Expand The US War In Syria Or Get Out: What Say You?...

[Brain357]

Well, I'm glad they aren't dead. I'm not kissing any ass, Rosie. Watch your mouth, girl.

lots of them are dead------your pal Saddam gassed them----leaving thousands of dead infants rotting in the sun in Northern
Iraq-----Turks ALSO murder them wholesale -----Syrians----slaughter them via incarceration and torture. Where have you
been? Fleeing to the mountains is a time honored custom
in Islamic infected shit holes. The Yazidis are the remnants of BAGHDAD ZOROASTRIANS-----it was Zoroastrians that provided Arabic with a script------but with the invasion of Iraq --they became an oppressed minority------so they fled. In my
own little life I have been acquainted with a jewish kurd from
Iran. Such an entity does exist------people who fled the filth you advocate. A distant "in-law" of mind told me that his jewish community also FLED to the mountains in Turkey. Your contention is
"SURVIVORS PROVES EVERYTHING HAS BEEN OK"?
Let's just ignore all the victims EXCEPT ----right now----the
YEMENIS ----under the control of the shills of Iran-----taking
bombs because of IRANIAN AGGRESSION?. I am all for
declawing Iran and their shills----HOUTHIS

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

 

[OldLady]

Well, I'm glad they aren't dead. I'm not kissing any ass, Rosie. Watch your mouth, girl.

lots of them are dead------your pal Saddam gassed them----leaving thousands of dead infants rotting in the sun in Northern
Iraq-----Turks ALSO murder them wholesale -----Syrians----slaughter them via incarceration and torture. Where have you
been? Fleeing to the mountains is a time honored custom
in Islamic infected shit holes. The Yazidis are the remnants of BAGHDAD ZOROASTRIANS-----it was Zoroastrians that provided Arabic with a script------but with the invasion of Iraq --they became an oppressed minority------so they fled. In my
own little life I have been acquainted with a jewish kurd from
Iran. Such an entity does exist------people who fled the filth you advocate. A distant "in-law" of mind told me that his jewish community also FLED to the mountains in Turkey. Your contention is
"SURVIVORS PROVES EVERYTHING HAS BEEN OK"?
Let's just ignore all the victims EXCEPT ----right now----the
YEMENIS ----under the control of the shills of Iran-----taking
bombs because of IRANIAN AGGRESSION?. I am all for
declawing Iran and their shills----HOUTHIS

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

If they try it we will go to war over it. Continuing this proxy war in Syria is not going to make a difference.

 

[Doc1]

lots of them are dead------your pal Saddam gassed them----leaving thousands of dead infants rotting in the sun in Northern
Iraq-----Turks ALSO murder them wholesale -----Syrians----slaughter them via incarceration and torture. Where have you
been? Fleeing to the mountains is a time honored custom
in Islamic infected shit holes. The Yazidis are the remnants of BAGHDAD ZOROASTRIANS-----it was Zoroastrians that provided Arabic with a script------but with the invasion of Iraq --they became an oppressed minority------so they fled. In my
own little life I have been acquainted with a jewish kurd from
Iran. Such an entity does exist------people who fled the filth you advocate. A distant "in-law" of mind told me that his jewish community also FLED to the mountains in Turkey. Your contention is
"SURVIVORS PROVES EVERYTHING HAS BEEN OK"?
Let's just ignore all the victims EXCEPT ----right now----the
YEMENIS ----under the control of the shills of Iran-----taking
bombs because of IRANIAN AGGRESSION?. I am all for
declawing Iran and their shills----HOUTHIS

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

This isn't a real question.....is it?

