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.
Obama made a colossal, amateurish blunder with his red line talk and had to save face with a gesture of support. Hopefully there will be little if any real aid going to the Sunni rebels. I imagine the Rooskies have been advised of as much and will also do little more than talk tough.
And what's the justification for aiding the overthrow of another country's government?
There are any number of countries known for human rights violations.
Is it our duty to change them all?
And being there is NO guarantee a new government formed to replace Assad's would benefit the US, WHY?
In foreign policy/national security moves you pick and choose what you can do to strengthen your hand. Russia, Lebanon, and Iran want to see Assad prevail, for me that is enough to aid the rebels.
Is it our duty to change them all? No.
You're right there is no guarantee it will benefit the USA.
Obama made a colossal, amateurish blunder with his red line talk and had to save face with a gesture of support. Hopefully there will be little if any real aid going to the Sunni rebels. I imagine the Rooskies have been advised of as much and will also do little more than talk tough.
Why? He didn't obligate the US military to do any specific thing. He didn't obligate the US period to do anything. He just said look if this is going on, then this is a red line and the US government is going to start looking at and engaging with the Syrian civil war differently.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
In foreign policy/national security moves you pick and choose what you can do to strengthen your hand. Russia, Lebanon, and Iran want to see Assad prevail, for me that is enough to aid the rebels.
WHY? Getting involved in a war of no benefit to the US merely to take sides is pretty much cutting off your nose to spite your face, isn't it? Let Assad prevail and let Russia, Lebanon, and Iran spend their blood and $$$ to accomplish that.
Let's at least pretend we may have learned something from our unproductive meddling in The Congo, Chile, Iram, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, ad nauseum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
You're right there is no guarantee it will benefit the USA.
Reason enough to adopt a hands-off policy.
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.
