Originally Posted by cutthemdown
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.
You're referring to a president who has a hawkish policy on using drones to kill people, which many times results in the death of children. I don't think he cares as much about the little children as you think he does.
As far as saying no war unless we're attacked, that's more or less what I advocate, although the use of chemical and nuclear weapons is something that draws ire from the global community, and requires action. I say act because we have to, but let someone else lead the way.