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.
Not true, it just takes a little bit of common sense and observation. I am not dogmatic in my views, and don't require that you agree with me. Shills argue ad nauseum. I state my views and let you decide. I don't lie.
Aside from the pointlessness of the WWI intervention, Syria is simply not comparable to a global-scale war involving the world's biggest economies. Not even close. If the US were to get involved, it would be a "war of choice." And we've seen where those can lead.
Syria is the crossroads of the mideast, it is iran's one true ally and the conduit by which it supplies the vast majority of weapons to its terrorist proxies. Syria borders NATO allies like Turkey and other regional allies like jordan and israel. The assad regime has the blood of many US soldiers' deaths for funneling in jihadists during the iraq war. So to claim it is a simple "war of choice" without addressing the larger issues is unrealistic at best.
Quote:
You may, indeed, believe that. I certainly do not. This is like arguing that you should stop a blender by jamming your fist in there until the bones choke up the motor. Hey, I guess it might even "work" if you try hard enough...
When terrorists see they can push you around, they will continue to do so, this is not too hard a concept to grasp when seen in the context of bullies at school. Your analogy makes no sense.
Quote:
And you want to do that by ousting Assad's secular-leaning regime and replacing it with a motley faction of rebels and religious extremists?
How does the secular sheen over the assad mafia gang/murder machine/state terror sponsor elevate in any way above theocratical fascist ones like iran? The fact that its closest ally is iran - a religious dictatorship - should make it obvious that its wrapper is meaningless.
Quote:
If Lebanon or Afghanistan are guides, you don't simply get a neat separation of statelets; you get more civil war.
Were those conflicts caused by internal or external forces?
I'll help you; Lebanon by the palestinians and syrians, afghanistan by the soviets and the pakistani taliban.
Quote:
You'd also have to think of the secondary effects, such as a "liberated" eastern Syria providing a large base of operations for militants to assault the Shia-led government of Iraq, thus setting off a regional war rather than just a civil war. This has already happened to some extent.
There are many instances of nations being split/ethnic enclaves being split off to defuse conflicts, and for the most part, have worked well.
Quote:
No thanks. You seem really enthusiastic about plunging into a gruesome multifactional civil war, but still haven't answered the key questions - to what end? Why? To whose benefit?
The end is the end of the iranian regime and its state-sponsored terrorism, export of war/violence/terrorism (into places like iraq, lebanon, israeli, bahrain, saudi arabia, argentina, europe, etc.), its illegal nuclear weapons program, and its subjugation of its own people. The same can be said of the syrian one, who is almost equal to iran in its history as a bad actor in the region for the last 30 years.
You are way, way out of your league, kid - there are those of us here who have LIVED in iran, so don't waste our time with this propagandist, regime-protecting BS.
Iran has 70 million people, many of whom are quite decent, but the regime, the basij, the IRG, and its protectors there and abroad are some of the worst scum on the face of this earth, and need to be killed.
As for the ludicrous canard about how "wonderful" the jews have it there, I can tell you for a fact if most of them were allowed to leave and speak without a gun to their head - their true opinion would be quite different.
A major attack on iran is long, long overdue - that regime must be destroyed, and can only be done so by external military means.
Don't forget how accepting of those with "alternative lifestyles" they are! Obviously nobody on here has seen the last Gay Pride parade and the throngs of followers.
Oops, as per their "president" gay people don't exist (for long) in Iran.
Kind of like Saddam, sometimes better the devil you know.... The interesting thing is none of this started happening until Saddam was erased. Iran,Syria pretty much everyone around him was scared of him and stayed in line.
Just my opinion.
Saddam gassed a lot of people. The Kurds as well as the Iranians. This was during the 1980's.
The question was never whether or not Saddam had poison gas, which is World War One-era technology maintained by a lot of third-world nations, but whether or not "the smoking gun" would "come in the form of a mushroom cloud" - eg, nuclear weaponry. Nobody would have supported a trillion-dollar invasion to deprive Saddam of gas shells.
Who is "the madman" in the Syrian civil war? I assume you mean Assad, but if Assad falls, what do you think would happen afterwards? Are you aware of the inter-war battles going on between different rebel factions, including extremist factions? What makes you think that Assad's fall would end the war, as opposed to setting off an even-messier war between even more factions? Time to stop using two-toned thinking here and use more of the palette.
This is the problem with not thinking things through - you end up starting down roads that lead nowhere good.
Uh huh....what you left out is that the more "destabilized" they are between each other, the better off we are...just a fact....a fact we learned in 1979 and apparently forgot years later....you remember that don't you? When Iraq and Iran were at war...
As far as gas, you downplay it like it can't kill quite as many as nuclear. Eau Contraire Batman...it just doesn't kill them quite as quickly....you make it sound like a good thing, like a rounding error.....no....gas is every bit as effective, much, much easier to manufacture, and exponentially easier to deploy undetected.....just asked that blind Asian whack job who set it off in the subways in Japan?
And yet, NO democrat would even talk about the gas problem let alone go after it during that "No weapons of mass destruction present" charade years later.....
Kind of like Saddam, sometimes better the devil you know.... The interesting thing is none of this started happening until Saddam was erased. Iran,Syria pretty much everyone around him was scared of him and stayed in line.
Just my opinion.
What we did in Iraq was the stupidest thing possible. With the Shiite majority, they will become another Iran and the people will be worse off than ever before.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
I've got a news flash for everyone, this regime is not as bad as our media and government says it is. Think about it for a moment. Really now, what has Syria done that has been extremely bad in the past that others in the region have not done at one time or the other. Something else is going on backstage, some strategic move the US wants to make. They've got WMDs, they don't, they've used them, they haven't, they come from Iraq....................I smell a rat with this one.
That pretty much explains our foreign policy decision making for the last 50 years or so, eh?
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.
