Considering the Gulf War, Somali operations, Iraq War, Libyan intervention, and now arming of the Syrian rebels have all worked out worse for us than sitting on our hands, I'm curious about which ones you think are NOT deserving of your ironic comment.
This crisis is the result of our involvement in the Middle East. We have little or no strategic interest there, aside from preventing terrorist attacks on the US, which are incited by...our involvement in the Middle East. If the House of Saud runs into difficulties, let them buy weapons and troops on their own dime. If Israel has a security problem, they have a virtual nuclear monopoly in western Asia. If Iraq or Syria or Iran is too repressive for their people, let said people take down their oppressors on their own. We couldn't get any foreign aid in our fight for independence until we proved that we could win without it.
The No-Fly zone in Libya led to the Benghazi incident that is supposedly being investigated right now, except they rolled over for Hillary who hung the ambassador out on a limb.
Osama bin Laden attacked the WTC for the express purpose of provoking US intervention to inspire militants. Our involvement in Iraq and Syria led to the rise of ISIS/L. Our involvement in the "Arab Spring" has helped anti-Western groups. We let the Shah fall, and are still having problems with Iran.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
