When Shrub chumped U.S. allies into the Iraq war.....

Now our allies are saying, "you're on your own". They ain't gonna follow us into Syria. It's like the Who song..."We won't get fooled again." Looks like the world dictator has clay feet. Shrub ended U.S. global influence.
So here's the scenario...U.S. bombs Syria, Russia and Iran retaliate by bombing Israel, Israel bombs Iran, China bombs Israel and ends economic trade with U.S., oil raises to $500.00 a barrel, republicans blame Obama.

Second scenario... Obama does nothing, republicans blame Obama for being weak on defense.

 

You need to do some more research: France, who said no to us over Iraq, has said they'd back us in a strike against Syria.

First scenario, Russia isn't going to bomb Israel and neither is China if Israel hits Iran if they decide to get uppity. Neither Russia or China are as stupid as you believe. Honestly, I don't think Iran is either. If the US strikes Syria I doubt any of those three nations (Iran, Russia, and China) are going to fight a war they know they cannot win for a country they know they cannot save.

 

Isn't hangover going to blame those evil Koch bros.?

 

At least make your insults make sense in the terms of the thread. Right?

 

With the words "Doing nothing still has consequences" ringing in my ears as I write,even as one who supports the British decision I have to say that I'm not entirely comfortable with it. Seems to me that there is no 'right thing to do' in this. If the Allies target Assads chemical weapon stockpiles theres the risk of poisonous emissions for the populace. Targeting their military is to side with the Rebels.

Now that we know that Al Qaeda are an established part of the Rebel cause the outcome of their victory could be a whole lot worse,for the Syrian people, than Assad remaining in power. Which is the lesser of the two evils ?

 

Which side in the internal Syrian conflict has threatened the security of the U.S.?