 

[irosie91]

lots of them are dead------your pal Saddam gassed them----leaving thousands of dead infants rotting in the sun in Northern
Iraq-----Turks ALSO murder them wholesale -----Syrians----slaughter them via incarceration and torture. Where have you
been? Fleeing to the mountains is a time honored custom
in Islamic infected shit holes. The Yazidis are the remnants of BAGHDAD ZOROASTRIANS-----it was Zoroastrians that provided Arabic with a script------but with the invasion of Iraq --they became an oppressed minority------so they fled. In my
own little life I have been acquainted with a jewish kurd from
Iran. Such an entity does exist------people who fled the filth you advocate. A distant "in-law" of mind told me that his jewish community also FLED to the mountains in Turkey. Your contention is
"SURVIVORS PROVES EVERYTHING HAS BEEN OK"?
Let's just ignore all the victims EXCEPT ----right now----the
YEMENIS ----under the control of the shills of Iran-----taking
bombs because of IRANIAN AGGRESSION?. I am all for
declawing Iran and their shills----HOUTHIS

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

lots of stuff---including oil. It is a MAJOR CONDUIT----
Russua is taking control of the Mediterannean --another
major conduit------EAST TO WEST and WEST TO EAST

 

[irosie91]

lots of them are dead------your pal Saddam gassed them----leaving thousands of dead infants rotting in the sun in Northern
Iraq-----Turks ALSO murder them wholesale -----Syrians----slaughter them via incarceration and torture. Where have you
been? Fleeing to the mountains is a time honored custom
in Islamic infected shit holes. The Yazidis are the remnants of BAGHDAD ZOROASTRIANS-----it was Zoroastrians that provided Arabic with a script------but with the invasion of Iraq --they became an oppressed minority------so they fled. In my
own little life I have been acquainted with a jewish kurd from
Iran. Such an entity does exist------people who fled the filth you advocate. A distant "in-law" of mind told me that his jewish community also FLED to the mountains in Turkey. Your contention is
"SURVIVORS PROVES EVERYTHING HAS BEEN OK"?
Let's just ignore all the victims EXCEPT ----right now----the
YEMENIS ----under the control of the shills of Iran-----taking
bombs because of IRANIAN AGGRESSION?. I am all for
declawing Iran and their shills----HOUTHIS

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

If they try it we will go to war over it. Continuing this proxy war in Syria is not going to make a difference.

right------just like letting adolf have der sudentenland would not
make any difference.------or POLAND------or MOSCOW

 

[Brain357]

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

lots of stuff---including oil. It is a MAJOR CONDUIT----
Russua is taking control of the Mediterannean --another
major conduit------EAST TO WEST and WEST TO EAST

Lots? I doubt it. We aren’t shipping oil there. Not our problem.

 

[Brain357]

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

If they try it we will go to war over it. Continuing this proxy war in Syria is not going to make a difference.

right------just like letting adolf have der sudentenland would not
make any difference.------or POLAND------or MOSCOW

You sound like the morons who started the Iraq disaster.

 

[irosie91]

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

lots of stuff---including oil. It is a MAJOR CONDUIT----
Russua is taking control of the Mediterannean --another
major conduit------EAST TO WEST and WEST TO EAST

Lots? I doubt it. We aren’t shipping oil there. Not our problem.

send not for whom the bell tolls

 

[Brain357]

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

This isn't a real question.....is it?

Of course it is. Feel free to answer.

 

[Brain357]

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

lots of stuff---including oil. It is a MAJOR CONDUIT----
Russua is taking control of the Mediterannean --another
major conduit------EAST TO WEST and WEST TO EAST

Lots? I doubt it. We aren’t shipping oil there. Not our problem.

send not for whom the bell tolls

Not our problem.

 

[OldLady]

Why should it be a United States of America fight, Rosie?

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

If they try it we will go to war over it. Continuing this proxy war in Syria is not going to make a difference.

right------just like letting adolf have der sudentenland would not
make any difference.------or POLAND------or MOSCOW

I hope you're wrong. From looking at the map, I swear I can't see how Iran allying with Syria is going to make a tinker's damn of difference in whether the Straits of Hormuz are blocked. Iran could try it tomorrow, if they wanted to. And we would blow them to oblivion if they tried.

