The only action the US should be involved in is the humanitarian care of the
wars victims and refugees.
Ah, so the real reason we were in Iraq was to be able to counter an anti-Assad
rebellion in Syria! I actually might have respected the honesty of that
realpolitick argument if you had served it up a decade ago instead of going with
the whole 'WMD and nebulous connections between Saddam and Bin Laden'
angle.Rather than offering a post hoc justifcation for the treasure
and blood we poured into Iraq, why don't you focus on the major question
most Americans have: what possible justification is there for yet another
intervention in a region that is boiling over because of the LAST intervention
I'll go to war!As soon as chuckie does. I'm right behind
him!Until then, America needs to STAY SIDELINED.It's amazing that we are even having this conversation. Korea, Vietnam,
Iraq, Afghanistan... Will we ever learn our lesson?
He forgot to add, "when a democrat is president."You can
just add that to the end of every article Kruthenhammer does and then it makes
Krauthammer laments that the U.S. is no longer the regional hegemon of the
Kissinger era because of Obama's propensity to navel-gaze during foreign
crises. Such a song of woe comes from a chorus of Neo-conservatives with
Krauthammer himself at the podium. This may be the only time I'll agree
with Sarah Palin: let Allah sort it out. Anything else is going to involve us in
The title of this piece in the Washington Post is: America sidelined, barely
relevant.Krauthammer is saying our inaction is a blunder and that
offering small arms is meaningless. The DN title is misleading.
Krauthammer seems to forget about al-Nusra and the Sunni extremists who
primarily hate Shi'ites and Assad's Aluwite minority in Syria. They
are fighting alongside the rebels too and are the most ruthless unsurprisingly.
That little detail just complicates things for the simplified argument presented