So how can all this benefit me or you, unless they can afford to buy what we have to offer?
The rebel opposistion is not all extremists. The groups that orginally started this whole mess are red blooded freedom lovers like me and you. The fact that we dragged our feet to get involved in the first place opened the door for extremists. Apperantly the rebels were not content sitting around being slaughtered, so they took the help where they could find it. At the end of this conflict there will be a winner. I don't think it is going to be Assad. We can create our allies now and help shape Syria or we can let Al-Queida do it. This is a no brainer for me.
"Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." - Bill Murray
I'm not a big supporter of dictators, but I have not seen the change of government in the middle east do much to make the lives of the people any better as a whole. The Kurdish in Iraq would be one of the exceptions to the rule. The people in Iran wanted to be free from a dictator, many people put their differences aside to rid the country of the Shah, but before the dust settled they had a far worse government. Not all change is good. It is too hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. We have a poor track record when it comes to the middle east. We need to stay out of it.
Did you just copy and paste that from the Obama/Graham/McCain talking points during the Arab Spring? How did that work out for us?
The rebels are doing just as much slaughtering as Assad, The rebels ARE extremists, Assad IS an extremist, and I do not want to support extremists. I can tell it is a no brainer because if you used your brain, you would not think that borrowing money from china to support overthrowing a sovereign nation's government is a good idea. If the majority of America thinks like you then we deserve to go bankrupt from a never ending fictional war on terror. But I hope common sense will prevail and we will stop trying to be the world's police officer.
In response to the USA getting involved in Syria, Iran just announced they are sending 5,000 combat troops to Syria to aide Assad. Is there any good reason for the USA to get involved where there are no "good guys" ? I understand that with the war in A'stan winding down that military contractors are pressuring the administration to get involved in Syria but, what are the benefits to the American people and the American tax payer who has to pay for this?
*******WARNING There are some graphic photos from Syria in the link below********
There are also some interesting comments at the end of the pictures:
Unconditional surrender will never occur in the ME, as I doubt anyone would ever want to do what was done in WWII. In addition to military lives, untold millions of innocent civilians lost their lives as well.
I truly believe that we can offer humanitarian aid, and help out Jordan with their Syrian refugees in the same way, but we should let these people sort out their tribal conflicts themselves. Until the Shia and the Sunnis, who share a common religion and cultural values, can figure out how to live peacefully with each other, how can we possibly expect they can have a peaceful relationship with those who do not share the same a societal structure that is so far different than their own?
Truthfully, I think the radical Islamists resurrected the whole jihad/Caliphate thing because they recognize that their power will be decimated as the common people finally tire of the violence and barbarism that these people have wielded, i.e. the Taliban. So, they have "created" an external enemy to take the focus off their own tyranny. It is the kind of evolution that took place in the Western World as a result of the corruption of the Church so evident in The Inquisition. Interfering in this natural evolution of the population's perceptions will not make things better for them. It is not something one can "impose" on a culture. It is something the society must find within themselves.
Both Judaism and Christianity moved away from the militaristic aspects of the Old Testament, and moved toward the peaceful aspects of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Left to their own conscience, is it possible that Muslim societies can return focus to the peaceful aspects of the Koran and away from the militaristic as well. They will not be able to do that as long as they have an external "enemy" they perceive as trying to obliterate their culture.
While Obama's forebearance in Syria may have been for different reasons than my own would be, it is probably the one thing (so far) that I can agree with that he has done. Of course, he did blow it when he drew a "red line" that he really didn't want to have to enforce (maybe he even naively believed he wouldn't have to enforce). He should have kept his mouth shut on that. If he really is such a smart guy, he hould have been able to come up with another response to that question that would have been more equivocal.
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
Also be sure to inform us,for the times when our intervention was "SUCCESSFUL" of how warm and fuzzy the puppet govts we successfully put in place have remained to the USA over time
Sadly I believe you can get a fairly accurate portrayal of the formulation of our foreign policy over the past few decades by reading what I quoted from Franco above and just fill in the blank where A'stan and Syria are with the "hotspot of the month" for whatever time period you refer to