Rep. Paul Ryan: Obama's ISIS strategy the "right policy"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And here I thought Ryan would try a run for the White House in 2016. He's buried that idea right here.

Rep. Paul Ryan: Obama's ISIS strategy the "right policy"

While Rep. Paul Ryan was critical of President Obama's "past mistakes" with U.S. policies in Iraq and Syria, the Wisconsin congressman acknowledged Obama's current efforts to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is "the right policy."

"I think the president is getting the right policy. I think he's doing the right thing now," Ryan said Monday on "CBS This Morning."

[Pooky 3,791]

And here I thought Ryan would try a run for the White House in 2016. He's buried that idea right here.

At least it should clue the Administration in to the reality that it's Syria policy is complete carp.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At least it should clue the Administration in to the reality that it's Syria policy is complete carp.

There's no right policy towards Syria. You can support Assad which is wrong but would offer a degree of stability. Or you can try to help get rid of him which might be right or wrong but will mean instability one way or something likely worse than Assad the other - plus instability, there's just no telling. Stay on the sideline, you lose. Get involved, you lose. There's no winning policy there. Period. From that, to me, follows that leaving it alone would be the right policy but then you end up with ISIS. So any which way you go, you're fu*#ed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no right policy towards Syria. You can support Assad which is wrong but would offer a degree of stability. Or you can try to help get rid of him which might be right or wrong but will mean instability one way or something likely worse than Assad the other - plus instability, there's just no telling. Stay on the sideline, you lose. Get involved, you lose. There's no winning policy there. Period. From that, to me, follows that leaving it alone would be the right policy but then you end up with ISIS. So any which way you go, you're fu*#ed.

I agree, its a no win situation. There is no political will to get entrenched in a massive ground war and the likelihood is that that will create a much bigger conflict. So what choices are left - arm various groups, targeted bombing? You're seen to be doing something without having any tangible effect on the events.

Sit back and do nothing? The US sat back and let Pol Pot murder millions in the years after the Vietnam war. Was it right to do that? The US caused that situation as well, so why didn't we get involved militarily?

Like all imperial powers, the US will only get involved if its business interests are compromised to the point that it becomes expedient to do so. Of course they wont say that this is why they are doing it. Rather its become fashionable to say its about saving the children and you know when those sorts of arguments are brought up its about anything but.

[decocker 7,198]

if paul ryan thinks obama is on track - you know he's not.

Edited September 30, 2014 by val erie

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

if paul ryan thinks obama is on track - you know he's not.

I don't see what the choices are to be honest - limited intervention creates the impression that something is being done while not actually achieving anything.

[decocker 7,198]

I don't see what the choices are to be honest - limited intervention creates the impression that something is being done while not actually achieving anything.

we don't have to do anything - we've done enough.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

we don't have to do anything - we've done enough.

If we're talking about idealism, sure.

But what is going on now, and how we got there, have nothing to do with that. It's all about strategic advantage.

[decocker 7,198]

If we're talking about idealism, sure.

But what is going on now, and how we got there, have nothing to do with that. It's all about strategic advantage.

all i really think about when the us starts talking about how it 'has to intervene' is how much we spend on defense and how nice it is to justify all that spending.