 

[Doc1]

So far it Isn't. The Iranians have SUCCESSFULLY brought about a disaster in Yemen via their SHILLS---the houthis who have created a bloodbath in Yemen-----they have taken major
cities----THE MOST IMPORTANT----Sanaa the capital and the
most important port---ADEN. Their activities ALSO INCLUDE
attacks on Saudi Arabia for the benefit of Iran. Iran seeks the
seaports in order to be able to BLOCK various parts of the red
sea-------vital for SEA GOING TRANSPORT USED BY THE USA . GOT IT NOW? The conquest puts lots of power into the hands of your fave imperialist terrorists-----IRAN and --incidentally-----russia

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

This isn't a real question.....is it?

Of course it is. Feel free to answer.

Son you don't even belong in this conversation.

"About 20% of the world's petroleum (about 35% of the petroleum traded by sea) passes through the strait, making it a highly important strategic location for international trade.[1]"

Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia

 

[Brain357]

Thank you for explaining. I always tell my students, if you want to see who has the power in any period of history, look to the ships. It is still true.
I don't think Iran is going to tell us where to send our ships, though, Rosie. They'd be sorry little monkeys if they did.
And you can stop with assuming I have any dog in this fight. I don't. I don't want to, either.

oh good-----you understand that the issue is the SEA WATER
WAYS AND THE PORT CITIES-----both about the red sea
and the Mediterranean. AND you understand how VITAL they
are to the civilized world. Iran and Russia ABSOLUTELY will
block our ships at the vital strait of Hormuz if they can-----and if
you have your way -----they will be able to do so

And what exactly is shipped through Hormuz?

This isn't a real question.....is it?

Of course it is. Feel free to answer.

Son you don't even belong in this conversation.

"About 20% of the world's petroleum (about 35% of the petroleum traded by sea) passes through the strait, making it a highly important strategic location for international trade.[1]"

Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia

Not our oil. Who’s oil?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course it is. The bandaides you claim to support will not stop the slaughter but they may soothe your conscience. What does "have no business there" mean? Do you mean there are no profits to be made? Do you mean the US has no business trying to save the lives of people caught in this war? Other than not being white, why would the lives of these people be worth any less to you than the lives of Europeans?

Maybe I need to answer that by asking you a question: Why is it our business? Because people are being killed? I already asked you, I think, if we are to wade into every country where people are being killed. Or starving. Is that what you are proposing we do? If not, how does Syria rate our attention when not every country does?

So 500,000 people being killed and millions becoming homeless refugees doesn't rate you attention? What number would? Would 5,000,000 dead rate your attention? Would any number? Apparently not. Saying we shouldn't try to end the suffering and death in Syria unless we are willing to go into every country having difficulties is just a way of expressing your indifference to the suffering and death going on in Syria. Why stop one murder if you are not going to stop them all? Why stop one rape if you are not going to stop them all? Why help one country if you are not going to help them all?

Because if you are a decent person, you do what you can and regret that you cannot do more.

What do you think will stop it, specifically?
You are sure good at repeating the same thing over and over but not answering any of my questions, toomuchtime.

Maybe you're just not good at reading because I have answered your questions several times, by just keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions.

The only thing that can stop the slaughter in Syria is an agreement between the US and Russia to get rid of the Assad regime and prevent Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Russia's interest in Syria is to keep its naval base on the Mediterranean and Assad is necessary for that purpose, but if the US were to agree to support Russia's long term lease on the base after Assad were gone, that would be a much less expensive way for Russia to go. Such an agreement might also pave the way for the US and Russia to solve the conflicts in eastern Europe. The problem is that after all the feints and flourishes and surrenders of the Obama administration, Putin has no respect for the US and that respect has to be established now by showing a willingness to blow up the Assad regime.

I am still waiting for you to explain why it is our right/privilege/responsibility to take out the leader of a sovereign nation and negotiate with the other prevailing powers in the world about who gets that country's assets?

Oh, that's right--it is because people are dying, right? So that brings me back to my earlier question you have not answered, which is why do the people in Syria dying concern us more than the people dying of atrocities in any other country? Where do we draw the line? Should we be bombing Myramar? Libya? El Salvador? People sure died there/are dying there. Why are they less important than Syrians?

