I don't think he would have had to bother with this Syria nonsense if he hadn't gone off and run his mouth off about Assad "crossing the red line". Now he's got to try and back down from a war that is probably going to be expensive, highly unpopular and strategically pointless. Let's hope that he gets what he actually wants and congress votes against a war.
France doesn't have the forces.[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
for ****'s sake, let someone else do it for once.
I don't know the specifics about chemical weapons use, but I imagine using them are internationally condemned by a multitude of nations.  So, again, I say...let someone else clean up someone else's mess for once.
France was really gung-ho about it early on, let them lead it. Â We can toss in some air support and station a carrier near there, but let it be their fight.
mrbojangles25
well, if France goes, so does the EU. Â Maybe I should have just said EU.
France does have a sizeable military force, though, don't they?
The E.U. has no obligation to join in any offensive wars that a member state conducts. France's military, while being fairly powerful in absolute terms, doesn't have the force projection to reach Syria and topple the government. It can't really handle large scale overseas operations without U.S. support.
Log in to comment