|
|
Post by packerconvert on May 1, 2013 17:28:06 GMT -5
Obama and senior aides set a high bar even higher in recent days. The same president who widened America’s drone war, ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and led NATO into the conflict in Libya without congressional authorization isn’t likely to go to war against strongman Bashar Assad anytime soon. news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-case-against-war-syria-204236044.htmlKeep raising that bar. Like Libya, we'd most likely arm enemies of the US. It's a no win for America. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on May 1, 2013 17:46:00 GMT -5
t's likely that no matter what Obama said, or did, it would be wrong to this guy.
I don't want to see us moving into Syria either, unless it's proven that they used chemical weapons. Obama said they were waiting on reports to find out exactly who did use them, if anyone did.
He said he wanted international confirmation to insure international involvement in action.
Right wingers are too damned eager to see us commit troops in Syria just so they can say; "See? Bush did it too, now we know it was okay!"
The fact is, you can't white-wash Bush starting the Iraqi war. You also can't push Obama into starting another disaster like that.
We're fortunate.
As most of you know, I have had a personal interest in our wars to date, and I don't want us in Syria unless it's necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on May 1, 2013 17:55:56 GMT -5
Its a no win. What would be the exit strategy?
Even Obama has stated that he feared that weapons would end up in the hands of enemies of the US if we would arm the rebels.
What would have changed from last year when he made that statement to this year.
This needs to be a Middle Eastern coalition with the US far behind in the rear-view window.
We've meddled enough in the Middle East over the last 60 years.
|
|
