Arming Syrian Rebels

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

You do know you are failing at trying to demonstrate your mastery of the English language? I don’t know you, your education level, or how old you are, but your posts read like something a 12 year old with no friends would write. [/quote]

The stop fucking reading them. Problem sovled, scooter.

Do you have a thing for pre-teen loners?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Obama-to-step-up-military-support-of-Syrian-rebels-4599134.php

This is another disaster waiting to happen. What the fuck are we arming those degenerates for? This isn’t about rebels fighting for democracy or something along those lines at all. This is about a group of Sunni extremists looking to take over a Shi’ite-led government being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. Shit, most of the rebels by now are probably backed by al Qaeda. And the Obama/Cain/Kerry axis thinks we’ll be able to only arm the “really serious rebels fighting for democracy” or whatever bullshit those dipshits have managed to buy into. What’s next? Turkey?

I don’t think this will backfire in the same way that arming the Taliban against the Soviets did, but I don’t think it will be that different either.

I cannot fucking stand how this country runs its foreign policy these days. And by days, I mean the last 20 or 30 years. We’re always meddling in other people’s shit and sometimes I don’t really blame these wacko Islamists for flying jets into our buildings. How the fuck would we Americans respond if the shoe were on the other foot and Iran was sending troops here to take out the Altria Group’s board of directors for producing cigarettes? Talk about a weapon of mass destruction.

American tobacco products have probably killed more people than all the wars in the world combined over the last 250 years. How would we respond if China said, “hey, you know what? Some Chinese citizens visiting Oakland today were killed by some American gang members. You guys have a gang problem over there and you’re producing weapons of mass destruction that are killing millions of us Chinese each decade. Since you can’t break up these gangs and you can’t stop producing cigarettes, we’re going to come in and take out the gangs and the Phillip-Morris factories ourselves.”

We would flip the fuck out. I really wish we would just stay out of this whole Syrian mess entirely. Who fucking cares what happens over there? What’s the difference? Does it really matter WHICH terrorist organization takes over that country? Because that is what is ultimately going to take place there. Some new group of authoritarians or terrorists are going to start running things over there. It doesn’t matter which group it is, but we’re going to end up arming one of them.

We should just throw everyone for a loop and start arming Assad’s forces instead. That’ll really throw a wrench in Iran’s plans, that’s for sure. If we’re going to arm one side, why not arm Assad’s side just for the fuck of it, just to flip things on their heads for real over there?

I know, I know. What about Israel??? We can’t let Israel become endangered!!! Fuck it. Let israel deal with the fallout. It’s more their problem than it is ours anyways, and we’ve certainly given Israel enough weaponry to fight that battle themselves. Let them have at it instead of us if it’s going to be someone going in there and muddying up the situation even further.[/quote]

Fuck 'em huh? Just fuck all the Syrians, let’em die. Fuck their assholes. Let them slaughter every single last on of them, so long as we stay out of it, right? Sounds reasonable.

I am all for letting Israel take care of the situation, just don’t bitch about the way they do it. If you let the leash off that dog, they’ll take care of the problem alright. I don’t want to hear how they need to give the land back either. We let them handle it.[/quote]

If they want to start bombing everybody back to the Stone Age and appropriate everyone’s land out there, I say go for it. Just don’t come over here with your lobbyists and your pity parties trying to convince the U.S. that Israel needs aid from us. I say let Israel do whatever they want over there, but let them do it strictly with their own money. If we’re going to essentially foot the bill for the entire foreign policy they better do what the fuck we tell them to do. But rather than listen to us, they build settlement after settlement over there while we’re trying to negotiate some sort of peace, which is a slap in the U.S.'s face. Fine, have at it with the settlements and the bombs and all that shit. But do it with your own money, Israel.[/quote]

That’s not the way the world works. Everybody’s money is tied together in some fashion. Syria’s importance to the region is to great, not just Israels. Are you going to let Al qaeda run Syria? That’s the price of doing nothing. Syria’s fate is tied to our national interests and there is nothing we can do about that. Syria going strait to hell is bad for everybody.

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

You do know you are failing at trying to demonstrate your mastery of the English language? I don’t know you, your education level, or how old you are, but your posts read like something a 12 year old with no friends would write. [/quote]

The stop fucking reading them. Problem sovled, scooter.

Do you have a thing for pre-teen loners? [/quote]
Only when they have access to guns.

[quote]DirtyM wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
There is no good side to this, and it will turn out badly.

Assad, the evil optomotrist (really!), is a foul man, but a known evil and kept the peace, more or less, so normal people could go about their lives, more or less. He is from the same trans-islamic political party as Saddam. Not a pretty group — the party was originally formed by Nazi Germany to organize the islamic world against the Allies and to kill the resident Jews in what-was-then the British protectorate and-what-is-now mostly Israel. So, I can’t say I am a fan.

The islamist rebels are basically fucking crazy, feeding on religious fervor, and hate the USA as much as they hate Assad. Not sure why anyone would help them, unless the goal is to have every able-bodied man in the country dead.

Anyway, it’s a bad scene, happening next door to me, but I would really just let it run its course. This intra-Islamic fighting has been going on since 600 CE. They only stop when there are Christians or Jews to kill.

Just don’t let it spread to Joran or Israel and help evac the people caught in the middle.[/quote]

I am actually all for setting up a puppet government over there. If we intervene, it has to be to the point we plant our flag. We cannot let the rebels run the show, it will be a theocracy much like the Taliban, we cannot support Assad, he’s all but done. So a new government is going to take effect, we have to intervene to the point where we can ensure they will do no harm to us or our interests. I agree, there is nothing pretty about this and no good solutions, only different levels of bad. The problem is, how many Syrians are we going to let die? They are the ones getting bombed and gassed. That’s where this gets messy, we don’t want another Congo situation, you can’t just let 2 million people die. Well you can, but it’s not very nice to do so.

Isolationism is as dead as can be. There is no opting out of dealing with it. Syria is to much of a heavy hitter to allow it to devolve into chaos. [/quote]

Lots of “we” in that post, Pat. Who exactly is this “we” letting Syrians die? That implies responsibility, and frankly I sense we have none regarding this civil war. What quorum is going to form a coalition and intervene? Or are you suggesting the U.S. act unilaterally in Syria? That briefs well from a moralistic standpoint. But from where I sit, not one Syrian is worth one U.S. Serviceman/woman. And…you aint going to commit any large ground forces from the United States into Syria after 9 years of combat in Iraq, and closing in on 12 years of combat in Afghanistan. POTUS knows this won’t fly.

