On December 2, President Obama warned Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad that there will be consequences if he decides to use chemical weapons. We have just endured two Iraqi Wars. We are still in Afghanistan. Are we on our way to greater involvement in Syria? [video=youtube;lz4f6XuqOdo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lz4f6XuqOdo[/video]
I would think progressives would be complaining about Obama's saber rattling, but apparently they are fine with the idea of going to war in Syria, just like they were fine with Libya. If it's not related to sexual license or redistribution of wealth, progressives can go either way if it means political victory. No principles.
I would think conservatives would be thrilled by the opportunity to kill arabs, but apparently they only support action against the arabs when a Republican is President. On a serious note- if Syria uses chemical weapons against its own citizens, I would be fine with the U.S. dropping cruise missiles on Assad's likely location, and I would be fine with supporting Turkey as a member of NATO if Turkey called upon NATO to protect against the threat of Chemical weapons. Supporting a coalition headed by Turkey to depose someone using Chemical weapons would likely cost about as many American lives as our action in Libya did....as opposed to how many American lives we lost in Iraq with a full scale invasion.
Depends, did Obama know that Rummy who sold the Sarin-agents to Saddam to use on Irainians and Kurds still existed ? ... conservatives should be happy that these were the WMD's Bush couldn't find underneath the podium at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner ... Sad.
Only if a Republican is in power. Then it's nightly updates to the soldier death tolls and graphic footage of war victims. That all ended after Obama took office, just like all the negative economic headlines stopped a month after Clinton took office in the early 90's.
