The Case for Military Intervention in Syria

I’ve listened to the arguments and looked at the evidence. There is no doubt that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have presented a convincing case for military intervention in Syria. As they outlined, terrorists, rapists, cannibals, killers and war criminals in that country are being murdered by their government, all because they’re simply attempting to violently overthrow it. Meanwhile, both sides are butchering civilians, but one side may have killed civilians with chemicals, therefore we have to drop bombs and kill more civilians to make a point about not killing civilians. Or maybe we’re going to drop bombs and kill civilians in order to demonstrate the proper and ethical way to incinerate women and children. Certainly it’s perfectly acceptable to behead Christians and exterminate entire villages, which is why we’re aiding and abetting the folks who are doing just that. But to conduct the extermination with chemicals? That’s crossing the line, sir. The RED line. (Unless it was actually the rebels who used the chemical weapons, in which case, hey, stuff happens.)

It all makes perfect sense. And certainly our government is in an unassailable position when it comes to lecturing other leaders about how to deal with rebellion. The United States government would never slaughter its own citizenry, even if the people in this country took to the streets and started shooting state officials. No, our leaders would simply put up their hands and say, “OK, you guys win! We don’t want anyone to get hurt! Here! Take our power from us! Take it!” That’s exactly how it would work, right? Just look at the Civil War. The South didn’t even want to overthrow the government, they just wanted to secede from it, and how did the Feds react? They just said, “Cool, you guys can go. Have a nice day!” They were so peaceful and reasonable about the whole thing, weren’t they?

So our Powers that Be can now sit atop their perch of Moral Righteousness and micromanage the entire globe. They’ve earned that right. Don’t question their methods, peons. You’re not in on the “classified briefings,” OK?

Oh, you want to know how, exactly, America will be made safer by helping Al Qaeda militants topple a foreign government? Well, maybe if you were in the CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS, you’d understand.

Where is the physical evidence that the government launched the chemical attack, as opposed to the terrorist rebels? Classified briefings.

Didn’t this strategy already blow up in our face in Egypt and Libya? Classified briefings.

In what precise way is our national security threatened by the current president of Syria? Classified. Briefing.

Hey, isn’t it treasonous to provide direct or indirect financial and/or military support to a group, like Al Qaeda, that has declared war on the United States? CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS. CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS.

Is this president a reckless, blubbering, narcissistic, power hungry fool? Again, I point you to the classified briefings.

See, a lot of people have hang ups about arbitrary military action overseas, but that’s only because they don’t understand the situation. They don’t seem to grasp the fact that we are in a “Global Community.” Global can be defined as, “worldwide, universal,” and community can be defined as “the people in a particular area.” In other words, the two concepts are literally directly opposed to one another. It makes as much sense to say we live in a spherical cube as it does to say we live in a global community. What does all this mean? Nothing, that’s the point. In modern times we have transcended archaic things like “logic,” and “coherence,” so you can not hold our leaders to such primitive standards. Nothing makes any sense, nobody means anything they say, words don’t have definitions, and the law is meaningless. This, my friends, is the essence of modern enlightenment.

So, yes, invade Syria. Burn it to the ground. Besides, I’m bored and there’s nothing else to do.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to The Case for Military Intervention in Syria

  1. Mary Ramirez says:

    “So, yes, invade Syria. Burn it to the ground. Besides, I’m bored and there’s nothing else to do.”

    I love it. Brilliant!

  2. Lisa says:

    I so appreciate that you can put on paper everything that’s in my head!

  3. Lynn says:

    Run for President, Matt. What’s left of the United States NEEDS a man like you…

  4. Jaimee D. says:

    Thought you might like this!

    Sent from my iPhone

  5. robin says:

    Thank you for stating the case so succinctly and wonderfully. I agree with Lisa above.

  6. Gene says:

    Yeah… But John McCain says that we have to do something!!!

  7. 3girlzmum says:

    Dripping with sarcasm. I especially like the treason comment because, d’uh, we are helping the enemy.

