Peter's principle at work. Integrity in all quadrants? Where is General
Patreas when we need his integrity in the quadrant.
the problem is, the Syrians crossed a RED line in the sand. now if BO had
delineated a BLUE line...BO's in over his head, always has
been, always will beLDS?libso did you thank JFK (D) and LBJ
(D) for escalting our involvement in Vietnam and thank RMN (R)for getting us
out?I didn't think so.
@FatherOfFourWEST VALLEY CITY, UTI am extremely opposed to US
military intervention in Syria. I served in Iraq for 18 months. I know what is
involved. We do not want to go down this path.8:28 a.m. Aug. 27, 2013========= Agreed!I too am a Veteran.Syria
has not attacked us.There is no reason to intervene.Think
Rwanda.worf -- Welcome to the Anti-War Liberals.BTW -
Where were you for the 8 years of terror under GW Bush?or is this
just another anti-anything-Obama rant?
A Secretary of State should be pleased when his/her service is "rather
bland". This condition has a name - "peace".
Chemical attack requires response?Remember when a video required a
response?Can't trust the the wisdom of our press, and
Wars don't just happen. They are planned--Franklin Roosevelt:Has a war with Syria been planned over the passed year or two, with chemical
weapons being the focus to rally the troops?
My dream would be that we elect a President that sees that America has enough
oil reserves to begin the process of getting us out of the Mid East oil
business. Go green when the time comes, but for the forseeable future oil will
remain the fuel of the world. In the meantime, drill baby drill. And, let the
Mid East become what we can't stop it from becoming anyway.
NO! NO! NO!Sure, we "can" attack Syria, but why? 1.
There is no compelling U.S. national interest in doing so!2. How will the
attacks benefit the U.S.?3. What are the possible and likely consequences
of an attack, both from the target and its allies, or our adversaries?Sure, thug regimes killing their citizens are horrible, but we are not and CAN
NOT be the world's policeman. Syria is basically a religious civil war,
with the "insurgents" largely made up of Al-Queida aligned Islamists who
will gladly turn any captured chemical weapons against the U.S. and/or
Israel.Iran and Russia are backing Assad, or more accurately-
opposing the U.S. and we gain nothing by attacking Assad, other than to make
Obama's threats seem credible.Our best course is to use the
U.N. and demand they take action, and when vetoed by the Russians, declare case
closed.British and European "support" is more theatrical
than real, and the Arab (especially Saudi) support for the rebels is merely to
get the U.S. involved with something they want to avoid.Have we
learned nothing from Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Vietnam and Korea?
Yeah, as I am reading this article, I am thinking that so is Basshar Assad. Why
don't we just send him our war plans. I also am wondering if Hillary
wishes she were still Sec of State. This kind of strong military action would
have looked good on her rather bland resume. There is talk that both Biden and
Kerry might want another run at the White House too.
So much for the element of surprise. Kind of like when we collected all of the
materials in Bin Laden's compound on his terror network and then publicized
to the whole wide world that we had done it.
I am extremely opposed to US military intervention in Syria. I served in Iraq
for 18 months. I know what is involved. We do not want to go down this path.
We attack other countries, than spend billions to rebuild them. In many cases,
we arm them prior to attacking.We need to stop this.