They only reason we are going is to save face for the Nobel peace prize winner that holds the red line...
I am sure not clear on who it was that used the chemical weapons from the Iraqi stockpile in Syria.
Not to side with Obama or against Rand Paul, but is this really true? Certainly the situation in Syria affects Israel and other countries in the region friendly to us.
The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States,
Hard to argue with that.
no sh*t Sherlock!
Obama may want to wait until the paint all around the corner he is in has dried.
Not so fast. My guess is the U.S has interests in Syria especially because our ally, Israel, is affected by just about everything that goes on in Syria, not to mention Syria's ties to another dangerous rogue state trying to become nuclear, Iran. However, that is not say we should be somehow going to war against them. The so-called "Bush Doctrine" is stupid and anti-American.
Why do these people, movements, ideologies swing from one extreme to another? I'm a libertarian (small "L" - I'm in the Republican party) and I see no reason to be isolationist and pull the covers over our heads. Reagan had a good perspective in foreign affairs and defense. "We maintain the peace through our strength..." He was loyal to foreign allies and dealt carefully, wisely, circumspectly, but decisively with questionable and non-ally foreign countries. He seems to have been the last president to understand the use of sound verifiable intelligence to influence our interests abroad including stealth and surgical strikes when necessary instead of the mutton-headed baseball-bat diplomacy Bush favored in invading Iraq and setting the table for Obama to continue.
If King Obama would actually ask congress or present an argument to the American people, he was two possible positions:
1.) Secure or destroy the Chemical weapon so not to be use against the US or our Allies. Unfortunately, this strategy takes a lot of Balls with boots on the ground. We do not have Panetta or Hillary to send Obama to the gulf course, start the attack, then pull him off the golf course to "oversee" the operation.
2.) Obama could make the Hitler vs Stalin argument. Although the rebels will not support the US and will be a threat, it is better than Assad as an agent of Iran and the Shia Crescent. No way would the King admit to this.
However, after Syria turns into a terrorist day camp, the apologist for the King will spin the lesser of two evils and Obama knew this all along.
Rand is absolutely correct.
Maybe not US interests but hussein has interests in those ill winds blowing against his bros.
Now will Republicans rally around Rand or are they all brainwashed like Robert King and John McCain?
Every retired military officer I’ve seen on TV has stated that there are no US security interests at stake regarding Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
I agree that the conflict between al Qaeda and Assad is not a US security interest.
I do think, though, that al Qaeda potentially possessing chemical weapons is an issue of US security due to terrorist delivery systems and the willingness of terrorists to suicide while killing hundreds/thousands of people.
An aerosol can similar to a bug bomb released at a sporting venue in the US could be devastating.
Obama is not talking about doing anything to capture/destroy WMDs, so my concern will not be the motive behind any action he might take.
Bob Corker is supporting the strikes against Syria. Another McCain-wannabe RINO.
Of course not. They’re Iran’s interests, and Iran needs them to finish its nuclear weapons buildup in order to work for Libertarian interests.
It’s fine to say there is no US interest at stake in a certain situation. It costs nothing to say so. But if you’re gonna do it, then tell us where there IS a US interest at stake.
Five seconds before Flight 10 hit the tower the US didn’t have much interest at stake in Afghanistan. Then, all of a sudden, people in NYC had to choose whether to burn to death or jump 89 stories.
When I hear Rand Paul address all that I’ll have some reason to imagine that a do-nothing foreign policy might work.