    • Bill says:

      Personally I lean towards the “spherical cube” but all the sarcasm is top notch for this asinine situation

  8. Russell Allison says:

    I’m not a big Obama fan, but it’s situations like this that make feel sorry for the guy. This is the Kobeyashi Maru of the American presidency. Forgive the Star Trek reference, but it fits. He can’t win. No fault of his own, he is thrust into a situation that, regardless of his choice of action or inaction, is gauranteed to make him a pariah to a good chunk of the electorate.

    • RVN11B says:

      Oh I disagree about this not being his fault! All he had to do was utilize brain cells and then keep mouth shut!

      But he has a persistent problem in both areas.

    • Uh. Sorry, NO! He waded in it! Added more to it and dove in it!

    • Cylar says:

      All he needs to do is say he’s changed his mind, withdraw the warships, and forget the whole thing. Pull a “Britain” and say that Congress doesn’t appear to be giving him the backing he needs. Say the situation on the ground there has changed. Whatever. I’m sure his speechwriters can come up with something.

      Yes, Jay Leno will have a good laugh about it and Rush Limbaugh will mock him on the radio. So what? A few months from now it’ll be all be forgotten.

      • Eileen says:

        I agree, Cylar. He is a pretty slick speaker and I know he would be able to twist
        this around and make it seem, that through careful thought, he came to the conclusion
        that Congress and the american people want restraint and tho he is saddened (perhaps a tear or two) he will hold off for the time being

    • wiersmak2013 says:

      This is a mess of his own making. I don’t feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for us.

    • Rachel Bushman says:

      No. He handled this situation like a bull in a China shop! This situation wasn’t handed to him. He could have left this matter alone and left it in the hands of the UN. But, no. He has to be all “big man” and try to dictate and bully. Smh…

    • Bill says:

      @Russell, only because he’s been “in over his head” since he was first sworn in.

  9. JT Jones says:

    Matt- I am blown away by your sharp repartee! Keep it up! Love your comments.

  10. Jared says:

    You speak from a perspective that has security, liberty, and peace. You are not capable of empathizing with the victims because you never had to fight to obtain them. You have never been oppressed so you have no reason to value the relief of such conditions for others. Making excuses to prolong their suffering when you could offer relief has no visible effect to you so you can live with it. Unfortunately, those who have compassion and are not self-possessed choose not to be blind to the results of inaction and see the true value of action. Also, the argument that the enemy of my enemy is my friend is not always the case. Just because we have a common enemy does not mean that we should be deterred from acting as it might give an advantage to another enemy.

    • Denna Freed says:

      Jared – I am not sure that CNN is your best resource for TRUTH as they have been known to lie and distort to suit Obama and the liberal agenda.

    • Cylar says:

      I’m sure the suffering is real, but the case hasn’t been made that it’s an American problem, that our involvement would solve anything, or how intervention serves our interests. We are not the world police and really can’t afford any more wars unless there’s a clear and present danger to be dealt with. Syria fails that test.

      If humanitarian reasons were our only criteria for military involvement, our forces would be in literally every country on Earth.

    • Len says:

      If the suffering people are the reason to intervene, then provide help to the suffering people. Dropping bombs to show symbolic support or even to have a real impact may take place but that doesn’t help the suffering people. Compassion is OK so long as the action matches the location and/or the result where compassion is needed. Either go all in and win the proper victory with the right people for the right reason OR stay outside and help the refugees. When it’s impossible to clearly see who should win, then admit that this needs a covert and surgical intelligence based solution. Send in the CIA & special ops (they are probably already there) to find the chemical weapons and destroy them. That goal can be defined. Don’t go all macho and start lobbing bombs. This is not about action vs no action. This about the right action vs the wrong action. Give a powerful politician with a big ego (all of them!) a sledgehammer and they will use it because they can – even when they shouldn’t because “We have to do something!!”

