Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think the US should absolutely be prepared to use force in Syria. I think the outcome of the last week, and the last few days in particular, is to demonstrate to extremists everywhere that there is no longer a 'good guy' in this world -- no power prepared to defend against atrocities against humanity. The US and its major allies are impotent, and the world is becoming far more dangerous for it.
The true tragedy of the Bush years is coming home to roost. This is what the reckless policies of the last decade plus have done to the US and to the world.
Yes, I think the US should absolutely be prepared to use force in Syria. I think the outcome of the last week, and the last few days in particular, is to demonstrate to extremists everywhere that there is no longer a 'good guy' in this world -- no power prepared to defend against atrocities against humanity. The US and its major allies are impotent, and the world is becoming far more dangerous for it.
The true tragedy of the Bush years is coming home to roost. This is what the reckless policies of the last decade plus have done to the US and to the world.
Anonymous wrote:The plans sound like giving your 2 year old a 30 sec time out. You feel like you are doing something but it is ineffective.
Anonymous wrote:Yes, but France did that to harm their traditional opponent, England. Naked political ambition. Not because they felt the rightness of the colonists' cause.
Nowadays don't we frown on intervening in foreign countries merely for our own benefit? Usually we need a pretext... like WMD or chemical weapons. Huh.
Anonymous wrote:Remember back in the 1860's when America was having a Civil War the the Ottomans, Arab Nomads and the Persians came to our land to intervene?
Exactly. We need to stay the hell out.
Anonymous wrote:Remember back in the 1860's when America was having a Civil War the the Ottomans, Arab Nomads and the Persians came to our land to intervene?
Exactly. We need to stay the hell out.
jsteele wrote:I oppose intervention.
It is not clear to me how bombing Syria will improve the conditions of the Syrian people. More than likely, we will kill a significant number of civilians and I would not be surprised if we end up killing more civilians than were allegedly killed in the gas attack. At the end of the day, we will leave the country worse off than it is now.
Those most likely to benefit from our involvement are groups linked to al-Qaida. Such groups are currently imposing Sharia law in formerly secular Syrian cities. Why anyone believes assisting such groups is in the US interest in beyond me.
The US obviously is not concerned about Syrians being killed. There are far better ways of preventing that than bombing them. Rather, Obama laid down a red line and that line was crossed (at least in the US interpretation of events which I for one take with a grain of salt). So, what is at risk here is Obama's and by extension, the US's prestige. So, I ask, how many Syrians must die for Obama's prestige? Frankly, I don't think it is worth a single individual. John Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" There is a certain tragic irony in seeing him offer justifications for the killing of many more for another mistake.
Anonymous
There are rumors going around in the Middle East right now that the US conspired with some of the rebels to use chemical weapons, simply to justify US military action against Assad. Nothing good can come from our taking any military action.
You think they would know the difference between Democrat and Republican administrations.