No. We are already downsizing an army that was not large enough for the two small wars we have. And, we are broke, we can not afford it. If other countries feel strongly about this, let them pay and take care of it.
It's not in our national interest either in the long-term or short-term. The only thing sending more arms into Syria will accomplish is more blood shed by innocent civilians. The sad fact is that we surrendered the moral high ground squandering any credibility in the region we had as an honest broker with our invasion of Iraq based on the lie that there were weapons of mass destruction.
Its been established in many places including the writings of Iraqi Generals that there were weapons in October 2002 when we said there were. Then we waited 6 months on the UN which gave Saddam time to move them.
But I said no, though I do think it is in our national interest to arm them.
Israel is our ally. Israel is probably facing a war with Iran. Syria is an ally of Iran and is much closer to Israel. Getting them to be less of a threat to our ally is something of national interest considering the proximity of Syria to Israel.
But I voted no because I want something from them for arming them. I want unfettered access to the government and its policies after the current ruling establishment has been deposed. That way we can ensure fair elections and guide them into becoming another middle eastern democracy. We can't give them weapons like we did in Iraq in the 80's and expect a different outcome. We need to guide the development of their government through diplomacy and ensure we at least have a open ear to talk to when all is said and done.
Meddling in the affairs of Pro Islam countries is useless, they will, as usual blame us for everything that goes wrong, and at the end of the day, they will still hate America. Let them kill each other, it is what they do best.
After the people of Egypt ousted their leader and cried in the streets with ecstasy over the prospect of democracy, who do they put on the ballot? A Muslim Brotherhood candidate and a high-ranking military officer who did the bidding of the ousted leader. Go figure.
Just to be clear, there is a big difference between using our intelligence network in the region/arming a rebel group and launching a massive ground invasion, i.e. Iraq.
Keep our noses out of other
Keep our noses out of other Country's business or we will get sucked into their internal fight. If they want to slaughter each other, let them.
This simple question should
This simple question should apply whenever we consider this course of action..."Then what?"
No. End of story. Not our
No. End of story. Not our fight.
No. We are already downsizing
No. We are already downsizing an army that was not large enough for the two small wars we have. And, we are broke, we can not afford it. If other countries feel strongly about this, let them pay and take care of it.
It's not in our national
It's not in our national interest either in the long-term or short-term. The only thing sending more arms into Syria will accomplish is more blood shed by innocent civilians. The sad fact is that we surrendered the moral high ground squandering any credibility in the region we had as an honest broker with our invasion of Iraq based on the lie that there were weapons of mass destruction.
Its been established in many
Its been established in many places including the writings of Iraqi Generals that there were weapons in October 2002 when we said there were. Then we waited 6 months on the UN which gave Saddam time to move them.
But I said no, though I do think it is in our national interest to arm them.
Israel is our ally. Israel is probably facing a war with Iran. Syria is an ally of Iran and is much closer to Israel. Getting them to be less of a threat to our ally is something of national interest considering the proximity of Syria to Israel.
But I voted no because I want something from them for arming them. I want unfettered access to the government and its policies after the current ruling establishment has been deposed. That way we can ensure fair elections and guide them into becoming another middle eastern democracy. We can't give them weapons like we did in Iraq in the 80's and expect a different outcome. We need to guide the development of their government through diplomacy and ensure we at least have a open ear to talk to when all is said and done.
Meddling in the affairs of
Meddling in the affairs of Pro Islam countries is useless, they will, as usual blame us for everything that goes wrong, and at the end of the day, they will still hate America. Let them kill each other, it is what they do best.
After the people of Egypt
After the people of Egypt ousted their leader and cried in the streets with ecstasy over the prospect of democracy, who do they put on the ballot? A Muslim Brotherhood candidate and a high-ranking military officer who did the bidding of the ousted leader. Go figure.
Just to be clear, there is a
Just to be clear, there is a big difference between using our intelligence network in the region/arming a rebel group and launching a massive ground invasion, i.e. Iraq.
An aside, although it
An aside, although it pertains to this topic, I always liked what Jon Huntsman had to say about this issue....
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Sv7MHJlME]
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ifEA6Tp-6c]