I am really surprised at what I’m reading here. I don’t want action either.
But, how many of you would honestly be upset if Bush was going to bomb Syria? Be honest with yourself.
Not one post on here acknowledging the obvious fact that chemical weapons were used....instead wag the dog comments.
Just find it odd.
Not saying we should involve ourselves at all, but suddenly we have become Ron Paul isolationists when the president changes parties. A bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
You are comparing apples to oranges. Post-Iraq, I would have been upset if GWB wanted action against Syria. GWB sold me on WMD in Iraq. What we got was a bloody mess, no WMD, a huge backlash, and Obama in 2008. My threshold is now astronomically higher for mucking around in that Middle East hornets nest again.
But Obama's chemical weapons rationale is not some misguided venture to protect the U.S. from a threat; it is simply subterfuge for using the U.S. military to destabilize Assad and helping the Muslim Brotherhood/Al Queda come to power in Syria, the way he did in Egypt and Libya.
Most of us here signed on to Iraq because we believed GWB was going to secure Iraq's WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists. Yes, we were oversold but believed U.S. interests were at stake.
Most of us here oppose Obama on Syria because we know for a fact it has nothing at all to do with U.S. interests, and everything to do with helping the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow Assad.
Regardless of administration, when muslems are killing muslems the appropriate response is to arm both sides until there are none left.
I was against Bush attacking Iraq. It made no sense to me. I didn’t see Hussein as the threat Bush said he was. After a time, I then ignored my thoughts since I trusted Bush. People on the other side are doing the same thing with Obama.