Now I Know War With Syria is Inevitable

Uberblogger Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds quotes casus belli-establishing news reports about Syria with the comments "interesting" and "hmm."

Comments

[Anonymous]

so if glenn thinks it's serious or interesting that means we shouldn't? i just don't know anymore! /me confused 😀

[Hal]

You forgot this insightful comment: "I wonder what he's saying?" Do you suppose this is the kind of stuff Reynolds is referring to when he talks about all the journalism performed by bloggers? We hmmm, you decide.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Indeed.

[Sven]

Is this what it's like to experience a Bill Murray-esque Groundhog Day?

[Croesus]

Well, if Syria was such a problem back in 1997 for the inspectors, why wasn't there protest about this earlier?

All I see here are rumors stacked upon rumors, and facts twisted toward a particular spin.

[Tomas]

Heh.

[Anonymous]

reynolds is jewish last name, and he likes isreal

Instapundit is a NEOCON!!!!

[barney gumble]

Hama.

If you hear the word "Hama" you will know that the UK-USA is going to go after Syria.

Hama is (was) a village in Syria that was wiped out during an uprising aginst Assad in 1982. A very nasty bit of history. But we never really cared before. If suddenly you start hearing about this atrocity you will know we are paving the way.

[Croesus]

barney grumble,

Do you think Blair would join the US in invading Syria? I have my doubts.

[Anonymous]

How many times does it have to be said? Blair is LABOUR. He is the ENEMY. We are only allies with England because it is CONVENIENT. Get it? Good.

[Andrew Lynch]

Barney's Hama post makes me giggle. He's probably right.

[Anonymous]

That's the SPIRIT!

[Anonymous]

Who cares about the UK? The UK is a figleaf 😀

[Borbo]

We gonna be kickin' Assyrian tush in short order, homeys! Ain't no doubt about it... Shrubski's job review is eighteen short months away, and ain't nothin' like layin' the smackdown on uppity Arabs around election time to push those poll numbers over the top.

[andrew]

The above sounds pleasant, and another neo-stalinist tyranny bites the dust (two= Lebanon)...what a beneficent concept of self-interest! Could this be a case of the Invisible Hand?

What a curious polarity of foreign policy choices seem legitimate to Libertarians...either sit-on-your-hands restraint, or an exercise in disinterested action that would tax a zen-master.
Don't -- whatever you do-- let our Halliburton make a dime...give it all to Chirac's Cronies, Schroeder's "co-ordinated firms", and Putin's mafiosi...with the UN steering the bus off the cliff, no doubt.

Is it worth it to assume such pretzel-shapes, to keep your street-cred with Volvo liberals and Unitarian ministers, who have painted themselves into a 20% (and dropping) corner?

[S.Eagle]

Oh, say . . . enough piddling. Come fly with me and look at the big picture:

Shipping oil out of Iraq, due south, on US-flag-bearing tankers using the narrow Gulf, is not only inconvenient, but downright dangerous -- as the weekly tankers will have to pass insidious ambush spots like the coast of Iran, Yemen, Egypt's Suez, etc.

Too volatile.

A due-west pipeline, straight through Syria, and having an Israeli terminus, is a more optimal solution.

. . . Can you see?