Lion of the Blogosphere

France supports Obama

British Parliament may have wussed out, but France supports Obama. This is a big shift in French politics from back in the 1980s when France wouldn’t let our planes flyover France en route to bombing Libya. Maybe having a Nobel Peace Prize helps.

* * *

Obama has completely lost any element of surprise with respect to this attack, but I guess U.S. armed forces don’t need surprise any more than Mike Tyson would need surprise in order to give a little kid a well-deserved spanking.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 30, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Posted in International

38 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I really don’t want Obama to launch a strike against Syria because I suspect Assad will brush off the attack (which is going to limited in scope) and continue to up the ante, meaning that they USA could easily get stuck having to invade Syria.

    Jay

    August 30, 2013 at 10:32 AM

    • As a leader of a country, Obama is better at being able to guess the reactions of other national leaders than you or I, so we should trust him.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM

      • Hmmm, haven’t you been saying all along that Obama made big mistakes in Egypt?

        Camlost

        August 30, 2013 at 2:45 PM

      • Damn Sigma, you put an awful lot of faith in Obama’s wisdom lately. Just because he’s president doesn’t change that he’s a garden variety charlatan/huckster who’s only really understands how to play people’s race-based perceptions. In terms of anything objective, the man doesn’t know up from down.

        fakeemail

        August 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM

      • Obama is better at being able to guess the reactions of other national leaders

        Obama wants to go to war to help the Muslim Brotherhood.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM

      • Is this trolling?

        Dan

        August 30, 2013 at 4:28 PM

      • And your evidence that leaders of countries are better than anyone else at judging the intentions of leaders of other countries is what?

        Maximo Macaroni

        August 30, 2013 at 5:56 PM

      • Here you use the same logic that you do with abortion. Abortion is legal, therefore abortion is ok. Whether abortion is ok or not, the fact that it’s legal doesn’t determine it as such; there have been many unethical laws on the books throughout human history (within the last half century it was perfectly legal to write out future jewish buyers from real estate contracts). Are you concerned for the well being of Syrian civilians, and if so, which other countries should Obama be so trustworthy as to attack? At what point do we stop our juggernaut good cop routine of fighting fire with fire?

        islandmommy

        August 30, 2013 at 7:06 PM

      • Is this trolling?

        Is he ever not trolling?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 30, 2013 at 8:32 PM

      • Yeah, just like it was a smart idea for Bush to invade Iraq. The reality is that the United States has no reason to get involved in this Syrian situation.

        Joe Walker

        August 30, 2013 at 9:42 PM

      • The toxic narcissist is incapable of understanding any other human being, because he does not care about any other human being.

        Tarl

        August 30, 2013 at 10:06 PM

      • I’m sure we all trust that if Obama had put forth the opposite opinion, Mr. Lion would have said the exact same thing. Man of principle.

        mindswarm

        August 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM

  2. Did Hollande consult his parliament?

    dearieme

    August 30, 2013 at 11:02 AM

  3. France agrees that America should fight? Yaaay!

    Unless France is going to fight too, their opinion is of no value.

    Tarl

    August 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM

  4. I liked Cochran’s comment that Bari, 1943, is the dog that isn’t barking among the liars, idiots, and fools.

    Was the nerve gas two weeks ago accidental collateral damage? If Obama launches a couple dozen Tomahawks at strategic sites in Syria can he be at all sure they won’t accidentally release nerve gas as accidental collateral damage? What if Assad deliberately releases nerve gas and claims it was collateral damage resulting from Obama’s Tomahawk bombardment?

    Portlander

    August 30, 2013 at 12:54 PM

    • In such an event, Obama will obviously have to bomb the US. Like we didn’t know it was coming.

      Glengarry

      September 1, 2013 at 6:58 AM

  5. France supports Obama

    French support of Obama on Syria should be taken with the same level of seriousness as the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences of the United States in 1990 awarding the Best New Artist Grammy to Milli Vanilli.

    Girl, You Know It’s True!

    Wade Nichols

    August 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM

  6. The French have always opposed the Alawites, since their days of having a protectorate in Syria. Of course they will support action against Bashar.

    Camlost

    August 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM

  7. The alternative to Assad is chaos. If you don’t want Assad in charge, you are saying you want Syria to turn into Afghanistan II.

    Otis the Sweaty

    August 30, 2013 at 3:25 PM

  8. British Parliament may have wussed out, but France supports Obama.

    It’s stupid to intervene unless we help the Syrian Christians (20% of Syria’s population) form their own state and expel all Muslim Syrians from the new Christian Syrian state.

