You’re making no sense. Obama declared his only goal was destroying chemical weapons in Syria, not regime change, not driving out Al-Qaeda. Short of invasion, there is no way to bring peace to Syria. That would be temporary, at best. As we see in Iraq & Afghanistan, occupation only postpones the fight. There is no public support for another futile occupation.It looks like Obama gets what he wanted without firing a shot. Seems to be making the conservatives go nuts.
Really? You prefer war? You prefer Assad keep his chemical weapons? Obama may or may not have planned things to work out they way they have, but he seized the opportunity to get what he wanted (neutralize Assad’s chemical weapons), without wasting tax dollars or lives. Removing the chemical weapons doesn’t really change the situation in Syria for either side. I guess you prefer they stay in Assad’s hands.The Tea Part 501 (c ) 4 groups are “community organizers”. Community organizers can work on a national & global scale, but you obviously don’t get it.
The unbelievably small (and brief) military actions always involve “real” personnel—just as Varvel indicates. And we often obligate ourselves to an ongoing presence, just as we have in Bosnia…
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 10 years ago
Because missiles and soldiers are exactly the same thing. Brilliant analysis from a military expert.
larryrhoades over 10 years ago
It was all a bluff, folks. Time to move along and leave international politics to the professionals.Nothing to see here, sorry if you got upset.
ConserveGov over 10 years ago
Great toon!Sad that our country is now viewed by others as incompetent.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
“That alone should justify going to war in the deranged mental state of all the socialists.”And they say the problem is ‘Liberal Dems’ slander?
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
You’re making no sense. Obama declared his only goal was destroying chemical weapons in Syria, not regime change, not driving out Al-Qaeda. Short of invasion, there is no way to bring peace to Syria. That would be temporary, at best. As we see in Iraq & Afghanistan, occupation only postpones the fight. There is no public support for another futile occupation.It looks like Obama gets what he wanted without firing a shot. Seems to be making the conservatives go nuts.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
He’s finally getting a bucket o’ international commitment to step up to the plate and do something: I think their real plan may finally be working.
pirate227 over 10 years ago
No soldiers, just TLAMs. Or better yet, UN inspectors.Cons are breaking their necks trying to keep up without looking like hypocrites. Oops, too late.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
Really? You prefer war? You prefer Assad keep his chemical weapons? Obama may or may not have planned things to work out they way they have, but he seized the opportunity to get what he wanted (neutralize Assad’s chemical weapons), without wasting tax dollars or lives. Removing the chemical weapons doesn’t really change the situation in Syria for either side. I guess you prefer they stay in Assad’s hands.The Tea Part 501 (c ) 4 groups are “community organizers”. Community organizers can work on a national & global scale, but you obviously don’t get it.
rixtex over 10 years ago
What an unbelievably stupid thing to say!
Robert Stroud over 10 years ago
The unbelievably small (and brief) military actions always involve “real” personnel—just as Varvel indicates. And we often obligate ourselves to an ongoing presence, just as we have in Bosnia…