U.S attacked Iraq over rumors of W.M.D's

[Gamegears]

spurgeonryan said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-attack-health-idUSBRE97M0HP20130823

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

 

Shouldn't we send over 100,000 soldiers after bombing the Hell out of the area like we did in Iraq? Or does the U.S have nothing to gain this time, and no Corrupt President to push Congress to go for it?

I mean..out of Fairness. If we attack one country just from rumors, then why not take any huge action with this? Can America really do one but not the other? Does it work that way?

1. We have a very corrupt President and he has done his best.. and succeded at times to push Congress to do things that Bush would have been impeached and most likely hung for.

 

2. Obama does not want to become the Next G.W. because if he did.. it would represent danger not only to him.. but the Democrat Party in general... after Mid Term Elections... he can send 100 K troops anywhere he wants... including Syria... but to do it now would put the Dems in danger... 

 

3. Obama has to find an excuse... and then when we lose God Knows How Many Soilders... he needs to be able to point the finger and say it's all G.W. and Republicans fault... (Or just Republicans) as he sees fit... so the Millions and Millions will be like.. see what those nasty Republicans are doing again?? If he can't it won't happen..

 

4. We most likely already have troops and spies there.. 

 

5. There is really no gain for Obama's corporations that he supports and supports him.. if there was.. we would already be there...