Syria, if this had been a Republican President instead of Obama.......

reply to post by beezzer


Policeman are only popular when you need one....

FlyersFan

Iraq had clear objectives. Syria does not.
Iraq had exit plans. Syria does not.

These claims seem offensive to actual history. From the Generals to Joint Chiefs to...well..everyone...everyone apart from Rumsfield agreed that chief errors in Iraq was lack of clear objectives and an exit plan.

nwtrucker


Having said that, in general I'd agree re: intervention in the Mid-East. Yet, personally, I could give a rat's rear-end whether we're popular with the locals or not if the intervention is merited.

The locals are all that matters...the rest is politics and greed.

reply to post by Indigo5

As difficult as it seems and contrary to our "moral imperialism" as it is...we must let the Middle-East 100% earn it's own freedom.

I think they would have a long time ago if it hadn't been for all the oil. Leadership in oil rich countries sold their people out or got deposed for someone that would and we were all too willing to take er... buy.

FlyersFan

VictorVonDoom
kudos to Obama for not randomly killing Syrian civilians so far.

The only reason he hasn't is because Americans, of all political leanings, got ticked off and lobbied congress to stop him. Obama was very clearly going to jump right in but public pressure made him back off.

A President listening to the people??? What a creep!!

VictorVonDoom

FlyersFan

VictorVonDoom
kudos to Obama for not randomly killing Syrian civilians so far.

The only reason he hasn't is because Americans, of all political leanings, got ticked off and lobbied congress to stop him. Obama was very clearly going to jump right in but public pressure made him back off.

Probably true, but you know McCain or Romney would have had US troops neck deep in Syria right now, with no regard to what anyone thought.

I fully agree that McCain would most assuredly have jumped in head first, but to be honest, I have a hard time believing that Romney would have.

With Romney, I would imagine that there would have been extraordinarily long and drawn out (probably too long and drawn out) diplomatic measures taken before any kind of military intervention was attempted.

reply to post by Kali74


Hmmm, maybe. Yet there's a number of countries that don't have oil and it's complications that aren't free. Also, oil hasn't been part of their equation for that long in a historical sense, either. No joy previously to oil either.

ProfessorChaos

VictorVonDoom

FlyersFan

VictorVonDoom
kudos to Obama for not randomly killing Syrian civilians so far.

The only reason he hasn't is because Americans, of all political leanings, got ticked off and lobbied congress to stop him. Obama was very clearly going to jump right in but public pressure made him back off.

Probably true, but you know McCain or Romney would have had US troops neck deep in Syria right now, with no regard to what anyone thought.

I fully agree that McCain would most assuredly have jumped in head first, but to be honest, I have a hard time believing that Romney would have.

With Romney, I would imagine that there would have been extraordinarily long and drawn out (probably too long and drawn out) diplomatic measures taken before any kind of military intervention was attempted.

Maybe I'm mis-reading the man, but I don't think it would take Romney very long to attack a country that Israel didn't like.