Not sure this is really controversial...But WTF ARE WE DOING GETTING INVOLVED?!?!
It could be controversial, however we always have to get involved. That's our policy. Frankly, I think we should go back to being isolationists, like we were before WWI
Are they really sending anything in?
I didn't think they would make the same mistake twice. The UK just voted to stay out, thought it may come to a vote again.
A need exists to send some force in a peacekeeping/humanitarian role, if only to stop the bloodshed, though it should come through the UN rather than the US/UK.
I think that over a week of preparation will have allowed all target-able installations to be evacuated and moved to locations where huge civilian casualties might certainly be involved. To little too late or to much too soon.
So on my long trip out of town I listened to a quite a bit of news. Now personally, I am not a fan of this president. It is my opinion he treats the office as a way to act as a celebrity rather than a leader. I also know that he was advised a year and a half ago by Hillary Clinton and General Petraeus to do something about Syria a year ago.
The way I understand it, the President is really in a bad spot either way. If we don't go in and do something then it makes us look weak and it shows we don't back up what we say we will do. Basically the US would be writing check's it's ass can't cash. This could open the door for additional problems with Iran and other countries that are looking for a reason to do something. Furthermore, by the President giving sort of a warning, Syria has already moved a lot of it's weapons and high ranking staff and government to safer locations. So at this point military action would be little to nothing.
On the other hand, if he does do something, then it is us getting involved in something that could impact Israel negatively, and utilizing troops and firepower with (at this point) little to no support from the international community and our Allies.
Honestly, and I never thought I would agree with Hillary Clinton, the time to act on this was a year and a half ago when Syria first overstepped the line the Obama drew in the sand.
He is in a tough spot either way and I do not envy him. Quite frankly, both Democrat's and Republican's are really torn on this issue and I don't even know what I think we should do.
There is nothing at stake for the US to get involved here at all. If it was a problem the Arab league (with our supplied weaponry) should be able to handle it. If it gets bigger than that, let the Europeans handle it. There is no threat to the US or US interests. Hell, there is barely a threat to Syria's neighbors, which is why they aren't getting involved. What benefit did the US get from Libya? To this day the ultimate poor leadership example, Benghazi, came from that mess. Other than a few more who hate us for meddling in a country's internal affairs, what did we get out of that?
It all still doesn't make sense to me. A few rounds of sarin gas sent by Assad does nothing to further his agenda. He knows it would bring worldwide threats and condemnation... On the other hand, chemical weapons being used does advance and accelerate the arming of the resistance...Makes one really wonder who shot them, doesn't it?
Is Obama prepared for a wider war when other nations now turned sympathetic toward Assad begin arming suicide bombers? How far are we prepared to get into this? It's cowardly to merely launch a few cruise missiles simply because they crossed a "red line" this amateur president invented. Assuming Assad stays in power (he will) what did we prove? Who did we help? If we do happen to get a bullseye and take him down, who is going to fill the power vacuum? If the "Arab Spring" is any indication, it likely won't be somebody with higher moral character thanking the US for his opportunity to lead the Syrians to greater good.
Going in is one thing. The truth is the debate is between not going in and going in half assed. This weak president is all prepared for half assed, with an outcome that will be much worse than not doing anything or going in all out with boots on the ground.
Separate names with a comma.