Like I posted earlier, the cold hard facts of our potential intervention hinge solely on the security of WMD sites. That is it. [/quote]

We is America. And we have interests there. Interests we cannot let falter to our own detriment. And that’s aside from the mass murder of Syrians going on there. Doing nothing is not an option.
It may be cool to you to let millions of Syrians just get murdered, but it’s not ok with me. That alone is reason enough for intervention. But Syria devolving into chaos is a national security threat to us and our allies. If we don’t manage it, it can go badly for lots of people, including us.
Intervention is a foregone conclusion, it’s just a matter of what kind and how much.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DirtyM wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
There is no good side to this, and it will turn out badly.

Assad, the evil optomotrist (really!), is a foul man, but a known evil and kept the peace, more or less, so normal people could go about their lives, more or less. He is from the same trans-islamic political party as Saddam. Not a pretty group — the party was originally formed by Nazi Germany to organize the islamic world against the Allies and to kill the resident Jews in what-was-then the British protectorate and-what-is-now mostly Israel. So, I can’t say I am a fan.

The islamist rebels are basically fucking crazy, feeding on religious fervor, and hate the USA as much as they hate Assad. Not sure why anyone would help them, unless the goal is to have every able-bodied man in the country dead.

Anyway, it’s a bad scene, happening next door to me, but I would really just let it run its course. This intra-Islamic fighting has been going on since 600 CE. They only stop when there are Christians or Jews to kill.

Just don’t let it spread to Joran or Israel and help evac the people caught in the middle.[/quote]

I am actually all for setting up a puppet government over there. If we intervene, it has to be to the point we plant our flag. We cannot let the rebels run the show, it will be a theocracy much like the Taliban, we cannot support Assad, he’s all but done. So a new government is going to take effect, we have to intervene to the point where we can ensure they will do no harm to us or our interests. I agree, there is nothing pretty about this and no good solutions, only different levels of bad. The problem is, how many Syrians are we going to let die? They are the ones getting bombed and gassed. That’s where this gets messy, we don’t want another Congo situation, you can’t just let 2 million people die. Well you can, but it’s not very nice to do so.

Isolationism is as dead as can be. There is no opting out of dealing with it. Syria is to much of a heavy hitter to allow it to devolve into chaos. [/quote]

Lots of “we” in that post, Pat. Who exactly is this “we” letting Syrians die? That implies responsibility, and frankly I sense we have none regarding this civil war. What quorum is going to form a coalition and intervene? Or are you suggesting the U.S. act unilaterally in Syria? That briefs well from a moralistic standpoint. But from where I sit, not one Syrian is worth one U.S. Serviceman/woman. And…you aint going to commit any large ground forces from the United States into Syria after 9 years of combat in Iraq, and closing in on 12 years of combat in Afghanistan. POTUS knows this won’t fly.

Like I posted earlier, the cold hard facts of our potential intervention hinge solely on the security of WMD sites. That is it. [/quote]

We is America. And we have interests there. Interests we cannot let falter to our own detriment. And that’s aside from the mass murder of Syrians going on there. Doing nothing is not an option.
It may be cool to you to let millions of Syrians just get murdered, but it’s not ok with me. That alone is reason enough for intervention. But Syria devolving into chaos is a national security threat to us and our allies. If we don’t manage it, it can go badly for lots of people, including us.
Intervention is a foregone conclusion, it’s just a matter of what kind and how much.[/quote]

The rebels should of thought of that when they decided to take down the World Trade Center. These rebels are in the same camp as AQ. Everyone is desending on Syria. What happens when Syria starts to loose and they need to bring the entire muslim world to one side. Attack Israel and when Israel attacks back the rebels will move under the banner of Syria, Iran, and Russia. I think this is what Iran wants. Not sure what Russia wants, but Russia does not like Israel.

I think it is better to let Syria have it’s Civil War and see what happens.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DirtyM wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
There is no good side to this, and it will turn out badly.

Assad, the evil optomotrist (really!), is a foul man, but a known evil and kept the peace, more or less, so normal people could go about their lives, more or less. He is from the same trans-islamic political party as Saddam. Not a pretty group — the party was originally formed by Nazi Germany to organize the islamic world against the Allies and to kill the resident Jews in what-was-then the British protectorate and-what-is-now mostly Israel. So, I can’t say I am a fan.

The islamist rebels are basically fucking crazy, feeding on religious fervor, and hate the USA as much as they hate Assad. Not sure why anyone would help them, unless the goal is to have every able-bodied man in the country dead.

Anyway, it’s a bad scene, happening next door to me, but I would really just let it run its course. This intra-Islamic fighting has been going on since 600 CE. They only stop when there are Christians or Jews to kill.

Just don’t let it spread to Joran or Israel and help evac the people caught in the middle.[/quote]

I am actually all for setting up a puppet government over there. If we intervene, it has to be to the point we plant our flag. We cannot let the rebels run the show, it will be a theocracy much like the Taliban, we cannot support Assad, he’s all but done. So a new government is going to take effect, we have to intervene to the point where we can ensure they will do no harm to us or our interests. I agree, there is nothing pretty about this and no good solutions, only different levels of bad. The problem is, how many Syrians are we going to let die? They are the ones getting bombed and gassed. That’s where this gets messy, we don’t want another Congo situation, you can’t just let 2 million people die. Well you can, but it’s not very nice to do so.

Isolationism is as dead as can be. There is no opting out of dealing with it. Syria is to much of a heavy hitter to allow it to devolve into chaos. [/quote]

Lots of “we” in that post, Pat. Who exactly is this “we” letting Syrians die? That implies responsibility, and frankly I sense we have none regarding this civil war. What quorum is going to form a coalition and intervene? Or are you suggesting the U.S. act unilaterally in Syria? That briefs well from a moralistic standpoint. But from where I sit, not one Syrian is worth one U.S. Serviceman/woman. And…you aint going to commit any large ground forces from the United States into Syria after 9 years of combat in Iraq, and closing in on 12 years of combat in Afghanistan. POTUS knows this won’t fly.

Like I posted earlier, the cold hard facts of our potential intervention hinge solely on the security of WMD sites. That is it. [/quote]

We is America. And we have interests there. Interests we cannot let falter to our own detriment. And that’s aside from the mass murder of Syrians going on there. Doing nothing is not an option.
It may be cool to you to let millions of Syrians just get murdered, but it’s not ok with me. That alone is reason enough for intervention. But Syria devolving into chaos is a national security threat to us and our allies. If we don’t manage it, it can go badly for lots of people, including us.
Intervention is a foregone conclusion, it’s just a matter of what kind and how much.[/quote]

The rebels should of thought of that when they decided to take down the World Trade Center. These rebels are in the same camp as AQ. Everyone is desending on Syria. What happens when Syria starts to loose and they need to bring the entire muslim world to one side. Attack Israel and when Israel attacks back the rebels will move under the banner of Syria, Iran, and Russia. I think this is what Iran wants. Not sure what Russia wants, but Russia does not like Israel.

