For those who haven't yet...

Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
Neither of those countries are America, so no, no response has no implications for us. If Iran and Israel want to blow each other up, let them have at it.
Click to expand...

Um, there's no way we won't get involved if Israel/Iran get into it. Dream on. In your perfect fantasy world we'd have nothing to do with either country, but that's not reality
 
tekkychick said:
Um, there's no way we won't get involved if Israel/Iran get into it. Dream on. In your perfect fantasy world we'd have nothing to do with either country, but that's not reality
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a fantasy world to be concerned with our own country. I mean just look at every other nation chomping at the bit to bomb the shit out of people.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

While I am sure many of you already have, for those who haven't contacted your Rep and Senators, the above links will get you there. Let them know how you feel on Syria. I am sure the war mongering Desh will tell them to go ahead with the bombing of brown children, but for the more sane among us, let them know to vote NO to Obama's further adventures in the middle east.
Click to expand...


Hypocrite!
 
tekkychick said:
I like the part of the post about contacting the representatives; but didn't like the slam on Desh, so didn't thank it.

Just realize there are consequences either way - and that's what makes this so tough. NOT responding will have implications for Israel and for Iran. If we don't respond to Assad, will Iran conclude it's fine to go ahead and build a nuclear bomb? Will Israel think we won't defend them, so they will do a pre-emptive strike on both Syria and Iran?

I think we have to be very careful in what we do, and consider all the factors.
Click to expand...
Let Israel do pre-emptive strikes. Keep us out of it.
 
Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
You obviously didn't read any of my posts. I'm against getting involved in Syria (unless the Syrians want to give up their land and become a colony). But people rebelling against a tyrant are hardly terrorists.
Click to expand...

Not so fast. While in the beginning the opposition were non sectarian rebels, that dynamic has changed. I am unable to post the link as a new member, but the following lays out the complexity of players.

The early predictions of the Syrian revolution have proven to be unfounded. We know that our journalist's constant comparisons with the speedy downfalls of Ben Ali's Tunisia and Mubarak's Egypt were irrelevant in a country as complex as Syria.

The opposition — despite remarkable resilience against an enemy that can outnumber, outgun, and outmanoeuvre — still exhibits a chronic lack of resources and little central organization between factions. In its current form, the Assad government looks safe for some time to come.

Numbering 50,000 men, the Free Syrian Army, a self-declared non-sectarian group of early army defectors, remains the largest opposition group in the country. But during the past year other factions have entered the fray. If their numbers, as well as their political views are anything to go by, the possibility of a united front seems remote.

The Syrian Liberation Front, numbering 37,000 fighters, and the Syrian Islamic Front, numbering 13,000 fighters, operate in Syria's southeast and northeast respectively. Both of these groups espouse an Islamist ideology, in contrast to the self-declared non-sectarianism of the Free Syrian Army.

However the real challenge to the unity of the Syrian opposition lies in Jabhat al-Nusra, to whom thousands of Free Syrian army fighters have apparently defected. Numbering only 5,000 fighters as of January, but now perhaps many more, al-Nusra's core fighters come from Iraq's post-war insurgency and have recently pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Click to expand...
 
Rune said:
Thank God you are not in charge.
Click to expand...

We have complicated alliances out there. If Iran bombs Israel - we're pulled in. Hell, if Israel bombs Iran, we're probably pulled in. It may be nice to say we shouldn't have any ties with any other nation, but it's way too late for that. We have a LOT of treaties, alliances, promises. We are intricately tied to all the other nations in the world, whether for good or bad.

I don't want us to get involved in Syria; but I recognize that NOT getting involved at this point ALSO has consequences.
 
tekkychick said:
We have complicated alliances out there. If Iran bombs Israel - we're pulled in. Hell, if Israel bombs Iran, we're probably pulled in. It may be nice to say we shouldn't have any ties with any other nation, but it's way too late for that. We have a LOT of treaties, alliances, promises. We are intricately tied to all the other nations in the world, whether for good or bad.

I don't want us to get involved in Syria; but I recognize that NOT getting involved at this point ALSO has consequences.
Click to expand...

Ahaha! Some of the beginning of the remorse being felt by Americans at the prospect of the war effort failing. It will rise in volume until it becomes a total vindication of Obama and his motives.

With America's political and economic decline it's almost as if it's people are losing their fucking brains along with it all.
 
tekkychick said:
We have complicated alliances out there. If Iran bombs Israel - we're pulled in. Hell, if Israel bombs Iran, we're probably pulled in. It may be nice to say we shouldn't have any ties with any other nation, but it's way too late for that. We have a LOT of treaties, alliances, promises. We are intricately tied to all the other nations in the world, whether for good or bad.

I don't want us to get involved in Syria; but I recognize that NOT getting involved at this point ALSO has consequences.
Click to expand...

We are not even speaking the same language. I don't believe in any war. Hence treaties, alliances have no validity to me. They are but contracts with the devil in the form of financiers and weapons manufacturers and their government stooges. You can keep drinking the war koolaid for as long as you like.
 
Montessa said:
Not so fast. While in the beginning the opposition were non sectarian rebels, that dynamic has changed. I am unable to post the link as a new member, but the following lays out the complexity of players.
Click to expand...

Not so fast what? Your post provides no impetus whatsoever for U.S. involvement.
 
Rune said:
We are not even speaking the same language. I don't believe in any war. Hence treaties, alliances have no validity to me. They are but contracts with the devil in the form of financiers and weapons manufacturers and their government stooges. You can keep drinking the war koolaid for as long as you like.
Click to expand...

So you feel we should have stayed the subjects of Great Britain?
 
tekkychick said:
Not that easy. Unless you want the US to break all of its promises to its allies. That would be really stupid of us.
Click to expand...
Oh? And why might that be? What benefit do those said alliances confer upon us, besides massive military spending and more dead Americans in a region that doesn't want us there in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top