Against it. He claimed no boots on the ground but I see that happening. Then you are going to send in a military that is hamstrung financially because of his cutbacks. Here in Norfolk there are ships that are not getting badly needed yard time because of lack of money, deployed units not getting basic supplies they need. This will not end well.
You can't starve a cow and expect it to give you extra milk.
Like everything else the dishonest bastard says, you have to read between the lines...when they explained that "No boots on the ground" they
really only said that we would not put regular ground forces in direct combat, which means the place would be literally crawling with SEALS, Army SF, Air Force FACs, and all sorts of other SOCOM assets to 'Advise' and 'Train' our new pals, Al Q'aeda.
Just like the whole 'Violation of international norms' bullshit on the gas - which very carefully and artfully avoids saying Syria actually violated international LAW or TREATIES itself. The treaty he's talking about is one Syria didn't sign, and it only applies to
international conflict. Even if the Syrians were a party and did violate the treaty, there's nothing in it that gives any one nation outside the conflict that has not been attacked a right to jump in and punish the offender. Some journalists even on Fox have already fallen into the trap, talking about Syria's 'Violation of international law,' which the very careful spokesmen for the Obozo Administration have taken great pains
NOT to say, but in very misleading terms.
