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.
What's hilarious is the same ron paul/isolationist/"not our problem" morons who are complaining about the rebels having been joined by jihadists were whining that the US should not have gotten involved early on.
So in their stupidity caused they caused the very problem they are now complaining about; had the US intervened from the beginning to stop the slaughter by the assad murder machine/mafia gang, there never would have been an opening or opportunity for the jihadists to flow into syria, as the indigenous rebels would not have need them and the weapons/funds, etc., they are able to procure.
But the empty suit, sit-on-his-hands president, trying to be Mr. anti-Bush in all matters, refused to act - leaving the secular, native syrian rebels out in the cold and forced them to accept the jihadists into their midst.
If obama had any character he would order missile strikes to destroy the regime's weapons and leadership, so the rebels could then walk over the regime's remnants and expel the jihadists.
You seem awfully eager to leap into other people's brutal civil wars - something the US does not have a great history doing. Thankfully, that impulse has faded a lot in the US at large since Iraq. You seem to feel that it's different this time, to which I can only say, I hope we'll never have to find out.
You seem awfully eager to leap into other people's brutal civil wars - something the US does not have a great history doing. Thankfully, that impulse has faded a lot in the US at large since Iraq. You seem to feel that it's different this time, to which I can only say, I hope we'll never have to find out.
Assad's fall is a matter of time. It is only prudent foreign policy for the US to establish ties with the likely replacement.
What's hilarious is the same ron paul/isolationist/"not our problem" morons who are complaining about the rebels having been joined by jihadists were whining that the US should not have gotten involved early on.
So in their stupidity caused they caused the very problem they are now complaining about; had the US intervened from the beginning to stop the slaughter by the assad murder machine/mafia gang, there never would have been an opening or opportunity for the jihadists to flow into syria, as the indigenous rebels would not have need them and the weapons/funds, etc., they are able to procure.
But the empty suit, sit-on-his-hands president, trying to be Mr. anti-Bush in all matters, refused to act - leaving the secular, native syrian rebels out in the cold and forced them to accept the jihadists into their midst.
If obama had any character he would order missile strikes to destroy the regime's weapons and leadership, so the rebels could then walk over the regime's remnants and expel the jihadists.
My guess is that you are a provacateur, sent here to drum up support to get us into another war. That's why I called you a shill, probably from the Pentagon, CIA or Blackwater type corp.
Truth is, the majority of native Syrians support their President, and the jihad is at the behest of our gov't. The globalists are threatened by nationals that seek to preserve their sovereignty, and not comply to demands of the US and NATO.
This is the same false information that got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
The former U.S. National Security Adviser (and a top Obama foreign policy adviser) admitted that the U.S. created, organized and armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan – including Bin Laden – to fight the Soviets. (The Mujahadeen eventually morphed into Al Qaeda.)
And the U.S. has backed the most dangerous and radical Muslim terrorists for decades.
Assad's fall is a matter of time. It is only prudent foreign policy for the US to establish ties with the likely replacement.
Another shill?
Why is it up to us to decide the leadership of other countries? Aren't we supposed to be the most powerful of all nations? Syria is a mouse, you can get off your chair.
How many nukes would make you feel safe? We have somewhere between 5000 and 9000.
Another shill?
Why is it up to us to decide the leadership of other countries? Aren't we supposed to be the most powerful of all nations? Syria is a mouse, you can get off your chair.
How many nukes would make you feel safe? We have somewhere between 5000 and 9000.
Syria has WMD which we don't want to fall into the wrong hands. Thus, it's in US interests to be involved with the outcome. Otherwise, Syria is a useless POS.
Even if Assad "fell," why would that resolve the civil war? Do you think the majority-Alawite cities right along the coast would peacefully transfer power to the majority-Sunni rebels? Did that ever happen in Lebanon, a country with similar demographic fractures that went through 16 years of civil war before a stalemate took hold? Why would it happen in Syria? Lebanon saw plenty of leaders rise and fall during the war era, but the war continued regardless.
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.