    • Nicholas says:

      If that’s the case, Jared, why have we essentially ignored Africa for over 50 years? There is no reason to become involved in the Syrian civil war. And let us not forget that the Syrian rebels have been cheerfully executing government soldiers, post torture, as well as at least one documented case of cannibalism on the battlefield.

      • Jared says:

        That argument does not deter from the fact that people need our help now. Two wrongs don’t make a right…etc. We can go in and support the civilians and bring to justice those on both sides who commit war crimes. Polarized thinking and anti-Obama attitudes prevent the majority from seeing that possibility.

      • Bill says:

        @jared, So a surgical strike to both sides is the answer?

    • Rachel Bushman says:

      No. The UN needs to help those people, with our concerted efforts. That is why the world created the UN, to make decisions about these matters. We should let them do their job. As a country we have already over extended ourselves, at the tremendous cost of our own economy. What about the lives here, that will be lost if we can’t get our stuff together? What about the lives lost if China calls in our debt or stops our “line of credit”? What about the people starving in our own country? What about the fact our government doesn’t protect us the from harmful ingredients in our food and medicines and water? What about GMO’s that the bulk of other developed nations have banned? What about the human rights violations against males in this country that kill at least 117 yearly (human genital mutilation)? What about all the violence that stems from poverty and a failed “War on Drugs” and violations of the Second Amendment in Detriot and Chicago and many other cities? What of the high rate of unemployment and underemployment in the States, that leads to an often times unwilling dependence on state aid? What about the fact forty-six other countries have lower maternal death rates than the States? We have way too many issues, to be bombing others for their transgressions and human rights violations.

  11. timetosnack says:

    Favorite line: “Nothing makes any sense, nobody means anything they say, words don’t have definitions, and the law is meaningless. This, my friends, is the essence of modern enlightenment.” It is also the essence of Barack Obama!

  12. timetosnack says:

    Favorite Line: “Nothing makes any sense, nobody means anything they say, words don’t have definitions, and the law is meaningless. This, my friends, is the essence of modern enlightenment.” It is also the essence of Obama and the entire class of political “elite.”

  13. Randy Bock says:

    if those Benghazi killers are there, lurking in Syria, fine, get them, otherwise without a defined purpose, likely results will not be those desired.

  14. cc70458 says:

    Thank the Lord, I’m so glad to see that others really are seeing the same thing and that more are realizing every day. Even without bringing up the Catholic Just War doctrine or any religious arguments (show stoppers for military action for myself and many others) you just used a rational logical and pretty much unassailable (unless you trust what CLASSIFIED BRIEFING say – yeah right, especially after Iraq). Hopefully enough people will listen and start recall drives against any member of congress who backs military actions.

  15. jiagap says:

    Hi Matt,

    As much as I appreciate your work, I do think you overreach on your “global community” comments. You write, “and community can be defined as “the people in a particular area.”” And then proceed to set it against “global.” But is “people in a particular area” really the best denotation of “community?” Isn’t the essence of “community” more in the unity of individuals or groups than in the location? Global community, conceptually, makes sense. However, we do not have it, as the nations are fighting with one another.

    Other than that, I think you continue to be spot on. Keep up the good work.

    ~ richard

  16. Dave says:

    Can’t wait for Al Qaeda to overthrow the government and then turn and use the chemical weapons against the COUNTRIES THEY HAVE DECLARED WAR AGAINST.

  17. Excellent use of satire.

  18. Jared says:

    “As they outlined, terrorists, rapists, cannibals, killers and war criminals in that country are being murdered by their government, all because they’re simply attempting to violently overthrow it.”
    – Illogical rhetoric. Everyone knows that innocent civilians are being killed but you don’t fight that fight because you can’t win. You imply guilt on all the casualties parts so that you can justify leaving them to their suffering.
    “Just look at the Civil War. The South didn’t even want to overthrow the government, they just wanted to secede from it, and how did the Feds react? They just said, “Cool, you guys can go. Have a nice day!” They were so peaceful and reasonable about the whole thing, weren’t they?”
    – Great argument …if this occurs in 1865. Since then lots has happened! Mainly WWII, the Nuremberg trials (You know the whole “deep obligation” and “never again” ideology), and the Geneva Conventions. Also, the whole freeing the slaves business really sets that straw man argument ablaze.
    “In modern times we have transcended archaic things like “logic,” and “coherence,” so you can not hold our leaders to such primitive standards.”
    – Clearly this is not sarcasm as you demonstrate neither in your arguments.

