04-07-2017, 01:48 PM
(04-07-2017, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The reason provided was complete bullshit; however, Saddam's reign was similar to that of Assad's.
Indeed it was, primarily a decade before we invaded, but Saddam was a piece of shit. I just wish that we had gone with that rationale rather than the trumped up reasoning. I think we would be in a much better mindset about Iraq than we are today and it could have helped the public attitude support an actual rebuilding effort.
(04-07-2017, 01:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It appears a lot of the Middle Eastern countries are supporting this move. I would say that's a step in the right direction.
Assad's relationship with Iran is what has most of them supporting this, I'm guessing. I have wanted us to topple Assad for a long time, never being one that was turning a blind eye to his tactics because of the "enemy of my enemy" position a lot of people were using. I personally don't know what I would've done here, or what we should do. I do think he should have gone to Congress first, but I'm also one that thinks the authority of the executive to initiate foreign conflict has become far too great and needs to be reigned in overall.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
