Syria

8 Reasons Not to Go to War in Syria

|

credit: delayed gratification / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

Is the U.S. on the march to war in Syria? Over the past week, the stage has been set for yet another military intervention in the Middle East. Calls for U.S. action in Syria have grown louder following reports of a chemical weapon attack in Damascus said to have been carried out with the knowledge and approval of President Bassar al-Assad's regime. In the past few days, hawkish rhetoric has grown increasingly aggressive, and additional reports today indicate that the U.S. is no longer seeking approval from UN or NATO allies for a strike. But the case for action in Syria is thin—and there are plenty of reasons to avoid becoming mired into another Middle East conflict. Here are eight reasons to avoid war in Syria:

1. If the rebels win, it's bad news for the U.S. Assad is no friend to the U.S. But neither are the rebel groups leading the charge against the Syrian dictator. Indeed, many of the rebel factions have strong ties to Al-Qeada. If the rebels successfully oust Assad, it's entirely possible that they will attempt to set up a new regime that is intensely hostile to the United States. Intervention on the side of the rebels would also complicate America's already-fraught relationship with Russia, which is close with the Assad regime. 

2. If Assad wins, it's bad news for the U.S. Especially if the U.S. is seen to have openly sided with the rebels. A win for Assad is a win for anti-American forces Iran, which would see its influence in the region strengthened. It's also a win for Hezbollah, which is closely linked with Iranian extremists. With no good option, then, the U.S. is better off staying out of the conflict entirely. 

3. It's far from certain that any "limited" actions would actually be effective. Most of the talk right now revolves around the possibility of limited cruise missile strikes and/or no-fly zone enforcement. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, the possible results of enforcing a no-fly zone could "include the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surface fires—mortars, artillery, and missiles." The same goes for targeted strikes. Here's how Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained it to the L.A. Times: "Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes," he said. "Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no. Should you limit yourself to just a kind of incremental retaliation? That doesn't serve any strategic purpose. It doesn't protect the Syrian people, it doesn't push Assad out."

4. It's hard to keep limited actions limited. As Chairman Dempsey further cautioned, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid." And then what?            

credit: PanARMENIAN_Photo / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

5. There's no endgame. Not in Syria, where there seems to be no plan beyond a limited initial strike. And not in the region or the world, where the U.S. would be all but committing itself to opposing, through military force, chemical weapons regimes across the world. The problem is that there's no clearly stated long-term objective — perhaps because no obvious long-term objective is achievable. Given that strikes are unlikely to completely eliminate Assad's chemical weapons capabilities or end Assad's capacity to slaughter through more conventional means, it's not clear what they would be for. Which means there would almost certainly be pressure to give them meaning by increasing America's commitment to the conflict. 

6. The chemical weapons "red line" was already crossed. Roughly a year ago, President Obama said that the use of chemical weapons by Assad against his own people would constitute a "red line" that would change how the White House views the Syrian conflict. Talk of strikes has increased following reports of a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week said to have killed hundreds. But American officials already believe that Assad has used chemical weapons on a somewhat smaller scale over the past year. The latest attack appears to be larger than previous chemical strikes, but that's a murky distinction. The red line, in other words, looks more like a gray area. 

7. It won't be easy. Reliable GOP hawk John McCain has said that strikes could be carried out "easily" and "would not put a single [American] life at risk." Moreover, he said, a strikes could be carried out in just a couple of days. But the big lesson of so many U.S. military interventions is that they are rarely as easy, quick, or costless as backers promise. As George Friedman of the global intelligence firm Statfor wrote recently, "Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have driven home the principle that deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor. In those cases, changing the regime wound up rapidly entangling the United States in civil wars, the outcomes of which have not been worth the price."

8. The public opposes military intervention by a wide margin—even if chemical weapons have been used. The American public has grown tired of war, and doesn't want to get embroiled in yet another complex civil conflict. According to a Reuters poll released over the weekend, some 60 percent of the public opposes military intervention in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent support it. Support for intervention is still extremely low if it's established that Syria used chemical weapons, with just 25 percent saying they would support action of Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. 

NEXT: Blackberry Reportedly Planning to Spin Off Black Berry Messenger Service

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This week’s schedule: tomorrow President Obama will give a speech at the step of the Lincoln Memorial commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. Thursday the bombing of Syria begins.

    1. Aaron. I just agree… Billy`s stori is something, last thursday I got a brand new Mazda from having made $9181 this past 5 weeks and over ten grand lass-month. no-doubt about it, this really is the easiest job I’ve ever done. I started this six months/ago and right away started making a cool at least $73, p/h. view it now —— Click Here for More Details

      Go to website and click Home tab for more details.
      ?????????????????????????

    2. go grab your 3$ instantly by just using my account as a refrence,Thanks,,you have to work and use the computer and internet, and if you can do that and dedicate some time each day then you can do this with no problem. I have been working with this for a month and have made over $2,000 already. let me know if you need more here you go “~– http://fus?eu?rl.com/17dy

    3. go grab your 3$ instantly by just using my account as a refrence,Thanks,,you have to work and use the computer and internet, and if you can do that and dedicate some time each day then you can do this with no problem.
      I have been working with this for a month and have made over $2,000 already. let me know if you need more here you go “~– http://5z8.info/facebook-of-sex_v5c8hk_hitler ?????????????????

  2. Petition on Change.org: Miley Cyrus should travel to Syria and twerk on President Bashar al-Assad

    I think I speak for everyone when I say that this is an intervention that we can all get…behind.

    1. So, we retaliate with biological warfare?

      Sounds legit.

    2. And that will just be a warning shot, next we will send Hillary.

      1. I think Medea Benjamin and all of Code Pink needs to be on the next plane to Damascus. Human shields, away!

      2. Thinking of Hillary twerking on …anyone is so horrific, I just surrendered.

        1. Ok, now I’m just ill.

        2. I showed you guys something great and you made it perverse and evil.

        3. If we wanted to go nuclear we would send in Nancy Pelosi, Liz Warren, and Chuck Schumer.

        4. Water boarding just became obsolete

          1. Compared to Hillary twerking, waterboarding is humane and just.

            1. Maybe Mugabe would be interested.

        5. What difference at this point does it make?

      3. But wouldn’t that constitute a war crime?

  3. Reliable GOP hawk John McCain has said that strikes could be carried out “easily” and “would not put a single [American] life at risk.”

    Well he’s right…at least as far as the day of the strike. He is openly paying zero concern to post-strike consequences.

    1. Well he’s right…at least as far as the day of the strike. He is openly paying zero concern to post-strike consequences.

      I believe McCain was just a pilot, not a strategist. Great at dropping bombs, not so much at figuring out what comes next.

  4. We could avoid this entire mess if only someone would “take responsibility” for crossing that damned red line.

    Hillary?

    1. That bus has already turned the corner.

      1. Oops, sorry — forgot the “/sarc” again.

  5. Reliable GOP hawk John McCain has said that strikes could be carried out “easily” and “would not put a single [American] life at risk.” Moreover, he said, a strikes could be carried out in just a couple of days

    And McNamara said that an intervention in Vietnam would only take a few months. I guess he forgot to include the variable of you spending 5 and a half years in a POW camp while Charlie hammered pieces of bamboo up your urethra, eh Johnny?

    1. Yep. Just stay focused on “the strikes”.

    2. Sounds like McCain needs to strap on his A-4 Skyhawk and lead the bombing raid. Because this raid is so important we will replace his drop tanks with more bombs so he can do even more damage to our enemies. The fact he won’t have fuel enough to return to the carrier is a price we will have to pay.

      1. With any luck, McCain would be taken prisoner.

        1. They give him back.

          1. *They’d

      2. Given his flight record, he’d corkscrew into the ground on his own.

        1. I don’t like the guy, but he is a legitimate war hero.

  6. OTOH, one does have to admit that Bashir Assad has an eminently punchable face.

    1. OTOH, one does have to admit that Bashir Assad has an eminently punchable face.

      A new commercial endeavor: The Bashir Assad Bop Bag.

  7. My one-year-old has as much of a sense of long-term strategy and planning as these WH and Pentagon bozos seem to.

    It’s disturbing how cavalier these jackasses are about lobbing a few missiles around.

    1. Well, considering that being a sociopath seems to be a requirement for holding high public office, it’s not that surprising.

      1. A sociopath can formulate a long term plan to achieve his goals.

        These guys have no plan and no goals.

  8. You would think #8 would be enough. That goes well beyond “unpopular.”

    I guess they assume everybody will jump on the bandwagon once we “win.” And that the media will do their best to spin it that way.

    1. And that the media will do their best to spin it that way.

      President Obama can do no wrong.

  9. The red line is the thing keeping the head covering from slipping off the HSIC (Head Saudi In Charge).

  10. BLURRED LINES INDEED

    1. You sure this isn’t from the DOD?

  11. The battle is clearly between Syria and Zionism.

    1. False sheeperson!

      The battle is clearly between sleeper agents of the Tibetan monks of Shambala and the Illuminati’s PROJECT MONARCH who sacrificed Whitney Houston for the Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth in order to complete an occult ritual which would open an quantum-astral doorway to the realm of Anunnaki.

      You don’t see the truth because your eyes are blinded with the dust of sleep.

      1. This is just pure deception from the truth.

        Nothing you said is real and I suspect that down deep you know it.

        Tibetan monk agents don’t need sleep and you know it.

        Liar.

  12. Bush 2.0 Bigger, More Arrogant, Dumber.

    1. Bush II casual insanity. Bush at least had a goal and an idea of what he wanted to do. What does Obama want? I can’t tell.

      1. Obama wants to replace all secular governments in the ME with radical Islamic governments. This will then serve as an excuse for even more money flowing into the pockets of the military-industrial complex. Oh, and it will immanentize the eschaton.

        1. VOEGELIN REFFERENCE!

      2. To punish and prevent the use of banned unconventional weapons.

        But Bush was morally superior because he had a goal, even if it was about imaginary things and even though it got thousands of Americans killed pointlessly.

        1. Dreamboat Barry Nixon has Afghanistan as his LEGACY thousands of Americans soldiers who murdered tens of thousands of civilians for no reason and thousands of American soldiers who perished as canon fodder in Barry’s War-of-Choice. With no sign of any kind of WMDs. Paranoid Barry also has the legacy of targeted killings getting out of hand and killing thousands of children including Americans, for what? PARANOIA and PUNISHMENT.

        2. Banned and unconventional weapons in Syria are ones that Obama’s CIA has been supplying the “rebels”. Just ask Hillary. She knows.

          Notwithstanding Sunstein Sock Puppet Spammer statements to the contrary.

        3. PUNISH? Punish? That is the new Sock Puppet Catchword. Well who is going to punish the following for their activities:

          Bush for killing untold thousands and starting two nasty wars for nada. Obama has made it impossible to hold Bush to account.

          Bush for torture. Obama for torturing American citizens on American soil.

          Obama for killing untold thousands, expanding Bush’s wicked wars and starting new ones, including targeted assassination of American citizens.

      3. What does Obama want?

        He wants to show the world the consequences of dissing Obama.

      4. Which was?

  13. Israel provides terrorists in Syria with chemical weapons

    1. Typical sheeperson.

      You forgot that the chemical weapons are all anti-coagulants, which is part of the deal World Jewry has with Assad, who supplies them with the blood of his enemies so they can pour it into the dough of their Passover matzo.

    2. The question here is why the Syrian government and its army should have committed such a heinous mass murder using chemical weapons when the United Nations inspectors are visiting the country to investigate the use of such weapons?

      3 days before the gas attack near Damascus, Assad had allowed UN weapons inspectors into the country. The inspectors were staying in Damascus. Did Assad gas carry out a small scale attack against his own citizens, knowing that there were weapons inspectors close by? Or, did the rebels carry out the attack, and try to cast blame on Assad so that the US and Europe would get involved and carry out the dirty work?

  14. …the use of chemical weapons by Assad against his own people

    If something is my property then I should be able to do with it as I wish.

    1. So say the people who want to bomb “his” country, topple Assad, turn him over to the American supplied and supported foreign Al-Qaeda “rebels” and occupy “his” territory.

  15. I don’t think they know why they want to do this. They have no intention of invading and ousting Assad. We certainly won’t build a new government like we did in Iraq. They don’t even know what they want to do. Bomb and intervene. Okay what then? They have no idea. They have truly lost their fucking minds. They don’t even have a goal much less a plan to achieve it.

    1. The goal is to “do something” and be seen “doing something.”

      The depressing part is that even the majority of the people who oppose intervention seem to think the POTUS should “do something.”

      1. The most useful action Obama could take in this situation would be to go play more golf. Anything else would screw things up more.

  16. And Syria denies using chemical weapons. I don’t see how using weapons once would have helped them win or done anything good for them. I am inclined to believe Al Quada did this in order to get the us to intervene on their side.

      1. They are brilliant at this kind of thing in Afghanistan. They once stole a gas tanker from the Germans and parked it in a village giving away free gas knowing the Germans would call in an air strike. Boom there goes the village and about three years worth of goodwill towards NATO.

    1. Did you read the WSJ article that pointed out that the UN inspectors were given orders to find out IF chemical weapons were used but had no mandate to find out who used them?

      Here.

      The U.N. investigators are mandated to determine whether chemical attacks occurred, but not who initiated them. U.S. officials said Monday they expected their own intelligence assessment on the attacks, details of which could be released publicly as early as Tuesday, to conclude that forces loyal to Mr. Assad were behind the poison-gas attack, not the rebels, as the Assad regime and Russia have alleged.

      What’s the point in having those U.N. inspectors there if they aren’t trying to figure out who did it?

      1. It is almost like the UN is on al Quadas side or something.

          1. That video is disturbing, and the chart at the end really makes me wish I had the cojones to not pay taxes. Ugh!

    2. The attack happened near Damascus, three days after Assad allowed UN weapons inspectors into the country. The inspectors just happened to be staying in Damascus.

      Which is more likely? Assad carrying out a chemical weapon attack within miles of the UN weapons inspectors that he allowed into the country? Or, was this an attempt by the rebels to bring the west into the conflict, by gassing their own people, and trying to blame it on Assad?

  17. In realpolitik terms it is in the national interest, and even in the interests of liberty in general, to have different groups of totalitarians killing each other. (Sorry, pro-Western Syrian democrats: there aren’t enough of you to matter. And sorry, innocent civilians.) So, is there some subtle intervention we can do on the QT? Perhaps use our NSA skills to pinpoint the locations of Assad, his top commanders, and the top Iranians there and feed that info to the rebels? And maybe find the top Al Qaeda people there and feed that info to the regime.

    In the long run, probably partitioning the country is the least bad option. The Kurdish area will likely be friendly to us, and the other areas so small and weak that they will be less of a threat.

    1. You know how we can help pro-Western Syrian democrats? Buy them plane tickets and set them up with some good real estate agents.

    2. A prolonged civil war would tie down Iran and Hezbollah in a war of attrition and give jihadist a place to die that doesn’t involve killing Americans So course Obama is acting to end the civil war. He is either the dumbest man I the universe or an Islamist mole.

      1. The question is what is the best (perceived anyway) outcome for Israel? Do they benefit more by having a Iran-dependent dictator who will be tied-up killing his own people for a few years, or by having an incompetent terrorist state giving safe haven to Hezbollah, etc.?

        I agree with PSF that continuing the war is in the west’s best interests, but once the human toll triggers our moral outrage the war will have to end, so how do you end it?

        1. Let the sides burn themselves out, then partition.

  18. …Should you limit yourself to just a kind of incremental retaliation? That doesn’t serve any strategic purpose. It doesn’t protect the Syrian people, it doesn’t push Assad out.

    This is the biggest problem with what our Nobel Prize Winner in Chief is proposing. There is absolutely no strategic purpose to sending a token number of cruise missiles to bomb sites in Syria which may or may not contain chemical weapons that the Syrians might not have even used. This amounts to the President getting double-dog-dared by Assad and not wanting to look like a bitch. Not something I’d like guiding our foreign policy, frankly.

    Also, haven’t we seen this movie before? Only it was like ten years ago, but there was definitely a Ba’ath party involved, and weren’t there chemical weapons that were definitely there and then vanished or something? As I recall, a lot of the people who voted for our current Commander in Chief were really, really upset about the prequel to this.

    1. He will bomb for a few days Nd Assad will go on. Thank you Obama for taking a dump on American credibility.

      1. Sadly, this is probably it. Just enough to stir things up, but not enough to resolve or even help anything. We can call it Operation Save Face.

      2. This is what Clinton did in the 90s when Saddam was messing with UN inspectors. Operation Desert Fox. I remember watching the night bombings on TV. A week maybe and it was over and NOTHING changed. I’m betting this is what’s going to happen this time.

        1. This was also, to some degree, the LBJ strategy in Vietnam: “limited war” to keep costs down and to try to get the other side to negotiate.

    2. No, this is the sequel to the prequel to Iraq War 2. Expect random bombings, no fly zones, and cruel international sanctions, all with the cynical purpose of convincing brainless interventionists that the government is doing something, without actually risking anything. Then Obama’s Republican successor decides to Get Serious and proceeds to full-on quagmire, while Obama’s supporters conveniently forget that they ever supported intervention or believed that Assad was using chemical weapons.

  19. #9 We have no casus belli. Syria has done nothing to us, we have to justification to attack them. If we do then WE are launching an unprovoked war of aggression against an innocent party.

    It shocks and apalls me that people in government are so willing to just throw out 1000 years of civilization, and to follow the example of nations like Nazi Germany. Casus Belli and the concept of a just war are important.

    1. #9 We have no casus belli. Syria has done nothing to us, we have to justification to attack them. If we do then WE are launching an unprovoked war of aggression against an innocent party.

      Reference Libya.

    2. Well, innocent is a stretch. Let’s say, a party as shitty as those likely to replace them.

  20. I don’t know how Reason can publish a story the day before about the recently declassified documents that show the US supported Saddam with his chemical warfare campaign and the VERY next day, pretend as if the situation in Syria is whether there’s any merit in intervening in their “civil war.” The US orchestrated the civil war, it has been clear for a very long time that Syria was on a short list of intended Middle Eastern conquests and they have been almost blatantly destabilizing the area. No one should be able to commit the crime or be an accessory to it and then act as mediator.

    1. You’re saying the American government knew enough about the middle east to push all the rights buttons to trigger a civil war at their whim?

      The Americans took out Saddam Hussein, meaning they sort of reversed whatever support they gave him for using chemical gas attacks. I doubt anyone was for Saddam gassing innocent people to death.

      Stop with this Ron Paul nonsense. People will always figure out some way to blame America no matter what it does. Obama mostly stayed out of Egypt and more or less supported the revolution, but just take a look at all those protesters with their “Obama sides with terrorists” signs.

      1. Obama was wishy-washy supporting both sides and waiting for a winner to emerge. The winner wasn’t the American-supporting strongman Obama and the US wanted, so they let events take their course. Obama still can’t figure out what happened and neither can most anyone else. But he keeps slipping billions of $$$US to the Egyptian Military. ???? Who are the terrorists? Those signs are part of the Obama legacy. Can’t blame that one on the usual whipping boy, the T-Party.

    2. “The US orchestrated the civil war, it has been clear for a very long time that Syria was on a short list of intended Middle Eastern conquests and they have been almost blatantly destabilizing the area. No one should be able to commit the crime or be an accessory to it and then act as mediator.”

      ?

      I’m terribly sorry Mr. Stephens, this is the Reason Magazine website. The League of Delusional Paranoids is on the other side of town.

    3. “The US orchestrated the civil war”

      WTF are you talking about????

      sorry you can’t blame USA for this massacre.

      Believe it or not, USA is not behind anything bad that happens in the world

  21. President Obama. If you have any sense of decency you send back your Nobel Peace prize. Once you do, knock yourself out but until then, you have no credibility as a man of peace and neither does the prize committee.

    I see no reason to enter Syria. It’s no-win, no-win all around.

    1. until then, you have no credibility as a man of peace and neither does the prize committee.

      The Nobel peace prize lost all credibility long ago and it’s not coming back any time soon.

  22. I hope everyone realizes that the Syrian rebels are the very same people who were fighting our troops in Iraq. They are AQI. Our enemy. I find it appalling that Bradley Manning got charged, thankfully not convicted, of aiding the enemy by the administration that is giving weapons and aid to the same people we were fighting just 2 years ago. I was in Iraq in 2009-2010 and Al Qaim, the Syrian border Port of Entry, was one of the worst spots for IEDs and RKG attacks because it was one of the last places where AQI fighters were coming in.

    1. Bottom line: The highly educated, intelligent, elite geniuses of Team Obama know just as little about the Middle East and its muddled politics than did Team Bush, whom the members of Team Obama sneer at.

      Painfully ironic, isn’t it, that as it moves toward the end of its second term, Hope and Change is ending up in exactly the same place as its much vilified predecessor.

      1. Same? I’d say a worse place.

  23. Jack Sammy So So says no way dude.

    http://www.Global-Anon.com

  24. I can’t resist…

    Did anyone ask John Kerry if he plans on opposing military action after he supports it?

  25. You’re not mentioning the main reason TO get involved- “Aw, what the hell.”

  26. Everyone here knows ( except maybe Tony ) knows that the public reasons being given for military intervention in Syria are not the real reasons for doing so. No one can possibly be at a high enough level to affect decision making at that level and truly be so stupid as to believe what they are putting out.

    I don’t know why and for the life on me I can’t even come up with a good hypothesis. I know Russia has deployed what they say are their most advanced surface to air missiles for air defense to Assad. Maybe they want to test the Russians technology, Tomahawks vs. s400s ? Are the Russians really behind the US but can’t say it publicly ? I see no reason to test the bounds of WWIII if they are not just to help Al Qaeda and/or Muslim Brotherhood. Nothing good can possibly come out of this if every publicly stated opinion is truly what they claim it is. What is the objective ? Surly the military isn’t going to quietly go along with putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of another country are they ? I can see how they might have let Egypt slip past them since it was CIA and not military involvement there.

    Does anyone else have any ideas as to WTF is going on, and why ? Would someone, everyone help me out here before I pull out all my hair ?

    1. The only real endgame I can figure is declaring Assad’s regime a “rogue” government, toppling it, and putting Syria under some kind of “coalition” government closely monitored by a permanent US military base in Syria. Doing so essentially eliminates what little remaining influence Russia has in the region, eliminates a major Iranian ally, and hamstrings Hezbollah. It takes the US from having had no real footholds in the area fifteen years ago to being able to drive from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf without leaving US-controlled territory. It also contributes not insignificantly to the future security of Israel.

      The chemical weapons angle makes it a humanitarian mission and not a direct affront to Russia. My only big question mark is why let the thing drag on for three years before looking for pretexts?

      That’s when the other voice in the back of my head says that there is no endgame, no plan – only opportunistic reaction for short-term gain by people who won’t have to deal with the long-term consequences.

    2. You are over thinking it. The dumb-asses in the administration said “Assad better not use chemical weapons, because chemical weapons are bad, m-kay” and then Assad may have used chemical weapons, so Obama has to do something to show “American credibility”. Its amateur hour, plain and simple.

      1. I think you’re right. Square is giving the administration credit for a level of nefarious intelligence and deviousness it does not possess. Remember these are the same people who tried to blame a CIA defeat on a stupid Youtube video and then just shamefacedly ignored any criticism when that ploy was exposed.

        Even if establishing footholds throughout the region was actually part of someone’s plan, it is clearly not working out based on recent experience. To continue to stick to a strategy that keeps blowing up in one’s face is not a sign of brilliance.

  27. How about the fact that interfering in the internal affairs of another nation, for any reason, is against the charter of the United Nations, of which we are still a signatory member? Not that we’ve paid even lip service to that particular bit of international law lately.

    1. Of all the reasons given against intervention, that is by far the least important. The UN is mostly an irrelevant organization. Sometimes their lack of importance gives place to ridicule when tyrannical countries head human rights commissions.

  28. This can be a state of the art skin treatment piece of equipment of which digs up typically the minimization towards later eradication from wonderful facial lines, puffiness Clarisonic Online Store not to mention darkness circles near ones own eyeball specific location. By using Clarisonic 2 times a full day for the purpose of only a hour before starting definitely will advance a presence not to mention help with sections who care products not to mention dramas get it wrong. Dissimilar to various Clarisonic Mia advertisement treatment methods who take on time to point out his or her’s problems, typically the lightly brush basically needs on the subject of 55 a few seconds to point out her visitors that going barefoot truly does impact through eliminating the face.

  29. I cannot decide which is funnier: the incomprehensible spam that creeps into ‘Comments’, or the notion that there is a right and wrong side to take in Syria. Our empire’s foreign policy makes British colonialism look positively benign and beneficial. We have not fought a constitutional military action since 1950, and before that the game was rigged for every conflict since 1812, inclusive.

  30. Where are the Republicans when we need them, demanding offsets in the budget to any dollar spent on a military intervention in Syria.

  31. This is just more politics. Nothing is going to happen.

  32. Neocon: someone haunted by the fear any any moment now we’re NOT going to war…

  33. I don’t really think about these things from the “strategic interests” viewpoint. I figure government agents and actors can look out for the government’s interests.

    I’m skeptical that a military option will have a good chance of substantial success at saving or improving lives in Syria. I also think the evidence is good that there is lots of humanitarian low-hanging fruit around the world, such as basic nutrition and basic water/sewage systems. So the marginal charitable dollars should not go towards blowing people up in Syria, which probably won’t help the locals, when places in Asia and Africa could benefit from clean water and adequate vitamins. The humanitarian opportunity cost is often overlooked.

  34. til I saw the draft which was of $6153, I be certain …that…my friend was actualy bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there aunt has done this 4 less than ten months and a short time ago cleard the mortgage on there mini mansion and got a brand new Renault 4. about his http://www.work25.Com

  35. “…some 60 percent of the public opposes military intervention in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent support it.”

    So, are we to conclude that 60 percent of the public is clearly racist, since they are opposing the wishes of the Dear Leader? It is only the explanation for their resistance!

  36. as far as I’m concerned let them kill each other, as long as they keep it over there.

    as for McCain – who believes this clown anymore.

  37. as far as I’m concerned let them kill each other, as long as they keep it over there.

    as for McCain – who believes this clown anymore.

  38. Peter, some more reasons NOT to strike Syria: http://www.davidhousholder.com…..e-liberty/

  39. This week’s schedule: tomorrow President Obama will give a speech at the step of the Lincoln Memorial commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. Thursday the bombing of Syria begins.
    harga besi siku 40 x 40

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.