[penelopesire]

I just see no US strategic national security interests in being involved with Syria’s civil war and see many national security problems with arming AQ and Islamists. Assad has had those chemical weapons for decades and never has given them to terrorists to use against us or anyone else. If AQ and Islamists take over that country...all bets are off. They will have those weapons and all of the conventional weapons of a state! No thanks,

[kabar]

You are spot on. The central issue is what should the US do in terms of policy. Getting rid of Assad may get us something far worse in terms of our national strategic interests. Carter greased the way to get rid of the Shah, which led to Khomeini. We are now still dealing with Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, and well on its way to becoming a nuclear power.

Iran and Russia are backing Assad and AQ is supporting the rebels. There are no good choices.

Obama has been a disaster in the region. He has distanced us from our relationship with Egypt, a long time ally who now is moving closer to Russia. Putin has become the power broker. Obama's failure to get a SOFA in Iraq has negated all of the blood and treasure the US invested in that country. Libya is in a state of anarchy and a safe harbor for AQ. We lack a coherent foreign policy for the region, which is a tinderbox.

[SADMILLIE]

Assad is innocent. I watched and would take him over the AQ any day. I cant think of a neighbor he attacked but I AM DAMNED SURE THE AQ ATTACKED MY COUNTRY!

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I NEVER said we should go into syria, never said we should back the “rebels”! mRead my posts again...where did I ever say that?? right, nowhere. But some Freepers just make the illogical leap.

But I was responding to all the Kool-aid drinkers on Freep who said how ‘sincere, and reasoned” Assad sounded..Just because Assad is a demoagogic,Sociopathic monster does not then “equal” in logic that I want to back the “rebels” or go into syria.