Here are some suggestions for the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate as to how he can step back from his Red Line in the Sand:
1) Offer the Assad government an exemption from the Red Line, like the exemptions from Obamacare that you gave to unions and corporations that contributed to your campaign.
2) Refuse to enforce the Red Line for Syrians, like you refuse to enforce immigration law for Mexicans.
3) Declare that killing Syrians isn't a violation of the Red Line, because if you had a son, he wouldn't look like a Syrian.
4) Since the gas attack happened ten days ago, declare "what difference-- at this point, what difference does it make?"
5) Arrest someone who made a YouTube video and blame him for the whole thing.
The road to Damascus is a road to peace.
--- N Pelosi (2007)
U.S. Senator John Kerry says Syria is committed to engaging in peace making and is essential to the process.
--- AP (2010)
There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.
--- Hillary Clinton (2011)
The witlessness of the current Nexus of Idiots in DC is remarkable.
What possible influence on the trajectory of the Syrian civil war can a limited intervention have now (aside from handing a golden opportunity to Assad forces to emplace human shields in possible target areas)? Even the left-wing New Yorker got into the act with a little satire:
“Let me be clear,” [Obama] said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”
--- The Borowitz Report
RE: Item "3) Declare that killing Syrians isn't a violation of the Red Line, because if you had a son, he wouldn't look like a Syrian"ReplyDelete
This reminded me that Jack Cashill's new book "If I Had a Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman" is now available on Kindle.
The hardcover, which will be published on October 29, can be preordered.
So many people I know voted for this guy because they thought he was the peace candidate. What's even worse is that plenty of them probably haven't changed their opinion in the slightest.ReplyDelete
A picture says a thousand words:
How many of you fuckers think that the US should sit and do nothing about a tyrant who used sarin* to gas his own population? Let's take a vote.ReplyDelete
*A substance whose production and stockpiling was outlawed by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
This fucker must think so. Or did, when it was convenient....Delete
[N]o amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.
--- Barack Obama (2007, campaign comments)
This is not about resolving political differences, grampa. It's about punishing a dictator who has clearly crossed a line drawn by the world*. Your moral compass seems to be off today.Delete
*For teh stupid, that's a reference to the Chemical Weapons Convention
How do you "punish" a dictator by killing his people, when he's already responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 (according to the UN) of his people? Are you "teh stupid", schoolboy?Delete
And is the US Navy the World's Policeman?
You punish a dictator by killing his army and destroying his infrastructure. Worked pretty well in Yugoslavia.Delete
Get your meds, admiral.
"And is the US Navy the World's Policeman?"Delete
Good question, admiral. The US has played the role of the world's policeman for a long while. The Iraq campaign of 1991 (undertaken under G. W. H. Bush) was a good example of punishing a local thug in the Middle East.
Hoots, there is no discussion whatsoever of the use of ordinance on the scale that was used in the Yugoslavian air war. Countless tons of precision-guided munitions were used. And it was carried out under the aegis of NATO.Delete
Obama's little war is pre-designed to be limited in duration and scope and allies have been hard to come by.
So forget Kosovo.
In regard to policing the world, I'm surprised to see you refer to Gulf 1, but again that's a silly comparison. GHW Bush rallied a global coalition (including Syria!) and injected thousands of ground troops into the region.
So forget Iraq 1.
This penny-ante beta-male posturing is going to accomplish zero in terms of having any effect whatsoever on Assad or the trajectory of the civil war. Too little, and far too late.
Here are two more against aggressive war on Syria:Delete
Michael S. Rozeff (a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, NY: Nine Reasons Why Bombing Syria Is Not an Act of Justice
Me: See above
2 are against attacking the Syrian dictator. Admiral dithers.Delete
Not for the reasons stated above, but solidly against attacking Syria.
My reasons are really quite simple.
1. There is no imminent danger presented to my nation or this alliance (NATO + ) by a Syrian civil war.
2. We do not yet have any real proof of who used the weapons (chems). We could be reacting to a flag event - an event intended to draw us into conflict.
3. To be a legal war, it must be cleared by Parliament. The Syrian conflict was not, and was not supported by the PM, military command, or any other power or analytical body as tactically sound.
4. The blocs have lined up to back one side or the other. This is insanity fair at it's finest.
For the record, I did not back our involvement in Iraq and my side of the debate won.
It is a terrible shame that Syrians are being killed by gas attacks. Innocents dying is always horrible. It is equally horrible that there are thousands upon thousands of Syrian minorities being butchered by the REBELS.
Short of an international coalition to enforce a peace in Syria, I can see no external solution to this issue. Strikes will just make matters worse and escalate the regional tensions.
You know... when Bush was in office - near the end of his terms - I thought to myself: It can only get better! How wrong I was....
Citizen O makes Ole Dubya look like Wellington at Waterloo militarily.
We all just *know* that 'Hoo' demonized Bush for invading Iraq with the express purpose of overthrowing the Saddam Husein dictatorship -- which dictatorship:ReplyDelete
1) murdered multiple thousands of its own subjects;
2) was complicit in the September 11, 2011 attacks on us;
3) was not abiding by the terms of the truce of Gulf War I;
4) had tried to assassinate Pres. Bush I
That is, we had a national interest in toppling the Iraqi dictatorship: this it was "evil" to do it.
