-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Syria: they're using chemical weapons...
- Thread starter cashmcall
- Start date
Werbung:
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
Then what? I hear al-Qaeda and other al-Qaeda types are involved with the rebels.
and the rebels have declared solidarity with al-q.
replace one brutal dictator with another. does it really need.to cost us money ?
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
your choice is arm the rebals who are not radicals...or let the Radicals win ...But I know you don't care...Just sitting back hoping for a Dictator and not Democracy of any form...While bitching about how Oppressive Obama is. If only they where white, or Christian so you could care.
if the rebels are in solidarity with extremists, they ARE extremists. you fail to realize they dont consider it to be extreme. and of course democracy is the last thing on their minds.
but you also believe Obama is a swell leader so expectations have to be tempered.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
It is none of our business what the Syrians do to each other....and getting involved will only get more people killed, including Americans.
Lets see....getting involved in Afghan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc...............did what? One would think we would learn, but since the elites love war, we keep falling for the bullshit OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
And now we have the infection of Islam in the White House....much like the communist infection that ran the FDR and Truman White House....funny how things stay the same....
Lets see....getting involved in Afghan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc...............did what? One would think we would learn, but since the elites love war, we keep falling for the bullshit OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
And now we have the infection of Islam in the White House....much like the communist infection that ran the FDR and Truman White House....funny how things stay the same....
pocketfullof shells., I can not see how we can arm the non radical rebels without helping their allies the Sunni radicals including allquida.
Now that the rebels have refused to take part in the peace meeting there seems less reason to arm them. I agree with Gipper we should keep out. It was no just FDR and Trueman that go us into wars. So did Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson ,and Bush.
Now that the rebels have refused to take part in the peace meeting there seems less reason to arm them. I agree with Gipper we should keep out. It was no just FDR and Trueman that go us into wars. So did Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson ,and Bush.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
The exception is that those Presidents did not support the enemy ....
The same can not be said about the current regime .....
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
Your such a child. Arm which radicals? Democracy doesn't spring up from removing dictators. Look at what's happened to both Egypt and Libya. Are they any better off with Gadaffi and Mubarek gone? Hell no they aren't, the people are worse off, especially the women, moderates and Christians and their economies. Even your side would say that Iraq is worse off after removing Saddam. Iraq was given the chance for democracy, yet their murder rate was higher this month than when Saddam was there.
Look what happend to Iran when Carter helped get the Shah removed. It sure as hell wasn't better for the people with they ayatollahs taking over. When will we ever learn? The new possible president of Iran says that women have rights. The right to become mothers. That's it.
Obama's legacy is unfolding right now before our eyes, even his fawning media has caught on.
ThirdTerm
Well-Known Member
The FSA only needs a psychological boost after fighting the civil war for nearly two years and it may take extra ammunition to prevent its outright defeat in the hands of the Assad regime and a prolonged stalemate will eventually bring Assad to the negotiating table. The West also needs to control the flow of weapons to Syria to avoid fanning the flames of war.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Well lucky for you, they are not . They just happen to be fighting the same people. But I know such non black and white issues are hard for you guys.
Sorry for my delayed replies -- I know you had asked about "what are American interests" and I have not given an answer yet.
In terms of intervening in Syria, I would be inclined to not get overly involved at this point....I can see an argument made that it is in our interest to try to enact regime change in Syria (since Assad is certainly a problem), but I don't think we have any real incentive to get involved in any large capacity.
I know many are saying we should "arm" the "rebels", but I think it needs to be flushed out who those rebels are (there are literally hundreds of different groups that are "rebels) -- which ones do we arm, and what exactly we "arm" them with.
I would be watching Russian involvement and ultimately it is in our interest to make an effort to keep Russian influence out of the Middle East when possible.
The National Security Strategy outlines what the current administration views as our security interests abroad. We can disagree with some of the concepts, but this is generally what those in power view as our current interests.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf
And your comment of "other people's blood" is absurd. Sending someone into harm's way is by no means an easy decision and should never be taken lightly -- but there are times when the needs of the country are worth the sacrifice. Is it your assertion that it is only acceptable to send people into harm's way if you are going as well? That doesn't make any sense.
I agree with you Big Rob, it does not appear to be in American or Australian interest to get military involve in Syria. I can not see regime change will be achieved by Western intervention. Perhaps by diplomacy. If did not supply arms Russia might stop supporting the other side with arms
Werbung:
Gipper
Well-Known Member
You still failed to explain what YOU think are American interests that require young Americans to kill and die for. Unless of course, you agree with the positions held by the current corrupt administration that finds American interests everywhere in the world.
Regarding my comment about other people's blood...it was in response to your post of:
What I will do is protect American interests. That is minding my business.
As such, you did say YOU would do the protecting, but I know you did not mean yourself....you much prefer other Americans do your killing and dying for nothing.
To think we have an interest in the Syrian civil war is foolish and fails to recognize the multiple historic failures of the NeoCon/Progressive interventionist policies America has followed for many decades.
The only time Americans must resort to war must be when attacked or attack is imminent. Simple and wise.
Similar threads
