What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The war in Syria (3 Viewers)

TheIronSheik said:
cstu said:
TheIronSheik said:
cstu said:
TheIronSheik said:
mad sweeney said:
I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.
Click to expand...
You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

  • You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
  • You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
  • I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
  • I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us
See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.
Click to expand...
What did I miss?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're asking.
Click to expand...
I missed what the White House said about Syrian chemical weapons being a threat to the U.S.
Click to expand...
I posted the link earlier, but truncated this quote because it was getting huge. Here's the article.
Click to expand...
In addition to truncating the quote to fit what you wanted it to.
 
Fennis said:
cstu said:
TheIronSheik said:
cstu said:
TheIronSheik said:
mad sweeney said:
I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.
Click to expand...
You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

  • You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
  • You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
  • I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
  • I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us
See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.
Click to expand...
What did I miss?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're asking.
Click to expand...
I missed what the White House said about Syrian chemical weapons being a threat to the U.S.
Click to expand...
Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security- Jay Carney
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's a pretty weak justification for going to war.

 
jonessed said:
Fennis said:
cstu said:
TheIronSheik said:
cstu said:
TheIronSheik said:
mad sweeney said:
I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.
Click to expand...
You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

  • You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
  • You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
  • I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
  • I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us
See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.
Click to expand...
What did I miss?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're asking.
Click to expand...
I missed what the White House said about Syrian chemical weapons being a threat to the U.S.
Click to expand...
Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security- Jay Carney
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's a pretty weak justification for going to war.
Click to expand...
That not the justification to go to war, that's the justification for not getting congressional approval.

It's still weak.

 
Well. apparently Assad can't keep his little brother from effing up.

Well, a few Tomahawks are going to teach him not to give out dangerous toys to people with impulse control issues...

 
7: Cute girl at the beheadings, in the mosque, at missle launches. Definitely cute, but not tops in the harem.

 
FWIW, Obama is on PBS Newshour right now speaking about Syria.

No shocker here, he's ducking the hard questions.

 
Obama: "...there is a prospect, a possibility, in which chemical weapons that can have devastating effects could be directed at us."

 
Sounds like the UK is backing down until the UN is done with their findings. It seems likely due do a real lack of support across the board in. England.

Also elements of the intelligence community are claiming they aren't being properly consulted.

http://reut.rs/19OcBuh

 
Ilov80s said:
Sounds like the UK is backing down until the UN is done with their findings. It seems likely due do a real lack of support across the board in. England.

Also elements of the intelligence community are claiming they aren't being properly consulted.

http://reut.rs/19OcBuh
Click to expand...
but but but but I thought everybody was supposed to like us now that Bush is gone...

I just don't know what went wrong...

 
FlapJacks said:
Ilov80s said:
Sounds like the UK is backing down until the UN is done with their findings. It seems likely due do a real lack of support across the board in. England.

Also elements of the intelligence community are claiming they aren't being properly consulted.

http://reut.rs/19OcBuh
Click to expand...
but but but but I thought everybody was supposed to like us now that Bush is gone...

I just don't know what went wrong...
Click to expand...
Smart power.

Gee our staunchest ally too, weird...

 
FlapJacks said:
Ilov80s said:
Sounds like the UK is backing down until the UN is done with their findings. It seems likely due do a real lack of support across the board in. England.

Also elements of the intelligence community are claiming they aren't being properly consulted.

http://reut.rs/19OcBuh
Click to expand...
but but but but I thought everybody was supposed to like us now that Bush is gone...I just don't know what went wrong...
Click to expand...
Where does it say anything about us not being liked? Biggest idiocy I see in that article is all of a sudden Rs want to know how we're gonna pay for it, a compunction they don't have when it comes to defense budgets. It's fun to watch people flip flop based on who's president.
 
WhatDoIKnow said:
So after we stike "military" targets, can we strike the rebels while they are out celebrating? I would hate for us to pick a side, and I don't know if there is a "good" side in all of this. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I think that's the problem.

Taking out the air force would change the war. Striking an ammo dump would be too weak and meaningless.

