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.
Stay out of it altogether. Let them kill themselves and implode. When its done, go in and pick up the pieces and take the oil then. Maybe more costly, however, no American's (and its allies) will be killed.
Assad vs. ISIS is like having to choose between the Italian mafia and the Crips or Bloods. That said, an Assad is preferable to Islamic extremists who will not respond rationally to carrots and sticks.
There was thin window of opportunity to get rid Assad at the start when moderates had more influence. That's gone and if you go after Assad now you'd be backing the very same people causing the issue in Iraq.
Yes, that opportunity was around the time when McCain made his trip there, but when Obama supported the idea, the Congress felt compelled to oppose it, and that was that.
Its too late. The combination of our staying out of Syria and our leaving Iraq was the start of ISIS building strength within the middle east. If we want to stay out we will have to live with the consequences as always of any decision. Its not like the past when a ocean could protect you from your enemies as we have seen.
Yes, it is a good experiment on how staying out works for us. Staying out is a valid option, but it has its consequences, and will are finding out how willingly Americans accept those consequences.
Assad represents the Muslim faction that treats the Christians the best, they are the most tolerant of minorities and women, so we should support him. The West caused the chaos in the Middle East by overthrowing ruling dictators who maintained the peace, albeit with an iron hand, but how else can you maintain the 'peace' over there?
Assad represents the Muslim faction that treats the Christians the best, they are the most tolerant of minorities and women, so we should support him. The West caused the chaos in the Middle East by overthrowing ruling dictators who maintained the peace, albeit with an iron hand, but how else can you maintain the 'peace' over there?
Absolutely: Iraq, Libya, Syria are all in worse shape without a strong Dictator to control them.
If we were really interested in installing democracies and American values instead of dictatorships, we should stop supporting Saudi Arabia. All this "freedom hell yeah!" BS is just that: BS. Bush was a hypocrite about Saddam.
No, we should back Uncle Sam and avoid the ME like the cesspool it is.
Agreed. It's not our business, unless someone over there wants to do something crazy like blockade the Strait of Hormuz.
And the Israel deal is just a colossal ****-up. We should have just stayed neutral and not backed either the Arabs or the Israelis; we'd have a lot less enemies. But now it's too late.
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.
