Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is calling for greater United States involvement in Syria through the creation of safe zone that would allow the U.S. military to train opposition forces attempting to overthrow President Bashar Assad...
"The president went to the Middle East and said, 'This is a hard decision: If I go in, it might be wrong, if I don't go in it might be wrong,'" Rogers said. "Indecision, in this case, is dangerous."
How do people feel about this, though? Especially those of you in Michigan, since Rep. Rogers represents Michigan's 8th district (mainly the northwestern suburbs of Detroit).
Just get it over with. It's clear that Assad's days are numbered. Better to get in now with the new government rather than lock ourselves out on the sidelines. Letting Syria fall without any will negatively impact our interests in the region and some key allies, including Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq. I realize in the Libertarian La-La Land we should have a limp-wristed non-interventionist foreign policy; in the Real World (TM) I'd rather fight wars over there than over here.
We need to stay the hell out of it. As it is we are already involved in too many unconstitutional "conflicts" that we cannot afford. Aside from that, I thought the "red line" was drawn for the Syrian Government, not the rebels. Our government did say that we officially support the rebels or the Syrian Resistance Army or whatever they call themselves. According to a few articles published today, the jihadists rebels were responsible for the chlorine bomb, not the government. Apparently, Washington, Russia, and Syria all agree on this as well. Let someone else play world police for a while, that is if we can fend off Netanyahu, he's been itching for war.
Just get it over with. It's clear that Assad's days are numbered. Better to get in now with the new government rather than lock ourselves out on the sidelines. Letting Syria fall without any will negatively impact our interests in the region and some key allies, including Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq. I realize in the Libertarian La-La Land we should have a limp-wristed non-interventionist foreign policy; in the Real World (TM) I'd rather fight wars over there than over here.
So your answer is to install the Syrian version of the Taliban? Because that worked out really well for us in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Just get it over with. It's clear that Assad's days are numbered.
That's really not clear at all. The most you could say is that Assad's days as a ruler of the land within Syria's current boundaries are over, but remember that his "tribe" - the Alawites, and their allies - still control a significant amount of territory, and are at little risk of losing their homelands along the coast.
Quote:
I realize in the Libertarian La-La Land we should have a limp-wristed non-interventionist foreign policy
That was a common refrain before Iraq. "If you don't support this stupid war, you're a coward or something."
Quote:
I'd rather fight wars over there than over here.
With what money? Taxpayer dollars that we don't have?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
