Tony S wrote on 08/31/13 at 20:43:17:I do hate when I have to assume. So I'lll have to ask. By George do you mean the younger George Bush and Dickie Richard Nixon?
Keep in mind that George Bush (Sr) was president during the first Deserst Storm war against Iraq and it Eisehower that sent the first American military into Vietnam. The war in Vietnam drastically escalated, slowly under Kennedy and then drastically under Johnson. "Dickie" if you refer to Nixon is the president that actually got us OUT of Vietnam.
I was opposed to the war in Vietnam for two reasons: I never believed in the "domino theory" and the military objectives were never defined. We weren't fighting a war to win, it was some sort of drawn out "police action"
I supported the first Gulf war, opposed to the second.
The case for intervention is simple and it is by all statements limited. the US president drew a red line, Assad crossed it. The use of WMD is not allowed. Period. Having said there will be consequences - there must be.
Syria's chemical arsenal is of particular concern to us in this conflicty. The US is going to want to make sure they are locked down. Syria has the WORLD's third largest stockpile of chemical weapons. The last thing the USA wants is for members of the smaller, but better organized muslim rebels to get their hands on such. Which is why someone's suggestion on the boards here that the USA military gave the rebels chemical weapons - which the mishandled and blew up in their faces - is so ludicrous. We are not giving WMD's to anybody - particularly groups that are affliated with muslim extremists. Nor do we want Syria's military rolling these weapons out of storage for use. And potential capture. If we were arming the rebels we'd be giving them shoulder fired anti aircraft and anti tank weapons.
A barrage of cruise missles, a few air strikes. Assad's nose gets bloodied and he hopefully locks down the chemical weapons and fights the rebels the hard way, block by block, town by town. If you gas entire neighborhoods - the world is watching and will respond.
Last, but not least: It is America's best interest to encourage democracies. Name a war we fought against a democracy.
I will point out again that a lot of prominent Republicans have been calling on Obama to help the rebels in Syria for over a year.
Obama is even doing this "right" - asking for Congress to approve. If you don't want them to do so, write your congressman. I intend to talk to mine.
The case for intervention is simple and it is by all statements limited. the US president drew a red line,
How is it the Pres saying we would do somethin somehow just translates
into action? Did he ask Congress if he could say that? Because CONGRESS decides on war, SO, HE screwed UP{ talking like that.
NOW,, Assads forces were winning AND Assad has been warned
And THERE IS plenty of reason to believe the Rebels actually did it.
HOW many times have we been LIED to to get us to support a war?>
You trust the GOOBS? WHY?
Assad crossed it. The use of WMD is not allowed. Period. Having said there will be consequences - there must be.