Russia is running circles around our country's clueless foreign policy. Obama's politically motivated actions to prematurely pull US forces out of Iraq have now led to chaos in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have pushed Europe to the limit, and now Russia is ramping up its efforts in Syria, presumably to back Assad, who Obama opposes and wants out. This is the result of Obama's weak leadership. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ops-bombs-non-ISIS-forces-fighting-Assad.html Russia moves to a war-footing: Putin signs decree drafting 150,000 conscripts into the military... as his jets launch new wave of air strikes in Syria -Russia launches second day of bombing runs on rebel groups in Syria -Putin's Chechen ally calls on Moscow to deploy Muslim troops against ISIS -Kremlin accused of targeting moderate rebels backed by U.S and not ISIS -Moscow foreign minister Lavrov rejected the 'rumours' as 'unfounded' -Hundreds of Iranian and Hezbollah troops 'set to launch ground offensive'
QUESTION: Are you willing to give Obama the kind of Power and Autonomy that Putin has? Putin really doesn't have to deal with congress or the polls of the america people's opinions. So . . .are we willing to give presidents this kind of power? Rocket River
Our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster for decades. What do you want him to do? More of the same that we have been doing for the past few decades? Less is more for the US after all the train wrecks we've caused over there.
This is a policy the Republicans will also adopt. There's been too much unnecessary killing of US troops - it's important to detach themselves from ME and let the muslim world govern themselves. Maintain enough power in oil rich countries like Saudi and the UAE and let the rest prop themselves up. One failed war after another shows you can't bring civilization to people who wish to remain rooted to a barbaric ideology.
Good point. I mean, why couldn't Obama have supported Assad's grasp on power, and had his state church declare war on ISIS and coordinate air attacks with our totally reliable allies on the ground in the Iranian Army to do our dirty work? That would've been real leadership.
I actually am close to agreeing with you about something. The U.S. has to pick and choose where it makes sense to deploy. We cannot be the world's policeman. Overthrowing Assad and creating a vacuum there will lead to an eventual takeover by ISIS. The rag-tag so-called moderate Sunnis won't have a chance. Is the U.S. willing to commit troops to propping them up for several years (or longer)? Syria is an unsalvageable country and there is nothing Obama can do about it. Over the long term (10-20 years), Iran will become an ally. I wouldn't be shocked if Saudi Arabia eventually became an open enemy.
This is why I want a crazy man in the White House, so we can go toe to toe with Putin. NO ONE IS AFAID OF THE U.S.! ...calling all Trump supporters
It should't come as a surprise , it's more of deliberate actions .. According to Israeli sourced in last July; " A number of Israeli generals and political commentators have called on the Netanyahu government to provide military aid to Bashar Al-Assad's regime in Syria in order to prevent its downfall. It is an unprecedented campaign to "Save the Assad regime". According to General Azer Tsfrir, for example, allowing the Assad regime to fall would mean turning Syria into a "black hole" in which the border areas could become launch pads for operations against Israel. Writing in Haaretz, the former military intelligence officer suggested that the fall of Assad would subject Syria to the hegemony of extremist Muslim groups which have declared their desire to destroy the Zionist state. They would, he claimed, become a first degree strategic threat"
There is no foreign policy that makes sense in the Middle East. You've had the same tribes living on top of each other, warring for supremacy for 3,000 years. There are no defensible natural boundaries, no tradition of governments other than Kings, dictators and strongmen. With modern war technology and the proliferation of arms in the area, every tinpot psycho can mount an uprising. The local religious traditions endorse violence. Outside of Israel, the US can expect no loyalty for any price. The only "solution" to any of it would be mass genocide, in the millions, wiping out entire cultures. Mr. Obama, as usual, is playing this the best he can within the realities; stay away from engagement in the quagmire, use air power to limit genocide where possible and support the humanitarian efforts. Anything else is folly. If we didn't learn that from our engagement in Iraq, then we did totally waste a trillion dollars and 5,000 lives. Once again, Big Puffery brings the FAUX outrage and shameless political posturing without offering any alternatives.
Putin is more trusted in the middle east than the Obama led US. Sad that so many Americans died so that Obama could give the middle east to Putin.
This undoubtedly makes us look bad as we've assumed the mantle of responsibility. Do we want to continue as world police? Europe is taking it up the butt with the fallout. Maybe they should let their balls drop for once instead of whining about the inaction of other nations.
Surely, they can't screw it all up as much as the US has. I honestly don't trust any US response strictly on the basis that it may achieve one goal and then spin off several new problems. That's all that has happened since we got involved over there. Nation builders...we SUCK at it. Should have never gone into that. The US would willingly take down Assad with no plan for what happens next other than wishful thinking. Sure, they will tout democracy and free elections and security. That's about where the bs trail ends and the anarchy begins.
The US never had Syria, it's a Russian client state with a Islamic insurgency. We have no strategic interest there other than opposing tyranny.
Russia has Cold War legacy relationships with much of the more despotic states of the ME (notably Iran and Syria). They even still maintain a naval base in Syria. And they are still client-states for Russian arms. Of course he's more "trusted" -- they have a long relationship that survived the fall of the Soviet Union. Are you being intentionally coy?
