Kevin_Kennedy
Defend Liberty
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,553
- 1,923
- 245
In a major foreign policy speech Monday Mitt Romney will attempt to stake out a more activist public position than President Barack Obama on supporting the rebels in Syria's civil war. Romney plans to say that he believes in working with partner nations to arm rebels fighting the government of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.
He would equip the rebels – “who share our values” -- with heavy weapons to take out "tanks, helicopters and fighter jets," according to the remarks. The Obama administration has refrained from doing so out of concern that the weapons would end up in terrorist hands, according to The New York Times.
Romney will also argue that the U.S. must support the rebels to develop influence and good relations with the Syria’s future leaders.
In foreign policy speech, Romney will encourage military spending, Syria intervention - First Read
So he wants to arm the Syrian rebels who have elements of al-Qaeda in their ranks to help them topple Assad, just like Obama helped the rebels with elements of al-Qaeda in their ranks to help them topple Gaddhafi in Libya. Yet this is somehow drawing a distinction between the two candidates? Forgive me for not seeing it. Oh, and how did that intervention in Libya turn out for us? How did arming the Mujahideen in the 80's turn out for us? So why in the world would we want to do the same thing in Syria? Also, I thought al-Qaeda was our enemy. So why would we want to help them in Syria?