Elizabeth Warren said something very important about Syria.

[last1standing]

21. I apologize as well.

I think we all come to DU expecting to have a enlightened discussion but that hope quickly fades when we're repeatedly attacked for our honest beliefs. We can only be beaten up so many times before we stop looking for understanding and start looking for weak spots. It's a self-perpetuating cycle and I'm as guilty of falling into it as anyone.

Now to answer your posts, I don't have the facts or the experience to micromanage Obama on Russian politics or the upcoming war in Syria (and we will be going to war with Syria unless things change remarkably soon) so whether he meets with LGBT leaders in Russia or decides to put 1000 or 2000 troops on the ground in Syria isn't something I feel able to criticize him about. I do have a general belief that when you push a megalomaniac like Putin around too much, he's likely to eventually respond in ways that have real consequences, but I don't think that, in itself, is a reason to let him get away with human right violations or propping up murderers. I can only hope and trust that Obama knows what he's doing.

As for Israel bombing Syria and the UN's lack of response, I do believe that can be attributed to our wrong-headed policy of blocking any action against Israel regardless of the international crimes it commits. This isn't an Obama complaint, it's a US complaint. We've lost all credibility in the Middle-East because we support a rogue nation that bullies the entire region then hides between our legs while sticking its tongue out. They know they will get away with whatever they do because we'll always protect them from their actions. If we stopped sending aid to Israel (which they use in part to lobby for more aid), or conditioned our aid on a non-aggressive policy, many of our problems in the area would vanish. However, since the UN is not likely to stop Israel because of the US and not likely to stop Syria because of Russia, I think NATO becomes an alternative for international support. It's not great but it's probably all we've got.

For the events of today, do I want the US to attack Syria? No. I don't see on what grounds we're justified in doing so since both sides of this civil war are equally bad. In many ways it mirrors Iraq; yes, Hussein was a monster (whatever that means) but he kept order. Today's Iraq is a mess and will probably remain so until another monster who knows how to keep order comes along. Libya is shaping up along the same lines. So what makes anyone think Syria is going to magically come out differently? For what it's worth, I think your comparisons with FARC is spot on.

However, we are going to attack Syria. Obama and Kerry are maneuvering republicans to give them the open-ended war they want while bullying Democrats to accept it (sound familiar?). So, since we're going to go in, let's at least push for a real plan that covers all the lessons we should have learned from Iraq and Libya. Let's identify a strong leader who can take control in the aftermath, let's plan for escalation after we realize that missiles aren't doing the job, let's plan for alternative strategies when we realize that we've sent too few initial troops. Let's plan for allied troops (not rebels) to take control over any chemical weapons facilities. These are the things that we should be doing but instead Kerry is parroting Rumsfeld in saying that this will be a breeze so we don't have to plan.

Bill Clinton's legacy so far is that he was the best republican president of all time. So far I don't know what Obama's will be but I'm no very hopeful based on what I've seen. I do agree with you that it would raise his stature as a leader if he were to pull back and demand that the rest of the world take responsibility for it's actions.