Syria

I guess you guys are not surprised when I say that I kept nodding my head, while hearing Kerry's speech. It was brought as a moral question and that's exactly what I have been doing. The perfect summary of it all: It matters if nothing is done.
 
Scary that rebel groups like Jabhat al-Nusra is being supported with all their suicide attacks and killings of civilians...I guess I just agree with Wingman and Bearfan: there really is no good side in this.
 
The Democrats denounced Bush when he made the same arguments for the same reasons that they are now making.

Kerry in particular demanded that Bush get allies on board, and congressional and UN approval in 2003.
Now he says allies and congressional and UN approval don't matter in 2013.

What absolute hubris. Do they think we don't notice?

Doing nothing is better than doing a half-measure that accomplishes nothing.

In Iraq, at least there was a goal - regime change.
What is the goal for Syria, other than an empty show of force just to make 0bama look tough?

It's like an impish child standing across the street and throwing rocks at a fight just to make more trouble, instead of going in and breaking it up.
Why is it that 0bama always comes out looking like an impish child?
 
Zare said:
I wonder about your awareness level [...]
Click to expand...
Zare said:
Your government is involved in supplying chemical weapons to "rebels" for over a year now [...]
Click to expand...
Zare said:
We can discuss on some other thread why you shouldn't "distrust" current Russian gov't. In this instance they're saying the truth, and yours are lying.
Click to expand...
Zare --could you be a little more specific as to who you are referring to with these remarks? I appreciate your point of view, it's just I've found one or two remarks a little unclear...
 
Turkey has provided them and your government has knowledge of these events. That makes them involved, as I said.

@cried, first was directed to all thread participants, second to U.S. citizens, and third to Bearfan.
 
King Of Twilight said:
The Democrats denounced Bush when he made the same arguments for the same reasons that they are now making.

Kerry in particular demanded that Bush get allies on board, and congressional and UN approval in 2003.
Now he says allies and congressional and UN approval don't matter in 2013.

What absolute hubris. Do they think we don't notice?

Doing nothing is better than doing a half-measure that accomplishes nothing.

In Iraq, at least there was a goal - regime change.
What is the goal for Syria, other than an empty show of force just to make 0bama look tough?

It's like an impish child standing across the street and throwing rocks at a fight just to make more trouble, instead of going in and breaking it up.
Why is it that 0bama always comes out looking like an impish child?
Click to expand...

It is the age old "We are abusing power, but for the force of good .. so it is cool. Just shut up and go along with us" argument.
 
Zare said:
Turkey has provided them and your government has knowledge of these events. That makes them involved, as I said[...]
Click to expand...

"Turkey has"... & "your government" --who's Government? Who are you talking to? (Me? King Of Twilight? I don't know where King Of Twilight is from.) Also, this is the first time you've mentioned Turkey in any of your posts.
 
I don't have time now to explain all relations of this conflict.

United States government was aware that their NATO ally Turkey is providing means for Sarin production and transport into Syria.
 
Zare: I'm not asking you to --I'm asking you to stop referring to "you" & various Governments, when directing your comments at everyone. This makes no sense & is incredibly unclear. Buy, other than that, yes, I think I for one take your point that this conflict is complicated.
 
Haha. I don't like Jay Z but Snoop Dogg would be a top President. No Snoop Lion shit. Just dog.

@Cried, I'll try to make myself more clear in the future. Agreed that my comments had flaws in direction.
 
I won't be drawn in to taking sides... not when the choices are a Stalinist dictator backed by a KGB thug vs. al Qaeda aligned rebels backed by an incompetent narcissistic man-child.

Or in other words, a fight between 3 dictators and a terrorist group.
 
That would be a very difficult thing to swallow for the people who like to paint the world in black and white.
 
The more I think about it the more I think it's the right call. If two kids are playing and one hits the other with the baseball bat, you take it away from both kids.
 
True, if the US were serious about their concerns, that's what they'd be doing. The downside is, it would need Syria to become an American colony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top