I think they will go after the air defense systems one way or another - that does not affect the rebels since they do not have an air force, but it tells the Syrians they will be defenseless against the US, other nations, and even Israel, if there is a "next time."

 
WhatDoIKnow said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
WhatDoIKnow said:
So after we stike "military" targets, can we strike the rebels while they are out celebrating? I would hate for us to pick a side, and I don't know if there is a "good" side in all of this. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I think that's the problem.

Taking out the air force would change the war. Striking an ammo dump would be too weak and meaningless.

I think they will go after the air defense systems one way or another - that does not affect the rebels since they do not have an air force, but it tells the Syrians they will be defenseless against the US, other nations, and even Israel, if there is a "next time."
Click to expand...
I could live with that strategy. Please forward it to Cheney.
Click to expand...
I think Cheney's talking to Biden, or they all talk to the same people for military advice, so that's covered.

 
WhatDoIKnow said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
WhatDoIKnow said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
WhatDoIKnow said:
So after we stike "military" targets, can we strike the rebels while they are out celebrating? I would hate for us to pick a side, and I don't know if there is a "good" side in all of this. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I think that's the problem.

Taking out the air force would change the war. Striking an ammo dump would be too weak and meaningless.

I think they will go after the air defense systems one way or another - that does not affect the rebels since they do not have an air force, but it tells the Syrians they will be defenseless against the US, other nations, and even Israel, if there is a "next time."
Click to expand...
I could live with that strategy. Please forward it to Cheney.
Click to expand...
I think Cheney's talking to Biden, or they all talk to the same people for military advice, so that's covered.
Click to expand...
We can hope the NSA marked your post as *** URGENT ***.
Click to expand...
Need to change the username to KillSaintsInDome2013

 
Sinn Fein said:
WhatDoIKnow said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
WhatDoIKnow said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
WhatDoIKnow said:
So after we stike "military" targets, can we strike the rebels while they are out celebrating? I would hate for us to pick a side, and I don't know if there is a "good" side in all of this. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I think that's the problem.

Taking out the air force would change the war. Striking an ammo dump would be too weak and meaningless.

I think they will go after the air defense systems one way or another - that does not affect the rebels since they do not have an air force, but it tells the Syrians they will be defenseless against the US, other nations, and even Israel, if there is a "next time."
Click to expand...
I could live with that strategy. Please forward it to Cheney.
Click to expand...
I think Cheney's talking to Biden, or they all talk to the same people for military advice, so that's covered.
Click to expand...
We can hope the NSA marked your post as *** URGENT ***.
Click to expand...
Need to change the username to KillSaintsInDome2013
Click to expand...
Congratulations your thread has made the NSA Master Index!

 
I always think of this...Would you want your son or daughter to go to war in Syria? Possibly die or be maimed in Syria? For what?

It is always so easy to say "Lets go to war" I was that way in the first gulf War. I know people that have lost a son in Iraq, I know another that has a son who was blinded from an IED in Afghanistan. I have seen first hand how their families have been destroyed. I am not on board with this anymore.

 
Da Guru said:
I always think of this...Would you want your son or daughter to go to war in Syria? Possibly die or be maimed in Syria? For what?

It is always so easy to say "Lets go to war" I was that way in the first gulf War. I know people that have lost a son in Iraq, I know another that has a son who was blinded from an IED in Afghanistan. I have seen first hand how their families have been destroyed. I am not on board with this anymore.
Click to expand...
But but what if the rebels have chemical weapons!

 
Da Guru said:
I always think of this...Would you want your son or daughter to go to war in Syria? Possibly die or be maimed in Syria? For what?

It is always so easy to say "Lets go to war" I was that way in the first gulf War. I know people that have lost a son in Iraq, I know another that has a son who was blinded from an IED in Afghanistan. I have seen first hand how their families have been destroyed. I am not on board with this anymore.
Click to expand...
Were talking missiles here, no ONE is saying American boots on the ground in Syria. I have two sons in military and don't want them in Syria, but we can't allow chemical weapons to be used you have to have some morals.

 
Would you guys have advocated taking Saddam out or some kind of action after he gassed the Kurds?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LINK

So, What’s It Going To Be?
By Bashar Al-Assad
Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?

