Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman
There are many things he could have done. He could have publically thrown U.S. support behind those uprising for Democracy. He could have thrown public support behind the Iranian's who were starting to form protests but who quickly quit without our support. He could have formed coalitions with countries other than China and Russia to help send arms, logistics, training and support to those uprising against their tyranny and helped them do the work that we need for our security. He could have provided no fly zones and given those fighting on the ground the opportunity to even the playing field.
Instead, he has let the poor Syrian's languish and die daily in their fight for democracy and has given Bashar al-Assad the opportunity to kill off any opposition to his government and strengthen his bond with Iran. Even publically supporting these people and letting them know the U.S. was with them likely would have made a big difference instead of idly standing by.
Other countries have come to expect the U.S. to act like leaders. Instead of acting like a leader, he deferred to let the U.N. to take action that they are not prepared to take and now we have a huge failure which may result in at least parts of some of these countries turning into terrorist camps to further harm our security. That is not a leader.
It will be interesting to see what the response will be the killing of one of our diplomats, I am not too confident it will be a swift and appropriate measure to deter others from doing so.
|
but, what is the point in supporting democracy, if we are then going to bitch about what party takes power in those countries? that doesn't make much sense to me.
as for the attacks on the embassies, exactly what do you feel is swift or appropriate?
09-12-2012, 05:16 PM
Threaded Mode