    • John says:

      Oh my God, dude. Let’s step out of your college level thinking and enter the real world. Your critical thinking looks wonderful and I’m sure your mom is very proud of you and all that, now I have a suggestion for you. If the fate of these people means so very much to you, go do something about it. I realize that this will mean leaving your parent’s basement and actually owning your beliefs, but either do that or do us all a favor and reach down between your legs and give a good pull. You might dislodge your head. If the fate of all these innocents means so much to you, your arguments might hold more weight if there was something besides url’s pasted to replys on a web blog

    • Cousin Mose says:

      Oh, Jared. That’s right. College must have started. It looks like you are enjoying your Philosophy 101 and World Affairs classes. You are so cute!

      • Jared says:

        Actually I’m a veteran who has spent 2 years in the middle east. I visited the towns Saddam gassed and spoke to survivors of his reign of terror. Oh and I lived in Germany and visited several historic sites and am very educated on how that happened as well as how the world responded to it. I am in college though (junior year and never had less than an A-) and I go to a Quaker school that is even more anti-war than this. At least they intelligently defend their arguments and don’t resort to attacking the person and not their argument. That is the biggest faux pas of debate as it signifies a lack of ability to counter the argument, therefore validating it, so thank you!

  19. Katie says:

    you don’t have to go back to the civil war……remember Waco

  20. Mel says:

    Let allah decide.

  21. Steve Berman says:

    Matt you are not the first to make this argument, and you are in good literary company. Check out

  22. Bruce says:

    Let’s not forget the Syrian rebels used sarin gas BEFORE the government allegedly did. So said Carla Del Ponti on behalf of the United Nations a few months ago. So we really need to be sure to bomb BOTH sides.

    • Cylar says:

      …or, we could bomb neither and stay the hell out of it. You know, like the public, Congress, and the international community are urging us to do.

    • Jared says:

      I know right. Nobody likes to proven illogical. lol

    • Jared says:

      Talking out your butt? Glad you chose to reflect your intellect in your response Cylar. It is clearly above your mental capacity to reason it so don’t trifle with it!

      • Nicholas says:

        Jared, we cannot simply enter a conflict because we feel badly for the civilians. I know that this is an isolationist mentality, but we need to be more concerned with what’s going on within our own borders rather than what’s going on in another country’s civil war. There is nothing short of boots on the ground — and the execution of all warring parties — that would solve the immediate military issues in Syria. The sectarian violence would simply simmer as all sides joined together to fight the invaders, which is what was seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I’m sure that you’re well aware. The best option here is for the United Nations to act, not the United States as a separate entity.

    • Jared says:

      The U.N. refused to act and were wrong for it so should we join them in being wrong?

      • wiersmak2013 says:

        Since the Russians and Chinese have veto power and have vetoed just about every attempt to bring up a resolution concerning Syria, the UN cant act.

      • Nicholas says:

        I think that there is not sufficient evidence for action, and, yes since we’re still a member of the UN, we need to abide by the decisions. Now if we pull out of the UN, all the better, but we cannot be both part of and separate from a entity that we belong to.

      • rdrift1879 says:

        Jared, your points are legitimate. Good people can disagree without the nasty personal jibes. I am sorry you were attacked personally for having an opposing opinion. The Internet can be ugly. On the issue itself, I think those with the power to stop great evils should judiciously use it. I confess I find this situation is very murky, and I’m not sure semi-intervention will help.

