So, you choose Al Qaeda rebels over Assad’s Hezbollah and Iran? Since you hadn’t noticed, there is no good solution in Syria, except Obama’s preferred path — Assad out, current government stays in power through a negotiated settlement. We have almost no leverage to cause that outcome, and if we “got rid of Assad,” it’ll be the Afghanistan Taliban all over again.
we ARE doing this because of oil! They can’t fool us. Also if the president does this he has sold out to the wealthiest Vulture capitalists. (not that all capitalists are bad and/or extremists).
This will be his worst mistake and his biggest regret!
He is willing to do this alone, because of the extra powers given to the president under the GOP’s War Powers Act.
The middle-east “Troubles” have been going on since WW2. I’ve been hearing about them all my life and am SICK TO DEATH of hearing about them. Solution: 1. Tell EVERY mideast country to man up, get a backbone, if they don’t like their leader, and do WHATEVER is necessary to change. I mean WHATEVER.
2. Israel can take care of itself, without our financial help. If it can’t… so what!
3. Every country over there has to take care of itself, without our help. If it can’t… so what!
4. The USA, UK, and many others went through a civil war and came out stronger. Hey, mideast countries, do you see a pattern here?
5. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the strong states IN THE REGION to take care of the weak states. They’re YOUR brothers, NOT OURS.
6. Whatever shakes out, shakes out. You’ll be better for it.
7. If they cut off the flow. so what. Our technology can come up with other energy sources. We are the best on earth at this.
Both parties have gone totally NUTS! NO attack on Syria, period! The “argument” is that we have to fight a Hezbollah backed regime, to install an Al Qaeda backed regime, exactly WHO attacked the U.S., and who poses a “threat” to Israel?? Oh, right, U.S.S. LIberty, we, I guess, should support those who’ve actually attacked the U.S. directly in the past!!
Reminds me of the old (10 years old) quip… We’re between Iraq and a hard place.
But really, this is a tough one. If I thought that the motives of “world leadership” were really altruistic, I would be all for a major thrust to oust the Syrian regime and help a new one form.
But… I fear that at best, we’ll go half-assed, leaving things in even worse chaos and disarray- and a breeding ground for pissed-off fundamentalists (aka, terrorists). Or, we’ll just put in a weak puppet government (a-la Afghanistan), and it would still be done for some geopolitical-financial purpose. Leaving the people maybe even worse off than they were before.
As far as the immediate situation- I just don’t know what a limited attack will do to help anyone. At least, if we are going to use force, we should be sure to take out Syria’s offensive capabilities. I don’t think force is the answer though. I wish I knew what is the answer (I’d write to Obama immediately :-)… ), but I think it lies in the area of building, communication, assistance, etc. and not destruction. Maybe I’m just idealistic, but we’ve seen how well the destructive approach works….
Enoki over 10 years ago
And, for added effect the bomb is filled with strongly worded UN resolutions!
ARodney over 10 years ago
So, you choose Al Qaeda rebels over Assad’s Hezbollah and Iran? Since you hadn’t noticed, there is no good solution in Syria, except Obama’s preferred path — Assad out, current government stays in power through a negotiated settlement. We have almost no leverage to cause that outcome, and if we “got rid of Assad,” it’ll be the Afghanistan Taliban all over again.
pam Miner over 10 years ago
we ARE doing this because of oil! They can’t fool us. Also if the president does this he has sold out to the wealthiest Vulture capitalists. (not that all capitalists are bad and/or extremists).
This will be his worst mistake and his biggest regret!He is willing to do this alone, because of the extra powers given to the president under the GOP’s War Powers Act.
Ryan Plut over 10 years ago
The middle-east “Troubles” have been going on since WW2. I’ve been hearing about them all my life and am SICK TO DEATH of hearing about them. Solution: 1. Tell EVERY mideast country to man up, get a backbone, if they don’t like their leader, and do WHATEVER is necessary to change. I mean WHATEVER.
2. Israel can take care of itself, without our financial help. If it can’t… so what!
3. Every country over there has to take care of itself, without our help. If it can’t… so what!
4. The USA, UK, and many others went through a civil war and came out stronger. Hey, mideast countries, do you see a pattern here?
5. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the strong states IN THE REGION to take care of the weak states. They’re YOUR brothers, NOT OURS.
6. Whatever shakes out, shakes out. You’ll be better for it.
7. If they cut off the flow. so what. Our technology can come up with other energy sources. We are the best on earth at this.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Both parties have gone totally NUTS! NO attack on Syria, period! The “argument” is that we have to fight a Hezbollah backed regime, to install an Al Qaeda backed regime, exactly WHO attacked the U.S., and who poses a “threat” to Israel?? Oh, right, U.S.S. LIberty, we, I guess, should support those who’ve actually attacked the U.S. directly in the past!!
benbrilling over 10 years ago
Quagmire. Again.
(Except this time it comes with a Nobel Peace Prize.)
pirate227 over 10 years ago
GO NAVY!
comictoles over 10 years ago
Reminds me of the old (10 years old) quip… We’re between Iraq and a hard place.
But really, this is a tough one. If I thought that the motives of “world leadership” were really altruistic, I would be all for a major thrust to oust the Syrian regime and help a new one form.
But… I fear that at best, we’ll go half-assed, leaving things in even worse chaos and disarray- and a breeding ground for pissed-off fundamentalists (aka, terrorists). Or, we’ll just put in a weak puppet government (a-la Afghanistan), and it would still be done for some geopolitical-financial purpose. Leaving the people maybe even worse off than they were before.
As far as the immediate situation- I just don’t know what a limited attack will do to help anyone. At least, if we are going to use force, we should be sure to take out Syria’s offensive capabilities. I don’t think force is the answer though. I wish I knew what is the answer (I’d write to Obama immediately :-)… ), but I think it lies in the area of building, communication, assistance, etc. and not destruction. Maybe I’m just idealistic, but we’ve seen how well the destructive approach works….
Cheers!
No New Wars almost 10 years ago
Am I the only one who can see a rude word on the hat of the Navy bystander?