I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.

So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council. So, right off the bat, I’ve already eliminated the possibility of a legally sound united coalition like in Libya or the First Gulf War. Boom. Gone. Off the table.

Now, let’s say you’re okay with that, and you decide to go ahead with, oh, I don’t know, a bombing campaign. Now, personally, I can see how that might seem like an attractive option for you. No boots on the ground, it sends a clear message, you could cripple some of my government’s infrastructure, and it’s a quick, clean, easy way to punish me and make you look strong in the face of my unimaginable tyranny. But let’s get real here. Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as you are so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Plus, you’d stoke a lot of anti-American hatred and quite possibly create a whole new generation of Syrian-born jihadists ready to punish the United States for its reckless warmongering and yadda yadda yadda.

Okay, what else? Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.

Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.

Moving on.

I suppose you could always, you know, not respond with military force at all. But how can you do that? I pumped sarin gas into the lungs of my own people, for God’s sake! You can’t just let me get away with that, can you? I mean, I guess you easily could, and spare yourself all of this headache, but then you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.

And, hey, as long as we’re just throwing stuff out there, let’s consider a ground invasion for a moment. Now, even if you could reasonably fund a ground invasion, which I’m pretty sure you can’t, what exactly would such an invasion accomplish in the long term? I suppose it’s possible that you could come in and sweep me out the door and that would be the end of it. It’s possible. You know, like, in the sense that seeing a majestic white Bengal tiger in the wild is possible. Or, more likely, you could find yourself entrenched in a full-blown civil war that drags on for 15 years and sets off further turmoil in the rest of the region, leading to even more dead bodies for your country and mine, and even more virulent hatred of America. In fact, boy, maybe this is the one option that should be totally off the table.

Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.

So, all in all, quite the pickle you’re in, isn’t it? I have to say, I do not envy you here. Really curious to see where you go with this one.

I’ll leave you with this: I am insane. Not insane enough to generate worldwide unanimity that I cannot remain in charge of my own country. That would make this a lot easier. No, unfortunately, I’m just sane and stable enough to remain in power and devise cunning military and political strategies while at the same time adhering to a standard of morality that only the most perverse and sociopathic among us would be capable of adopting. But nevertheless, I am insane, so do with that information what you will.

Long story short, I’m going to keep doing my best to hold on to my country no matter what the cost. If that means bombing entire towns, murdering small children, or shooting at UN weapons inspectors, so be it. I’m in this for the long haul. And you will do...whatever it is you’re going to do, which is totally up to you. Your call.

Anyway, let me know what you decide. I’ll be waiting.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Wow. That's quite a post Kumerica. Unanswerable.
Click to expand...
That same faux-letter could have been written by countless dictators throughout history (i.e., insert name [here]). War is not sterile, pleasant, or without unintended consequences. It is in particular cases, however, justifiable.

 
dickey moe said:
timschochet said:
Wow. That's quite a post Kumerica. Unanswerable.
Click to expand...
That same faux-letter could have been written by countless dictators throughout history (i.e., insert name [here]). War is not sterile, pleasant, or without unintended consequences. It is in particular cases, however, justifiable.
Click to expand...
Americans have fought many wars. When're there was a clear goal beforehand- destroying the Confederacy, defeating the Imperial German army, causing the Nazis and Japanese to surrender, the wars were both justifiable and successful. But whenever there was no clear goal beforehand, such as in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the result was failure and a heavy cost as well.

What is the clear goal here? How shall we achieve it?

 
The fake outrage over the use of chemical weapons is hysterical. Like the average American is tossing and turning at night in a cold sweat thinking about 200 Syrian. 2 million plus people were killed/tortured/starved/raped/beaten/pillaged in the Sudan where there is an active slave trade and the outrage was/is on hold.