  23. Cindy Gange says:

    PLEASE get into politics ASAP! You are beyond amazing in your interpretation and brilliant literary explanations. I love to read your posts!!!

  24. RevolutionNow says:

    Well….they’ll have to replace all those cruise missiles…that means good American jobs & a micro-boost to the economy….every little bit helps. NOT !!!!!

  25. Tracey says:

    Yup, makes sense 😉

  26. Matt Marlin says:

    I love when you spoon-feed your minions the “unclassified” variables and dynamics of what is abundantly evident to anyone with a pulse, access to the internet and an IQ greater than their shoe size. Overthrowing a dictator and ending the oppressive, murderous reign of the Assad regime won’t be accomplished with harsh language. The Obama administration has held up its’ vow for transparency and that transparency has simply affirmed what we have known for decades. The government lies, deceives, misleads, denies and utilizes anything else in their playbook as they see fit. This is normal operating procedure of every administration and don’t hold your breath waiting for it to change. The horror in Syria, perpetrated by both the government and the rebellion, is a monumental cluster-F#$%. Obama doesn’t have all the answers, he has none. Neither do you, me or anyone else. The events in Syria pose no threat to the U.S. and Obama knows that but he will use it because he can. Should the US intervene? No,but they probably will and all your “sarcastic, literary brilliance” and “incredible” insight into the situation can be distilled into one unassailable fact, the First Amendment remains intact. Have a nice day and get a second opinion on that Hepatitis B vaccine for the kids. The CDC, what an imagination!

  27. monica says:

    You organize the thoughts that are in my head and then write them….you’re amazing!

  28. sandy says:

    Just wondering how much you actually know about the civil war, check your history and see why the South wanted to succeed? Ever hear of slavery and the deplorable conditions they lived in?

    As far as Syria is concerned it seems any group of people who kills others, wether it be adults or children, with chemical weapons should be dealt severely. We in the USA are not the only ones who can see this and I wonder why the blame for any good or bad decision is hung on the President, he does not run the country by himself! Each President ages at least 20 year while in office.

    • Cylar says:

      Wow, where to begin with this?

      Just wondering how much you actually know about the civil war, check your history and see why the South wanted to succeed? Ever hear of slavery and the deplorable conditions they lived in?

      It’s “secede,” not “succeed.” Second, the South seceded over states’ rights disputes, not slavery. Don’t tell other people to pick up a history book when it’s apparent you haven’t read one yourself since seventh grade, however long ago that was for you. Third, I’m not seeing what “deplorable conditions” has to do with the justness of the Confederate cause. If anything, that’s an argument for Union intervention down in the slave states.

      As far as Syria is concerned it seems any group of people who kills others, wether it be adults or children, with chemical weapons should be dealt severely.

      We still don’t know for sure who fired the chemical weapons (there’s some evidence it was the very people we’re claiming to support, not the Syrian gov’t), and as I told another poster, stopping “killing” is a pretty wide criteria for military intervention. Geez, do you have any idea how many people were murdered in Chicago last year? We can’t even stop the killing on our own soil, but we’re going to stop it halfway around the world?

      We in the USA are not the only ones who can see this and I wonder why the blame for any good or bad decision is hung on the President, he does not run the country by himself! Each President ages at least 20 year while in office.

      Where the hell have you been the last three weeks? The president seems to be literally the only person in the United States who supports this thing. (Okay, him and 7 members of a 10-man Senate panel.) In fact, it was his idea. It’s more than fair to “hang it” on him. Geez, do you even read the news?

  29. Cylar says:

    The South didn’t even want to overthrow the government, they just wanted to secede from it, and how did the Feds react? They just said, “Cool, you guys can go. Have a nice day!”

    Actually, the Union appeared prepared to let them go, right up to the day they fired on Ft Sumpter in 1861. Stupid stubborn southern pride being what it is, they couldn’t just ignore the fortress or simply surround the place and ask the feds to leave without bloodshed. Instead, they started shooting at it. I’ve read the history of those days and I’ve seen no record of Union Army movement prior to that event.

