Disappointing
Not an appropriate use of American resources. Where is the evidence that a regime change in Damascus would further the interests of America? All I can think of is that it might reduce the influence of Iran both in Syria and in Lebanon.
a good rule to live by is to stay out of other peoples’ civil wars.
once we do that we will own the resulting mess.
So both candidates now support Jihad and creation of Islamic states?
This is a lose-lose proposition.
Bad move, indeed. Like you said: and the persecuted-church group I correspond with put out a HUGE alert this month — that the opposition to Assad has now been totally infiltrated by the most radical islamists there are. And the Christians there are terrified about it.
If anything, “rescue and protect the Christians”
Romney will be chewed up and spit out on this (unless he is just trying to smoke the obamanistas out).
given that Romney recently met with Israel’s prime minister (unlike Obama who was on the View), I would suggest that this is what was discussed.
If we don’t arm the non-religious in Syria, then the Taliban/Al Queda will form an alliance and help them.
Of course, you make sure you arm the right segments, with small arms, etc.
BTW, the syrian opposition is sunni, not shi’ite based
Don't worry though, Egypt has a democracy that Syria can emulate after the fall of Assad. /sarc
When will people wake up and realize these supposed freedom and democracy loving "rebels" aren't walking around in three corner hats proclaiming the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but are instead wrapped up in yashmaghs proclaiming the desire for 72 virgins and death to infidels?
Romney needs a better explanation. Assad is an Iranian stooge, which means he needs to be replaced. But replacing him with an Al Qaeda stooge isn’t an improvement, especially if it means that the Christians are subsequently slaughtered.
Which is what is happening right now. It isn’t much better in Egypt.
“This is a bad move by Romney.”
Of course it is, but this is POLITICS and Romney is now going for the juggler. It’s like Obama with domestic spying and Gitmo. He NEVER was serious about shutting down either, but it gave him points to get elected.
It’s about time the Republicans started doing it back.
The credibility of NATO is at stake. Assad still doesn't have enough incentive to step down, because he preceives Putin and the Iranians as having more resolve than NATO.
Mitt didn't say the U.S. should directly or unilaterally arm the rebels. The delicate maneuver would be to get NATO countries to provide enough defensive firepower to the FSA to maintain a stalemate (not an escalation), and hold Aleppo, Homs, etc. until a relatively nonviolent political solution could be reached.
Ideally, there would be a transition from the military to a civilian government. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is not as strong as in Libya, and there are so many other factions involved in the jigsaw puzzle, that the MB could be kept at bay. If Turkey becomes the major power broker here, so be it; it's better than allowing Iran to play that role.
Now, if the Western countries continue to do nothing (Obama leading from behind), it will be like the Bosnia mess again. The bloodbath will continue.
don’t do it Mitt. One side is as bad as the other. To side with the rebels is to side with the Muslim Brotherhood and their offshoot - AQ.
This a civil war - let it be!!
McCain was just on Fox (Gretta) calling for a “no fly zone”.
Those Syrian aircraft and anti-aircraft sites will likely be manned (certainly supported) by Russians -not what’s left of Assad’s incompetent military.
Who would want to suffer those potential loses when you wouldn’t ultimately support either side?