Originally Posted by houghtam
Not at all. That's what I would do. Obama made the mistake of painting himself into a corner. If you make a threat or a promise, you have to follow through. I would have simply said we will answer each individual threat with a measured response based on the situation.
As far as America leading, I am not interested in playing global policeman. Because this is a potential human rights situation, our hands may be tied and we may have to assist. Doesn't mean the US has to play point man and commit an already beleaguered military to its third major offensive action in just over a decade against a foe who is much better able to defend itself than Iraq or Afghanistan.
See I am different. I only want intervention if the President tells me this is needed for global stability, or because its vital to our economy. Does Syria rise to the same level conflicts in the Gulf would? Or Asia with N/S Korea Japan, China etc?
He's killed 100's of thousands now why would how he kills them make so much of a difference to obama. What a tank blowing kids up ok, but a shell with sarin we have to step in? Because Saddam used plenty of that on his people on you would have never supported it just for that. Now you say a human rights situation we have to assist?
Why not just gear up to say no war unless we or our allies are attacked? Why set a precedent for civil wars?
Now if the president says kick ass then hell yeah lets get it done. Send the full force of our military and send a message to other countries we still got it. Maybe we could finally use those f-22 we have sitting around unproven in battle. Hell send in the air force and I'm sure the rebels would win in a couple months. Of course those rebels hate us but that doesn't seem to matter.