We have no national interest in supporting *any* side in Syria; the Alien in the White House claims he's doesn't want to topple the Assad dictatorship, just lob a few missles; the Alien has already demonstrated himself to be a freckless fool, but if he dosn't lob those missles, even 'Hoo' will be forced to admit that the Alien is a fool: ERGO, how dare you RAAAAACISSSS!!!11!!!!!! oppose the ineffectual lobbing of missles into Syria?!!1!!1!!!1111!!!!!!
Saddam Hussein (and Iraq) weren't complicit in the September 11, 2001 attacks. That was a lie invented by the Bush administration to get America's hands on Iraqi oil.
The September 11 attack was planned by a Saudi citizen and carried out by 19 Saudi nationals. Why didn't Bush invade Saudi Arabia, with its crazy brand of Islam instead of Iraq with its secular government, which included a Christian minister?
He was, and intentionally spread the leftist lie. But then, we all know you're a liar.Delete
Where's your proof that Iraq was complicit in the September 11 attacks? There's none. You're the liar. Bush had managed to convert Iraq into a terrorists' haven.
intellectually dishonest leftist (which they all are): "Where's your proof that Iraq was complicit in the September 11 attacks? There's none. You're the liar."Delete
It isn't exactly secret knowledge that the Baathist regime in Iraq provided safe haven for terrorists, and carried out terrorist attacks and planning, including some of the planning for September 11 -- but it is something that leftists -- who are all liars to the core-- will not admit, for they have this whole "Bush lied" "narrative" lie to maintain.
Mind you, I don't expect 'bachfiend' or 'Hoo' to acknowledge the things listed here; I don't present this for *them*, but for other readers -- IRAQ-TERRORISM CONNECTION --
Example (before 9/11): "On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi airport greeter reportedly dispatched from Baghdad's embassy in Malaysia — welcomed Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi to Kuala Lampur and escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi had slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered papers tying him to the 1993 World Trade Center plot and to "Operation Bojinka," al Qaeda's 1995 plan to simultaneously blow up 12 jets over the Pacific Ocean."
Example (after 9/11 and before the invasion of Iraq): "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell. He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan."
Ilíon: "Saddam Husein ...
3) was not abiding by the terms of the truce of Gulf War I;
4) had tried to assassinate Pres. Bush I"
Leftists assert there exists something called "international law" and that "legitimacy" somehow follows from UN resolutions and such -- but, because leftists are lying hypocrites who *always* oppose US interests, they're willing to ignore 3) because Bush was a Republican and because overthrowing Saddam Husein was in the national interest of the US. Leftists tend to admit to 4) ... because in their twisted view of reality, the fact that President #43 was the son of President #41, and thus had a personal interest in putting Saddam Husein down for trying to assassinate President #41, invalidates *all* rationales for overthrowing him.
"Bush had managed to convert Iraq into a terrorists' haven."
Bush managed to turn Iraq into a terrorist shooting gallery -- you know, they mirgate in and our troups shoot 'em. No wonder you leftists hated Bush: even with the constraints of keeping "liberals" and other leftists mollified, he was making progress in killing "Islamists"!
I have a better idea: instead of bombing Assad's assets, shoot some cruise* missiles into the Vatican. Scores of children will be saved from the pedophiles.ReplyDelete
*'cruise' and 'cross' translate to the same word - a homonym - in Dutch, hahaha.
I discovered your blog a little while ago and am enjoying the posts you wrote up critiquing Novella. Love your posts on neuroscience, philosophy of mind, etc.
Couldn't find any better way to contact you, so I'm leaving my request here, in the form of a comment...
Would you ever consider either a) starting a separate blog in which you focus primarily on issues where neurosurgery, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind intersect or b) writing more posts on this topic?
I've found them to be the most interesting and edifying, and Lord knows you're uniquely qualified to write on the topic. Thanks.
- A reader
A neurosurgeon is little more than a technician. Doing operations in a stereotyped manner, virtually by rote. Although, that's what you want in a surgeon; reliably performing procedures which have been shown to be effective with high accuracy and precision.
Egnor is clueless regarding neuroscience, as demonstrated by his inability to read Benjamin Libet's work on antedating of sensory perception correctly, insisting on several occasions that it showed that the brain antedates the perception to the time the sense receptor was stimulated whereas it's actually antedated to the time the sensory input reaches the brain.
Not a minor point, because Egnor uses his misinterpretation as evidence that the peripheral nervous system is self aware.
Personally, I'd welcome Egnor writing a separate blog on neuroscience. It would provide more opportunity for me to laugh at his stupidity.
Thanks for the kind comment. I've been meaning to do more on mind, neuroscience, etc. Maybe this will get me going!
I second that! As much as I enjoy the current events, I would love to read up on what a professor of neurosurgery thinks about subjects like philosophy of mind etc.
I do like reading the Docs opinions on politics and religion, don't get me wrong - but I would love to read more of his musings on the brain.
Thanks for the reply! Your insights would be welcomed, and heck, I'd even enjoy seeing Bachfiend's responses and criticisms so long as we can keep everything focused on specific topics and issues. That's the trouble with an all-purpose blog... it becomes too general, too broad.
The field of neuroscience/Thomistic philosophy is ripe for the picking. Walter J. Freeman, apparently no small name in neurobiology, has proposed that Thomas' philosophical system is "the most compatible with neurodynamics" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Jackson_Freeman_III#cite_note-2)
Wishing you luck on your new project. If you plan on a new blog, I recommend Wordpress
- same reader
p.s: Bachfiend - I've learned from snooping around long enough that Egnor studied under Eric Kandel, Richard Axel and Richard Bunge. He also teaches Neurosurgery. Just a technician... really?