Replies

I think it is likely that now 0 is facing increased opposition that this will be a few Tomahawks to the desert. I don’t endorse that, but it is the option that will have the least damage done to America. The worst option outside of an invasion IMO would be for the US to eliminate the Syrian AF. Assad is winning and as long as he has a viable AF he will prevail. At any rate, after all the raving, lying and foot stomping by the prez and SoS, after this ‘intervention’ the war will grow more savage.

I think it is likely that now 0 is facing increased opposition that this will be a few Tomahawks to the desert.

I hope that's the most it is, although I think it's too much. We are not the world's police, and it's not our job to take care of the ME, no matter how much the Neons and Dems and RINOs think it is.

I don't think a war with Syria would drag in Russia, but I do think it will drag in Iran, and we do not need more war, not with our military in its current state and most importantly, not with the idiots in Washington running it.

We are damn lucky that the neocons didn't get their way under Bush or we would have fought Iran and Syria while Iraq and Afghanistan were not stabilized. At times I wonder if Obama has some of Bush's idiots, who just thought "oh, we take out Saddam, and then everything will fall into place." Here we are, out of Iraq, and sectarian fighting is killing nearly a thousand people a month in Iraq. Libya? We intervened, Ghaddafi is taken out, and now Libya is a disaster. They want us to intervene in Syria, but they have no strategic plans if Assad goes down. We already know how Syria would pan out - much worse than Libya and Iraq.

The most troubling thing of all is not the Obama administration's lack of a strategic view of things, it's how many Republicans they've conned into doing their bidding.