Congress hasn't been threatening to commit an overt act of war... in a country we have no compelling interest in.
After all the Democrats spent 8 years argueing under Bush that we aren't the worlds policemen...
![]() |
Bush sent a lot of troops to Iraq. Obama says NO troops. Just bombs and thing that go boom. To be honest I'm not sold on getting involved with a Syrian civil war, but if they use gas, no doubt others will to, so its COMPLEXED.
But as part of a greater coalition, like more Arabs from the region, that would add weight to any actions we could take. Alone, NO!!
Iraq was violating a cease fire agreement they had with us...
I know the concept of what a cease fire agreement is, is a bit much for Democrats to grasp... but we have one in Korea too... and have since the 1950's.
What business exactly do we have with Syria anyway... who exactly declared the USA was the Worlds policemen... and what right does Obama have to decare war on a country that has done nothing to us or one of our allies yet.
He isn't asking for WAR, he is asking for but a clear message against the use of gas. Banned in the civilized world since WWI.
Actually, I believe he's just trying to cover his arse.
I think he's already made a mockery of us.Quote:
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said.
And exactly how does just enough of a response to "not get mocked" help those millions?
I guess if he went Cowboy like Bush did that would make you happy, and being pragmatic and having consensus and support more broadly isn't something you could support or consider.
Seeing as no action, just debate is what's going on, globally not just here, then your assertion, and that of your pundit you cited is decidedly misleading.
You mistake me for someone clamoring for war, and certainly not given who the CIC is and his performance thus far.
What's ironic is how the tables have turned. You guys sure do think we've forgotten the Bush years and how things went down. Your version of history is rather creative. It was Bush who went directly to the American people and spelled out what our interests were in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It was Bush that went to the UN and made a case for action, and Bush that sought and received congressional authorization.
Which of these has Obama done?
P.S. I did not cite a 'pundit,' it was a "U.S. official."
Quote:
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked"
An unnamed US official is a credible source? Naw he is no more than a pundits assistant. I think I join Tom on this one and want proof of WHO used gas. But if Russia and China are found to be backing a dictator that did used chemical weapons, that's a whole different ball of wax in my view.
I would be equally pissed if it was found the rebels were killing innocents with gas to draw the rest of the world into this. The rebel factions are carving up their own parts of the country to control, And I think we gear up and plan before we pick our targets. If it was Assad, yes I would send a force full message (Missiles and air strikes at military targets) and rail on Russia and China in the UN, and in public.
I think it's their inaction that has allowed this cancer to fester and grow in the first place.
Hello again,
I agree that Obama has NO Middle East policy. That's troublesome.Quote:
I think it's their inaction that has allowed this cancer to fester and grow in the first place.
But, in his defense, how COULD you have a policy when everything changes in the blink of an eye?
Excon
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:12 PM. |