Two very stupid questions. First, Russia, Iran and Turkey recently held a summit to decide what to do with Syria and the Assad government wasn't even invited, so what sense does it make to call Syria a sovereign state. Were your ignorance of the situation not so vast and profound, you would understand Russia holds long term leases from Syria for its naval base, and the US would not be deciding how to dispose of Syria's assets but only supporting decisions already made by the Syrian government in the event that government should fall.

Your whine that the US should do nothing about the suffering and death in Syria because it cannot stop all the suffering and death in the world, is just an expression of your complete indifference to the suffering and death all over the world. As I have explained before, Syria is of special interest at this time because the war in Syria is being sustained by Russia, and an intervention by the US has the opportunity to force an agreement between Russia and the US to end most of the suffering and death in Syria; the same is not true in the other countries you mentioned.

 

[Brain357]

Maybe I need to answer that by asking you a question: Why is it our business? Because people are being killed? I already asked you, I think, if we are to wade into every country where people are being killed. Or starving. Is that what you are proposing we do? If not, how does Syria rate our attention when not every country does?

So 500,000 people being killed and millions becoming homeless refugees doesn't rate you attention? What number would? Would 5,000,000 dead rate your attention? Would any number? Apparently not. Saying we shouldn't try to end the suffering and death in Syria unless we are willing to go into every country having difficulties is just a way of expressing your indifference to the suffering and death going on in Syria. Why stop one murder if you are not going to stop them all? Why stop one rape if you are not going to stop them all? Why help one country if you are not going to help them all?

Because if you are a decent person, you do what you can and regret that you cannot do more.

What do you think will stop it, specifically?
You are sure good at repeating the same thing over and over but not answering any of my questions, toomuchtime.

Maybe you're just not good at reading because I have answered your questions several times, by just keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions.

The only thing that can stop the slaughter in Syria is an agreement between the US and Russia to get rid of the Assad regime and prevent Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Russia's interest in Syria is to keep its naval base on the Mediterranean and Assad is necessary for that purpose, but if the US were to agree to support Russia's long term lease on the base after Assad were gone, that would be a much less expensive way for Russia to go. Such an agreement might also pave the way for the US and Russia to solve the conflicts in eastern Europe. The problem is that after all the feints and flourishes and surrenders of the Obama administration, Putin has no respect for the US and that respect has to be established now by showing a willingness to blow up the Assad regime.

I am still waiting for you to explain why it is our right/privilege/responsibility to take out the leader of a sovereign nation and negotiate with the other prevailing powers in the world about who gets that country's assets?

Oh, that's right--it is because people are dying, right? So that brings me back to my earlier question you have not answered, which is why do the people in Syria dying concern us more than the people dying of atrocities in any other country? Where do we draw the line? Should we be bombing Myramar? Libya? El Salvador? People sure died there/are dying there. Why are they less important than Syrians?

Two very stupid questions. First, Russia, Iran and Turkey recently held a summit to decide what to do with Syria and the Assad government wasn't even invited, so what sense does it make to call Syria a sovereign state. Were your ignorance of the situation not so vast and profound, you would understand Russia holds long term leases from Syria for its naval base, and the US would not be deciding how to dispose of Syria's assets but only supporting decisions already made by the Syrian government in the event that government should fall.

Your whine that the US should do nothing about the suffering and death in Syria because it cannot stop all the suffering and death in the world, is just an expression of your complete indifference to the suffering and death all over the world. As I have explained before, Syria is of special interest at this time because the war in Syria is being sustained by Russia, and an intervention by the US has the opportunity to force an agreement between Russia and the US to end most of the suffering and death in Syria; the same is not true in the other countries you mentioned.

When has our intervention ever made a situation like this better?

 

[OldLady]

Maybe I need to answer that by asking you a question: Why is it our business? Because people are being killed? I already asked you, I think, if we are to wade into every country where people are being killed. Or starving. Is that what you are proposing we do? If not, how does Syria rate our attention when not every country does?

So 500,000 people being killed and millions becoming homeless refugees doesn't rate you attention? What number would? Would 5,000,000 dead rate your attention? Would any number? Apparently not. Saying we shouldn't try to end the suffering and death in Syria unless we are willing to go into every country having difficulties is just a way of expressing your indifference to the suffering and death going on in Syria. Why stop one murder if you are not going to stop them all? Why stop one rape if you are not going to stop them all? Why help one country if you are not going to help them all?

Because if you are a decent person, you do what you can and regret that you cannot do more.

What do you think will stop it, specifically?
You are sure good at repeating the same thing over and over but not answering any of my questions, toomuchtime.

Maybe you're just not good at reading because I have answered your questions several times, by just keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions.

The only thing that can stop the slaughter in Syria is an agreement between the US and Russia to get rid of the Assad regime and prevent Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Russia's interest in Syria is to keep its naval base on the Mediterranean and Assad is necessary for that purpose, but if the US were to agree to support Russia's long term lease on the base after Assad were gone, that would be a much less expensive way for Russia to go. Such an agreement might also pave the way for the US and Russia to solve the conflicts in eastern Europe. The problem is that after all the feints and flourishes and surrenders of the Obama administration, Putin has no respect for the US and that respect has to be established now by showing a willingness to blow up the Assad regime.

I am still waiting for you to explain why it is our right/privilege/responsibility to take out the leader of a sovereign nation and negotiate with the other prevailing powers in the world about who gets that country's assets?

Oh, that's right--it is because people are dying, right? So that brings me back to my earlier question you have not answered, which is why do the people in Syria dying concern us more than the people dying of atrocities in any other country? Where do we draw the line? Should we be bombing Myramar? Libya? El Salvador? People sure died there/are dying there. Why are they less important than Syrians?

Two very stupid questions. First, Russia, Iran and Turkey recently held a summit to decide what to do with Syria and the Assad government wasn't even invited, so what sense does it make to call Syria a sovereign state. Were your ignorance of the situation not so vast and profound, you would understand Russia holds long term leases from Syria for its naval base, and the US would not be deciding how to dispose of Syria's assets but only supporting decisions already made by the Syrian government in the event that government should fall.

Your whine that the US should do nothing about the suffering and death in Syria because it cannot stop all the suffering and death in the world, is just an expression of your complete indifference to the suffering and death all over the world. As I have explained before, Syria is of special interest at this time because the war in Syria is being sustained by Russia, and an intervention by the US has the opportunity to force an agreement between Russia and the US to end most of the suffering and death in Syria; the same is not true in the other countries you mentioned.

I don't pretend to know a lot about the Middle East; that's why I ask a lot of questions, and I always appreciate answers, even if I have to get insulted in the process.

Just an observation: posters in threads on the Middle East are some of the biggest pricks on USMB.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So 500,000 people being killed and millions becoming homeless refugees doesn't rate you attention? What number would? Would 5,000,000 dead rate your attention? Would any number? Apparently not. Saying we shouldn't try to end the suffering and death in Syria unless we are willing to go into every country having difficulties is just a way of expressing your indifference to the suffering and death going on in Syria. Why stop one murder if you are not going to stop them all? Why stop one rape if you are not going to stop them all? Why help one country if you are not going to help them all?

Because if you are a decent person, you do what you can and regret that you cannot do more.

What do you think will stop it, specifically?
You are sure good at repeating the same thing over and over but not answering any of my questions, toomuchtime.

Maybe you're just not good at reading because I have answered your questions several times, by just keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions.

The only thing that can stop the slaughter in Syria is an agreement between the US and Russia to get rid of the Assad regime and prevent Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Russia's interest in Syria is to keep its naval base on the Mediterranean and Assad is necessary for that purpose, but if the US were to agree to support Russia's long term lease on the base after Assad were gone, that would be a much less expensive way for Russia to go. Such an agreement might also pave the way for the US and Russia to solve the conflicts in eastern Europe. The problem is that after all the feints and flourishes and surrenders of the Obama administration, Putin has no respect for the US and that respect has to be established now by showing a willingness to blow up the Assad regime.

I am still waiting for you to explain why it is our right/privilege/responsibility to take out the leader of a sovereign nation and negotiate with the other prevailing powers in the world about who gets that country's assets?

Oh, that's right--it is because people are dying, right? So that brings me back to my earlier question you have not answered, which is why do the people in Syria dying concern us more than the people dying of atrocities in any other country? Where do we draw the line? Should we be bombing Myramar? Libya? El Salvador? People sure died there/are dying there. Why are they less important than Syrians?

Two very stupid questions. First, Russia, Iran and Turkey recently held a summit to decide what to do with Syria and the Assad government wasn't even invited, so what sense does it make to call Syria a sovereign state. Were your ignorance of the situation not so vast and profound, you would understand Russia holds long term leases from Syria for its naval base, and the US would not be deciding how to dispose of Syria's assets but only supporting decisions already made by the Syrian government in the event that government should fall.

Your whine that the US should do nothing about the suffering and death in Syria because it cannot stop all the suffering and death in the world, is just an expression of your complete indifference to the suffering and death all over the world. As I have explained before, Syria is of special interest at this time because the war in Syria is being sustained by Russia, and an intervention by the US has the opportunity to force an agreement between Russia and the US to end most of the suffering and death in Syria; the same is not true in the other countries you mentioned.

When has our intervention ever made a situation like this better?

When have we ever seen a situation like this in which a war was being sustained by Russia and we had a chance to reach an agreement with Russia to end the war?

 

[Brain357]

What do you think will stop it, specifically?
You are sure good at repeating the same thing over and over but not answering any of my questions, toomuchtime.

Maybe you're just not good at reading because I have answered your questions several times, by just keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions.

The only thing that can stop the slaughter in Syria is an agreement between the US and Russia to get rid of the Assad regime and prevent Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Russia's interest in Syria is to keep its naval base on the Mediterranean and Assad is necessary for that purpose, but if the US were to agree to support Russia's long term lease on the base after Assad were gone, that would be a much less expensive way for Russia to go. Such an agreement might also pave the way for the US and Russia to solve the conflicts in eastern Europe. The problem is that after all the feints and flourishes and surrenders of the Obama administration, Putin has no respect for the US and that respect has to be established now by showing a willingness to blow up the Assad regime.

I am still waiting for you to explain why it is our right/privilege/responsibility to take out the leader of a sovereign nation and negotiate with the other prevailing powers in the world about who gets that country's assets?

Oh, that's right--it is because people are dying, right? So that brings me back to my earlier question you have not answered, which is why do the people in Syria dying concern us more than the people dying of atrocities in any other country? Where do we draw the line? Should we be bombing Myramar? Libya? El Salvador? People sure died there/are dying there. Why are they less important than Syrians?

Two very stupid questions. First, Russia, Iran and Turkey recently held a summit to decide what to do with Syria and the Assad government wasn't even invited, so what sense does it make to call Syria a sovereign state. Were your ignorance of the situation not so vast and profound, you would understand Russia holds long term leases from Syria for its naval base, and the US would not be deciding how to dispose of Syria's assets but only supporting decisions already made by the Syrian government in the event that government should fall.

Your whine that the US should do nothing about the suffering and death in Syria because it cannot stop all the suffering and death in the world, is just an expression of your complete indifference to the suffering and death all over the world. As I have explained before, Syria is of special interest at this time because the war in Syria is being sustained by Russia, and an intervention by the US has the opportunity to force an agreement between Russia and the US to end most of the suffering and death in Syria; the same is not true in the other countries you mentioned.

When has our intervention ever made a situation like this better?

When have we ever seen a situation like this in which a war was being sustained by Russia and we had a chance to reach an agreement with Russia to end the war?

We have messed around with countries often and it leads to disaster, see Iraq.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Maybe you're just not good at reading because I have answered your questions several times, by just keep ignoring my answers and asking the same questions.

The only thing that can stop the slaughter in Syria is an agreement between the US and Russia to get rid of the Assad regime and prevent Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Russia's interest in Syria is to keep its naval base on the Mediterranean and Assad is necessary for that purpose, but if the US were to agree to support Russia's long term lease on the base after Assad were gone, that would be a much less expensive way for Russia to go. Such an agreement might also pave the way for the US and Russia to solve the conflicts in eastern Europe. The problem is that after all the feints and flourishes and surrenders of the Obama administration, Putin has no respect for the US and that respect has to be established now by showing a willingness to blow up the Assad regime.

I am still waiting for you to explain why it is our right/privilege/responsibility to take out the leader of a sovereign nation and negotiate with the other prevailing powers in the world about who gets that country's assets?

Oh, that's right--it is because people are dying, right? So that brings me back to my earlier question you have not answered, which is why do the people in Syria dying concern us more than the people dying of atrocities in any other country? Where do we draw the line? Should we be bombing Myramar? Libya? El Salvador? People sure died there/are dying there. Why are they less important than Syrians?

Two very stupid questions. First, Russia, Iran and Turkey recently held a summit to decide what to do with Syria and the Assad government wasn't even invited, so what sense does it make to call Syria a sovereign state. Were your ignorance of the situation not so vast and profound, you would understand Russia holds long term leases from Syria for its naval base, and the US would not be deciding how to dispose of Syria's assets but only supporting decisions already made by the Syrian government in the event that government should fall.

Your whine that the US should do nothing about the suffering and death in Syria because it cannot stop all the suffering and death in the world, is just an expression of your complete indifference to the suffering and death all over the world. As I have explained before, Syria is of special interest at this time because the war in Syria is being sustained by Russia, and an intervention by the US has the opportunity to force an agreement between Russia and the US to end most of the suffering and death in Syria; the same is not true in the other countries you mentioned.

When has our intervention ever made a situation like this better?

When have we ever seen a situation like this in which a war was being sustained by Russia and we had a chance to reach an agreement with Russia to end the war?

We have messed around with countries often and it leads to disaster, see Iraq.

This is nothing like Iraq. We have a chance here to end much of the horrendous suffering and death going on in Syria by dealing directly with Russia, which is sustaining the war. We have never seen a situation like this before.

 

[Brain357]

I am still waiting for you to explain why it is our right/privilege/responsibility to take out the leader of a sovereign nation and negotiate with the other prevailing powers in the world about who gets that country's assets?

Oh, that's right--it is because people are dying, right? So that brings me back to my earlier question you have not answered, which is why do the people in Syria dying concern us more than the people dying of atrocities in any other country? Where do we draw the line? Should we be bombing Myramar? Libya? El Salvador? People sure died there/are dying there. Why are they less important than Syrians?

Two very stupid questions. First, Russia, Iran and Turkey recently held a summit to decide what to do with Syria and the Assad government wasn't even invited, so what sense does it make to call Syria a sovereign state. Were your ignorance of the situation not so vast and profound, you would understand Russia holds long term leases from Syria for its naval base, and the US would not be deciding how to dispose of Syria's assets but only supporting decisions already made by the Syrian government in the event that government should fall.

Your whine that the US should do nothing about the suffering and death in Syria because it cannot stop all the suffering and death in the world, is just an expression of your complete indifference to the suffering and death all over the world. As I have explained before, Syria is of special interest at this time because the war in Syria is being sustained by Russia, and an intervention by the US has the opportunity to force an agreement between Russia and the US to end most of the suffering and death in Syria; the same is not true in the other countries you mentioned.

When has our intervention ever made a situation like this better?

When have we ever seen a situation like this in which a war was being sustained by Russia and we had a chance to reach an agreement with Russia to end the war?

We have messed around with countries often and it leads to disaster, see Iraq.

This is nothing like Iraq. We have a chance here to end much of the horrendous suffering and death going on in Syria by dealing directly with Russia, which is sustaining the war. We have never seen a situation like this before.

Yes we have tried to mess around in countries many times before, it always ends badly. How are Iraq and Afghanistan doing?