An interesting question was brought up elsewhere regarding Obama's foreign policy. On one hand, Obama famously suggests that he was ALWAYS against toppling Saddam, based on solely humanitarian reasons (Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, Kurds and Muslims alike). On the other hand, Obama famously supports the toppling of Assad, based solely on humanitarian reasons (Assas is bombing his own people in areas where he thinks there are pockets of resistance to the government). So the question posed is "why is one okay and the other is not?". Now, I have an opinion based on facts at hand why this is. What say you all?
