« Grimes Gets Her Knickers In Knot Over Dress Comment | Main | New Yorker Obliquely Hits Syrian Nail On Head »

September 05, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e008d2bcf48834019aff33b18d970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rand Paul Risking A Lot Of Capital On Syria:

Comments

Rand Paul's understanding of the situation in Syria is a mile wide and paper thin deep. Should we have intervened in Cambodia in the Killing Fields era? What if we'd made our move in '39 instead of '41 - would that have saved lives? What will we look back upon 20 years from now as to what might have been in Syria? Will we just say, "We didn't know?" Or will it be simply, "Well, Obama was for it so we were against it."

Syria -- any determination to wage war or take military action - is complicated. Whose side are we on? What national interest? Humanitarian factors? Death toll? Economic impact? Regional stability? The questions are endless and all must be answered. And - the 600 pound gorilla in the room - no one wants another colossal blunder like the Blunder in Iraq. That's a thousand year scar on America and cements George W. Bush's legacy as Worst President in History for at least that long.

What to do?

Political Capitol ...

From Wiki ...

"A politician gains political capital by winning elections, pursuing policies that have public support, achieving success with initiatives, and performing favors for other politicians.
Political capital must be spent to be useful and will generally expire by the end of a politician's term in office. In addition, it can be wasted, typically by failed attempts to promote unpopular policies that are not central to a politician's agenda. American President George W. Bush claimed to have earned "political capital" after the 2004 elections."

So ...
Given how unpopular a war with Syria has become and that number is still dropping ...

Is Rand Paul's no vote spending political capitol or is he building poltical capitol?

Additionally, your analogies don't go back far enough. Iraq II is the result of unfinished business of Iraq I, but Iraq I was the result of some Ambassador given Iraq the permission to invade kuwait by mistake. And the kuwaiti invasion was over oil and our the west splitting kuwait off from Iraq in the first place because of the politics of oil.

I have a better analogy.

Let's say you corner a cat.
What happens when you get closer?
What happens if you walk away?
Is there ever a threat that if you walk away the cat will take the offensive and try to corner you?

There is a lot a hatred in the region and it all comes back to blowback. Walk away, and deal with the situation diplomatically and fairly and there is a greater chance for peace, for humanitarian advances, for friendship.

There will always be crazies and that is sad and freightening and real, but war will not stop the crazies, it will create more crazies.

The only way to brake the cycle is to change our foreign policy. Not charge full steam ahead into a corner occupied by a scardy cat.

God Bless

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photo For Facebook

  • Kentucky's #1 Conservative Blog
     photo blogfacebooklogo_zpsd77979be.jpg

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

SUPPORT

THIS PROJECT

Tip Jar

My Twitter Updates

  • What's New?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad

sc


AlphaInventions

  • AlphaInventions Feed
    http://alphainventions.com/feed.xml