In response to:

Syria's Insurrection Is Not America's War

Gary634 Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 10:32 AM
The problem is this: America is damned if we do and damned if we don't! When Iraq was liberated from a decades old Saddam regime, the Iraqi's rejoiced. Within months, however, their joy became anger, directed at the U.S. military, who were attempting to help in the transitioin to what we hoped would become a democratic state. The same thing happened, when the Twin Towers were bombed...Americans (mostly dim bulbed democrats, mind you) would have gone to court to force G.W. Bush to retaliate. They didn't need to, because retaliation, such as had happened in 1941, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, was a given.
Gary634 Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 10:44 AM
Then, when the War or Terro began to drag out (which is exactly what "W" said would happen, when he made his plans known) democrats lined up to condemn the entire War, accusing Bush of only being interested in the oil, beneath Iraq ... all the while forgetting that he'd warned the Iraqis not to burn THEIR oil wells, because they would need the revenue, therein, to help rebuild what would be destroyed as America's military ran the entire Saddam regime out of the country.

So, when Obama was running for president, one of his, ill-conceived, lies was that he'd pull the American military out of Iraq, within his first 100 days in office and also said he had plans to end the War on Terror, garnering the votes of many first-time voters, who...
Gary634 Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 10:44 AM
Then, when the War or Terro began to drag out (which is exactly what "W" said would happen, when he made his plans known) democrats lined up to condemn the entire War, accusing Bush of only being interested in the oil, beneath Iraq ... all the while forgetting that he'd warned the Iraqis not to burn THEIR oil wells, because they would need the revenue, therein, to help rebuild what would be destroyed as America's military ran the entire Saddam regime out of the country.

So, when Obama was running for president, one of his, ill-conceived, lies was that he'd pull the American military out of Iraq, within his first 100 days in office and also said he had plans to end the War on Terror, garnering the votes of many first-time voters, who...
HermanBB Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 10:43 AM
To Gary

So Iraq was "liberated"?

Tell that to the over 2 million (mainly) Christians who had to flee Iraq after the witless Bush "liberated' them. Almost 10% of the country.

The secular Hussein at least tolerated Christians in Iraq. The Islamic people who took over don't.
JaneM Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 11:24 AM
herman-want to mention the Christians that are being persecuted in Egypt since that wonderful arab spring.
MoreFreedom Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 10:41 AM
We're not damned if we don't invade Syria. And why should we be? We've signed no contract or made any promises to protect Syrians, and many would refuse if offered (especially if they had to pay for it).

One thing is for sure, if we pick a side in a war, we'll make enemies. Staying out of it only makes discontents of those who make money from war. And that would be the military industrial complex, and those politicians who get money from it to promote military spending (and hopefully also increase the need for military spending due to new enemies we make).
In pushing for U.S. military intervention in Syria -- arming the insurgents and using U.S. air power to "create safe zones" for anti-regime forces "inside Syria's borders" -- The Washington Post invokes "vital U.S. interests" that are somehow imperiled there.

Exactly what these vital interests are is left unexplained.

For 40 years, we have lived with a Damascus regime led by either Bashar Assad or his father, Hafez Assad. Were our "vital interests" in peril all four decades?

In 1991, George H.W. Bush recruited the elder Assad into his Desert Storm coalition that liberated Kuwait. Damascus sent 4,000 troops. In gratitude,...