I think it is better to let Syria have it’s Civil War and see what happens.[/quote]

How many innocent people are you willing to let die, “to see what happens”? What about the people who have nothing to do with it who are getting gassed and slaughtered? Fuck 'em?

I don’t think people really grasp what Syria means to the region and world.

[quote]pat wrote:
How many innocent people are you willing to let die, “to see what happens”? What about the people who have nothing to do with it who are getting gassed and slaughtered? Fuck 'em?

I don’t think people really grasp what Syria means to the region and world. [/quote]

How many are truly innocent? If war was coming my way I would run away. War is bad and innocent people die all the time. You and I both know from Iraq and Afg. the enemy uses civilian places to hide and attack. Civilians will be killed, and no I do not like it. If the US joins this civil war it will escillate and draw the US vs Russia and Iran. I would like nothing more than to devistate Iran and Russia at the same time, but are we willing to take that risk?

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How many innocent people are you willing to let die, “to see what happens”? What about the people who have nothing to do with it who are getting gassed and slaughtered? Fuck 'em?

I don’t think people really grasp what Syria means to the region and world. [/quote]

How many are truly innocent? If war was coming my way I would run away. War is bad and innocent people die all the time. You and I both know from Iraq and Afg. the enemy uses civilian places to hide and attack. Civilians will be killed, and no I do not like it. If the US joins this civil war it will escillate and draw the US vs Russia and Iran. I would like nothing more than to devistate Iran and Russia at the same time, but are we willing to take that risk?
[/quote]

Run away? You’re joking right? Yes, a regional power in Iran and a great power in Russia really want to start WWIII over Syria. How did you come to that enlightened conclusion? Vladimir Putin’s unwavering support for the Assad regime in Syria is best explained by his dread of fracturing states and Sunni Islamism- fears he confronted most directly while brutally suppressing Chechnya’s attempted secession from Russia.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How many innocent people are you willing to let die, “to see what happens”? What about the people who have nothing to do with it who are getting gassed and slaughtered? Fuck 'em?

I don’t think people really grasp what Syria means to the region and world. [/quote]

How many are truly innocent? If war was coming my way I would run away. War is bad and innocent people die all the time. You and I both know from Iraq and Afg. the enemy uses civilian places to hide and attack. Civilians will be killed, and no I do not like it. If the US joins this civil war it will escillate and draw the US vs Russia and Iran. I would like nothing more than to devistate Iran and Russia at the same time, but are we willing to take that risk?
[/quote]
Those who can run, but many have nowhere to go and no way to get out and they are getting killed by the thousands. Not rebels, civilians. Assad does not care who he kills so long as they are dead. Right now the rebels are the lesser of the two evils.
Any commitment from the U.S. must come with strings attached.

The option not on the table is uninvolvement. We are involved. Now what’s the best way to deal with it?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How many innocent people are you willing to let die, “to see what happens”? What about the people who have nothing to do with it who are getting gassed and slaughtered? Fuck 'em?

I don’t think people really grasp what Syria means to the region and world. [/quote]

How many are truly innocent? If war was coming my way I would run away. War is bad and innocent people die all the time. You and I both know from Iraq and Afg. the enemy uses civilian places to hide and attack. Civilians will be killed, and no I do not like it. If the US joins this civil war it will escillate and draw the US vs Russia and Iran. I would like nothing more than to devistate Iran and Russia at the same time, but are we willing to take that risk?
[/quote]
Those who can run, but many have nowhere to go and no way to get out and they are getting killed by the thousands. Not rebels, civilians. Assad does not care who he kills so long as they are dead. Right now the rebels are the lesser of the two evils.
Any commitment from the U.S. must come with strings attached.

The option not on the table is uninvolvement. We are involved. Now what’s the best way to deal with it?
[/quote]

How are we involved? We are only involved because Obama talked about a Red Line, but we have not done anything yet. Maybe Assad has used Chemical Weapons or maybe not. Many on TV are stating Obama is using the same logic that Bush used to go into Iraq. I am not here to argue that Bush was right or wrong just stating what some on TV have said. I dont know what is the best way to do this, and I personally do not like Assad or what he is doing to his people. If I was his people I would leave. I would do anything possible to get out of that country. They can go to Turkey, I know Turkey is turning people away, Lebanon, Jordon or Israel. Get out any way you can.

[quote]Revanchist wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How many innocent people are you willing to let die, “to see what happens”? What about the people who have nothing to do with it who are getting gassed and slaughtered? Fuck 'em?

I don’t think people really grasp what Syria means to the region and world. [/quote]

How many are truly innocent? If war was coming my way I would run away. War is bad and innocent people die all the time. You and I both know from Iraq and Afg. the enemy uses civilian places to hide and attack. Civilians will be killed, and no I do not like it. If the US joins this civil war it will escillate and draw the US vs Russia and Iran. I would like nothing more than to devistate Iran and Russia at the same time, but are we willing to take that risk?
[/quote]

Run away? You’re joking right? Yes, a regional power in Iran and a great power in Russia really want to start WWIII over Syria. How did you come to that enlightened conclusion? Vladimir Putin’s unwavering support for the Assad regime in Syria is best explained by his dread of fracturing states and Sunni Islamism- fears he confronted most directly while brutally suppressing Chechnya’s attempted secession from Russia. [/quote]

This is all speculation but seeing how things are turning out this could be a possibility. Russia and Iran back Assad. US backs the Rebels. Iran is sending troops, Republican Guard, to Syria as we speak. Russia is sending weapons, and as we learned from the Korean War they send troops to help with the weapons and planes, so it is possible Russia already has troops on the ground, but do I know for sure no and if they do it is a small amount, probably what we have on the Jordan border 300. If this escalates, and Obama wants to deflect from the Scandals what better way to do that then to send troops to Syria. Now you have 2 world powers and a regional power, who hates one of the world powers, with troops in Syria. This thing is escalating the question is will Obama keep us out of there or go in full force. Congress is now pushing to arm the Rebels with more substantial weapons and implement a no fly zone. That will put the US in that country if Obama and Congress, or NATO decides to do so.

Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War started lobbing Scud missiles toward Israel trying to bring them into the conflict. I see Assad and Iran trying to do this if this starts going down hill for them. If Israel retaliates it will bring the Muslim world under one banner.

I don’t think there’ll be any major US involvement beyond somethings that are short sighted. This is an issue that’s and can be politicized, saying the United States wont be involved is an unpopular position to hold. I wouldn’t be surprised if the claims of chemical weapons is a means of legitimizing involvement with other nations, Russia specifically. Then America can say “you guys let it get out of control, you made us step in”. The opposition to the Assad regime will be given assistance that only benefits AQ.

Personally, I think if the United States gets involved it needs to be in it to prove something. Since that isn’t the case the best course of action would be letting Russia and Iran stick it to Al-Nusra.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Obama-to-step-up-military-support-of-Syrian-rebels-4599134.php

This is another disaster waiting to happen. What the fuck are we arming those degenerates for? This isn’t about rebels fighting for democracy or something along those lines at all. This is about a group of Sunni extremists looking to take over a Shi’ite-led government being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. Shit, most of the rebels by now are probably backed by al Qaeda. And the Obama/Cain/Kerry axis thinks we’ll be able to only arm the “really serious rebels fighting for democracy” or whatever bullshit those dipshits have managed to buy into. What’s next? Turkey?

I don’t think this will backfire in the same way that arming the Taliban against the Soviets did, but I don’t think it will be that different either.

I cannot fucking stand how this country runs its foreign policy these days. And by days, I mean the last 20 or 30 years. We’re always meddling in other people’s shit and sometimes I don’t really blame these wacko Islamists for flying jets into our buildings. How the fuck would we Americans respond if the shoe were on the other foot and Iran was sending troops here to take out the Altria Group’s board of directors for producing cigarettes? Talk about a weapon of mass destruction.

American tobacco products have probably killed more people than all the wars in the world combined over the last 250 years. How would we respond if China said, “hey, you know what? Some Chinese citizens visiting Oakland today were killed by some American gang members. You guys have a gang problem over there and you’re producing weapons of mass destruction that are killing millions of us Chinese each decade. Since you can’t break up these gangs and you can’t stop producing cigarettes, we’re going to come in and take out the gangs and the Phillip-Morris factories ourselves.”

We would flip the fuck out. I really wish we would just stay out of this whole Syrian mess entirely. Who fucking cares what happens over there? What’s the difference? Does it really matter WHICH terrorist organization takes over that country? Because that is what is ultimately going to take place there. Some new group of authoritarians or terrorists are going to start running things over there. It doesn’t matter which group it is, but we’re going to end up arming one of them.

We should just throw everyone for a loop and start arming Assad’s forces instead. That’ll really throw a wrench in Iran’s plans, that’s for sure. If we’re going to arm one side, why not arm Assad’s side just for the fuck of it, just to flip things on their heads for real over there?

I know, I know. What about Israel??? We can’t let Israel become endangered!!! Fuck it. Let israel deal with the fallout. It’s more their problem than it is ours anyways, and we’ve certainly given Israel enough weaponry to fight that battle themselves. Let them have at it instead of us if it’s going to be someone going in there and muddying up the situation even further.[/quote]

Fuck 'em huh? Just fuck all the Syrians, let’em die. Fuck their assholes. Let them slaughter every single last on of them, so long as we stay out of it, right? Sounds reasonable.

I am all for letting Israel take care of the situation, just don’t bitch about the way they do it. If you let the leash off that dog, they’ll take care of the problem alright. I don’t want to hear how they need to give the land back either. We let them handle it.[/quote]

If they want to start bombing everybody back to the Stone Age and appropriate everyone’s land out there, I say go for it. Just don’t come over here with your lobbyists and your pity parties trying to convince the U.S. that Israel needs aid from us. I say let Israel do whatever they want over there, but let them do it strictly with their own money. If we’re going to essentially foot the bill for the entire foreign policy they better do what the fuck we tell them to do. But rather than listen to us, they build settlement after settlement over there while we’re trying to negotiate some sort of peace, which is a slap in the U.S.'s face. Fine, have at it with the settlements and the bombs and all that shit. But do it with your own money, Israel.[/quote]

That’s not the way the world works. Everybody’s money is tied together in some fashion. Syria’s importance to the region is to great, not just Israels. Are you going to let Al qaeda run Syria? That’s the price of doing nothing. Syria’s fate is tied to our national interests and there is nothing we can do about that. Syria going strait to hell is bad for everybody.[/quote]

The problem is that our national interests are tied to a country like Syria. The first step toward undoing that fact is NOT to go in there and get involved with a civil war. Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or Iran or some combo of the three will probably have a major influence there regardless of what we do. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men haven’t done shit to change that eventuality in Afghanistan or Iraq. What makes you think that Syria will be any different? Has no one learned from ANYTHING that we’ve done in that region? This is the absolute definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

People seem to forget that if al Qaeda takes over Syria, that is a bad thing for Syria. It’s a problem that most Syrians don’t want to have happen there. And it’s a problem that Syrians need to fix. We cannot and should not be going around trying to fix everyone’s problems while labeling it “in our best national interests”. It is NOT in our best interests to go there. What IS in our best interests is a Middle East capable of taking care of their own shit.

You’re conservative, right? You value hard work and autonomy and don’t like the idea of the gov’t giving handouts to Americans who are struggling here, right? Not really into entitlement programs, are you? I assume that part of that reason is because they don’t do anything to motivate people to change their circumstances on their own.

Well, if that sort of attitude is correct, why not apply it to the Middle East. All we’re doing is essentially giving them military welfare and expecting them to change. THEY have to change themselves; we can’t do it for them. We can barely change the fucked up things about our own country, so why should we think we can make a difference over there? We need to concentrate on protecting and providing for our own citizens, not Syria’s. And we need to start RIGHT NOW to find a way to disassociate ourselves from a foreign policy in which we have deep national interests tied to one of the most backwards regions of the world. That’s a major problem for this country right now. Sending arms, materiel and/or soldiers over there to do their fighting for them is NOT the solution to that problem.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Revanchist wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How many innocent people are you willing to let die, “to see what happens”? What about the people who have nothing to do with it who are getting gassed and slaughtered? Fuck 'em?

I don’t think people really grasp what Syria means to the region and world. [/quote]

How many are truly innocent? If war was coming my way I would run away. War is bad and innocent people die all the time. You and I both know from Iraq and Afg. the enemy uses civilian places to hide and attack. Civilians will be killed, and no I do not like it. If the US joins this civil war it will escillate and draw the US vs Russia and Iran. I would like nothing more than to devistate Iran and Russia at the same time, but are we willing to take that risk?
[/quote]

Run away? You’re joking right? Yes, a regional power in Iran and a great power in Russia really want to start WWIII over Syria. How did you come to that enlightened conclusion? Vladimir Putin’s unwavering support for the Assad regime in Syria is best explained by his dread of fracturing states and Sunni Islamism- fears he confronted most directly while brutally suppressing Chechnya’s attempted secession from Russia. [/quote]

This is all speculation but seeing how things are turning out this could be a possibility. Russia and Iran back Assad. US backs the Rebels. Iran is sending troops, Republican Guard, to Syria as we speak. Russia is sending weapons, and as we learned from the Korean War they send troops to help with the weapons and planes, so it is possible Russia already has troops on the ground, but do I know for sure no and if they do it is a small amount, probably what we have on the Jordan border 300. If this escalates, and Obama wants to deflect from the Scandals what better way to do that then to send troops to Syria. Now you have 2 world powers and a regional power, who hates one of the world powers, with troops in Syria. This thing is escalating the question is will Obama keep us out of there or go in full force. Congress is now pushing to arm the Rebels with more substantial weapons and implement a no fly zone. That will put the US in that country if Obama and Congress, or NATO decides to do so.

Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War started lobbing Scud missiles toward Israel trying to bring them into the conflict. I see Assad and Iran trying to do this if this starts going down hill for them. If Israel retaliates it will bring the Muslim world under one banner.
[/quote]

This reads like a really bad wannabe Tom Clancy novel.

[quote]Revanchist wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Revanchist wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How many innocent people are you willing to let die, “to see what happens”? What about the people who have nothing to do with it who are getting gassed and slaughtered? Fuck 'em?

I don’t think people really grasp what Syria means to the region and world. [/quote]

How many are truly innocent? If war was coming my way I would run away. War is bad and innocent people die all the time. You and I both know from Iraq and Afg. the enemy uses civilian places to hide and attack. Civilians will be killed, and no I do not like it. If the US joins this civil war it will escillate and draw the US vs Russia and Iran. I would like nothing more than to devistate Iran and Russia at the same time, but are we willing to take that risk?
[/quote]

Run away? You’re joking right? Yes, a regional power in Iran and a great power in Russia really want to start WWIII over Syria. How did you come to that enlightened conclusion? Vladimir Putin’s unwavering support for the Assad regime in Syria is best explained by his dread of fracturing states and Sunni Islamism- fears he confronted most directly while brutally suppressing Chechnya’s attempted secession from Russia. [/quote]

This is all speculation but seeing how things are turning out this could be a possibility. Russia and Iran back Assad. US backs the Rebels. Iran is sending troops, Republican Guard, to Syria as we speak. Russia is sending weapons, and as we learned from the Korean War they send troops to help with the weapons and planes, so it is possible Russia already has troops on the ground, but do I know for sure no and if they do it is a small amount, probably what we have on the Jordan border 300. If this escalates, and Obama wants to deflect from the Scandals what better way to do that then to send troops to Syria. Now you have 2 world powers and a regional power, who hates one of the world powers, with troops in Syria. This thing is escalating the question is will Obama keep us out of there or go in full force. Congress is now pushing to arm the Rebels with more substantial weapons and implement a no fly zone. That will put the US in that country if Obama and Congress, or NATO decides to do so.

Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War started lobbing Scud missiles toward Israel trying to bring them into the conflict. I see Assad and Iran trying to do this if this starts going down hill for them. If Israel retaliates it will bring the Muslim world under one banner.
[/quote]

This reads like a really bad wannabe Tom Clancy novel. [/quote]

I will take that as a compliment.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Obama-to-step-up-military-support-of-Syrian-rebels-4599134.php

This is another disaster waiting to happen. What the fuck are we arming those degenerates for? This isn’t about rebels fighting for democracy or something along those lines at all. This is about a group of Sunni extremists looking to take over a Shi’ite-led government being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. Shit, most of the rebels by now are probably backed by al Qaeda. And the Obama/Cain/Kerry axis thinks we’ll be able to only arm the “really serious rebels fighting for democracy” or whatever bullshit those dipshits have managed to buy into. What’s next? Turkey?

I don’t think this will backfire in the same way that arming the Taliban against the Soviets did, but I don’t think it will be that different either.

I cannot fucking stand how this country runs its foreign policy these days. And by days, I mean the last 20 or 30 years. We’re always meddling in other people’s shit and sometimes I don’t really blame these wacko Islamists for flying jets into our buildings. How the fuck would we Americans respond if the shoe were on the other foot and Iran was sending troops here to take out the Altria Group’s board of directors for producing cigarettes? Talk about a weapon of mass destruction.

American tobacco products have probably killed more people than all the wars in the world combined over the last 250 years. How would we respond if China said, “hey, you know what? Some Chinese citizens visiting Oakland today were killed by some American gang members. You guys have a gang problem over there and you’re producing weapons of mass destruction that are killing millions of us Chinese each decade. Since you can’t break up these gangs and you can’t stop producing cigarettes, we’re going to come in and take out the gangs and the Phillip-Morris factories ourselves.”

We would flip the fuck out. I really wish we would just stay out of this whole Syrian mess entirely. Who fucking cares what happens over there? What’s the difference? Does it really matter WHICH terrorist organization takes over that country? Because that is what is ultimately going to take place there. Some new group of authoritarians or terrorists are going to start running things over there. It doesn’t matter which group it is, but we’re going to end up arming one of them.

We should just throw everyone for a loop and start arming Assad’s forces instead. That’ll really throw a wrench in Iran’s plans, that’s for sure. If we’re going to arm one side, why not arm Assad’s side just for the fuck of it, just to flip things on their heads for real over there?

I know, I know. What about Israel??? We can’t let Israel become endangered!!! Fuck it. Let israel deal with the fallout. It’s more their problem than it is ours anyways, and we’ve certainly given Israel enough weaponry to fight that battle themselves. Let them have at it instead of us if it’s going to be someone going in there and muddying up the situation even further.[/quote]

Fuck 'em huh? Just fuck all the Syrians, let’em die. Fuck their assholes. Let them slaughter every single last on of them, so long as we stay out of it, right? Sounds reasonable.

I am all for letting Israel take care of the situation, just don’t bitch about the way they do it. If you let the leash off that dog, they’ll take care of the problem alright. I don’t want to hear how they need to give the land back either. We let them handle it.[/quote]

If they want to start bombing everybody back to the Stone Age and appropriate everyone’s land out there, I say go for it. Just don’t come over here with your lobbyists and your pity parties trying to convince the U.S. that Israel needs aid from us. I say let Israel do whatever they want over there, but let them do it strictly with their own money. If we’re going to essentially foot the bill for the entire foreign policy they better do what the fuck we tell them to do. But rather than listen to us, they build settlement after settlement over there while we’re trying to negotiate some sort of peace, which is a slap in the U.S.'s face. Fine, have at it with the settlements and the bombs and all that shit. But do it with your own money, Israel.[/quote]

That’s not the way the world works. Everybody’s money is tied together in some fashion. Syria’s importance to the region is to great, not just Israels. Are you going to let Al qaeda run Syria? That’s the price of doing nothing. Syria’s fate is tied to our national interests and there is nothing we can do about that. Syria going strait to hell is bad for everybody.[/quote]

The problem is that our national interests are tied to a country like Syria. The first step toward undoing that fact is NOT to go in there and get involved with a civil war. Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or Iran or some combo of the three will probably have a major influence there regardless of what we do. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men haven’t done shit to change that eventuality in Afghanistan or Iraq. What makes you think that Syria will be any different? Has no one learned from ANYTHING that we’ve done in that region? This is the absolute definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

People seem to forget that if al Qaeda takes over Syria, that is a bad thing for Syria. It’s a problem that most Syrians don’t want to have happen there. And it’s a problem that Syrians need to fix. We cannot and should not be going around trying to fix everyone’s problems while labeling it “in our best national interests”. It is NOT in our best interests to go there. What IS in our best interests is a Middle East capable of taking care of their own shit.