 
NYCelt said:
The fake outrage over the use of chemical weapons is hysterical. Like the average American is tossing and turning at night in a cold sweat thinking about 200 Syrian. 2 million plus people were killed/tortured/starved/raped/beaten/pillaged in the Sudan where there is an active slave trade and the outrage was/is on hold.
Click to expand...
Better still, let's not forget about the U.S. feeding Saddam intelligence about the Iranian massing of troops near Basra in the 1988 timeframe.. knowing full well that Saddam would retaliate with chemical weapons. That's right.. we fed the Iraqis all the intel they needed, and we knew damned well he was going to use chemical weapons against Iran to stifle the offensive. Such was the unacceptability of an Iranian victory in the Iraq-Iran war.
 
Fennis said:
johnnycakes said:
Fennis said:
I know this is a serious subject, but just for a minute... As far as dictators go, Assad has a pretty hot wife.
Click to expand...
She even has her own website. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
fake :thumbdown:
Click to expand...
Asma al-Akhras was born on 11 August 1975 in London to Fawaz Akhras, a consultant cardiologist at the Cromwell Hospital, London, and his wife Sahar al-Akhras (née Otri), a retired diplomat. Her parents are Sunni Muslims and of Syrian origin, hailing from the city of Homs. She grew up in Acton where she went to a local Church of England school and her friends called her Emma, before moving on to a private girls' school, Queen's College. She graduated from King's College London in 1996 with a bachelor of science degree in computer science and a diploma in French literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_al-Assad

 
johnnycakes said:
NYCelt said:
The fake outrage over the use of chemical weapons is hysterical. Like the average American is tossing and turning at night in a cold sweat thinking about 200 Syrian. 2 million plus people were killed/tortured/starved/raped/beaten/pillaged in the Sudan where there is an active slave trade and the outrage was/is on hold.
Click to expand...
Better still, let's not forget about the U.S. feeding Saddam intelligence about the Iranian massing of troops near Basra in the 1988 timeframe.. knowing full well that Saddam would retaliate with chemical weapons. That's right.. we fed the Iraqis all the intel they needed, and we knew damned well he was going to use chemical weapons against Iran to stifle the offensive. Such was the unacceptability of an Iranian victory in the Iraq-Iran war.
Click to expand...
This is only one of many instances. Of course the ultimate example is that, in order to win a war against Japan that was already pretty much won, we chose to incinerate two cities with nuclear weapons. We did- the USA. We remain the only nation ever to use nukes in combat. But all this doesn't mean we can't righteously condemn Syria for using chemical weapons. We can and we should. What we do about it is a different question.

 
msommer said:
I don't want any Western nation to get involved in a very messy civil war in Syria. If the neighbors of Syria, most of which are muslim nations, believe strongly that the atrocities should stop, let them either take the case to the UN or cobble together a coalition and put boots on the ground, planes in the air, etc.

The West hasn't gotten anything out of any intervention since Yugoslavia - for all the mess there was there, now there are several nations that have entered or are about to enter the EU and as such have very strong incentives not to go to war with each other again. Since then the results have been disappointing to say the least.

The role as global policeman does not belong to any Western nation or coalition. It should not exist except as a collective role. The only conduit we have for that is the UN and that is not really a viable proposition.

Now, in terms of geopolitical goals, is weakening Iran (or Russia) really so important that we want to upset a billion muslims again, that we want to entice more young men into anti Western fanaticism, to plot terrorism against our people, inside our borders?

I don't see the upside. And yes, that may be descrived as callous or harsh or inhuman. The alternative is that we'll get our own people killed and create more enemies in the attempt to stop a mad man oppressing his own people. We don't even agree about anything with half of his opponents, the more organized half, the more likely to sweep into power half.

I don't necessarily think it is a return to isolationism if we let some other countries deal with their own mess.

By all means we should assist the refugees getting a semblance of normal lives going and hopefully one day they have either found a new home somewhere outside of Syria or returned.

