For the record, the last/most current 10 NATO operations are as follows: Former Yugoslavia Kosovo Macedonia Balkans (Those were in Europe) NATO air support in US post 9/11 (Operation Eagle Assist) NATO maritime support of civilian traffic in the Med (Operation Active Endeavour) (These are Europe/US-ish) Afghanistan Iraq Libya (Unified Protector) Pakistan (Not Europe)
President Obama: Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ms-sent-Lebanons-Hezbollah.html#ixzz2dESLK82v Go Blazers
(Copout answer) Whatever we do, it needs to be considered and then become policy. As in "anyone who uses weapons of mass destruction will have US WMD rained upon them". Or "we are not in the business of caring about anything east of Istanbul or West of Beijing anymore". Pussy-footing around and dictating what our national strategy is on a whim and what the latest FoxNews/HuffPost poll says is not conducive to "winning" anything. And it needs to be something that the entire country "feels". Like, "if you want to be isolationist, enjoy $200/barrel gas whenever the French can't deal with an oil oligarchy" or "we're going in to Syria. There's a national 2% sales tax to pay for it until we're out." Personally, I disagree with Hans Blix. He wants a "World Without War" without paying attention to the fact that there are bad people doing bad things that need to be stopped...and when they have enough followers (bin Laden, Qaddafi, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc) to do serious damage to lots of people they need to be stopped by someone with more people/bigger guns/better toys than they have. If the US/UK wasn't the "World Police" the Holocaust might still be going on. Then again, people can (rightfully) bring up lack of strategy in Vietnam or how we were going to "win" in Iraq or Afghanistan. In my own worldview, leaving (innocent) people to die at the hands of bad people is bad. And I don't see many other cultures around the world itching to get into the "help out the innocent" business, which kind of leaves us. Unless our country also decides to get out of that business. And without going too far, setting dates isn't "winning" (I'm dealing with the consequences of that right now).
You should probably have a preface on all of your posts that say that you are not allowed to criticize your CIC, by law. I, for one, hope we've all learned our lessons in the Middle East and either play to win or stay out of the game. Firing a few missiles for a few days does nothing other than inflame tensions, much as our endless drone attacks in Pakistan kill hundreds of innocents.
I think I'm the only one who knows that you are the only poster on this matter who literally must take a side, or keep silent.
The articles says that President "Obama says he doesn't foresee American ground troops in Syria." I'm not sure that is what he is saying. The video doesn't help clarify. Go Blazers
So the massive torture for 7 years wasn't enough for you. What do you propose that Bush should have done? This is the same BS that the dumber veterans still spew about Vietnam--that the US didn't try hard enough. Johnson and Nixon threw everything they possibly could have.
It's completely clear. "In all the scenarios we have meticulously analyzed, none exists in which our boots on the ground would help both the US and Syria."
You started a dozen threads whining that Obama has done nothing about Benghazi. Remember how he sent in the CIA to analyze the causes? You belittled that as a toothless, long, slow reaction. You wanted an early fireworks show. Now, for Syria, you say that a quick show of missiles won't do. You want a long, slow war. You are nothing but an inconsistent political hack. Oh, by the way. Obama has the CIA busy in Benghazi. Too cerebral for you. http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/08/libya-wave-political-assassinations
Apparently our Intel agencies have satellite photos, intercepted phone calls, and other evidence of the chemical attack being called for. We use chemical weapons against civilians in the USA plenty. Tear gas, we call it. Granted, it isn't meant to kill. In a conflict where 100,000 people have already died, what difference does it make if 1000 people are killed with gas or bombs or bullets? If humanitarian reasons are enough to intervene, we should have been there a long time ago. I don't think we should be trying to pick winners in these conflicts. We're going to be Al Qaeda's air force? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/israel-syria-gas-masks-preparations/2707731/ Israel has not armed or taken active involvement in the rebellion to its north and has limited its actions in Syria to missile strikes against two convoys of purported weapons being driven to its arch-enemy Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
But shouldn't we be going with the blessing of the UN, like so many wanted when we went into Iraq? We can tell Assad we are coming, and 40 days later start the search for the WMD's. I wonder if we would find them? How many here would deny that they existed if we couldn't find them? Go Blazers
VERY Clintonesque. No matter what happens (boots on the ground or no boots on the ground), nobody can say he lied.