You’re conservative, right? You value hard work and autonomy and don’t like the idea of the gov’t giving handouts to Americans who are struggling here, right? Not really into entitlement programs, are you? I assume that part of that reason is because they don’t do anything to motivate people to change their circumstances on their own.

Well, if that sort of attitude is correct, why not apply it to the Middle East. All we’re doing is essentially giving them military welfare and expecting them to change. THEY have to change themselves; we can’t do it for them. We can barely change the fucked up things about our own country, so why should we think we can make a difference over there? We need to concentrate on protecting and providing for our own citizens, not Syria’s. And we need to start RIGHT NOW to find a way to disassociate ourselves from a foreign policy in which we have deep national interests tied to one of the most backwards regions of the world. That’s a major problem for this country right now. Sending arms, materiel and/or soldiers over there to do their fighting for them is NOT the solution to that problem.[/quote]

I am realistic. The pipe dream of nationalism and isolationism is dead never to return. It will never happen. Syria is an extremely important country regionally, strategically, and internationally. A Syria that becomes like a somalia is a world destabilizer that could easily draw the world into war.
That’s aside from the fact that they are slaughtering thousands, if not in the millions already, of their own citizens.
Maybe you don’t give a shit about them. I however am not comfortable watching their senseless murders through a fisheye lens, with a simple tisk-tisk.

The consequences, the loss of life, the instability, and the ensuing destruction from doing nothing is at far greater risk from doing nothing, rather than doing something.

You cannot ignore Syria. You can try, but it’s your own ass in the end.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Obama-to-step-up-military-support-of-Syrian-rebels-4599134.php

This is another disaster waiting to happen. What the fuck are we arming those degenerates for? This isn’t about rebels fighting for democracy or something along those lines at all. This is about a group of Sunni extremists looking to take over a Shi’ite-led government being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. Shit, most of the rebels by now are probably backed by al Qaeda. And the Obama/Cain/Kerry axis thinks we’ll be able to only arm the “really serious rebels fighting for democracy” or whatever bullshit those dipshits have managed to buy into. What’s next? Turkey?

I don’t think this will backfire in the same way that arming the Taliban against the Soviets did, but I don’t think it will be that different either.

I cannot fucking stand how this country runs its foreign policy these days. And by days, I mean the last 20 or 30 years. We’re always meddling in other people’s shit and sometimes I don’t really blame these wacko Islamists for flying jets into our buildings. How the fuck would we Americans respond if the shoe were on the other foot and Iran was sending troops here to take out the Altria Group’s board of directors for producing cigarettes? Talk about a weapon of mass destruction.

American tobacco products have probably killed more people than all the wars in the world combined over the last 250 years. How would we respond if China said, “hey, you know what? Some Chinese citizens visiting Oakland today were killed by some American gang members. You guys have a gang problem over there and you’re producing weapons of mass destruction that are killing millions of us Chinese each decade. Since you can’t break up these gangs and you can’t stop producing cigarettes, we’re going to come in and take out the gangs and the Phillip-Morris factories ourselves.”

We would flip the fuck out. I really wish we would just stay out of this whole Syrian mess entirely. Who fucking cares what happens over there? What’s the difference? Does it really matter WHICH terrorist organization takes over that country? Because that is what is ultimately going to take place there. Some new group of authoritarians or terrorists are going to start running things over there. It doesn’t matter which group it is, but we’re going to end up arming one of them.

We should just throw everyone for a loop and start arming Assad’s forces instead. That’ll really throw a wrench in Iran’s plans, that’s for sure. If we’re going to arm one side, why not arm Assad’s side just for the fuck of it, just to flip things on their heads for real over there?

I know, I know. What about Israel??? We can’t let Israel become endangered!!! Fuck it. Let israel deal with the fallout. It’s more their problem than it is ours anyways, and we’ve certainly given Israel enough weaponry to fight that battle themselves. Let them have at it instead of us if it’s going to be someone going in there and muddying up the situation even further.[/quote]

Fuck 'em huh? Just fuck all the Syrians, let’em die. Fuck their assholes. Let them slaughter every single last on of them, so long as we stay out of it, right? Sounds reasonable.

I am all for letting Israel take care of the situation, just don’t bitch about the way they do it. If you let the leash off that dog, they’ll take care of the problem alright. I don’t want to hear how they need to give the land back either. We let them handle it.[/quote]

If they want to start bombing everybody back to the Stone Age and appropriate everyone’s land out there, I say go for it. Just don’t come over here with your lobbyists and your pity parties trying to convince the U.S. that Israel needs aid from us. I say let Israel do whatever they want over there, but let them do it strictly with their own money. If we’re going to essentially foot the bill for the entire foreign policy they better do what the fuck we tell them to do. But rather than listen to us, they build settlement after settlement over there while we’re trying to negotiate some sort of peace, which is a slap in the U.S.'s face. Fine, have at it with the settlements and the bombs and all that shit. But do it with your own money, Israel.[/quote]

That’s not the way the world works. Everybody’s money is tied together in some fashion. Syria’s importance to the region is to great, not just Israels. Are you going to let Al qaeda run Syria? That’s the price of doing nothing. Syria’s fate is tied to our national interests and there is nothing we can do about that. Syria going strait to hell is bad for everybody.[/quote]

The problem is that our national interests are tied to a country like Syria. The first step toward undoing that fact is NOT to go in there and get involved with a civil war. Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or Iran or some combo of the three will probably have a major influence there regardless of what we do. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men haven’t done shit to change that eventuality in Afghanistan or Iraq. What makes you think that Syria will be any different? Has no one learned from ANYTHING that we’ve done in that region? This is the absolute definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

People seem to forget that if al Qaeda takes over Syria, that is a bad thing for Syria. It’s a problem that most Syrians don’t want to have happen there. And it’s a problem that Syrians need to fix. We cannot and should not be going around trying to fix everyone’s problems while labeling it “in our best national interests”. It is NOT in our best interests to go there. What IS in our best interests is a Middle East capable of taking care of their own shit.

You’re conservative, right? You value hard work and autonomy and don’t like the idea of the gov’t giving handouts to Americans who are struggling here, right? Not really into entitlement programs, are you? I assume that part of that reason is because they don’t do anything to motivate people to change their circumstances on their own.

