Foil wrote:
What I'm curious about, TB, is that in the context of the current situation (Syria), the second world leader is actually supporting your apparent position (from the other thread) against U.S. intervention. Yet you seem to be arguing against him. Why?
It is the reason for the intervention (in this instance, that I'm against)- there are ZERO American national interests involved. Intervention would not do anything significant to improve the situation (if at all) if it were to 'succeed' and would most likely WORSEN the crisis to the point of tipping into global war.
Obama's behavior has also humiliated and weakened the position of the US. The only reason Obama originally chose to intervene was to save HIS OWN face- it had nothing to do with national interest. Assad defied Obama's 'red line' and had to be 'punished.'
It's funny that Obama described Putin as a 'bored child' not too long ago when clearly the only 'child' here is Obama. Obama's ego and reckless hubris is a danger to us and the entire world.
.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao Zedong