What is POTUSA Thinking?

[Rabbitz]

This is a serious question. I am NOT trying to take the mickey or simply stir the pot.

I genuinely want to know.

Syria.

It is an internal, civil war.

Bad things have happened.

You guys are $16 trillion in debt, a lot of which is due to some pretty unpopular wars in the Middle East.

Yet POTUSA wants to go back in again and poke around with a big stick.

I am not opposed to the military in any way, I just don't see the point in intervening, it will not go well - we have plenty of evidence to show that will be the case.

A fading 'super-power' would be better served getting its own house in order rather than spending enormous amounts of capital (money, lives, good will) by attacking a tinpot dictator.

(All of my above comments reflect equally on my own country so don't think this is an anti-US rant.)

[surfpirate]

You might want to either reword the subject line
or take out the comment "I am not trying to stir the pot".

They don't mesh well together.

[Rabbitz]

Better?

[Rabbitz]

Double Post

[surfpirate]

Better?

Works for me. And "Pot stirred".

I don't necessarily disagree with the points you've made. I hope this generates
passionate and also fair and polite discussion.

[Rabbitz]

I don't necessarily disagree with the points you've made. I hope this generates
passionate and also fair and polite discussion.

Me too.

I am genuinely confused. As outsiders we get a different view via different news services and the like so I do wonder what it looks like closer to the action.

[Tiki Torches]

[Bicycle Bill]

Personally, I think that it is because we always declare a "War" on something — a war on drugs, a war on terrorism, a war on crime.  And in staying with the "war" mentality, it is assumed that unless one is actually *DOING* something aggressive one is doing nothing.  Thus, a war on crime becomes an assault on criminals, rather than improving the conditions that force some people to turn to crime.  A war on drugs becomes a campaign against the drug pushers and dealers rather than trying to eliminate the reasons, the causes, the symptoms that cause people to seek out drugs in the first place.  A war on poverty becomes a band-aid fix, throwing money at the poor themselves through aid programs rather than trying to eliminate the root causes of poverty.

So, a "defense" of civil rights becomes a counter-attack against those who deprived others of their rights.  Lost in the battles and attacks and counter-attacks, however, are the fact that there will always be collateral damage ... and in the case of bombings in Syria, *tangible* damages; formerly living and breathing people who will become 'collateral damage'.  But we dismiss that with a few platitudes — can't make an omelet with breaking a few eggs; war is hell; that sort of thing — and the disdain of those who occupy what they see to be the moral high ground.  And then wonder why our star keeps dimming in the eyes of the rest of the world.

As far as I'm concerned, our military is not "Team USA: World Police"; never was meant to be and never should be used as such.  But in their efforts to be all things to all people in order to win votes and keep their cushy seats in power, politicians from the POTUS, the cabinet, the congress-critters and on down are like people who will do anything so long as it will look good later on their resumes.  They continue to pander to whatever comes down the road....and in the process have proven that they are no good for nobody.

On December 7th 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked.  America took a sucker punch and was knocked down....but not out.  We took an eight-count and got back on our feet. We came together and united in one single great common cause – to defeat the Axis powers – and in less than four years (and with the help of our friends) we did just that.  Maybe that's what needs to happen again.  We need something to galvanize the people and unite them again, and perhaps this decision on how to handle Syria is going to be just that spark.

-"BB"-

[krusin1]

Okay.... my somewhat cynical, and perhaps simplistic view of this situation?

The POTUS uttered his "red line" bit about Syria a while back in an attempt to control a worsening crisis. That line though... either he didn't really think it through, or he believed he'd never have to make good on the implied threat.

(BTW... INMNSHO, this POTUS seems to believe his capacity for talking/speaking/persuading is remedy enough for pretty much any world problem.)

Well... problem is.... Syria DID cross the "red line." So now, POTUS feels like he has to do something militarily or he'll be discredited as a serious, tough, world power player.

Also IMNSHO... Putin gave him some cover and ultimately a face-saving way out of the situation. But... I've got a really bad feeling there's going to be a price to be paid later. It's not good to owe the bad guys a favor...