Well, if that sort of attitude is correct, why not apply it to the Middle East. All we’re doing is essentially giving them military welfare and expecting them to change. THEY have to change themselves; we can’t do it for them. We can barely change the fucked up things about our own country, so why should we think we can make a difference over there? We need to concentrate on protecting and providing for our own citizens, not Syria’s. And we need to start RIGHT NOW to find a way to disassociate ourselves from a foreign policy in which we have deep national interests tied to one of the most backwards regions of the world. That’s a major problem for this country right now. Sending arms, materiel and/or soldiers over there to do their fighting for them is NOT the solution to that problem.[/quote]

I am realistic. The pipe dream of nationalism and isolationism is dead never to return. It will never happen. Syria is an extremely important country regionally, strategically, and internationally. A Syria that becomes like a somalia is a world destabilizer that could easily draw the world into war.
That’s aside from the fact that they are slaughtering thousands, if not in the millions already, of their own citizens.
Maybe you don’t give a shit about them. I however am not comfortable watching their senseless murders through a fisheye lens, with a simple tisk-tisk.

The consequences, the loss of life, the instability, and the ensuing destruction from doing nothing is at far greater risk from doing nothing, rather than doing something.

You cannot ignore Syria. You can try, but it’s your own ass in the end.[/quote]

Look, I’m not completely desensitized to the deaths of innocent people no matter where it happens. But let’s face it. If this country is going to go galavanting around the globe as some mythical Great Protector of all the downtrodden people in this country, and is going to do so on the backs of taxpayers here in the U.S., it won’t be around to do so for very long.

Do you really think little old Syria is going to draw the world into war? It is so egotistical and grandiose to think that we can make any sort of positive impact over there. Name the last country we sent our military into with the mission of installing a new gov’t or aiding those wishing to install one and things turned out fine. It hasn’t happened since WWII. Our mission failed in Korea, it failed in Vietnam, it failed in Iraq, it failed in Afghanistan and it will fail in Syria. And you know what? Despite all of those failings, the U.S. is still here standing and the world hasn’t degenerated into all-out warfare. So don’t sell me this bullshit about Syria being some key strategic pawn that HAS to be saved or else all hell will break loose. People have been saying that about every country we’ve made a major military commitment to since WWII and it has NEVER turned out to be true.

Syria is an Israeli problem. Let them fix it. We certainly hand out enough cash each year for them to do so. Iran HOPES that we get sucked into that mess, because it gives them a chance to kill American soldiers and take us on in the best way they can, which is by proxy. They just elected a “moderate” president over there, so let’s try not to put any more pressure on him than there already is by forcing him to take sides in a heated issue like Syria. Who gives a fuck what Russia does? Syria is practically on their border. They have every right to stick their noses into the fray and choose sides. Let 'em. They’ll choose the wrong side and slowly get bled dry like what has been happening to the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 11+ years.

The rationalization of your foreign policy opinions sounds like that of a liberal rationalizing all these entitlement programs here in the U.S. Try to show a little more consistency with your logic, Pat.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Obama-to-step-up-military-support-of-Syrian-rebels-4599134.php

This is another disaster waiting to happen. What the fuck are we arming those degenerates for? This isn’t about rebels fighting for democracy or something along those lines at all. This is about a group of Sunni extremists looking to take over a Shi’ite-led government being backed by Iran and Hezbollah. Shit, most of the rebels by now are probably backed by al Qaeda. And the Obama/Cain/Kerry axis thinks we’ll be able to only arm the “really serious rebels fighting for democracy” or whatever bullshit those dipshits have managed to buy into. What’s next? Turkey?

I don’t think this will backfire in the same way that arming the Taliban against the Soviets did, but I don’t think it will be that different either.

I cannot fucking stand how this country runs its foreign policy these days. And by days, I mean the last 20 or 30 years. We’re always meddling in other people’s shit and sometimes I don’t really blame these wacko Islamists for flying jets into our buildings. How the fuck would we Americans respond if the shoe were on the other foot and Iran was sending troops here to take out the Altria Group’s board of directors for producing cigarettes? Talk about a weapon of mass destruction.

American tobacco products have probably killed more people than all the wars in the world combined over the last 250 years. How would we respond if China said, “hey, you know what? Some Chinese citizens visiting Oakland today were killed by some American gang members. You guys have a gang problem over there and you’re producing weapons of mass destruction that are killing millions of us Chinese each decade. Since you can’t break up these gangs and you can’t stop producing cigarettes, we’re going to come in and take out the gangs and the Phillip-Morris factories ourselves.”

We would flip the fuck out. I really wish we would just stay out of this whole Syrian mess entirely. Who fucking cares what happens over there? What’s the difference? Does it really matter WHICH terrorist organization takes over that country? Because that is what is ultimately going to take place there. Some new group of authoritarians or terrorists are going to start running things over there. It doesn’t matter which group it is, but we’re going to end up arming one of them.

We should just throw everyone for a loop and start arming Assad’s forces instead. That’ll really throw a wrench in Iran’s plans, that’s for sure. If we’re going to arm one side, why not arm Assad’s side just for the fuck of it, just to flip things on their heads for real over there?

I know, I know. What about Israel??? We can’t let Israel become endangered!!! Fuck it. Let israel deal with the fallout. It’s more their problem than it is ours anyways, and we’ve certainly given Israel enough weaponry to fight that battle themselves. Let them have at it instead of us if it’s going to be someone going in there and muddying up the situation even further.[/quote]

Fuck 'em huh? Just fuck all the Syrians, let’em die. Fuck their assholes. Let them slaughter every single last on of them, so long as we stay out of it, right? Sounds reasonable.

I am all for letting Israel take care of the situation, just don’t bitch about the way they do it. If you let the leash off that dog, they’ll take care of the problem alright. I don’t want to hear how they need to give the land back either. We let them handle it.[/quote]

If they want to start bombing everybody back to the Stone Age and appropriate everyone’s land out there, I say go for it. Just don’t come over here with your lobbyists and your pity parties trying to convince the U.S. that Israel needs aid from us. I say let Israel do whatever they want over there, but let them do it strictly with their own money. If we’re going to essentially foot the bill for the entire foreign policy they better do what the fuck we tell them to do. But rather than listen to us, they build settlement after settlement over there while we’re trying to negotiate some sort of peace, which is a slap in the U.S.'s face. Fine, have at it with the settlements and the bombs and all that shit. But do it with your own money, Israel.[/quote]

That’s not the way the world works. Everybody’s money is tied together in some fashion. Syria’s importance to the region is to great, not just Israels. Are you going to let Al qaeda run Syria? That’s the price of doing nothing. Syria’s fate is tied to our national interests and there is nothing we can do about that. Syria going strait to hell is bad for everybody.[/quote]

The problem is that our national interests are tied to a country like Syria. The first step toward undoing that fact is NOT to go in there and get involved with a civil war. Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or Iran or some combo of the three will probably have a major influence there regardless of what we do. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men haven’t done shit to change that eventuality in Afghanistan or Iraq. What makes you think that Syria will be any different? Has no one learned from ANYTHING that we’ve done in that region? This is the absolute definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

People seem to forget that if al Qaeda takes over Syria, that is a bad thing for Syria. It’s a problem that most Syrians don’t want to have happen there. And it’s a problem that Syrians need to fix. We cannot and should not be going around trying to fix everyone’s problems while labeling it “in our best national interests”. It is NOT in our best interests to go there. What IS in our best interests is a Middle East capable of taking care of their own shit.

