Poor Positioning

The Democrats' Poor Positioning is because they no moral positionDemocrats’ Poor Positioning

The fluidity and resultant poor positioning of the Democrats whenever it comes to any action or inaction of President is Trump is largely – nigh on completely in point of sad fact – is that neither the Democrats nor their constituencies of Liberals and Progressives have any ethical or moral position as a foundation for their beliefs.

All they possess is a pathological inability to tolerate not getting their way exactly when and how they want it and at no cost to themselves in blood, sweat, or treasure.

Related Reading:

The Dilemmas of Lenin: Terrorism, War, Empire, Love, Revolution
America's First Daughter: A Novel
A Child's First Book of Trump
America: Imagine a World without Her
Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

Fluidity Of Offense

Liberals' Fluidity Of Offense
The Liberals’ Fluidity Of Offense

Liberals and Progressives, especially the woefully mis-raised Millennials, are always going to be offended. This is because their feelings of offense are nigh on completely fluid and not based upon any sort of actual actions.

Part me actually wants to excuse this behavior because they’re mentally impaired. Mostly, however, I think that they, like all the dangerously insane, should be kept in some form of strict quarantine where they can be treated for their illness.

Related Reading:

Burgmüller -- 25 Progressive Pieces, Op. 100: Book & CD (Alfred Masterwork CD Edition)
The Home That Was Our Country: A Memoir of Syria
America: Imagine a World without Her
How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument
The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

A Dangerous Fool

Obama - A dangerous foolObama, America’s lamentable Jester-in-Chief is at it again. This time the dangerous fool is once again trying to sell Congress, America, and the world’s governments on his plan to launch a punitive strike against Al-Assad’s government in Syria.  As usual, his arguments in favor of his chosen course of action are better suited to a fool, cavorting for the entertainment of his masters than to anyone who is allowed to be in a position of authority.

First there is the boy’s attempt to clothe his desires in the Color of Law:

Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria.

What the mendacious fool fails to mention is that Syria is not signatory to that treaty. In point of fact, Syria is not even signatory to the Geneva Convention, having withdrawn from it some 20 years ago. Hence the only way that any “basic rules were violated” is if we accept the postulate that treaties voluntarily entered into by one set of nations can be enforced upon other sovereign nations that did not agree to be bound by them.

Also, insofar as I know, bombs, missiles, rockets, and artillery shells, and such other remotely delivered ordinance also fail to make distinction between soldier and infant. The Gods know that Obama’s drone war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen has torn plenty of children into smoking gobbets of meat.

Fly my pretties!

Obama’s distinction between the forms of weaponry is the rankest of sophistry and, in the boy’s case, also the rankest of hypocrisy. It’s just more of his capering, shucking, and jiving.

Then there’s the fool’s attempt to make this a matter of America’s current and future national security:

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.

This statement is much akin to jester’s prank that fails to amuse. It engenders nothing but contempt with the sheer volume of error crammed into so few words.

Let us first put aside those logical flaws or deliberate misdirections that are inherent in this particular passage of Obama’s jabbering:

  • Let us ignore the informal fallacy of the slippery slope argument this argument is predicated upon.
  • Let us also ignore the fact that punishment does not equate to deterrence and has consistently failed in the Muslim World.

Instead, let us concentrate on the truly dangerous underlying foolishness of Obama’s who agenda regarding the Syrian Civil War. Al-Assad’s government has stockpiles of chemical – and, likely biological – weapons and has had them for decades. Not once has the Syrian government used them on foreign soil or troops and not once have they been turned over to proxies for use by various Muslim terrorist groups. Yet Obama has chosen to side with the rebels, mostly Islamists and filled with member of Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups.

The one singularly dangerous act of foolishness committed by Obama is his not backing Assad. Nothing will make it easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians than the overthrow of the current Syrian government by this Islamist rebels.

And Obama glibly proclaimed that he won’t do anything about it:

First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”

My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

Every single step Obama takes towards ending Assad’s reign is step closer to releasing stockpiles of WMDs upon the world. If Obama is, for political reasons, unwilling to put American boots on the ground in Syria he is also unwilling to prevent this from happening.

At best the boy is hoping that the situation will drag out long enough for him to safely the leave office before Assad falls. That way resulting catastrophe won’t be on his watch.

~*~

America and the world’s problem is that Obama is a dangerous and dangerously weak fool, much better suited to cavorting and capering for the entertainment of his masters than being in any position of authority. Like all such fools, when wrongly placed in authority, he can, has, and will cause great harm.

Related Reading:

The Foolishness of Preaching : Proclaiming the Gospel Against the Wisdom of the World
21st Century Essential NBC Reference Series: Chemical Weapons, Nerve Agents, VX, Sarin, Tabun, Soman, Cyanide, Lung Agents, Vesicants, Mustard Gas, ... Destruction WMD, First Responder Ringbound)
Syria and the chemical weapons taboo: Exploiting the forbidden (New Approaches to Conflict Analysis MUP)
Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama
Avoiding a Nuclear Catastrophe: WMD Weapons Threat from North Korea, Iran, Terrorists, Russia, China, Treaties, Role of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), Strengthening the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |