SYRIA -- Scary Times For Our Country And The World

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 08, 2013 3:48 PM GMT
    I'm not here at RJ all that much these days, but I'm surprised checking in this morning that this issue isn't being discussed more.(or maybe it has and I just missed it) I am outraged, and really scared, that we are even thinking of going over there and involving ourselves in yet another conflict that will only cost us billions and draw us in to something potentially even deeper than Iraq and Afghanistan. Have we learned nothing from mistakes of the past? I hope Obama at least waits to get the United Nations approval. If the senate and house vote this down -- and he STILL goes -- this will not turn out well at all. I was almost coming around to Obama -- almost -- but this is a huge disappointment. Never thought I would see him even remotely wanting to head in this direction. None of it makes any sense to me. I get the humanitarian reasons behind it --- what's going on over there to those people is heart-breaking --- but there are heart-breaking things going on to people all over the place (even here in the USA). We can barely afford to save this country, much less the world. STOP THE INSANITY!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2013 4:40 PM GMT
    I must agree here.
    Not our fight.
    I get the humanitarian POV too.....BUT.....takeout Assad, not a mass war on Syria.
    Obama needs to get outside the beltway and understand the sentiment at home.....we are not the world police force and need to respect that limitation. If no other nation, except France, not even the UN, is in support, this is a HUGE mistake and boondoggle of lives and money.
    Funny how this has been played up in the media to get the NSA invasion of privacy off the front page.....icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3521

    Sep 08, 2013 4:40 PM GMT
    Lobby to kill the jobs provided making weapons and they wont be able to sell them to both sides. War ends. No money in it. Until the money dries up the 1% will sacrifice everyone else as canon fodder.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 08, 2013 4:55 PM GMT
    Sporty_g said.....we are not the world police force and need to respect that limitation. If no other nation, except France, not even the UN, is in support, this is a HUGE mistake and boondoggle of lives and money.


    What's ironic here is that wasn't this what Obama campaigned on...not to mention John Kerry in 2004? It's like they are not even the same people. Granted, Syria is a whole different set of circumstances but, if anything, those circumstances make it even less something we need to get into because the potential for it to blow up to a broader conflict is pretty solid. The problem here is that Obama is faced with a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. There are no easy solutions to ridding the world of these barbarians. But, I do feel that this is one of those "When in doubt, do nothing" situations. This time it seems like the American people are not nearly as divided on this like they were with other conflicts. Something like 85% are against it. His address to the nation Tuesday night hopefully will give signs that he is listening to the people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2013 5:24 PM GMT
    I don't know much about the situation, especially the relationship between Syria and America. But, my moral instincts strongly & confirmatively suggests to avoid war.
    Even if your President orders the nation to step into war, if his orders contradict your moral conscience, you should not support him, even if you're a military man & even if you lose your job.

    Just today I read a msg in FB "War is what your government tells you who your enemy is & Civil revolution is what when the nation realizes who their enemy actually is"

    You all should unite against war crime through Civil disobedience.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 08, 2013 5:24 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    It's not surprising the whole topic gets little discussion on RJ. The majority of RJ members who post here are dedicated supporters of this administration. When the administration does something they don't approve of they usually stay silent instead of voicing their opinion.

    You're not missing much spending little time here. I don't spend much time myself and what little time I do spend I wonder why I'm wasting that time.


    It does seem to have become somewhat of a wasteland here at RJ. What happened? The George Zimmerman threads went on for 50 pages, but something that could literally be the catalyst to WW3 gets little discussion. Yikes!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2013 5:42 PM GMT
    Couple of facts..

    1. The last 6 presidents have all campaigned on peace, but got us involved in frequent military actions, which has now morphed into constant military actions since 2001.

    2. We borrowed money to destroy Iraq. Then we borrowed MORE MONEY to rebuild the stupid country after we destroyed it. The rebuilding was ordered via "no bid contracts" with well connected American companies who spend millions in campaign contributions.

    3. You think Syria will be last one? Military actions have been against small and weak countries run by some brutal dictator. These countries posed no immediate threat to most US citizens. We've attacked many. But there are many more left.

    I support Obama, but this issue is much larger than any one president. New thinking needs to be employed. The world needs to have a discussion about what causes this, and what can be done to solve it before we start bombing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2013 5:48 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    You're not missing much spending little time here. I don't spend much time myself and what little time I do spend I wonder why I'm wasting that time.


    I suspect CJAZ is too busy riding the Arizona real estate boom wave. How's the real estate market in So...,I mean Chicago? You could always follow his lead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2013 5:52 PM GMT
    I suppose it depends on how seriously one regards such a major breach of international law.

    If you don't act against Assad, the next time your (or our) troops have to get involved in a military spat and the other side starts lobbing chemical weapons at them, just remember who set the precedent in deciding their tactical use was not worthy of punishment.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 08, 2013 5:52 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    It's not surprising the whole topic gets little discussion on RJ. The majority of RJ members who post here are dedicated supporters of this administration. When the administration does something they don't approve of they usually stay silent instead of voicing their opinion.

    You're not missing much spending little time here. I don't spend much time myself and what little time I do spend I wonder why I'm wasting that time.



    Funny, because else is wondering the same thing about you and the other conservatrolls wasting their time.

    In fact, people stay silent when something is non-controversial to them, and outside of hypeventilating conservative blogs that oppose everything Obama promotes, nobody is passionate about Syria. The opponents of this administration on RealJock spend all day long voicing their opinion that everyhting big and small that "liberals" and Obama and Democrats do is wrong -- whether they actually apporove of it or not. So it not surprising that the rest of us have tuned you guys out and stopped responding to this constant whining and crying.

    Whatever decision the Administration, Congress, the UN, and the EU end up making on Syria needs to be based on what's happening in Syria, not on perceived mistakes of the past. Unlike "mistakes of the past" that put boots on the gorund, the plan right now is for limited airstrikes targeting Assad's ability to slaughter children -- that's inconvenient for the Rand Paul crowd that would like to pretend this is some earth-shattering controversy, but most people are going to end up not having any probloem with such airstrikes if approved.

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 08, 2013 6:24 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    TroyAthlete said
    topathlete said
    It's not surprising the whole topic gets little discussion on RJ. The majority of RJ members who post here are dedicated supporters of this administration. When the administration does something they don't approve of they usually stay silent instead of voicing their opinion.

    You're not missing much spending little time here. I don't spend much time myself and what little time I do spend I wonder why I'm wasting that time.



    Funny, because else is wondering the same thing about you and toehr conservatrolls wasting their time.

    In fact, people stay silent when something is non-controversial to them, and outside of hypeventilating conservative blogs that oppose everything Obama promotoes, nobody is passionate about Syria. The opponents of this administration on RealJock spend all day long voicing their opinion that everyhting big and small that "liberals" and Obama and Democrats do is wrong -- whether they actually apporove of it or not. So it not surprising that the rest of us have tuned you guys out and stopped responding to this constant whining and crying.

    Whatever decision the Administration, Congress, the UN, and the EU end up making on Syria needs to be based on what's happening in Syria, not on perceived mistakes of the past. Unlike "mistakes of the past" that put boots on the gorund, the plan right now is for limited airstrikes targeting Assad's ability to slaughter children -- that's inoceneient for the Rand Paul crowd that would like to pretend this is some earth-shattering controversy, but most people are going to end up not having any probloem with such airstrikes if approved.

    The point was not responding to "us" ("you guys") but even having discussions among yourselves on things you don't agree with Obama on. Of course that would not include you because you think in black and white and agree with everything Obama does. You think any criticism of your savior is whining and crying. Funny cause you're the biggest whiner and cryer. icon_lol.gif


    Projection, obviously. I don't agree with everything Obama does, but you and your ilk certainly think in black and white and disagree with everything Obama does. One of you even started a thread about what a horrible scandal it was that Marines held mbrellas for the President -- that's hwo off the rails of the rality RealJock conservatives are. Just because you view Barack Obama as the Antichrist does not make him my savior, as I was not amongst his original supporters. I have criticized the President when appropriate, starting with my original opposition to his 2008 candidacy, so there is some criticism of him that is valid, including my own.

    Whgat's whining and crying is the constant, neverneding bitching and moaning about the President's every move be they as big as taxes or as small as umbrellas. It's not just me who has recognized and tuned out the GOP's crybaby claptrap -- see the results of the 2012 election. "No" is not a governing platform, but conservatives have long since run out of ideas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2013 6:46 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said One of you even started a thread about what a horrible scandal it was that Marines held umbrellas for the President.


    I missed that one. It's a slippery slope though. Before you know it they'll be flying him around in one of their helicopters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2013 7:17 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    topathlete said
    TroyAthlete said
    topathlete said
    It's not surprising the whole topic gets little discussion on RJ. The majority of RJ members who post here are dedicated supporters of this administration. When the administration does something they don't approve of they usually stay silent instead of voicing their opinion.

    You're not missing much spending little time here. I don't spend much time myself and what little time I do spend I wonder why I'm wasting that time.



    Funny, because else is wondering the same thing about you and toehr conservatrolls wasting their time.

    In fact, people stay silent when something is non-controversial to them, and outside of hypeventilating conservative blogs that oppose everything Obama promotoes, nobody is passionate about Syria. The opponents of this administration on RealJock spend all day long voicing their opinion that everyhting big and small that "liberals" and Obama and Democrats do is wrong -- whether they actually apporove of it or not. So it not surprising that the rest of us have tuned you guys out and stopped responding to this constant whining and crying.

    Whatever decision the Administration, Congress, the UN, and the EU end up making on Syria needs to be based on what's happening in Syria, not on perceived mistakes of the past. Unlike "mistakes of the past" that put boots on the gorund, the plan right now is for limited airstrikes targeting Assad's ability to slaughter children -- that's inoceneient for the Rand Paul crowd that would like to pretend this is some earth-shattering controversy, but most people are going to end up not having any probloem with such airstrikes if approved.

    The point was not responding to "us" ("you guys") but even having discussions among yourselves on things you don't agree with Obama on. Of course that would not include you because you think in black and white and agree with everything Obama does. You think any criticism of your savior is whining and crying. Funny cause you're the biggest whiner and cryer. icon_lol.gif


    Projection, obviously. I don't agree with everything Obama does, but you and your ilk certainly think in black and white and disagree with everything Obama does. One of you even started a thread about what a horrible scandal it was that Marines held mbrellas for the President -- that's hwo off the rails of the rality RealJock conservatives are. Just because you view Barack Obama as the Antichrist does not make him my savior, as I was not amongst his original supporters. I have criticized the President when appropriate, starting with my original opposition to his 2008 candidacy, so there is some criticism of him that is valid, including my own.

    Whgat's whining and crying is the constant, neverneding bitching and moaning about the President's every move be they as big as taxes or as small as umbrellas. It's not just me who has recognized and tuned out the GOP's crybaby claptrap -- see the results of the 2012 election. "No" is not a governing platform, but conservatives have long since run out of ideas.


    "Whgat's whining and crying is the constant, neverneding "

    drink less ..... much less
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Sep 09, 2013 6:43 AM GMT
    At least in the Guardian they are saying that the Germans have info saying that Assad didn't order the attack.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

    I am hoping this is not true because the credibility of the President is on the line. It is in NO ONES interest that the President fail in foreign policy. So hopefully he was given the right information that led him to do what he did.

    It is unfortunate that his foreign policy has been disjointed on many fronts. The opportunity for action was probably about 2 years ago. If Obama agreed to not get involved it is completely understandable. We have no business in Syria, except evacuating refugees or humanitarian aide.

    To the OP, nice to see you back. About 3-4 threads on this topjc before this one discussed Syria. It is ironic that the liberals and libertarians are agreeing on opposing action in Syria.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 12:20 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said STOP THE INSANITY!

    Then why not stop the John McCain, the US Senator from your home State of Arizona? He's the principle Congressional warhawk for intervention in the Middle East, and in this case for arming Syrian rebels and conducting strikes, only objecting to "boots on the ground", which Obama hasn't proposed.

    If McCain were to drop his agitating for Syria intervention the chances of the Administration getting approval for any military action would collapse. Don't you have more influence on your own home state Republican Senator than you do on Obama through posting about it here?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Sep 09, 2013 2:43 PM GMT
    What a ridiculous notion that we should just "STOP MCCAIN" and save Obama from himself. Is Obama just a puppet?

    Going back (2 years) the administration did just about everything opposite of what McCain suggested. The opportunity to help the free thinking rebels is lost. Now AL-quieda has moved in.

    Now, in present day they are BOTH wrong.

    By the way Sec State Kerry ( he works for Obama remember )never ruled out boots on the ground during Senate testimony.

    Sec State Kerry But in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.


    Only the naive would believe that every option needed to be on the table once you start meddling over there.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Sep 09, 2013 4:58 PM GMT
    Russia To Push Syria To Put Chemical Weapons Under International Control

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html

    hopefully this works, but Putin has made Obama look very foolish by making this move.

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 09, 2013 4:59 PM GMT
    musclmed saidNow, in present day they are BOTH wrong.


    So the solution is to do nothing and allow children to be slaughtered.

    Is this the Republican foreign policy? Neville Chamberlain much? Republicans would have been against stopping Germany from perpetrating the Holocaust if Obama was the President making the proposal.

    There are still democrats among the rebels, who are not all al-Qaeda. Bashar Assad cannot be allowed to use chemical weapons against kids. Either he gives up the weapons or we us airstrikes destroy his capability to use them.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Sep 09, 2013 5:27 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    musclmed saidNow, in present day they are BOTH wrong.


    So the solution is to do nothing and allow children to be slaughtered.

    Is this the Republican foreign policy? Neville Chamberlain much? Republicans would have been against stopping Germany from perpetrating the Holocaust if Obama was the President making the proposal.

    There are still democrats among the rebels, who are not all al-Qaeda. Bashar Assad cannot be allowed to use chemical weapons against kids. Either he gives up the weapons or we us airstrikes destroy his capability to use them.


    1) I doubt there are "democrats" amongst the rebels. But i get what you mean.

    I recognize how perilous this situation is. And frankly Obama is f***ed. He got there on his own. I have said this repeatedly. If he decided there was a red line he should have received authorization BEFOREHAND if he though he needed or wanted it.

    I am not sure if there is 1 republican or 1 democrat "foreign policy" on this. It seems that is all what you think about. Not everything is political.

    I fault Obama for the way he is going about what he is doing rather than what he is doing. His dithering, indecisiveness has not served him well. Putin et al is making Obama look like a fool and a amateur.

    Isnt it ironic that Saddam Husein also gassed Kurds. So in retrospect does that justify the Iraq war?
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 09, 2013 5:37 PM GMT
    musclmed saidI recognize how perilous this situation is. And frankly Obama is f***ed. He got there on his own. I have said this repeatedly. If he decided there was a red line he should have received authorization BEFOREHAND if he though he needed or wanted it.

    I am not sure if there is 1 republican or 1 democrat "foreign policy" on this. It seems that is all what you think about. Not everything is political.

    I fault Obama for the way he is going about what he is doing rather than what he is doing. His dithering, indecisiveness has not served him well. Putin et al is making Obama look like a fool and a amateur.

    Isnt it ironic that Saddam Husein also gassed Kurds. So in retrospect does that justify the Iraq war?


    I'm not the one who made it political -- Republicans did that by holding foreign policy hostage for partisan purposes. If this were President Romney, Republicans would be on board just like they were with the war adventures of both Bushes.

    You merely illustrate this point with your review of Obama's performance -- who cares whether or not Obama is "fucked" when children are being gassed in the streets? That should be the focus, but Republicans are too busy having Obama on the brain to notice or care. In Republicans' minds, Obama is always fucked -- that's why his re-election caught them off guard.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, Americans know what's up. The Rand Paul liberaltarian crowd will bash the President no matter what he does. If he allows Assad to slaughter children, he's callous and indifferent. If he intervenes unilaterally, he's a warmongerer. If he respects the rule of law and goes to Congress, he's indecisive and waffling. If he works with Russia and the EU to help pressure and isolate Assad, he's weak and leading from behind. If he's careful and slow in doing all this rather than making a quick decision, then it's amateur hour -- and on and on.

    In fact, if Assad now turns over chemical weapons to avoid a military intervention, then pressuring him with the spectre of said military intervention was smart power and yet another demonstration of Obama's skill at his job. And it's Republicans who are (again) going to be fucked in the eyes of voters for (again) being on the wrong side of history because they were (again) too busy being partisan hacks to care about the vulnerable.

    And no, Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds in the 80s does not justify a war almost twenty years after the fact. Good try though, but good on the Democrats in Congress in 2002 for authorizing President Bush's war anyway instead of putting national security at risk by playing politics with foreign policy like Republicans always do.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Sep 09, 2013 8:17 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    musclmed saidI recognize how perilous this situation is. And frankly -------"""""


    I'm not the one who made it political -- Republicans did that by holding foreign policy hostage for partisan purposes. If this were President Romney, Republicans would be on board just like they were with the war adventures of both Bushes.

    You merely illustrate this point with your review of Obama's performance -- who cares whether or not Obama is "fucked" when children are being gassed in the streets? That should be the focus, but Republicans are too busy having Obama on the brain to notice or care. In Republicans' minds, Obama is always fucked -- that's why his re-election caught them off guard.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, Americans know what's up. The Rand Paul liberaltarian crowd will bash the President no matter what he does. If he allows Assad to slaughter children, he's callous and indifferent. If he intervenes unilaterally, he's a warmongerer. If he respects the rule of law and goes to Congress, he's indecisive and waffling. If he works with Russia and the EU to help pressure and isolate Assad, he's weak and leading from behind. If he's careful and slow in doing all this rather than making a quick decision, then it's amateur hour -- and on and on.

    In fact, if Assad now turns over chemical weapons to avoid a military intervention, then pressuring him with the spectre of said military intervention was smart power and yet another demonstration of Obama's skill at his job. And it's Republicans who are (again) going to be fucked in the eyes of voters for (again) being on the wrong side of history because they were (again) too busy being partisan hacks to care about the vulnerable.

    And no, Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds in the 80s does not justify a war almost twenty years after the fact. Good try though, but good on the Democrats in Congress in 2002 for authorizing President Bush's war anyway instead of putting national security at risk by playing politics with foreign policy like Republicans always do.


    I am not going to re litigate Iraq2 but Saddam was under a cease fire armistice. He was breaking nearly every rule.

    Other than the humanitarian problem which is real and noteworthy we have no business in Syria. And in fact doing something would likely cause more harm with more lives lost.

    It is interesting though, if you look at Obamas decisions he did not ask for approval to attack Libya. In Syria's case he could had sent or pushed for a UN humanitarian effort but he didnt. He could have pushed for more support for the rebels early on , he didnt. Now he brought us to the brink and lays it in Congresses lap. All while he completely blows what little stature the US has left in the region.
    Obama is F***d only because he ordered the dildo online straight from Syria.

    You are not going to find any if all experts in foreign policy say that the last few weeks have been high points in US foreign policy. That isnt a republican or democratic thing. Its a Leadership thing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 8:18 PM GMT
    musclmed saidAt least in the Guardian they are saying that the Germans have info saying that Assad didn't order the attack.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

    It is ironic that the liberals and libertarians are agreeing on opposing action in Syria.



    Unfortunately the Republicans can't agree, flip-flopping as they are. Here, from June, a Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz, of Texas:
    “We need to develop a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out.”

    Now he's on TV saying no. Until when is anyone's guess.

    btw, he's Canadian by birth, but he's giving up his Canadian citizenship in order to get in as the next Republican President.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Sep 09, 2013 8:24 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    musclmed saidAt least in the Guardian they are saying that the Germans have info saying that Assad didn't order the attack.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

    It is ironic that the liberals and libertarians are agreeing on opposing action in Syria.



    Unfortunately the Republicans can't agree, flip-flopping as they are. Here, from June, a Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz, of Texas:
    “We need to develop a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out.”

    Now he's on TV saying no. Until when is anyone's guess.

    btw, he's Canadian by birth, but he's giving up his Canadian citizenship in order to get in as the next Republican President.


    It seems real easy to devolve into partisanship and ignore what the clear news story and issue is.

    US foreign policy. I dont know what Ted Cruz has to do with this at all. But i guess you just think in political terms 100% of the time like Troyathlete.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 8:31 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    meninlove said
    musclmed saidAt least in the Guardian they are saying that the Germans have info saying that Assad didn't order the attack.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

    It is ironic that the liberals and libertarians are agreeing on opposing action in Syria.



    Unfortunately the Republicans can't agree, flip-flopping as they are. Here, from June, a Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz, of Texas:
    “We need to develop a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out.”

    Now he's on TV saying no. Until when is anyone's guess.

    btw, he's Canadian by birth, but he's giving up his Canadian citizenship in order to get in as the next Republican President.


    It seems real easy to devolve into partisanship and ignore what the clear news story and issue is.

    US foreign policy. I dont know what Ted Cruz has to do with this at all. But i guess you just think in political terms 100% of the time like Troyathlete.


    lol, it IS the news and politics forum. icon_wink.gif
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 10, 2013 6:02 AM GMT
    musclmed saidI am not going to re litigate Iraq2 but Saddam was under a cease fire armistice. He was breaking nearly every rule.

    Other than the humanitarian problem which is real and noteworthy we have no business in Syria. And in fact doing something would likely cause more harm with more lives lost.

    It is interesting though, if you look at Obamas decisions he did not ask for approval to attack Libya. In Syria's case he could had sent or pushed for a UN humanitarian effort but he didnt. He could have pushed for more support for the rebels early on , he didnt. Now he brought us to the brink and lays it in Congresses lap. All while he completely blows what little stature the US has left in the region.
    Obama is F***d only because he ordered the dildo online straight from Syria.

    You are not going to find any if all experts in foreign policy say that the last few weeks have been high points in US foreign policy. That isnt a republican or democratic thing. Its a Leadership thing.


    The United States had no business attacking Iraq. I'm not going to relitigate that shitshow either. If you're going to cite experts in foreign policy, find one who thinks Iraq wasn't an unimitigated disaster. *crickets*

    Saying other than the humanitarian problem we have no business in Syria is first of all not true, since the Syrian civil war threatens to spill over everywhere and further destrabilize the entire region. But even if that were not true, it's a little like saying "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" The humanitarian problem in Syria is the wholesale slaughter of children. You won't find a foreign policy expert who thinks it is okay for the world to stand idly by and watch these atrocities from afar.

    America's presence in Libya was obligated by our commitments to the UN and the UN-sanction no-fly zone approved by the UN Security Council on March 17, 2011. France, not the United States, was the first to strike in Libya. So unless you are suggesting the United States should have pulled out of the United Nations (you never know with modern conservatives) then you US military was required to fulfill those obligations as a UN member state. The United States Participation Act which makes America troops available in response to requests by the UN Security Council was passed by Congress way back in 1945. Until Congress repeals that law, they have no legal basis to whine about the US fulfilling its UN obligations.

    The suggestion that Obama did not try to use the UN is a lie; Republicans have spent two years whining that Obama was weak in seeking UN approval. Of course, now they're against it. The suggestion that Obama has not helped the rebels is also false; again, Republicans have spent two years whining that Obama was arming al-Qaeda by helping the rebels. Conservatives must have whiplash by having to make up these lies to justify their opposition to Obama's every move.

    "Experts" in foreign policy have had two years to help solve the crisis in Syria. It's time to stop writing academic policy papers and do something, no matter what do-nothing party-of-no Republicans say. They're going to complain no matter what, and they have thusly made themselves irrelevant.