<b>Obama's options: They're all bad</B> By Tom Foreman, CNN updated 6:23 AM EDT, Sat August 31, 2013 As more than one pundit has noted, President Barack Obama now has three choices in Syria: Bad, worse, and horrible. At least the evidence is steadily stacking up to suggest that is the case. So let's break down those options, including some that have already come and gone in this tortured march toward a possible military engagement: Option 1: Ground troops You don't have to be a political scientist to know that American voters are exhausted by more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would show little or no tolerance for more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Option 2: Establishing a no-fly zone Maintaining such a presence over the months it might take to have an impact would be hideously expensive, and would involve endangering U.S. pilots with highly uncertain results in a battle that many Americans find confusing at best, baffling at worst. Option 3: Arming the rebels "Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, is generally acknowledged to be the most effective force fighting," says CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen who adds, "Al-Nusra's military prowess and close ties to al Qaeda make it a potentially serious threat to U.S. interests in the region." Option 4: Securing United Nations' support Not going to happen without some other major developments in Syria. Russia and China have left no doubt that they will oppose any effort at the U.N. to approve a strike, and other countries have hardly shown much appetite for the subject. Option 5: Assembling a coalition without the U.N. One by one, however, names have slipped off of the list from this support group. And with the British Parliament now having rejected the idea of Britain's military getting involved, Obama is looking more and more like the lone commander charging the hill while his allies hunker down in the trenches. Option 6: Firing missiles from warships in the Mediterranean Yes, it is pretty much down to that now, and even that option is complicated. However, all the days of wrangling have given the Syrians an immense amount of time to hide their own weapons, secure their airplanes, and disperse critical command and control assets. Should the Tomahawks start flying, they may well find themselves crashing down into an inordinate number of empty buildings. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/politics/obama-syria-options/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Will this be Obama's greatest foreign policy failure?
1. We've got to stop being the cop of the World. We're hanging ourselves with this bs, and our Founding Fathers would flip over it. 2. IF we have to react in the Middle East, or elsewhere due to eminent threat to THE US, then we react with balls, and get it done. 3. We have the worst, most destructive president in our history making decisions that are harming us more than most can comprehend. Since he's also a spineless joke, and other countries know it, I can't imagine at this point pissing off Russia, china, Iran, Hezbollah, etc., on top of all our other government-created messes.:eek:
America should not be involved in any military action, anywhere... unless we intend to pound the adversary into submission.... with overwhelming force and as fast as possible... risking as few of American lives as possible. Short of that, we should STAY THE FUCK OUT!! All of our faux efforts in the ME have been a DISGRACE to our Founders' principles.
These are innocent people get killed by gas (recall something similar happened =- 70 years ago). Look the other way, is that a good "option"?
Syria: Putin rubbishes chemical attack claims ⢠Russian president goes on offensive against Obama Saturday 31 August 2013 12.31 BST Vladimir Putin has rejected US intelligence claims that Bashar al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons in Syria, saying it would be "utter nonsense" for government troops to use such tactics in a war it was already winning. "That is why I am convinced that [the chemical attack] is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States," Putin told journalists in Vladivostok. The Russian president also challenged the US to present its case for military intervention to the UN security council, after suggesting that if Barack Obama was worthy of his Nobel peace prize, he should think about the possible victims of any intervention by foreign forces. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/syria-un-weapons-inspectors-leave Chemical schlemical.