Originally Posted by USMCFLYR

That position is held by every administration. How many conflicts have been going on in that continent and for how long?
The UN, and other European powers, have actually had more presence in Africa over the years. You'll see the US involved in some evacs (USMC in Sierra Leone for example) and of course the deployments to Far East Africa in support of the GWOT.

Originally Posted by John Carr

Agree with all that also.

But as has been mentioned, if (insert conflict here) doesn't have SOME kind of strategic importance to U.S. interests, it will go for the most part hands off. At least directly anyway.

But along the lines of what you mentioned previous, it's simply the flip flopping of who is saying what on this issue. Much like the domestic surveillance issue recently also.

Originally Posted by Laramie

Every President wants to be remembered for "doing something" when it comes to curing evil around the world.

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer

He is taking the stance of "We should intervene on the behalf of the innocents being slaughtered." Sounds noble enough.

But why this fight? This link discusses war and conflict on the continent of Africa, wherein the author says over 5 million people have died in the Congo in the last 15 years...and that is just one conflict out of many. Most of those killed have not been soldiers, but civilians.

Africa's Forever Wars: Why the Continent's Conflicts Never End - By Jeffrey Gettleman | Foreign Policy

Why weren't they important? More people have died there than in Syria. Yet the African wars are ongoing, and no one is calling for intervention. In Darfur, it is ethnic cleansing...not much outrage.

Why is Syria so important? We have almost no trade with them, so you can't even say it is economically important, nor transparent, as Iraq is.

Is it the political import of "Weapons of Mass Destruction?" Is dying from a chemical attack somehow worse than being killed with a tank round?

Syria, like Egypt and Libya, is a tragedy. But I see it as a civil war...something we have no right to interfere with.

Originally Posted by AxialFlow

Exactly. If Iraq didn't teach us anything else, it's that there are plenty of barbarians over there willing to be dictator. A neighbor said "What crime has he committed? Gassing future terrorists?" To a degree, I see his point...

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Or from the point of view that while you are helping a bunch of people not be oppressed, the REST of the arab world will see it as the US/West attacking muslim countries and killing civilians, which will inevitably happen to some extent. So do you save the few to ensure future aggression from the many?

I say we get Boston Dynamics to send in a few teams of robots. If that doesn't scare the hell out of anyone, nothing will.

Petman Tests Camo - YouTube

Boston Dynamics Big Dog (new video March 2008) - YouTube

Cheetah Robot runs 28.3 mph; a bit faster than Usain Bolt - YouTube

Boston Dynamics RiSE V2 and V3 - YouTube

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR

Resources are suppose to be used where they make the biggest impact. STRATEGIC interests are where the focus *should be*.