...or we back none of the above
What did Syria do to us?
- Thread starter BigAl205
- Start date
But But But... We need to drop those bombs to stimulate the economy......
seems like this time, we know the outcome. We've been to this particular party and we'll go home with the same hangover, if we take Assad out and wait to see if we can repel the "bad muslims" for the good ones.
what was Assad exactly doing that prompted us taking the rebels' side to begin with?
was it worse than the rebels, who are comprised of terror networks that grow their ranks in relation to how much they hate us, and the west?
Saddam was a ruthless bastard but he was known to have a bunch of yellow cake and we had to go in to get that out of his hands, Assad is just a ruthless bastard.
And, Assad isn't sitting on a big oil honey pot, either so we can't use that excuse, and the rebels themselves are all muslim-based, which is either fronts for a radical core or just the radical core, I don't want to give muslims ANY aid or armament, based on their doctrine of infidel treatments.
So we either go big, and squash all the competition while taking Assad's reins and have a serious to-do with Russia, or we let the rebels continue their bloody insurgency, and Assad use his arsenal of WMD on their ranks until they lose their will to fight or get dead.
I'm making the distinction that Islam is operating against us no matter what we do, and that radical elements of Islam will be put in power if they are the last man standing. Egypt is a curious case, as their population and Syria's population to me, have some similar elements. Both unstable, both looking for hand-outs and both subject to a decade's long conflict if we get involved, with the Syrian contingency being all the more unsettled by having Russia say "that's our doorstop, we paid for it, you can't just come in here and use our doorstop"
so, I am against Assad's use of chemical warfare but I am more against the tinderbox proposition, even if they wave their hands in laughter at our dear leader's "red line" gallantry.
and I don't care how much the rebels tug on heart-sleeves, with their coverage of Assad's campaign of atrocities. They can't come up with a rebel force that's for democracy instead of muslim rule, fuck 'em.
what was Assad exactly doing that prompted us taking the rebels' side to begin with?
was it worse than the rebels, who are comprised of terror networks that grow their ranks in relation to how much they hate us, and the west?
Saddam was a ruthless bastard but he was known to have a bunch of yellow cake and we had to go in to get that out of his hands, Assad is just a ruthless bastard.
And, Assad isn't sitting on a big oil honey pot, either so we can't use that excuse, and the rebels themselves are all muslim-based, which is either fronts for a radical core or just the radical core, I don't want to give muslims ANY aid or armament, based on their doctrine of infidel treatments.
So we either go big, and squash all the competition while taking Assad's reins and have a serious to-do with Russia, or we let the rebels continue their bloody insurgency, and Assad use his arsenal of WMD on their ranks until they lose their will to fight or get dead.
I'm making the distinction that Islam is operating against us no matter what we do, and that radical elements of Islam will be put in power if they are the last man standing. Egypt is a curious case, as their population and Syria's population to me, have some similar elements. Both unstable, both looking for hand-outs and both subject to a decade's long conflict if we get involved, with the Syrian contingency being all the more unsettled by having Russia say "that's our doorstop, we paid for it, you can't just come in here and use our doorstop"
so, I am against Assad's use of chemical warfare but I am more against the tinderbox proposition, even if they wave their hands in laughter at our dear leader's "red line" gallantry.
and I don't care how much the rebels tug on heart-sleeves, with their coverage of Assad's campaign of atrocities. They can't come up with a rebel force that's for democracy instead of muslim rule, fuck 'em.
That was my point
Senators draft resolution to limit Syria action to 90 days, no boots on the ground
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...action-to-90-days-no-boots-on-the-ground?lite
Here we go again
This will be something to see over the next decade or two !
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...action-to-90-days-no-boots-on-the-ground?lite
Here we go again
This will be something to see over the next decade or two !
See! For all of our bickering... We agree. I think.... Right? LOL.
captainobvious
New member
Until war is no longer profitable and agenda's of the few are no longer held above the benefit of the masses, these are the kinds of things that will continue to happen. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I think most people are starting to see that the left/right paradigm has failed ... especially since the right wants to be just like the left
it's telling that the rest of the civilized world is not impressed with the 1400 casualties from chemical weapons use, save for France, I mean, France?
I thought France was heavy into Iraq/Iran oil purchasing, aiding the rebels to topple Assad doesn't seem to play into that scene with Iran a Syrian close ally.
Maybe it's hedging their bets, or maybe it's because Britain did a Charlie Brown with Lucy holding the ball, that they felt compelled to offer up a little substance.
Britain has a large muslim population, what about France? I'm thinking I haven't read where Sharia law is the equivalent of French jurisdiction, and isn't France notoriously anti-religion, then?
Assad is a muslim, right. So, is the Sunni/Shi'ite thing sitting well, with the Hezbollah waiting to enter the game?
Who would want to be our friend, among all these muslim groupings? Who would stand for an Americanized version of their country, instead of simply toppling the other sectarian factions?
and, with democracy, who would be able to repel all those fighters who are about evenly distributed for the power vacuum struggle, after Assad falls?
Putin is a cagey bastard but he's more in tune with these kinds of regional conflicts than we are, and we've been at it for over a decade.
I thought France was heavy into Iraq/Iran oil purchasing, aiding the rebels to topple Assad doesn't seem to play into that scene with Iran a Syrian close ally.
Maybe it's hedging their bets, or maybe it's because Britain did a Charlie Brown with Lucy holding the ball, that they felt compelled to offer up a little substance.
Britain has a large muslim population, what about France? I'm thinking I haven't read where Sharia law is the equivalent of French jurisdiction, and isn't France notoriously anti-religion, then?
Assad is a muslim, right. So, is the Sunni/Shi'ite thing sitting well, with the Hezbollah waiting to enter the game?
Who would want to be our friend, among all these muslim groupings? Who would stand for an Americanized version of their country, instead of simply toppling the other sectarian factions?
and, with democracy, who would be able to repel all those fighters who are about evenly distributed for the power vacuum struggle, after Assad falls?
Putin is a cagey bastard but he's more in tune with these kinds of regional conflicts than we are, and we've been at it for over a decade.