Comments on: What would Romney do about Syria?

By: Peertoperr

Peertoperr — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:01:33 +0000

Typical Weekly Standard bias. They view this through the eyes of Obama vs Romney, instead of looking at all the aspects of the question 1) what are those “interests that america has in Syria?” Weekly standard is silent on that – 2) Can they predict if a new regime will protect those interests or not? 3) what would be the total cost of US direct involvement in terms of reduction in our quality of life (since republicans want to pay for wars by reducing medicare and medicaid. Isn’t preserving medicare and medicauid an American interest?. Weekly Standard = a joke of journalism and thought leadership.

By: KyleDexter

KyleDexter — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:42:41 +0000

@ Lee Smith, if you wish to overthrow Assad, go to Syria and plan an overthrow. Otherwise, mind your own business!!!!

Thats the problem with our foreign policy. We are acting like policeman, and believe me, we cannot afford it. WE ARE BANKRUPT!!!!!!

By: JediKnight12

JediKnight12 — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:48:35 +0000

Nothing

By: running

running — Thu, 31 May 2012 23:42:47 +0000

what should Syria do about Syria

By: notnews

notnews — Thu, 31 May 2012 20:12:47 +0000

Does the presence of the only Russian naval base on the Med. in Tartus not have something to do with the White House stance on involvement?

By: Flash1022

Flash1022 — Thu, 31 May 2012 11:00:57 +0000

The Syrian people will work this out for their benefit. We can nudge them along, but full involvement is a folly. Our values and ideology are not theirs. They have their own perceptions and beliefs.

We would again find ourselves in another awkward and unjustified and out of control conflict.

Larry

By: ShahSher

ShahSher — Thu, 31 May 2012 00:14:22 +0000

It seems the interest of European leaders is far from diplomacy, whyare NATO countries resentful of diplomatic moves? It seems strange that Syria would commit such a heinous crime in front of the U.N observers that they invited into the country. We need to investigate the agenda of the government and opposition forces and determine what objectives each side is working towards.

There are several points to consider:
1. The BBC’s fabrication of evidence.
2. According to Ban Ki Moon the massacre occurred in an area “outside of the government control”.
3. Some of the victims were beheaded; unusual method for a conventional armed force.
4. Artillery fire was also available to the opposition.
5. The Syrian government had no motive for this act which would have potentially invited military intervention, sectarian violence and destroyed any moral legitimacy for peace.

Why would the government shell an area with militia present. Do we have any militia casualties? It doesnt make any sense. The BBC seem to be having a field day with this, first it was the government, now its militia. There should be an immediate probe in to this incident. Shah Sher

By: brooklyknight

brooklyknight — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:09:08 +0000

Pretty valid points, except one.

“Not since the Cold War have the Russians enjoyed such diplomatic prestige – and all thanks to Obama’s foreign policy weakness.”

Obama’s “lead from behind” strategy is not weakness. It is strength. It is challenging those who have challenged our aggressive actions abroad to take the lead and see for themselves what it’s like to handle. Yes, America taking control instead of Russia would have probably resulted in less deaths, but realistically, that’s not our problem. The international community needs to learn that they don’t handle these things right, so that we can have you “told you so” moment.

Also, Obama is the first President to realize that American can’t just tell everyone else what to do all the time. We have to have respect for others. We have to reach across party lines in our own country and in the international community.