that the UN will authorize force in Syria or Iran in the same way that it did in Libya? If you answered with any percentage greater than 0, then you should check your work and re-submit.

and recognize that sticks are antiquated symbols of aggression and repression, which a truly Progressive man knows never solved anything.

Then blame Bush.”

we should have gone in. (Now that Obama has already left the unarmed, pro-democracy, anti-fundamentalist protesters of Iran to their fate.) Syria has an anti-American dictator whose regime has already killed tens of thousands of its citizens, WMD programs, proven support of terrorism – you name it. All of Obama’s anti-Qaddafi rhetoric is a hundred times more valid against Assad.

nt

Seems that every time the US tries to help some “movement”, it turns out to be the Muslim Brotherhood and/or Al Qaeda. Better to save our money and military personal. Besides, we don’t have budget for anything at this point.

Intimidate and twist the arms of our allies who the U.S. has leverage over to do what we want them to, or throw them under the bus if that’s expedient, because they can’t (or won’t) fight back.

On the other hand, regarding our enemies who we don’t have leverage over to do what we want and who will fight back if we exert power – those are the ones who we leave alone.

Lesson: standing next to President Obama is the most dangerous place to be.

Plus Obama subscribes to the ideological blinders of the anti-U.S. “anti-imperialism” movement of the 70s, stuck in a time warp, failing to recognize that the world has changed in 40 years.

We see the same pattern in domestic policy.

No way are we going to provide “humanitarian “support for the Syrian protesters. Nope Obama chose Libya. The only thing I can think of is that because China has a President that we can’t toss, the plan now is to oust Gaddafi, and then Obama can move in and become General/King/Saviour/Grand Poobah whatever of Libya. Unfortunately that would leave the US without its” leader” so I suppose we would have to muddle through with old Joe. And somehow old Joe ain’t looking too bad these days. He may want his own railroad but he doesn’t aspire to be President of China or any othe foreign country.

Obama doesn’t have a doctrine. He ust lets the PRESSSident lead the way, on everything… What could possibly go wrong?

Next question…

Obama doesn’t have a doctrine. He just lets the PRESSSident (aka the lame stream media) lead the way… on everything…

What could possibly go wrong?

Next question…

Is to be thuggish on domestic matters and inept and feckless in foreign affairs. The question is whether it’s intentional or just the result of being in over his head. I think it’s the former, that he has a burning anger for all things most Americans love (except golf and basketball).

What Would Chamberlain Do?

Talk a lot. Do nothing of significance when it matters. Make symbolic idiotic gestures when it’s to late to make a difference.

And inevitably follow France around like a teenager experiencing his first crush.

Let them both lose. Hama rules apply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

Preventing Iranian-backed Shi’ites from taking over Bahrain, and then moving on Saudi Arabia’s Shi’ite heavy oil regions is in our interest. Giving Damascus, the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate, to the Muslim Brotherhood is not in our interest.

So I quote our old friend;

The exceptional circumstances in which Bonaparte and France found themselves since the Wars of the Revolution, allowed him to achieve major victories on almost every occasion, and people began to assume that the plans and actions created by those circumstances were universal norms. But such a view would summarily reject all of the earlier history of war, which is absurd. If we wish to derive an art of war from the history of war -and that is undoubtedly the only possible way-we must not minimize the testimony of history. Suppose we find that out of fifty wars forty-nine have been of the second kind- that is, wars with limited objectives, not directed at the total defeat of the enemy -then we would have to believe that these limitations reside in the nature of war itself, instead of being in every case brought about by wrong ideas, lack of energy, or whatever. We must not allow ourselves to be misled into regarding war as a pure act of force and of destruction, and from this simplistic concept logically deduce a string of conclusions that no longer have anything to do with the real world. Instead we must recognize that war is a political act that is not wholly autonomous; a true political instrument that does not function on its own but is controlled by something else, by the hand of policy.