A Case for Not Bombing Syria

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Misdirection ploy...brilliant....now if Russia-Syria back out of the agreed upon disposal of chem weapons then we go back to bombing..

You realize the rebels include and may be controlled by al Qaida?

Yes or no w/o a cartoon, do you support bombing Assad?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You realize the rebels include and may be controlled by al Qaida?

Yes or no w/o a cartoon, do you support bombing Assad?

My understanding is he is not taking sides, just halt the use of chem weapons...why do we care?...not sure but inaction could embolden Assad and others...had a cartoon that would fit here but can't find the sucker..

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

My understanding is he is not taking sides, just halt the use of chem weapons...why do we care?...not sure but inaction could embolden Assad and others...had a cartoon that would fit here but can't find the sucker..

I care if the chemical weapons were taken over by the rebels, especially if they are al-Qaida, the basis of this thread.

The President drew a line in the sand w/Assad not the rebels. The President wanted to bomb Syria, not me (don't know where 'I wanted to bomb' started) and luckily neither did the public and to a lessor extent, congress. Never thought I'd be in support of Putin, but think Obama should consider handing off the Nobel Peace Prize to him for now.

IMO It has served the President well distracting from the continuous rising costs of funding a plan that was promised to save money. Kind of like rust-proofing a rust-proof car saves money preventing rust.