And I responded to your post regarding the misinformation. I don't see any of that going on. The world knows what Assad is doing, and what the insurgents are doing.
Click to expand...
assad is not a mad man. he is fighting against a terrorist organization. what comes next is worse. the middle east is going one direction, sharia law and caliphate rule. america is facillitating that, and i cant understand why.

thats the scary part.

 
timschochet said:
dickey moe said:
timschochet said:
Wow. That's quite a post Kumerica. Unanswerable.
Click to expand...
That same faux-letter could have been written by countless dictators throughout history (i.e., insert name [here]). War is not sterile, pleasant, or without unintended consequences. It is in particular cases, however, justifiable.
Click to expand...
Americans have fought many wars. When're there was a clear goal beforehand- destroying the Confederacy, defeating the Imperial German army, causing the Nazis and Japanese to surrender, the wars were both justifiable and successful.But whenever there was no clear goal beforehand, such as in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the result was failure and a heavy cost as well.

What is the clear goal here? How shall we achieve it?
Click to expand...
War?

I thought Obama was just going to lob some cruise missiles and then go home.

 
Nobody seems to get it. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, it it is in the USA's interest that no one wins this one. So, when one side goes a little too far, we intervene, but not too strongly. That way, the other side does not gain the ascendancy.

 
DiStefano said:
Nobody seems to get it. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, it it is in the USA's interest that no one wins this one. So, when one side goes a little too far, we intervene, but not too strongly. That way, the other side does not gain the ascendancy.
Click to expand...
Right on. There's no end game here other than to keep the fighting going. Divide and conquer.

 
cstu said:
DiStefano said:
Nobody seems to get it. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, it it is in the USA's interest that no one wins this one. So, when one side goes a little too far, we intervene, but not too strongly. That way, the other side does not gain the ascendancy.
Click to expand...
Right on. There's no end game here other than to keep the fighting going. Divide and conquer.
Click to expand...
Great Britain managed most of the 19th Century pursuing a policy of "the balance of power". They would prevent any potential enemy from becoming too strong.

 
timschochet said:
dickey moe said:
timschochet said:
Wow. That's quite a post Kumerica. Unanswerable.
Click to expand...
That same faux-letter could have been written by countless dictators throughout history (i.e., insert name [here]). War is not sterile, pleasant, or without unintended consequences. It is in particular cases, however, justifiable.
Click to expand...
Americans have fought many wars. When're there was a clear goal beforehand- destroying the Confederacy, defeating the Imperial German army, causing the Nazis and Japanese to surrender, the wars were both justifiable and successful.But whenever there was no clear goal beforehand, such as in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the result was failure and a heavy cost as well.

What is the clear goal here? How shall we achieve it?
Click to expand...
Money ain't gonna launder itself.

 
DiStefano said:
Nobody seems to get it. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, it it is in the USA's interest that no one wins this one. So, when one side goes a little too far, we intervene, but not too strongly. That way, the other side does not gain the ascendancy.
Click to expand...
Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?! :coffee:

 
datonn said:
DiStefano said:
Nobody seems to get it. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, it it is in the USA's interest that no one wins this one. So, when one side goes a little too far, we intervene, but not too strongly. That way, the other side does not gain the ascendancy.
Click to expand...
Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?! :coffee:
Click to expand...
Well,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.

Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.

 
DiStefano said:
datonn said:
DiStefano said:
Nobody seems to get it. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, it it is in the USA's interest that no one wins this one. So, when one side goes a little too far, we intervene, but not too strongly. That way, the other side does not gain the ascendancy.
Click to expand...
Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?! :coffee:
Click to expand...
Well,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.

Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.
Click to expand...
I get your point. But a civil war that never ends doesn't help us either.

 
DiStefano said:
datonn said:
DiStefano said:
Nobody seems to get it. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, it it is in the USA's interest that no one wins this one. So, when one side goes a little too far, we intervene, but not too strongly. That way, the other side does not gain the ascendancy.
Click to expand...
Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?! :coffee:
Click to expand...
Well,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.

Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.
Click to expand...
Not headline challenged. Just meaning to imply whether or not it is in the United States' best interests to have the Egyptian military or the Muslim Brotherhood "win" in Egypt either.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pinkham13
Chinese Elite Paid Hunter and the Biden’s 31 million
3 4 5
Replies
206
Views
4K
The Commish
The Commish
ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
996
ren hoek
ren hoek
Max Power
Fears of a second Civil War
8 9 10
Replies
453
Views
8K
BassNBrew
BassNBrew

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top