The debate on Syria

No worries, to each their own.

 

Dehumanizing other groups of people does damage to oneself as well as others. It is rarely a good thing.

 

I agree completely. I wish Assad did too.

 

OK, so it's great that Putin has stepped in and solved the problem (= going nowhere).

 

You're reading my mind MC.

 

Whoa Nelly! Before you just let that one fly, remember, we found Sarin warheads, Nerve, and CX gas in Iraq and more than once and in more than one spot. What we did NOT find were nuclear weapons. How come all of a sudden, when Syria has gas it's a "weapon of mass destruction" but when Iraq had it, somehow it wasn't?

Also the primary difference between Syria and Iraq is that Iraq did invade one of our allies, and massed to do it again, and threatened to do it again. Also, Iraq carried out an attempted political assassination within the U.S. and otherwise directly threatened the US interests abroad and at home.

Now I’m not rehashing the debate as to whether we should have invaded or not. I think we can all agree it was bungled once we got there. But at least keep the facts straight.

BTW, weapon of mass destruction is an idiotic term, a simple bomb is a weapon of mass destruction, so maybe we should change our language to be more clear (but I digress).

 

friendorfoe - what's the rental rate on your sig line? I might be interested.

 

For you Kizmet? I'll make you a special deal.

 

So on one side we have Assad, Hezbollah and Russia. The other side has Syrian rebels, al-Qaida, Jihadists, Muslim Brotherhood and other terror related groups. When there is no good side I lean towards staying out of it. If I had to pick the lesser of two evils I might pick Assad's side over the terrorists. We don't need another Muslim country in anarchy. It's also possible that the terrorists used the chemical weapons just to blame Assad. The US doesn't have the best of track records with intelligence lately. Look at how Secretary of State Kerry was relying on information from fake Dr. O'Bagy who lied about having a PhD to tell us how moderate the al-Qaida rebels are. How many other liars are we relying on to provide Syria intel? Oh waits its Washington DC, they are all liars.

 

False credentials and WW3

Pro-opposition Syria analyst O'Bagy admits she was never enrolled in Ph.D. program | Fox News

 

I think it's the same people who told us that we'd be welcomed with open arms in Iraq.

 

Why would they welcome us? We invaded their country, but...however....

Iraq would ‘welcome’ US drones to fight Al-Qaeda

Iraqis welcome U.S. troops in Najaf

Iraq official says Baghdad open to US military aid

Sure sounds like they want SOMETHING from us. Drones, money, my best friends blood, etc.

 

She didn't work for the State Department, and her employer was hardly a reliable source for a Democratic administration:

"Elizabeth O'Bagy, an expert on Syria employed by the Institute for the Study of War, a right-leaning think tank." The Rapid Rise and Humiliating Fall of a Middle East "Expert"

O'Bagy didn't get into the PhD program and was ashamed to tell her employer. The lies snowballed from there until she was found out about a week ago.

 

The US and Russia at an impasse? One step forward, two steps back.

 

One way or another we will be sucked in again.:thumbsdown:

 

Depending on where you were stationed, some of us were welcomed with opened arms. Granted, this was not the norm, but you can ask the Kurds how happy they were to not get targeted for once. Your blanket statement is far from reality as each region was vastly different from another.

 

Here in the UK back in 2003 we had Tony Blair telling us that Iraq had WMD's when their army was reduced to throwing rocks. Syria could be another nightmare waiting for the US and the UN. The west should take a step back and let the Syrians sort themselves out. It is not worth the death of one US soldier.

 

I'm sure you're right. I guess I was just thinking that 10 years of warfare = not happy to see us.