miamizsun wrote: 

Hey, I have been saying this from the get go.  This is wrong on every level, morally and logistically.

 cc_rider wrote: 
and we don't spend enough on war and mass destruction anyway....

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
we're pledging a lot of weapons/training and drones not to mention our leaders throw in 50 million dollars a day to support the rebels who support al kayda

anyone see the wisdom in this?

bueller? bueller? anyone?

 miamizsun wrote:  Well, the people who buy our leaders love it.

 miamizsun wrote: 

yep, it's profitable.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Still waiting for that war for which no one shows up.

 miamizsun wrote: 

This will end well for NO ONE.

our leaders seem to love endless war...

 sirdroseph wrote: 
I agree and for all the reasons you mentioned.  I kinda came to the same conclusion about a week or so ago.  It crystalized when McCain went over and visited Syria.  If we partnered up with Russia on this it wuld send a real strong message to the radical Islamists, that their party is over.

Glad to know that I am not alone in these thoughts.

Just watching the news and had a brilliant idea. We should blow everyone's mind and support Assad. Think about it, no question Assad remaining in power is the safest move. The devil you know scenario. Stabilization is key and Assad status quo is the only way to achieve this imo. We should work with Russia, having a common goal with improve our relationship as well. I even think that Israel fares better with the Shia as opposed to the Sunni. There is a precarious and precise balance of different factions all opposing each other holding this thing together and a Sunni takeover of Syria not only would leave Islamic extremists who hate America and Israel more than the Shia in control, it would preclude doing so by defeating not only Assad but Hezbollah itself. You're talking about a powder keg that could literally set off WWIII.
Oh and it is the only way to stop the killing of innocent civilians, there is that too.

 kurtster wrote: 
Zackly!   Except Israel. They're going to take the brunt of it for us.

 gypsyman wrote: 
Except that Iran is backig Assad.  Eff McCain.

Let the Russians have this mess.  The status quo is in our best interest.

To hell with the Middle East. 

Drill baby drill ... Drill for Peace

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Generally speaking, McCain is an idiot on everything. I agree with you - let the bastards kill each other all they want. Except, if we could get Syria to attack Iran. That would be something worth meddling in.... 

No, just no.  I think we should just pretend like Syria doesn't exists and point to squirrels anytime anyone even suggests we should do anything at all. It is a Dave Mason situation; there ain't no good guy, there ain't no good guy, there just you and me and ....no.

Mccain is being an idiot on this.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

I thought that they were fair remarks.  Schlabby has presented uber disgust with Romney openly and repeatedly over the course of the election.  He has only expressed mild objections to Obama.  One could say fairly that I have acted in the opposite fashion.  I will not speculate on why he voted for Obama and put words in his mouth.  I will admit that my vote for Romney was a vote against Obama, but it was also a vote for Romney in as much as I did support many of his positions.  I can't say that I support very many of Obama's.

I think that I can safely infer ( in a broadbrushed way ) that anyone who voted for Obama did so for two reasons.  A) they supported Obama and his positions which are very well known and / or B) they feared what Romney might be / do if he became POTUS.  There is a third possiblity that it was just a plain hatred of anything Republican that was a motivating factor.

Conversely, a vote for Romney can be construed as a vote against Obama's very well known policies, or a hope for something different with a new POTUS and / or a vote against anything Democrat in some cases as well. 

The debates ?  Well IMO the turning point was when Candy Crowley got up and injected herself and defended Obama on Benghazi.  She was wrong to do it as well as wrong on the events she cited in her defense of Obama.  Reading the lack of any real objections to Crowley's actions in the electorate and the rest of the MSM, Romney was DOA from that point on.  The third debate could have centered on Benghazi, but it was already apparent that there was too much apathy to overcome and Romney would simply appear to be beating a dead horse.  The apathy over Benghazi is still unbelievable.  Romney was simply reduced to a me too status in a quest to appear to be presidential versus confrontational.  It sealed the deal for Romney.  Romney could have rightly gone off on Benghazi, but it would have fallen on deaf ears and done more harm than good at that point.

What would be different with Syria under Romney versus Obama ?  We will never know.  One thing is highly likely, there would be some reservations towards acting hastily because he would be newly elected.  Obama on the other hand is already up to his neck and commited to a course of action already, despite any appearances otherwise.  He has to be simply because he is already in charge and must have plans of action already in place.  Beyond that, anything else about Syria regarding Romney is uber speculation.

Maybe I am wrong, but voting in a state where the outcome of the electoral votes is not in question, an opposing vote to the predicted winner can be interpreted as a endorsement of the person and their policies being voted for.  That would be true for any candidate, be it one of the two main candidates or an unlikely 3rd P candidate.  There is more than one issue to vote on the ballot.  Simply not voting for an issue / candidate and voting on other issues where no write ins are available makes more sense to me than casting a vote for someone just to vote against someone else.

As for Richard, he just appears to be attacking anything American with his poly posts.  With Beaker for example, we knew where he stood on American politics.  He was for someone / something and made it clear.  Richard just wants to be against everything and for nothing.  My motivation is simply to get Richard to declare what he is for.  I know that will never happen.  Like his occupation says on his profile, Meme distributor.  'Nuff said.

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurt, with as much dialogue as you have had with Richard and Schlabby I would have thought by now you would know that neither is a big fan of Obama and has probably posted as many critical post regarding him as you have. I really don't think that you are enlightening any of us by pointing your finger and saying I told you so to those that clearly do not and have never drank any kool aid in the first place. It is quite unbecoming and unproductive.  As a matter of fact, I don't think that most here are learning anything new regarding Obama's foreign policy failings from what I have seen posted over the years. Even those that voted for him expressed dissatisfaction with his hard core foreign policy stances that seemed to be more in line with Neo cons. Without speaking for others, I would guess that most people that participate in these threads that voted for Obama, much like you were not voting for him but against the untenable Republicans just as you were voting against "the socialists monster" Obama.

Edit: And besides, just what exactly different would you have expected Romney to do?  I think during the Jingoistic love fest of a the foreign policy "debate?" both candidates made it quite clear they would continue the same path of American Imperialism we have always been on, supporting whatever du jour faction will get us what we want at any given time.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Yep. your preference for POTUS is sleeping with the enemy.

Doing the same thing with his guy Morsi in Egypt, too.

Are you happy with the unrest in the Middle East and Northeastern Africa ?

 oldslabsides wrote: 
What do you want the prez to do about Syria ?

Didn't he make his plans for Syria clear during the campaign ?

Didn't you vote for him ?

What exactly does the president plan to do if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against the rebels? Tactically, eliminating the weapons would be very similar to the largely unsuccessful campaign during the gulf war to eliminate Iraq's Scud missiles. Besides, once again we'd be playing World Cop in a situation that is none of our damn business.

US Sends More Spies to Help Organize, Train Syria’s Rebels
The President has chosen to contribute to an opposition filled with al-Qaeda extremists