Tuesday, September 10, 2013

WWRD?

Not that I'm going to watch, but I'm curious as to what President Obama will say about Syria tonight.  And I have a serious, legitimate question on Syria for conservatives/Republicans. 

(NOTE--I’m not asking the other side, because they’ll likely, predictably support whatever President Obama decides, even though, should it involve military action, would be counter to what they’ve always preached in the past.   Hypocrisy is rampant among both sides, in case you hadn’t noticed.)

My question, then, is this: what would President Obama do or say tonight on Syria that would be “good” in the eyes of conservatives/republicans?
Because I’m thinking he’s stuck between Iraq and a hard place.  If he bombs, he’s doing it against the will of the people, at least according to some reports.  If he thinks about it more or tries to use diplomacy, he’s indecisive.  If he does nothing, he’s a wimp. 

So I ask again, what would you have him do? 

Don’t answer yet.  First, consider, what would Mitt Romney have done?  What would one of the Bushes have done?  And would you have supported it, if it involved military action?
You might say “no,” but wouldn’t you at least have said, you have to admire him for being decisive, doing what he thought was right?  Isn’t that a lot of what was said after no WMD’s were found in Iraq, by the staunchest Bush defenders? 

And does that same logic apply to a Democratic president you hate?

Now, with regard to Syria, and what Obama should do, I’ll ask one last question that I’ll wager we all already know the answer to: what would Reagan have done?

I'll tell you:
Reagan would have gone on television a week ago, given us a serious turn to his folksy countenance, and then convinced us that it was time to be decisive, and act on the side of morality.  And then he would have bombed the ever-lovin’ shit out of them— the bombers probably would have been in the air before the TV lights in the Oval Office cooled following the address.
So, what should Obama do?

Beats me.  But whatever he does, he’s going to get skewered by FOX News, even if he does the exact precise thing that St. Ronald of Tampico would have done.

7 comments:

Scott Eames said...

The first President who does as much to stop genocide in sub saharan Africa as they do in the middle east will get some of my respect.

Craig F said...

So, conservative response #1: "nothing, he will be wrong no matter what."

Scott Eames said...

Oh you think that reply was targeting Obama? I think no matter who we had in office right now, they couldn't do anything to fix our current foreign policy. Our nations problems go much deeper than who we have in office. There is really very little difference between bush and Obama. They are/were just the leaders of their broken parties. I honestly haven't been following this story. The formula has become pretty simple. If oil then military else nothing.

Scott Eames said...

And of course he went with the other option you forgot to list: did Russia and China say its OK.

Shane Sexton said...

I don't know if I can answer what Obama could do good in the eyes of a Republican. I once voted for John McCain and I do not agree with him. He would have also already gone in, guns loaded, and obliterated Syria. That's what he wants. He wants and overthrow of Assad correct? But that leaves potentially even more evil, American-hating madmen in control there. Perhaps the only guaranteed sure thing is that the unrest in that part of the world breeds extremists. The cynic in me says forget McCain. Lets really go for the gusto and solve this. Nuke them off the face of the earth so there are no side left to come back and haunt us with the weapons we provided them.

Yeah. Ok. We can't do that. But if we are stepping in here based on the morality argument, how is it moral to bomb them as punishment for bombing themselves? And only do so enough to leave a mess but leave the same madman in control? How does that make sense?
We basically cause even higher numbers of refugees, don't make a dent in the chemical weapons cache and have even more people that hate us for it down the line that throw support behind another madman. But then the next step will be that we need to send humanitarian aid and rebuild infrastructure that we helped destroy. But to do that there has to be boots on the ground because relief workers and contractors can't safely go without.

So what can Obama do? I think he should do nothing. I do not see how that is weak. If the Russian proposal is serious then maybe it's worth a look. I do see it going the way of Iraq though. Refusal of entry to inspectors, deadlines, more refusals, more deadlines, and eventually we end up in another war. The WMDs we are after are no longer even there but have disappeared, that is, if they even even existed.. etc...etc. If the result is the same, why wait? Maybe we will have UN support. Maybe even Russian support, though I doubt that. But maybe the bigger reason is we cannot afford it. It would be throwing good money after bad in a situation that will never be solved. If we can't stop the senseless killing on the streets of Chicago in a country that has the laws, has the democracy, has the support, how can we ever expect to solve anything in the Middle East for any real amount of time?

Michael Gibson said...

When Ronald Reagan was in the white house, I was a young man full of my own opinion and was easily swayed by the man. I loved him, nearly worshiped him.

I'm no longer that same brash young man and like to think I am able to follow a more pragmatic, logical course.

Why are we bombing Syria? Is it because we're trying to destroy their ability to engage in chemical warfare? Is it to punish the Syrian government for using gas on its own citizens?

In the past year or so, that government has killed over 100,000 of its own people. They used gas and killed another 1000. Now, I'm supposed to be incensed? I wasn't supposed to be concerned about the other 100,000 people?

I don't see the significant difference in killing one way or the other, particularly when it is civilians who are dying.

Either we need to interfere or not. Yes, Ronald Reagan would have probably been a little faster to the point and would not have waited weeks while congress and the American public debated. I would have been cheering right along but that was a different time in my life.

I don't know what Obama could have said but he didn't say it. He was wishy washy and left me wondering where the President of the United States really is...

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that the American people are leaning towards becoming isolationists.