- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I still thinks a bad idea.
Even if our only role was air support?
I still thinks a bad idea.
Tell that to the thousands of people who got caught in the cross fire. The thousands of Iraqi police that instantly became jobless and broke the moment the US invaded, even though they begged commanders on the ground to let them help. Tell that to the hospitals, water treatment plants and ministries that were looted and destroyed because no one thought to secure them. Tell that to the tons of explosives that are still unaccounted for and the nuclear facility that was looted, because no one was guarding it.
The peace process was so bungled, because we executed the invasion so poorly. It was effective from a military standpoint, but the damage done as a result, still resinates in that country. It scares me when I see the history of that invasion, so wildly miss represented in a single sentences. The rest of your statement is legitimate, I just wanted to point that one thing out. Hope you don't mind.
What if it was not us leading the charge? What if turkey gets involved first?
Even if our only role was air support?
I don't see Syria requiring ground troops. I'm a bigtime hawk, I want to nation build Iran. Boots on the ground in Syria does not strengthen our position regarding the Iranian regime. Further, solving Iran solves Syria so it would kinda be walking backwards. Assad could be eliminated from the air, we just gotta be careful not to hit too many Russians.
Personally, I think we should sit back and let them all kill each other.
In case you didn't follow, the words "walk in the park" were not mine, but another poster's from a previous comment that I was referring to. It in no way reflected my view about those involved in the action or who were affected as a consequence, your attempt at outrage, notwithstanding.
Syria is irans only ally in the Middle East that is not Hamas and Hezbollah, so knocking out the Assad regime further isolates Iran and limits its strategic options.
That does not sound at all isolationist nor lacking strategic options like some say is the position of the nation of Iran...Iran feeds Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and terrorists throughout Africa. Head of the snake, dude.
That does not sound at all isolationist nor lacking strategic options like some say is the position of the nation of Iran...
We tried that for decades. The destabilization foreign policy didn't work.
Iran feeds Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and terrorists throughout Africa. Head of the snake, dude.
Oh I think the Delta Sierras will want to get involved.That would turn into a gigantic charlie foxtrot.
Going in to do anything other than kill fighters on both sides, will be nothing but a charlie foxtrot, so I agree that sending combat forces is a bad idea.
Personally, I think we should sit back and let them all kill each other.
Syria is irans only ally in the Middle East that is not Hamas and Hezbollah, so knocking out the Assad regime further isolates Iran and limits its strategic options.
Only problem is that this snake is a hydra. Knock out Syria and it would make the the task of supplying Hamas more difficult for Iran.
Only problem is that this snake is a hydra. Knock out Syria and it would make the the task of supplying Hamas more difficult for Iran.
Obama said this was his red line. It will be interesting to see what happens with this unnerving development.
"Both sides in the Syrian conflict have blamed the other for firing a chemical weapon at a village killing 16 people."
Poison gas missile strike in Syria - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk
Whatever group that replaces Assad's government will ally with Iran, so we wouldn't be isolating anything.
Syria is irans only ally in the Middle East that is not Hamas and Hezbollah, so knocking out the Assad regime further isolates Iran and limits its strategic options.
I really wouldn't count on that seeing as how there are a lot of radical Islamists in the Syrian rebel camp. Thus, it would be in our interests to watch these people kill each other rather than what we are currently doing, which is arming the Syrian rebels.
Whatever group that replaces Assad's government will ally with Iran, so we wouldn't be isolating anything.
In case you didn't follow, the words "walk in the park" were not mine, but another poster's from a previous comment that I was referring to. It in no way reflected my view about those involved in the action or who were affected as a consequence, your attempt at outrage, notwithstanding.
I don't see why they should have the option. With the rebels recognized by the western world and the UN involved in transition and stabilization, I think the UN can out bribe Iran, especially if the Iranian regime just got de-nuked.
How so?.............
Syria is suffering a civil war, so it might be a repeat of what happened in iraq: two sects or more of the same religion at war with eachother. I remember reading somewhere that assads regime mostly represents a minority sect of Islam, which neither the Shia or Sunni can tolerate. If the Sunnis are the primary forces rebeling, then we can assume that Iran's nemisis, Saudi Arabia, is supporting the rebels. If it is the Shia rebeling against the Assad regime or both sects of Islam rebeling againist Assad their common enemy... Well then that makes any attempt at making sense of the situation a wild goose chase.