent that we act, but doesn't call Congress into an emergency session, letting the August recess expire.

It's all political.

He threw down the gauntlet, only to have his bluff called by Assad. Now he wants a way out of his own bungling that will reap political rewards - and he's found it.

He'll use Congress for cover.

If Congress says yes to bombing, he's covered. If it goes bad, it was Congress' fault. If it goes well, he "led" the Congressional horse to water and made it drink.

If Congress says no, he'll say, he wanted to act on humanitarian grounds, but was constrained from doing so by those evil obstructionist Republicans. And, as an added bonus, he can call any and all Republicans who voted for Iraq and Afghanistan hypocrites (he'll let Sharpton, Jackson, and Hollywood call them racists).

2014 here we come!

=========================

Let's see, we have a president calling for military action, unilateral if necessary, against a Middle Eastern dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people - and using disputed evidence to drum up international support for such action.

Yet, this is not a repeat from 2003...

...because in 2003, there was international support (UN, NATO, Arab League, etc.), bipartisan Congressional approval, and an actual objective to the military action.

I hate the spectre of what is coming forward, but I can't see any possible "win" for America. The best solution I can see it to contain the situation as much as possible within Syria's borders and let them destroy each other.

These feuds have been going on for hundreds of years. Martin's spot on.

If you consider that Islamist extremists are in actuality an army without a uniform, then I would say that North America as a whole is under a serious threat. -- wtf at September 2, 2013 8:53 AM

The problem with that argument is that, as it stands now, the chance of a full out attack from some Islamist extremist army anywhere in North America is very slim. The logistics, with modern equipment, still would take at least a month to get all the "troops" in place and it would be very obvious.

Just look at the months it took for the U.S. and allies took to prep for Gulf I & II and Afghanistan. And that was with pre-positioned equipment.

Yes you could load about 200 "soldiers" in a 747 and fly them from Cairo to D.C. directly. So put five planes on the ground in Dulles at the same time. That would be 1000 troops. Look at the number of Army bases in spitting distance of D.C. and figure there is an M-16 for every single soldier on those bases and some spares left over.

Give me the odds of the extremists winning a battle? I'm not saying there wouldn't be American casualties, both civilian and military; what I am saying the odds of success of the extremists is close to nil.

Our "national interest" now supposedly is to appear strong and support the facile verbal warning by Obama. We can send the message that the deaths of Al Qaeda soliders, and innocent men, women and children, in the Syrian civil war do not affect our vital national interests, as long as Assad blows them up or shoots them. However, it upsets our delicate sensibilities of vital national interest if they are gassed.

Our resolve will be shown by blowing up empty buildings, now cleared of expensive Syrian weapons. Amazingly, each cruise missile will cost $1.5 million, altogether $4.5 million when sending three to each target. This is likely more than the value of the buildings we will destroy.

The US produces collateral damage, killing men, women, and children who happen to be next to probable Al Qaeda members when we blow them up with drone strikes. This is supposedly fine, because no gas is used in these collateral incidents, and we only kill five to thirty at a time.

EasyOpinions

Look at the number of Army bases in spitting distance of D.C. and figure there is an M-16 for every single soldier on those bases and some spares left over.

If Nidal Hassan taught us anything, it's that soldiers on a US Army base don't have ready access to weapons.

These are the same cocksuckers that embraced Assad a few years ago:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/bashar-assad-loses-us-friends-as-kerry-hagel-and-b/

"the chance of a full out attack from some Islamist extremist army"

That's the thing Jim. They don't need a full out attack, and unfortunately, are smart enough to realize that a full out military strike would result in their own annihilation. They're taking on North America one marathon at a time, attacking from the inside, hiding in plain sight.

Their goal is not to take over our countries, or protect their own way of life. Their goal is to destroy our way of life using terror. They don't need a full on attack. Destroying infrastructure, while useful, isn't necessary for the overall success of their plan.

Sadly, what they're doing right now, while not amounting to a pile of shit in the way of military success, is very successful in bringing both Muslim and Christian youth over to their cause while creating terror in the minds of North Americans.

If you think about it, it has a sadistic brilliance. How do you fight an enemy you cannot see? Uniforms, if we look at it logically, are the equivalent of putting big red bulls-eyes on the backs of soldiers. While uniforms are the honorable way to fight a war, nobody ever said these "people" are honorable.

If it were me, I would suggest sending our soldiers of Middle eastern/Arabic descent (Canada has more than a few, not sure about the American army....) in plain clothes, arming them with high explosives, and seeing what havoc they could create.

You can be damn sure they would be trying to minimize women and youth casualties, which is more than Islam can say.

If Nidal Hassan taught us anything, it's that soldiers on a US Army base don't have ready access to weapons. -- Conan the Grammarian at September 2, 2013 2:49 PM

And there is a difference between an unsuspected attack on soldiers on base and waiving posse comitatus to allow them to arm up and respond to Dulles.

Much like President Cheney invading Iraq when no Iraqis were involved in 9/11, Obama is foaming at the mouth to attack Syria under the pretense of freeing the oppressed.

I wonder if this is part of his real motivation.

Their goal is not to take over our countries, or protect their own way of life. Their goal is to destroy our way of life using terror. They don't need a full on attack.

If that's true, they're damned incompetent at it, as they've been going about it for at least 12 years with minimal effect since 9/11. Bombing Syria won't do a thing to prevent domestic terrorism, any more than strip-searching civilians at the airport. All it does is kill more Syrians, which is theoretically what we're upset about. Any "destroying of our way of life" is being done by our own government.

"We're at war," my ass. Ain't nobody out there "fighting" us we haven't shot at first ourselves.

"If you consider that Islamist extremists are in actuality an army without a uniform, then I would say that North America as a whole is under a serious threat."

Can you name the motivation for that army?

That's the key. You're welcome!