    Siding with any Muslim opponent of Assad will only to him being replaced by somebody worse.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    August 30, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    • I thought Lebanon was supposed to be the state for Arab Christians

      Dave Pinsen

      August 30, 2013 at 5:15 PM

      • Lebanon is always on the brink of civil war because a majority of Lebanese are Muslim. There’s no way for any civilized populace like Christian Lebanese to reconcile coexistence with religiously and culturally incompatible Muslim citizens. Wherever they live with non-Muslims, there will always be the risk of terrorism, intimidation or genocide.

        The solution to Islam is mass revocation of citizenship and expulsion of every single Muslim Lebanese from Lebanon on grounds of incompatibility. Ditto for Europe, Israel, and the Anglosphere.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 30, 2013 at 8:31 PM

    • Christianity’s 2000 year history in MENA ends now. Egypt, Libya, Iraq, check. Syria? Bombs away!

      Dan

      August 30, 2013 at 6:20 PM

    • Uh, you do realize that Syrian Christians are the biggest Nazis in the Middle East, right?

      Ask any Syrian Jew who gave them more trouble in the old country, Muslims or Christians.

      Otis the Sweaty

      August 30, 2013 at 6:39 PM

      • Oh, thanks for clearing that up. I now agree that they should be genocided. /sarc

        Dan

        August 30, 2013 at 10:35 PM

      • Uh, you do realize that Syrian Christians are the biggest Nazis in the Middle East, right?

        Compared to whom?

        Saudi clerics, Cairo’s Muslim Brotherhood imams, Yemeni nomads?

        To the extent they have an issue with Jews, it would still be a boon for Israel to have the Syriac Christians found their own state. It would give the Muslims a target to shoot at besides Israel.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 31, 2013 at 9:20 AM

  9. This is idiocy. From now on, Syria will be our problem. Libya is way worse than before, but of course reportage on Libya is virtually nil now. Iraq, way worse than before, but that’s not our issue any more.

    Dan

    August 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM

  10. But it makes a nice distraction from all the “phony” scandals.

    Rosenmop

    August 30, 2013 at 8:48 PM

  11. 1/ Annoying the Brits and the Americans is what a French President is supposed to do-especially the Brits. The French have always regarded the English specifically as its ancient enemy.

    2/ The King/President of France (who lives in a guilded palace) is not supposed to pay attention to French public opinion. This is beneath him.

    3/ The military superiority of the Anglo-Saxons has always bothered the French. Becoming militarily superior to the rosbifs for the first time since 1815 would so impress the ghosts of Jeanne d’Arc, Le roi Soleil, le Corsicain, and of course Le General.

    Boxthorn

    August 30, 2013 at 9:38 PM

  12. I still don’t see what we get for bombing Syria. How does this make the US better off? The risks are low if we can avoid somehow finding it politically necessary to send in troops or accept a lot of refugees, but the benefits are still lower.

    albatross

    August 30, 2013 at 11:46 PM

  13. Lebanon will be the biggest loser of any American attack. The major players will take out their revenge on allies, proxies and affiliates in that unfortunate country.

    Daniel

    August 31, 2013 at 1:53 AM

  14. The French don’t care about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. So if they are actually going to cooperate or give their blessing on our attack it must coincide with with some French national security interest that I’m not aware of.

    Hey, is it just me or has anyone noticed that we now have a Cowboy President who is willing to go it alone to bomb someone and doesn’t care what multilateral institutions or the world community think?

    Mike

    August 31, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    • Yes, it’s ironic that Obama has less official support for his Syrian intervention than Bush did for Afghanistan and Iraq.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 31, 2013 at 3:52 PM

      • And how well did Afghanistan and Iraq work out for us? The smart thing is to stay out of this whole Syria mess.

        Joe Walker

        August 31, 2013 at 11:27 PM

  15. It seems that Obama has “wussed out”.

    dearieme

    August 31, 2013 at 3:55 PM

    • Good. Wussing out is the smart thing to do.

      Joe Walker

      August 31, 2013 at 11:28 PM

      • Hey, you *said* you were going to stick your dick into a sausage grinder, so you should definitely do it, even of it gains you nothing and grinds off a couple inches. What’re you, some kinda sissy?

        albatross

        September 2, 2013 at 9:02 PM

  16. Obama and others are itching to intervene in Syria. Leaving aside the merits of the case, have they considered the possibility that this could lead to action on US soil? Perhaps by Syrian agents, Syrian nationals, Russian agents, or whoever.

    The US has had a good run in avoiding retaliatory action, but consider how deeply it was affected by Pearl Harbour and 9/11. You gotta think consequences before you start intervening in other folks’ wars.

    Felix

    September 4, 2013 at 1:18 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: