U.S Involvement in Syria?

Bashar al-Assad, Syria's leader, slowly dwindles as the war against the Syrian government rages on. For about a year now, people all over Syria have been protesting against the Syrian government calling for change. Leader al-Assad has been beside himself about what to do; many calling him "as delusional now as when the protests began". With a scarce number of loyal people left, al-Assad has turned to increased violence and oppression toward the increasing number of protesters. The international human rights organization states that it's "to be one of the worst in the Middle East."

After 10 months al-Assad continues in attempt to save what is left of his regime, his recent speech called on loyalists to continue their support and not to lose faith.

"Assad will fight to the end simply because he cannot even conceive of his end."

As the oppression continues, U.S as well as the international community question what role they should take in this. So far, they have continued their economic sanction, not getting directly into the middle of things which is surprising as that seems to be a trend of the United States, getting in between the affairs of other countries. Although the sanctions have lowered the Syrian economy, it has not lowered the violence or oppression.

Do you guys think U.S. should get more involved?

U.S. Drone Returned...But Miniature-Sized

In December, the United States' RQ-170 Sentinel drone was captured by the Iranian government. The U.S. government insisted the drone was in operation over East Afghanistan and came down only due to "technical malfunction."
President Obama called for the drone to be returned, but on December 11th, the Iranian government made it clear they would not comply with President Obama's request with regards to the United States' "hostile act" of impeding upon Iranian airspace.
Now, the Iranian government has agreed to return the drone but only a miniature version that is 1/80th the size of the original. The miniature version will also be available for Iranian customers to purchase at stores for the United States' currency equivalent of $4.00.
Hillary Clinton, the United States' Secretary of State, admits that even with the formal request, "we do not expect [Iran] to comply."

Arctic Adventures? (And no, it isn't a Sarah Palin helicopter moose-hunting party)

I never thought that the Arctic, the vastly uninhabited chunk of mostly ice north of Alaska, could provide a source of conflict in the 21st century. But, then came along global warming and aggressive neighbors. As the ice is receding at a quicker than normal rate, open Arctic waters provide bordering nations with trade, tourist, and natural resources new possibilities (as well as strategic defense) that were not open before. Case in point, there is actually a Northwest Passage right now.

Now what problem could possibly occur when you have the bordering nations being the US, Canada, Denmark (they own Greenland), and Norway, all US allies? None, except that I am forgetting one, America's newest best friend- the Russian Federation! Russia, under former President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has been assertive in nationalistic pursuits now that they are flush with oil and gas revenues. Aside from invading Georgia, Russia recently planted a flag in the Arctic and claimed a large chunk of it for itself. Why do they want a chunk of ice? Because there is potentially more oil and natural gas underneath that was previously inaccessible.

Sadly, the US has been slow to counter this threat to our own strategic interests (remember that Russia borders us up there) by not expanding our Arctic fleet nor ratifying the Law of the Sea, which would allow the US to stake claims in the Arctic, the US is losing the opening salvos of a scramble for the Arctic. And while I don't think having Canada, Denmark, or Norway control the Arctic would be a bad thing, I do not want to see Russia suddenly get an Arctic empire. And if the US and its allies don't act soon, this could happen.