Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The longer he's in office, the less sense he makes.
As I see it, this is absolutely a lose-lose situation for Obama. First, he opened his mouth before he should have on the whole Syria thing, and now he's going to let Congress vote on it.
If they vote no, he's going to look bad and have to make a choice about overriding Congress. Foreign policy isn't exactly his strong suit, and this isn't going to help.
If they vote yes, he's going to be in the middle of a situation he's likely not equipped for.
What exactly is the political upside here for Obama?
All of this over a civil war -- and spin it whatever way you want to, it's a civil war. Syria's civil war.
I don't know, but I do know that months & months ago I was thinking we should do something about the bs that is going on over there. And I'm sure MANY were thinking the same....now that there is, all I see is hands flapping, fingers pointing & the tongue wagging from the usual suspects. BIG SURPRISE!!!!!!
For the United States? There is no upside. Both sides in the civil war hate us. Most of the countries in the region hate us. The reason they hate us is that the USA is viewed as anti-Muslim and a bully who tries to impose our will upon everyone else. That is the rep you get by playing world cop all the time.
The President drew a line in the sand and made threats. He has painted the US into a corner. If we attack we will be hated. If we don't attack others can now question our resolve.
To show we won't let 3rd world thugs use WMD. To not do so is just giving Iran the green light to continue it's nuclear program but if we decisively show we have the will to put our money where our mouths are then Iran will have to think twice. To not do anything though would be interpreted by Iran as us being to weak and vacillating to stand up to their nuclear ambitions.
I don't know, but I do know that months & months ago I was thinking we should do something about the bs that is going on over there. And I'm sure MANY were thinking the same....now that there is, all I see is hands flapping, fingers pointing & the tongue wagging from the usual suspects. BIG SURPRISE!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71
There is none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
For the United States? There is no upside. Both sides in the civil war hate us. Most of the countries in the region hate us. The reason they hate us is that the USA is viewed as anti-Muslim and a bully who tries to impose our will upon everyone else. That is the rep you get by playing world cop all the time.
The President drew a line in the sand and made threats. He has painted the US into a corner. If we attack we will be hated. If we don't attack others can now question our resolve.
The problem as I see it is that the Middle East has been fighting itself for 1,000 years -- WHY draw a line in the sand now over something that honestly does not concern us? I find it hard to believe this guy rode into office (partly) on a stance of ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, and yet here he is, playing Internet tough guy.
I could see if Syria was actively bombing a US base, but this truly is not our business.
To show we won't let 3rd world thugs use WMD. To not do so is just giving Iran the green light to continue it's nuclear program but if we decisively show we have the will to put our money where our mouths are then Iran will have to think twice. To not do anything though would be interpreted by Iran as us being to weak and vacillating to stand up to their nuclear ambitions.
But other ME despots have gassed their own people before, and we didn't rush in.
It's not like Syria is gassing US citizens/military personnel. Why should we have to dabble in Syria's civil war?
The problem as I see it is that the Middle East has been fighting itself for 1,000 years -- WHY draw a line in the sand now over something that honestly does not concern us? I find it hard to believe this guy rode into office (partly) on a stance of ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, and yet here he is, playing Internet tough guy.
I could see if Syria was actively bombing a US base, but this truly is not our business.
Huh....this sounds vaguely familiar. Like I may have said this before. What is it exactly......oh yes, that's right....kinda like Iraq, yes?
Huh....this sounds vaguely familiar. Like I may have said this before. What is it exactly......oh yes, that's right....kinda like Iraq, yes?
The larger issue is that there is NO upside to attacking anyone/anything in the Middle East. That region has been fighting for 1,000 years, and unless you wipe out the entire region, they will still be fighting years from now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
