I get the desire not to engage in full-scale war...but we're okay with chemical weapons?

[RobinA]

69. I'll Answer You Straight

I am a flaming liberal who is not particularly doveish. I was in favor of Bosnia (humanitarian) and even challenging Saddam's march to the sea (national security). I do think we have a right and the President has a duty, to look out for national interests.

However, our recent (and not so recent) forays into world policemenship have not gone well and have actually harmed this country. Iraq was a purposeless disaster. Afghanistan seems to have been purposeful, but still a bit of a disaster. We seem to be utterly at sea when it comes to operating in the Middle East, as we REALLY don't understand the culture. One more war over there is not going to finally be the one that works, because nothing has changed. We don't understand what we are doing over there, and we need to cut our loses before any more terrorists get born/made/recruited. Yes, they are doing bad things to innocent people. But they are going to have to start solving this stuff themselves.

Maybe if we (and our allies, looking at you France and GB ) hadn't been mucking around over there for lo these many decades, they'd be closer to sorting things out for themselves. Or maybe not.

In my view we need to protect our oil interests, be working double time to get off oil as soon as possible, and then pull out of there lock stock and barrel (so to speak) and let them run things as they see fit. Meanwhile we can back up Israel when they run into trouble they haven't instigated.

Right now we are like the person standing in the river bank upstream from Niagra Falls who sees a person being swept towards the falls, so jumps in after him to try to save him. And we both go over. Sometimes you just can't solve the problem.

No to Syria.