Published: Thursday, May 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Leadership is taking responsibility and finding a solution. Playing the blame
game is feel-good rhetoric for his sycophants, but it leads nowhere except to
further polarize the voters.
Perhaps - if GW Bush hadn't LIED and invaded Iraq, killing 500,000 Iraqis,
spenign $3 Trillion we don't have, and used false/fabricated intelligence
about Iraq having and using Chemical Weapons...Pres. Obama wouldn't be so
"Gun-Shy", "Quick to the Gun", or "Jumped the Gun".I can't help it, but I STILL blame it on GW Bush.
George... our countries credibility on intelligence on WMD or chemical weapons
is already in the gutter. We have no credibility... haven't since 2003.
When we went in at the cost of over 100,000 lives to pursue what was
later very hard to find, the world rightfully looks at our intelligence with
skepticism. The UN bought our stories, gave us the keys to the war machine....
and we drove it into a ditch in Iraq. We made ourselves, and our
"partners" look foolish.So forgive the world, and this
administration if they approach this situation a little more measured. The
last thing we want to do is make the mistake the Reagan administration did by
arming one of our enemies - the Taliban - so they could fight our other enemy
for US, the then Soviet Union. Arming militants is a very risky proposition...
and one that should not be rushed into. We armed the Taliban against the
Soviets. We armed the Iraqi's against Iran. Both times we were snake
bit.Let's be a little smarter, and a little less emotional this
He could cowboy like bush and spend a trillion and torch the economy like his
@UtahBlueDevil: The US did not arm the Taliban. They were not in existence in
the 1980's. They were created by Pakistan after the Afghan war so that
Pakistan would have an ally leading the Afghan government. At one time the head
of the Pakistani military introduced the Taliban to someone and said, "I
want to introduce you to my children."Having said that, we
should not go willy-nilly into countries and arm insurgents. Afghanistan is an
example. We helped them and then a successor government (the Taliban) help
people launch an attack against us.
@TekakaromatagiI think UtahBlueDevil is hinting at the fact that we
armed the Afghan resistance to the Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew and
various factions within the resistance started fighting each other, some formed
the Taliban, others formed the Northern Alliance, others went with independent
warlords. We didn't arm the Taliban directly, but we armed the folks who
later became the Taliban. Not quite our fault that they went the direction they
did, but we need to recognize the blowback that happened as an indirect result
of our involvement in the '80s.
The Mujahideen forces who battled the soviets. led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, joined
forces with Mullah Mohammed Omar to form the Taliban after the departure of
soviet troops - and to win control of the country from the rival Shia groups.
At least that is my read of what happened....Were they called the
"Taliban" back then.... same people.... same tactics.... same US
weapons.... until Mr. Bin Laden showed up with another source of funding.End result... lots of powerful weapons ended up in the wrong hands....
no matter what you call the group - which is the danger in Syria.Thanks for the perspective Tekakaromatagi
We don't even have a surety yet that chemical weapons were used, who, if
they were used, even used them, how much was used, and how that ended up
happening (maybe someone went rogue for all we know). There are a lot of
unanswered questions and a lot of uncertainty about what all makes up the rebels
themselves. This requires a cautious approach. Let's not screw anything up.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments