America's War Drums Beating Over Syria

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Suppose we had not done anything.

Assad would have put the rebellion down months ago. All those people wouldn't have died and we wouldn't be talking about chemical weapons now.

In other words the best possible results are achieved minding one's own business.

I doubt the millions of Syrian's who'd finally had enough of the Assad regime would agree with that outcome being the "best possible results," wouldn't you?

And?

What does any of that have to do with measurable results in America? What is the gain from meddling in other people's business? Is it worth my child's life to make some remf cocksucker feel good? I don't think so.

If every renegade Syrian in Syria was tortured to death it wouldn't change the price of Salt in Chicago.

Next.

 

[paulitician]

Syria is for Syrians. It's not our War. We have no business handing them Taxpayer Cash or weapons. Especially, since it's known that these 'Rebels' are infested with Al Qaeda terrorists. We're making the same grave errors in Libya and Egypt. Blowback is gonna be a bitch for us at some point.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Let us suppose Assad kills every one of his political opponents in Syria. For good measure let us suppose he does it personally by the worst means you can imagine.

What measurable, verifiable effects are there on the United States?

Please spare us speculative horseshit.

Wait a sec, when republicans say that, they are called isolationists and only care about america, ect ect.....and the liberals remind us we live in a world with other countries...but now the liberals are america first????? When did THIS happen?

 

[GHook93]

First if anyone thinks we haven't been involved over there, then I have a bridge to sell you. But I digress. The Democrats (and some Republicans like John McCain) have been beating the war drums over Syria for a while now. They want to interfere over their like we did with Libya.

Obama, to his credit, has resisted the pressure to act. However, he now made a speech about a line being crossed with the "alleged" use of chemical weapons!!! It sounds like the we are set to intervene. I assume a Libya like no fly zone and bombing of key targets.

Now for the record, Obama's STRATEGY in Libya was a ginormous success. No US boots on the ground, no occupation, no nation building and less dollars spent and the removal of the current government. The results have been disasterous, since Libya is now a destabilized country, haven for terrorist and arm dealing corridor. The strategy worked, but evil of Gaddiff was far better than what was left when he was over-thrown.

I believe NATO is working on a no fly zone Libya like strategy to remove ASSSSSad from power. The strategy will work, but the outcome will be even more disasterous.

First, ASSSSad has flaws, but he at least kept Syria stable and modern in the way Iraq and Jordan are moderate. Second, he has kept a cold peace with Israel. Third, he has not developed WNDs. Fourth, while he supports Hezbollah, he doesn't support Al Qaeda. When ASSSad falls, Al Qaeda will take over, Sharia will be establish and the country will be destablized like Egypt, but to a much greater extent because they will be trying to recover from a costly civil war. The country will be a haven for terrorism and a dangerous antiAmerican (ironically because we saved them) regime.

The strategy will work, the the result will be disasterous. Hopefully Obama resists the call to war cries!

Then what do you propose the President do? Back Assad?

Nothing! Don't back the rebels or ASSSad

 

[Oldguy]

In other words the best possible results are achieved minding one's own business.

I doubt the millions of Syrian's who'd finally had enough of the Assad regime would agree with that outcome being the "best possible results," wouldn't you?

And?

What does any of that have to do with measurable results in America? What is the gain from meddling in other people's business? Is it worth my child's life to make some remf cocksucker feel good? I don't think so.

If every renegade Syrian in Syria was tortured to death it wouldn't change the price of Salt in Chicago.

Next.

So...this means nothing to you and we have no duty to do for others what the French did for us?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In other words, fuck anybody else trying to do what we did in 1776?

 

[GHook93]

Please, it was bushjr and netandyahoo who considered young assad to be a bulwark on Israel's northern border. And it goes back even further.

Since 1948 we've been tied to defending Israel no matter what, and pining for the oil. Nothing else mattered .... unless it was arming the Taliban to kill Russians.

Not true. In 1948 the US put a arms embargon on the area, while the Russians were arming to the Arabs to the teeth, it was France and the UK that supplied the Jews. In '52 it was France and the UK that wanted to push on, but it was the US that put a holt to that.

We might have supported Israel with arms and military aid, but we have never fought in any of their wars nor are we going to!

 

[yidnar]

 

[hjmick]

Syria is for Syrians. It's not our War. We have no business handing them Taxpayer Cash or weapons. Especially, since it's known that these 'Rebels' are infested with Al Qaeda terrorists. We're making the same grave errors in Libya and Egypt. Blowback is gonna be a bitch for us at some point.

Thank you! How is it no one seems concerned about the ties these rebels have to al Qaeda? What moron decided "yeah, let's give them money, who cares about al Qaeda? What did they ever do to us?" Assad is an asshole, but al Qaeda is cool? WTF?