Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

This situation and others disproves the completely unfounded idea that because the U.S. has a standing Army it is prone to rapidly get involved in other people's fights.

Bill, with respect, you demean yourself and the US military when you go out on a limb making excuses for the ineptitude of US foreign policy and the incompetence of US politicians in this respect (almost to a man - and Hilary).

Strutting arrogantly upon the world stage like the world leader (the US should be) then proving to be diplomatically and militarily unable to achieve almost anything without turning even the most simple efforts into a monumental cock-up. Then after the cock-up to claim that it doesn't matter about the outcome as it was never in the 'national interests' of the US anyway.

Now if only USians could agree on what constitutes their national interests' and their narcissistic political leadership (and in some cases also their military leadership) could resist the need to be in the media spotlight the world would be better off.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear from the US President (for a change) that the situation (whatever) in country X (whichever) is of no concern of the US people and as such will observe neutrality (on the Swiss model) and immediately pass legislation to prevent any US individuals and/or organisations from involving themselves directly or indirectly in the affairs of that country.

Not going to happen... US politicians just cant help themselves.