Syria, Libya, Egypt

[D-Ric902]

How about a novel idea in foreign policy.
if the US is attacked directly (ie Pearl Harbor) the we respond immediately, aggressively, and decisively.

if the US is not attacked directly we work with the UN (worthless, I know) and NATO to act in the interest of allies.
if they won't act then we don't act
not our fault and not our problem.


it sounds kind of Ron Paul but every time we act on our own or with a coalition that we push together so we don't look bad like the Gulf War coalition it never works out well for us.

 

[strong89]

sounds great!! and to top it off how bout we put the embassy's on military bases... if we dont have any military in that country now its probably for a good reason.

 

[netsecurity]

How about a novel idea in foreign policy.
if the US is attacked directly (ie Pearl Harbor) the we respond immediately, aggressively, and decisively.

if the US is not attacked directly we work with the UN (worthless, I know) and NATO to act in the interest of allies.
if they won't act then we don't act
not our fault and not our problem.


it sounds kind of Ron Paul but every time we act on our own or with a coalition that we push together so we don't look bad like the Gulf War coalition it never works out well for us.

No offense, but I think that's exactly what Obama's policy has been. He too has given up on the UN, despite slamming Bush for bypassing them. What Obama has done, and wisely so I think, is work with NATO instead of the UN. Bush went to the UN and Russia and China predictably vetoed every action. In this case, Syria is their direct ally, and we know they will veto, so even attempting to use the UN is a waste of time and quite possibly will add gas to the fire.

In short, I guess I can't complain about the overall foreign policy of the Obama administration. I have a LOT of problems with the timing and lack of leadership and improper rhetoric, but that's another story...

 

[BogWalker]

US out of UN, but I think I'm generally okay with NATO. I'd really prefer to just have a strong political and military bloc formed from North America.

 

[D-Ric902]

No offense, but I think that's exactly what Obama's policy has been. He too has given up on the UN, despite slamming Bush for bypassing them. What Obama has done, and wisely so I think, is work with NATO instead of the UN. Bush went to the UN and Russia and China predictably vetoed every action. In this case, Syria is their direct ally, and we know they will veto, so even attempting to use the UN is a waste of time and quite possibly will add gas to the fire.

In short, I guess I can't complain about the overall foreign policy of the Obama administration. I have a LOT of problems with the timing and lack of leadership and improper rhetoric, but that's another story...

I have not heard a NATO spokesman say anything about a vote or NATO sanctioned action. But US ships are off the coast and ready to launch strikes. Sounds almost like a "unilateral cowboy diplomacy" type of thing to me.

 

[.45 Dave]

I have not heard a NATO spokesman say anything about a vote or NATO sanctioned action. But US ships are off the coast and ready to launch strikes. Sounds almost like a "unilateral cowboy diplomacy" type of thing to me.

Russian resistance torpedoes United Nations resolution on Syria - latimes.com
Paragraph 2
Apparently NATO has endorsed the action.

 

[sloughfoot]

NATO is a military alliance meant to block Soviet western expansion. I am not sure how it is useful in other theaters.

My vote is for leave them the hell alone and let them resolve their own probems.