Sunday, 9 April 2017

What people said this weekend


Must sign off now. But amazed by liberal left. Donald Trump transformed in a night from fascist moron to hero. I still think he's an oaf.

Michael Caine, interviewed on Sky on Friday, explaining why he voted for Brexit,
It wasn’t about... racism, immigrants or anything, it was about freedom
[On the possibility that Britain might be less prosperous because of Brexit]
I'd rather be a poor master than a rich servant.
Politics is always chaotic. In politics, you’re always going into areas you’ve never been before, so you’re going to get lost and then you’re going to find your way. And then it’ll be all right.

Paul Joseph Watson today

Compare how many times CNN has shown victims of Assad in Syria to the amount of times it has shown victims of Islamic terror attacks in Europe.

Brendan O'Neil on Facebook today.

Trump bans Syrians from travelling to America: "This man is literally Hitler. This is how Holocausts start. Won't someone assassinate him or something?" 
"Trump bombs Syrians: "This man has a good heart. What a beautiful act. He is now finally the President of the United States. More of this please, Sir!"

Pro-intervention liberals are the worst. No moral anchor. Literally, none.

David Goldman (Spengler in Asia Times) on Friday
Daniel Pipes opposes the bombing of Syria on the grounds that we should encourage the Russian-backed Shi'ite coalition and the Sunni jihadis to kill each other. The problem is that Syria, like Spain in 1936-1939, has become the training grond for a larger conflict. Teheran is recruiting jihadists from among the 3 million Afghan refugees now in Iran as well as Pakistani Shi'ites, who comprise about a fifth of Pakistan's population. I believe that Russia and China are fostering the emergence of a Shi'ite horde with vast manpower resources as an antidote to what they see as an American-sponsored Sunni jihad. By the same token jihadists from Russia, China, SE Asia and elsewhere are pouring into Syria. It resembles the 30 Years War when two vast mercenary armies absorbed most of the manpower of Europe and it can become self-feeding. Five years ago I argued the same thing. Now it's less simple. 

My question about the Syrian bombing is different: What do we do next? What is our ground game? Do we find another bunch of al-Qaeda types with business cards reading "Moderate Syrian Rebel"? Do we support the Turks, or the Kurds, or both? I have no objection to bombing Assad, or anyone else we don't like, but I would like to see strategy rather than just symbolism. I have my own suggestions.

Niall Ferguson, who supported the Iraq war, in The Sunday Times today.
The termination of this shameful saga of American impotence is surely to be welcomed. Not convinced? Well, one indication that a decision is good is when really bad people line up to denounce it. Step forward, Ann Coulter...

Ann Coulter
Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates. Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.

James Palmer, blogging at Foreign Affairs.

Several U.S. commentators have been impressed by the “strength” demonstrated by the strikes in Syria — and the implicit messaging that, hey, we might just get a little crazy with North Korea next. But I doubt that’s how Beijing reads things. China is perfectly well aware of the military might and global reach of the United States; it’s not like they can’t count aircraft carriers. What it’s continually and pleasantly surprised by is how stupidly the United States uses that strength. For Xi, the strikes might have been a sign of disrespect — but they were also a reminder of the fundamental dumbness, from a Chinese strategic perspective, of U.S. foreign-policy decisions.

Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday today.

"Never underestimate the current desire in western foreign policy circles to increase hostility between Russia and the USA. It comes as Britain’s absurdly close and servile client relationship to the despotic and aggressive (ask a Yemeni) Saudi Regime is underlined by a visit to Riyadh by Theresa May. And it comes as Egypt’s tyrant General Sisi, who we are not allowed to call a military dictator, though he is, and whose forces gunned down hundreds of demonstrators in Cairo, visits Washington."

Julia Ioffe in The Atlantic, Friday.

In effect, Putin drew his own red line, right over Obama’s. Putin gave Assad a free pass to use any means to fight his people, anything save for chemical weapons. Moscow is a stickler for the letter of international law, and in 2013, it quickly organized a unanimous vote in the UN Security Council and a broad international coalition to oversee the destruction of Assad’s chemical arsenal at sea. But despite the pointedly international nature of the operation, Moscow had essentially acted as Assad’s guarantor, with Putin having to ensure that Assad would no longer use chemical weapons.

[Moscow is a stickler for the letter of international law?]

Swedish terrorist was refused asylum status. My question: if Islam is so great, why seek asylum in Christian lands?

No comments:

Post a Comment