    Yes, Lincoln warned the South in his inaugural address, but there was that teeny-tiny provision in the Constitution that allows states to secede if they want to. You know, the one the Confederates’ forefathers had insisted be put there as a specific condition of their ratifying the document and joining the Union in the first place?

  30. Woke up in the dead of sleep just to read this.

  31. Jack says:

    Great insights!
    Spending billions of dollars on military items: jets, aerial bombs, nukes, etc.=depreciation when sitting there…hence the most POWERFUL military force in the world (aka. the war machine) continues to tick on, and will until every U.S. citizens’ tax dollar is expended, if it is still the U.S. by that time, but according to Eben Alexander…..there is really only a speck off all of this nonsense in the universe…pretty amazing!

  32. Beautifully stated, Matt.

  33. emcquaig says:

    Reblogged this on Political Brian and commented:
    EFFing SNAP. Matt serves up a harsh meal of reality and common sense to those who would be our masters. B$

  34. Doug says:

    Let me go on record as unequivocally against all war.
    Matt, where was your satiric wit, when we were lied into the Iraqi war by the war criminals Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld?

    • Fr. Frank says:

      Um, I’m pretty sure Matt was only in like the 10th grade when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al. started the Iraqi war. (And let’s not forget to add Karl Rove to the list. Yes, they are war criminals.) Matt is only about 27, I believe. However, please feel free to attempt another tu quoque!

    • Will says:

      Yeah, Matt! Where were you when we were lied into the Persian Gulf War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, World War I, the Philippine-American war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil War, the War with Mexico, the war of 1812, the Barbary Wars, and the Revolutionary War?

  35. Dave Emanuel says:

    Obama’s proposed attack on Syria is a brilliantly conceived plan. We will launch an attack we can’t afford on an enemy we don’t have and kill people in the name of humanitarianism.

  36. Beth says:

    My representative, James Lankford, has used the “classified briefings” tactic…LOL!

  37. Something really bad smells about this whole thing. I just hope we go – no really – there is so much world pressure built up right now it is causing a serious sinus headache on us all. Let the bombs fly – and let those that will retaliate do so – we need to relieve the pressure.

    I am not saying it is the right move. I am not even saying it is a good move. I am saying it will be a historic move. One the world is screaming for. I know it is not popular. But it is raw and it is real. If we do not relieve the pressure now, our children will be doing it. Time to go.

    Let’s get it on !

  38. Roger says:

    Good article: This is my reply to James Lankford on his page, I hope it is also helpful to the cause of peace:

    I’ve heard reports that you are going to vote no and I hope that holds true, I also hope that you are also able to convince others to vote no. I have a bad feeling that this is going to happen anyways, but we have to try. Concerning the “geopolitical strategists” who agree that we must get involved because of Iran. They all agree because they all get their paychecks from the same people. The Israeli lobby group, oil and weapons industry who are very powerful and have lots of money. From what I have been able to glean from alternative media, this is about an oil pipeline that will go right through Syria to replace another pipeline that is currently being built, if the first one succeeds many U.S. corporations will be out of the loop controlling a good amount of oil. Having been in the Navy, I know how much missiles cost, profit is made every time we fire one. Money talks, profit has no conscience, but we are people who should realize we are greater than profit and should have the larger voice. Concerning the violence in Syria, bombs will not stop the violence but only increase it I therefor consider what we are planning to do a criminal act. If we really wanted to end the violence in Syria, we would work with Arab countries to end the support of rebels being sent into Syria, who when getting there discover there is a food shortage, who with weapons and money pillage to eat, blame any damage made on the Syrian government. So in addition to negotiating rebel disarmament we could also send food and the violence there would end. It would be cheaper, more humane and safer than sending missiles. I am also a Christian and if we bomb Syria many Christians there will die.

