I was bothered by Nancy Pelosi meeting with Syria a few years back while she was Speaker of the House & Bush was president. The President sets US foreign policy and has a Secretary of State and Ambassadors to manage that task for him. Plain and simple, it is improper for a sitting senator or congressman to meet with foreign power in the middle of a civil war without the president’s approval or at his request. It should be a criminal act that would result in his loss of office at the least. It looks to me like pure politics, the Republicans sit back and criticise Obama for the thousands of lives lost there and America’s inaction. They are trying to goad him into acting, expecting poor results and resulting political disaster to hammer him with….After Benghazie, how much more ammo could they need?
And this is another potential Viet Nam or Korea that we would do well to avoid. Here we are sitting home on our front porch & down the street a pit bull & rottweiler are fighting in a neighbor’s yard. What good will come to us by reaching in between these two? Is either dog going to thank us? More likely, both will turn on us and chew us up! Republicans seem to be wanting to become active in this fight. Obama has shown interest also & looks to have been a silent player supplying weapons thru the now deceased Ambassador Stevens. Consider how Libya turned out for the US. Why expect anything different in Syria? Also consider this will put us in conflict with Russia. What could we possibly gain that would make it worthwhile to the US?
I think McCain & Republicans have the worldview that unless America keeps the “peace” in some areas, we will someday find ourselves facing another superpower in a world war. Both Russia & China(2) seem intent on expanding their influence. Both also seem to be intent on gaining natural resources such as oil & natural gas, especially offshore regions not yet being exploited.(1) And finally, both are using the threat of military force to stake their claims. Who but the United States would dare to challenge either in a military confrontation? What better way to improve their odds than to keep America tangled up fighting in the Middle East?
(Reuters) – Russia plans to resume nuclear submarine patrols in the southern seas after a hiatus of more than 20 years following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Itar-Tass news agency reported on Saturday, in another example of efforts to revive Moscow’s military.
The plan to send Borei-class submarines, designed to carry 16 long-range nuclear missiles, to the southern hemisphere follows President Vladimir Putin’s decision in March to deploy a naval unit in the Mediterranean Sea on a permanent basis starting this year.
“The revival of nuclear submarine patrols will allow us to fulfill the tasks of strategic deterrence not only across the North Pole but also the South Pole,” state-run Itar-Tass cited an unnamed official in the military General Staff as saying.
I do agree with what I see as the “McCainthink” that Russia may be using Syria and it will not be “good” for the US. I cannot see any threat at this time, so see no need for us to become involved. We tried the Republican approach in Afghanistan & Iraq, won the wars, lost the peace. We tried the progressive method in Egypt and Libya with less American lives lost, but where is the prize at the end? Where are the grateful people praising America & our soldiers who fought and died for them? What is the worst thing that can happen if the US stays out of ALL Middle East conflicts? Israel may fall. A new Ottoman Empire may arise (3), perhaps with Iran the center of power. If we step back, the other players in that region will have to step forward and control their fate. Turkey and Saudi Arabia could counter Iran, but prefer to use America as their shield. How is that “good” for us? What nationality were most of the 9/11 hijackers? And if Iran becomes the Middle East “super power” and unites all these fractions under one banner, is that “bad” for the US? At least then we would have a solid target instead of these shadow organizations to have a real showdown with and a war that could be won.
Now excuse me while I contradict myself. I would support Israel. Mainly with weapons support and financial. Why? Why do I say not to meddle but then advocate meddling? I cannot see a future where America will be allowed to live in peace. 9/11 happened, as did the Boston massacre. Muslim extremists are fighting a war against any & all who do not submit to their sect of Islam. We are willing to peacefully coexist with them. So is Israel, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, Spain, France….but they are not willing to live with us in peace unless we are slaves. And they control nations with armies. Maybe it’s bias, I am sorta a Christian and feel loyalty to the Jews, but I think it is in the US’s interest to support Israel. They are fighting for their survival, every day. When they are not fighting, it’s because their enemies are taking a breather and re-loading. The best thing for Israel would be for the USA to be very active in the Middle East and attract some attention away from them. The best thing for the US is to let any and all battles to be fought over their and not here. A million or so Muslim fanatics want to die fighting for there cause. It would give me great pleasure if they did die, as soon as possible, so the rest of us can try to live with a neighbor that mows his lawn at 9:30 at night. I can live with the nightmower a lot easier than the killorenslavetheworld guy…. But it would be a lot easier if he decided to kill all the Israelis first, since it’s a long-boat ride and airplane food must be made to offend everyone, so with just us stepping out of the spotlight and giving Israel, not Egypt, F16’s, it’s a win/win for the US.