I supported it in Libya
I did not support it in Libya
"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung
Dang, this is a tight poll.
Supported. Ousting Gaddafi was a worthwhile goal, and doing so without a life lost can only be considered a resounding success. The current Libyan leadership is also quite preferable to the previous regime and many others in the region.
Wait a minute. What harm was Libya going to do to the U.S.?The invasion of Iraq, however, pissed me off no end, and I'll never forgive Bush, et al, for preemptively invading a country that had not and could not do our nation any harm.
And our allies were with us in the invasion of Iraq. We had more partners in Iraq than we did in Libya.
The only thing that seems to change between the two wars (under the issues you have highlighted) is who happened to be President at the time.
Methinks you may want to think through your approach here a bit more thoroughly...
....Except for France, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc....As for Syria, I'm absolutely opposed to our unilateral intervention. We have no allied support
You seem to be utilizing a highly selective concept of what qualifies as "allied support".
Actually we have huge national interests in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. It also serves as Iran's early-warning network and second-strike capability in the event of a move against a nuclear program. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.it is not in our national interest
Yup. Unfortunately, doing nothing will produce significant repercussions as well. As Christopher Hitchens put it to well: "Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens."and the repercussions could be significant.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
President Reagan had a very professional and competent administration. Reagan surrounded himself with individuals who weren't yes men. I think that's one of the secrets of having a proficient and competent White House administration. Look at Clinton's White House, it was compared to National Lampoons "Animal House." Or look at the Obama White House, Obama surrounded himself with nothing but incompetent, second rate people who are mostly yes men.