You’re conservative, right? You value hard work and autonomy and don’t like the idea of the gov’t giving handouts to Americans who are struggling here, right? Not really into entitlement programs, are you? I assume that part of that reason is because they don’t do anything to motivate people to change their circumstances on their own.

Well, if that sort of attitude is correct, why not apply it to the Middle East. All we’re doing is essentially giving them military welfare and expecting them to change. THEY have to change themselves; we can’t do it for them. We can barely change the fucked up things about our own country, so why should we think we can make a difference over there? We need to concentrate on protecting and providing for our own citizens, not Syria’s. And we need to start RIGHT NOW to find a way to disassociate ourselves from a foreign policy in which we have deep national interests tied to one of the most backwards regions of the world. That’s a major problem for this country right now. Sending arms, materiel and/or soldiers over there to do their fighting for them is NOT the solution to that problem.[/quote]

I am realistic. The pipe dream of nationalism and isolationism is dead never to return. It will never happen. Syria is an extremely important country regionally, strategically, and internationally. A Syria that becomes like a somalia is a world destabilizer that could easily draw the world into war.
That’s aside from the fact that they are slaughtering thousands, if not in the millions already, of their own citizens.
Maybe you don’t give a shit about them. I however am not comfortable watching their senseless murders through a fisheye lens, with a simple tisk-tisk.

The consequences, the loss of life, the instability, and the ensuing destruction from doing nothing is at far greater risk from doing nothing, rather than doing something.

You cannot ignore Syria. You can try, but it’s your own ass in the end.[/quote]

Look, I’m not completely desensitized to the deaths of innocent people no matter where it happens. But let’s face it. If this country is going to go galavanting around the globe as some mythical Great Protector of all the downtrodden people in this country, and is going to do so on the backs of taxpayers here in the U.S., it won’t be around to do so for very long.
[/quote]
Like it or not, that IS our role in many facets of the world, and where we have failed to play this role has turned out badly. I am not fond of it, but it’s the way it is and we have to make it work the best for everybody. Letting it go and allowing our enemies to intervene while we sit and do nothing is going to turn out badly for us and our allies. A friendly Syria is in our best interests in many, many ways. Nobody wants to be involved in that mess, but people are going to be. And it’s better that it’s us than our enemies.

Do I think little ol’ Syria can drag us into war? Oh hell yes. Man if it becomes a boon for terrorists, or for Iran, war will be a foregone conclusion.
There is no ‘good’ result here. Abandoning the Syrians is the worst move possible. They will be supporting those who help them and if it’s not us, it will be an enemy that will make a mess.

Further, we now have a chance to get Syria out of the clutches of Iran, that is of huge benefit. Isolating Iran is a big deal and we have a chance to do that now.

We took this attitude with Cuba in the ‘50’s and we are still paying dearly for that mistake today. It’s a mistake we cannot afford to make. I seldom agree with obama, but he said that people do not understand Syria and it’s importance and the cost of doing nothing. I agree with him. Little ol’ Syria is vitally important, there isn’t enough room to explain why. But a Syria firmly in the hands of our enemies is a mistake we cannot affored to make. Not this time.

[quote]
Syria is an Israeli problem. Let them fix it. We certainly hand out enough cash each year for them to do so. Iran HOPES that we get sucked into that mess, because it gives them a chance to kill American soldiers and take us on in the best way they can, which is by proxy. They just elected a “moderate” president over there, so let’s try not to put any more pressure on him than there already is by forcing him to take sides in a heated issue like Syria. Who gives a fuck what Russia does? Syria is practically on their border. They have every right to stick their noses into the fray and choose sides. Let 'em. They’ll choose the wrong side and slowly get bled dry like what has been happening to the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 11+ years.

The rationalization of your foreign policy opinions sounds like that of a liberal rationalizing all these entitlement programs here in the U.S. Try to show a little more consistency with your logic, Pat.[/quote]

Your just trying to pigeonhole me into a stereotype. You think that if I hold conservative views that I must be an isolationist. No. I have seen and lived the consequences of that. I am the child of escapees from Soviet oppression.
We do not live in an isolated world. If we don’t take care of the Syrian problem, somebody will, to our detriment.
Israels problem? I would love for Israel to take care of the problem. Nobody else would, but I would enjoy it. They aren’t skilled at diplomacy, but they sure can kick some ass.
If we let Israel off the leash, that problem will be solved, I agree. But the region will be in a tizzy, because Israel knows how to do two things very well, gather intelligence and kick ass. The Israelis will not play around, they will solve the problem. So I would be all for giving Israel the green light. That’s not going to happen because they are not very skilled at diplomacy, they are skilled at kicking ass.
We don’t have a choice with Syria. It’s a big problem and a big opportunity to isolate Iran further.
Sure I wish we lived in a world where everybody would just solve their own problems, but we don’t and we haven’t lived in that kind of world for 3 centuries. So we either turn Syria to the hands of our enemies, or we handle it the best way possible. Either way, we are involved and will be. We can either do the wrong thing or the right thing. Isolating them is the wrong thing. It’s a situation that has to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with delicately and if possible, create a U.S. friendly ally. At least, create one that is not our complete enemy.

Personally, I think the quickest and best thing to do is assassinate Assad strait out. Then turn our cannons on the rebels and run them the hell out of Syria, so that the people can start a fledgling democracy and get their own shit going. Yeah, it’s a pipe dream, but I think that would be ideal. Assad needs to be dead sooner rather than later. That’s step one.

Syria isn’t friendly to the United States, Syria and Iran have been in it together for a long time. The same goes for Russia. That’s why both nations are assisting Assad to keep him in power. It’d hypothetically be better for the United States if the opposition won, unfortunately for the United States the opposition is dominated by the same Sunni terrorist organizations the United States has been fighting for over a decade. There are no good sides in this, the United States would have to prop up the Free Syrian Army and defeat both the Assad regime and its supporters and the majority of the opposition.