Moment of Truth In The Middle East.

BS - that was Spiderman's uncle.

 

Can you not imagine the global cluster**** and posturing that would result from another country stepping on the toes of the US in a political or diplomatic issue?

The US has worked hard to position itself as the top dog in global politics. Wanting, needing, asking or allowing someone else to simply take the lead is akin to the CEO of a major corporation stepping down for the afternoon while the file clerk runs the company.

That other countries defer to the US on foreign policy should be a positive in your mind, not something that need be changed on a whim.

 

We are indirectly compensated by collection and aquisition of finite resources within the sovergn borders of other countries, business dealings and branding. Branding is important.

 

Try not to act so surprised!

 

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.



Seriously, I hadn't thought about that angle at all really until I saw your post.

 

Many don't realize that Australia, for instance, has been involved with ground forces in every major military operation the US has had since WW1.

We are a super power of 300 million people. We are one of the biggest boys on the block no matter how you decide to measure it. We can't expect nations of less than 30 million to match our military presence.

 

All that said, I still don't know what the best course of action is. I really don't. Cruise missiles aren't enough IMO, but I'm not sure what is.

I also think that if a 2016 candidate says they'll stare Russia and China in the eye and not seek their approval on everything that they'll have my vote regardless of party.

 

I'm not as confident that when a regime shift occurs they'll be jumping or able to work with the US given their ties. Right now it appears we're aiding the lesser of two evils while screwing Russia in the process. I haven't seen anyone mention Iran's comments about attacking Israel either. This situation is much more complex given all the cogs involved than folks are making it. That's why I've said before this has the potential to get extremely ugly before all is said and done.

 

I just hate letting emotion drive policy.

I'm not against action, but don't see the point of doing something half-assed or like a dog pissing in the snow.

 

I don't think it is emotional to have a plan that seeks to destroy their chemical weapon capabilities.

 

Russia is the supplier, imo. Would you advise taking them on to stop their capabilities.

 

Hey genius, who wrote the story????????

 

That the world does not want us to serve as the "global police" is exactly my point.

I don't think that any woman should stay in an abusive relationship, and that we should offer any number of resources to extricate herself from it....but if she doesn't want our help...and will go right back to it, if given a choice....what are we doing it for? By what authority do I have to force her exit, or to punish her abusive husband, without her consent?

But that aside, and just so I understand - it is our military might / economic resources / willingness to act (despite others not wishing us to do so, or the fact that others could, but won't) - which you believe compels us to act?

If true, where else might this line of reasoning be similarly evidenced, elsewhere?

It sounds eerily close to "might makes right", which as we all know, is no adequate standard by which to gauge the validity of any action.

 

Please tell me what part of bombing Syria will work toward the US' defense, or to protect and promote its interests?

 

One of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me.

Thanks!

P.S. - We both know that I am not man enough to last a single week as a teacher. NYYVol has a better chance of going on a lecture circuit to instruct Franciscan monks on the benefits of chastity.

 

I have no problem with the US being "the new Rome" - in fact, I relish and delight in it.

But, be that. Or not. But pick one.

 

It's no act.

Hey-O!

 

It would require more than your opinion as evidence before seriously considering that sort of option.

 

And not a month too late.

If we are the "global police" as you assert, then perhaps we should realize that the most effective law enforcement is one that best deters crime, beforehand, instead of simply punishing it, afterward.

 

I'm not convinced there is a right answer. This is quite possibly the perverbial Kobayashi Maru.

My only response is that some things can't be tolerated. For me, this is one. This is the 2nd time they have been used. Inaction only invites a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.