  39. Mike says:

    You realize that you are using the EXACT SAME RATIONALE FOR VIOLENCE as the people you were vilifying in your August 22nd post on black-on-white crime (boredom)? Stick with some consistency in your racism, please. Either it’s okay for you to bomb brown people because you’re bored and they can shoot white people because they’re bored, or you both can’t, but it’s a bit of a double standard to say otherwise.

    • Fr. Frank says:

      He’s using a literary device called irony. The whole point of his blog post was to show how ridiculous the logic is that’s being used to justify going to war. Bottom Line: He’s not a racist warmonger. He agrees with you.

      BTW — where was this blog during the Battle of Thermopolae?!?

  40. SMM says:

    Matt, you are totally right, I like your article and your sarcasm. The sad thing is that innocent people are in the middle of the mix of idiots that have the weapons…whatever they are, bombs, chemicals…and wherever or whomever they got them from, who knows anymore? I believe it is a bigger plan using created chaos (Israel). Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer…we all must just pray and hope the God saves the innocent people.

  41. Eric says:

    For those saying we’re better off with Assad and with Ghadaffi…..I disagree. By the way. The exact same logic could be applied to Hitler and the German resistance. Why help them? They were just terrorists. Bad stuff might happen if you help the German resistance. It could cost money. The arguments go both ways folks.

    • Dave Emanuel says:

      The response to Hitler was a result of his attacks on other countries, not his policies within Germany– which went on for several years while the world turned a blind eye.

  42. J says:

    Great article. I’m glad you are against intervention, because we don’t need anymore warmongers. We should stay out of it. Assad is a bad man. Just look at his name, haha. These “rebels” are al qaida & taliban style cannibal freaks! We don’t have a dog in the fight. Both sides hate America. Even if we would do something as logical as bombing both sides, we would initiate world war 3 or at least cause dramatic tensions with Russia, China, Iran, etc. Those tensions would not go away for decades. Maybe, just maybe, if we didn’t fight retarded land wars in the middle east we Americans would have more of an appetite for “going in.”

  43. kimvarner says:

    Reblogged this on Blessed Chaos and commented:
    This is a great commentary that needs to be shared.

  44. Dennis says:

    Hey Jared,

    Here is a great summation on why
    we need to stay out of Syria.

  45. John Doman says:

    Just want to comment on your offhand remark about Southern Secession and the Civil War. I know you’ll probably disregard this, but I think it hurts your credibility when you constantly hold up the southern side in the civil war as some kind of beacon for freedom and states rights. They weren’t. The reason the Southern states seceded from the Union was because of Slavery. Slavery may not have been the reason most ordinary Souherners fought. It wasn’t the reason that Robert E. Lee fought. But slavery WAS the reason the Legislatures of the various southern states voted to leave the Union. Virginia’s ordinance of Seccession states it explicitly: “the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:”
    These rich people were angry because the Federal Government was threatening to take away their slaves. The southern cause was a wicked one, no matter how many honorable men fought so valiantly for it.

    • Tim OK says:

      thank you. Matt, I think you lost the entire force of your argument on this one. there were so many better examples you can give as an example.

  46. Pingback: Flotsam & Jetsam (9/10) | the Ink Slinger

  47. brilliant!!..I’d say piste de resistance

  48. If all the warlike people in the world just killed each other off, all we’d be left with would be peaceful people. Sounds like win to me.

  49. I appreciate your honest comment Mr.YT. What you said may be true for all other religions except Islam. You might think that i am being prejudiced. But i assure you i am not. I am also aware that the internet is riddled with slurs and abuses and alleged errors etc etc in the Quran. I have personally looked into every one of these allegations and found them dishonest and incorrect. You yourselves can google some of them and post me and i will refute them all. At this point I hope you notice that NO PERSON FROM ANY OTHER RELIGION EXCEPT ISLAM WILL AGREE TO THE OFFER THAT I HAVE MADE WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING THEIR RELIGIONS. This is the level of confidence that Islam gives to its followers and we know that it will never put us down.
    kredyt bez zaświadczeń

Comments are closed.