The only reason I voted for Obama is because he is not as bad as the alternative.
Stating that, in regards to everything dealing with Military action, in regards to their decisions and actions, I mostly took that out of the equation. My reasoning, is that I did not see the point. Both McCain and Obama would have done the same thing in regards to Iraq, which is "React" and do what the situation on the ground compels them to do. They are reactionary. The difference is the time frame of when they decide to act, and more importantly, how they would have been percieved in the World. In that, Obama came way up ahead. In winning the presidency, he brought about good will since he is percieved as far more diplomatic.
That, is usually good, unless one then becomes percieved as either weak, indecisive or worse lacking in credibility.
The US for better or worse is a country the world looks to to lead. It is that which allows the US to influence other countries.
I can understand that he deliberates, but events can't wait at times. There is a balance that must be met between what can be seen as intelligent deliberation and indecisiveness. In some cases, he has proved to be effective(such as Osama and Captain Phillips), while not so much in others.
I limit my criticism when it comes to military matters. I have to admit that I don't have enough information to make a very informed decision.
Even in regards to Syria, there are so many factors I have to consider but can be grouped as follows:
Domestic
-Cost
-Time
Foreign
-Influence
-Regional Stability
-Perception
Then that can be further split. I think about the cost, as well as how important it is for the US to keep to what it says. Without that, losing credibility is dangerous.
Still, I don't know where I stand. I don't want to go in to Syria but I feel like Obama messed up by setting up a threat pointing to a red line. In doing so, it serves a dangerous precedent if there is no follow through. When other countries can not trust to know what the US will do as it says.... I don't know... Thinking about it, with a change in Presidency that might change again, but... it could just get worse.
Either way, priorities are completely skewed. When there are so much houses that are abandoned, enough so that every homeless person can have 5 houses a piece, and health of our citizens is left to predatory aspects of the market just frustrates me.
Still, if they do strike on Syria, it may help in stopping another showdown in government financing though there is no guarantee.
I apologize, like I mentioned, there are so many factors that I have to think of, that my post becomes a mess since I am actually still working things through as well, while having to admit that I don't have enough information. Sometimes, when I think about it, it might be easier to do one counterstrike each time they use such a gas on their citizenry, and leave it at that. That would be messy as well, and I don't really advocate that either.
So, for now, to tell the truth... Syria is not that important to me. I still rather concentrate on health care, the economy and education. It has become the new issue, rather than the NSA thing. So I concentrate on my priorities which is what I have just mentioned rather than the hot topic of the day.
= new reply since forum marked as read
