Syria and US Military

This is a real hot tomato of an issue concerning US involvement or not.

Senator John McCain , military veteran, etc, concisely notes,
"President Obama has stated that preventing mass atrocities is a vital part of our national security policy. He has said that the killing in Syria must stop and that Assad must go. Assad is the current "President" in Syria. If that is the case, we must take action to make those words a reality. How many more must die before we act?
Beyond the moral and humanitarian reasons for intervening in Syria, we have a clear national security interest in stopping the killing and forcing Assad from power. The Assad regime is Iran's main ally. It is a state sponsor of terrorism that has developed weapons of mass destruction. It is a threat to Israel, and helped foreign terrorists enter Iraq during the war, where they killed U.S. troops. Assad has the blood of Americans on his hands." notes McCain.

But critics of military intervention and republicans, and US involvement cry about what if's .... What if we go? Will it be another Vietnam, or Iraq, or whatever. Of course, measured action is appreciated and we don't want to actually be going off half cocked! At the same time, Syria is Irans' number one ally and the horrors brought upon the people who oppose Assad , yeah not rebels.  Note the word rebels was used to describe Luke and Han Solo, ok a Star Wars reference, but to make the point - one mans rebel is the others hero.  But Assad is a real bad actor and sponsors terror. Not cool.

I think McCain is close, and the nay sayers, those who want to put heads in the sand, should at least take a hard look at what is happening. If only there was serious news coverage of world events so the masses could learn some truth. Well it doesn't exist in America as far as I can tell, but they're close on the BBC world news.

The bad guys, fanatical zealots, are amassing power and killing anybody they oppose over there. They have powerful weapons, even chemical weapons. In another case we believed they had the same and it was enough to fire us up to go. Unread out to be untrue, so we cower at the prospect of f'ing up again and looking stupid on the world stage. Well this case is way more clear. They DO have these weapons and are whacking people, children too.

Is there a right answer? Or just another excuse for debaters and politicians to babble through the time of action?

Maureen Dowd writes in her op Ed that the battle of the sexes is in trouble. Or at least I think she does.
The open repeats Hillary Clinton's speech at the World Summit about women's continuing struggle for equality in the world, but then her report quickly takes a hard left turn into a complete scathing attack on the republican party.

She sites current extreme contextually relevant items to use as ammunition to attack republican "cavemen" to use her words, as if they have an agenda to reduce women to third world status.

This piece seemingly starts off as an exposé on women leaders in the world, ie Clinton, and dives into an attack on republicans, finally jumping the shark with
an out of left field fantasy about how Clinton would make the ultimate vice president candidate who then could be the perfect presidential candidate in 2016.

Clearly Dowd's audience is the hard leftist NOW contingent, and not the Rush Limbaugh crowd, pointing to his nickname for her, yet forgetting the reality that during her husband's political career, she overlooked his constant transgressions thus showing all women how one clearly must support her man. Please!

Dowd should really stop cutting and pasting incongruous snippets to make her weak points and try if she can, to make her point clear. She believes the democrats can do no wrong, that republicans are monsters bent on taking away all our rights and freedoms and she believes Hillary Clinton is somehow perfectly suited - no pun intended - to be our leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/dowd-dont-tread-on-us.html?hpw