Expanded War In Syria

[Recidiva]

Looks like America is gearing up for an expanded role in the Syrian conflict.

Obama drew a line in the sand, chemical weapons. No doubt they've been used, but possible doubt of who used them. I would not put it past a rebel to use them to bring the greater world into the conflict when they're losing ground.

I don't think we have any more wiggle room regardless, that line is crossed.

Should we have drawn that line? Debatable. The administration wouldn't even call Egypt a coup when if you look at that word in the dictionary, it might as well have a picture of Egypt next to it. We clearly can excuse ourselves out of intervention when deemed prudent.

I think it's pretty inevitable that we're going to be dragged into this conflict. I'm not a fan of Assad and I think he's more than earned some fairly righteous butt kicking. Not the worst war we've been in and I think we did have to be dragged.

Thoughts?

 

[Byron In Exile]

I think when you draw a line in the sand the wind tends to blow it away in a short while.

 

[phrodeau]

I suppose we can get around to it as soon as we're done in Afghanistan. World policemen never get a break.

Maybe Israel can help out a little this time.

 

[Recidiva]

I think when you draw a line in the sand the wind tends to blow it away in a short while.

That's why you should say "All options are on the table, according to our discretion and the events on the ground"

That's why I think the line was provocative. Deliberately or not, I like to think deliberate, because otherwise it's a colossal error in diplomatic and martial playbooks.

 

[Recidiva]

I suppose we can get around to it as soon as we're done in Afghanistan. World policemen never get a break.

Maybe Israel can help out a little this time.

"How to provoke World War III and subsequent World War IV for 500 Alex"

 

[ChinaBandit]

I am in favor of Finland taking the lead on this one.

 

[phrodeau]

"How to provoke World War III and subsequent World War IV for 500 Alex"

The Middle East hasn't wrapped up World War II yet.

 

[Recidiva]

I am in favor of Finland taking the lead on this one.

...if only Finland had been relentlessly asked when they would get involved.

 

[koalabear]

I don't see a problem that the muslim brotherhood can't handle.

 

[Recidiva]

The Middle East hasn't wrapped up World War II yet.

They're kinda stuck on World War - XI.

When you get used to building your cities on the ruins of the sacked and burned previous city I guess you get in a groove.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't see a problem that the muslim brotherhood can't handle.

They're all in jail.

 

[koalabear]

They're all in jail.

Just the pyramid worshipers.

 

[Recidiva]

Just the pyramid worshipers.

Yeah, but they were the guys with the checkbooks.

 

[koalabear]

Yeah, but they were the guys with the checkbooks.

Oblamer has lots of money to lend.

 

[richard_daily]

Looks like America is gearing up for an expanded role in the Syrian conflict.

Obama drew a line in the sand, chemical weapons. No doubt they've been used, but possible doubt of who used them. I would not put it past a rebel to use them to bring the greater world into the conflict when they're losing ground.

I don't think we have any more wiggle room regardless, that line is crossed.

Should we have drawn that line? Debatable. The administration wouldn't even call Egypt a coup when if you look at that word in the dictionary, it might as well have a picture of Egypt next to it. We clearly can excuse ourselves out of intervention when deemed prudent.

I think it's pretty inevitable that we're going to be dragged into this conflict. I'm not a fan of Assad and I think he's more than earned some fairly righteous butt kicking. Not the worst war we've been in and I think we did have to be dragged.

Thoughts?

The US has a vested interest in keeping the middle east destabilized... The government of this country doesn't particularly care if authoritarian dictatorships are established, as long as they are beholden to US interests, primarily corporate ones.

Egypt had a democratically elected leader, but since he wasn't a US patsy, there was most likely a lot of support in the coup that overthrew him.

Same thing in Syria.

We're fighting a war with Russia through proxy there. They're casually supporting one side, and we're casually supporting another, but since there's not as much in terms of natural resources, neither side really wants to commit much to it.

Afghanistan on the other hand, has lots of resources, and is a key point for oil supply (not to mention the drug trade) so there's lots of interest in that country... Too bad our that Paul Wolfowitz apparently didn't study history before coming up with the invasion plan.

All in all:

 

[richard_daily]

Oblamer has lots of money to lend.

Where is the US financial aid going to in Egypt, genius? Please tell me.

 

[koalabear]

Where is the US financial aid going to in Egypt, genius? Please tell me.

Hi lil fag chichuachua, get the taste of Paul and ken out of your mouth yet? I never said the USA was funding egypt, stupid.

 

[richard_daily]

Support of conflicts in the middle east has never been about humanitarian efforts for any US administration in the last 30 years. Just ask the Kurds.

 

[richard_daily]

Hi lil fag chichuachua, get the taste of Paul and ken out of your mouth yet? I never said the USA was funding egypt, stupid.

What do your boyfriends have to do with this?

And the US is funding Egypt, dumb fuck... you just have no clue which side.

It wasn't on fox this morning?

 

[koalabear]

What do your boyfriends have to do with this?

And the US is funding Egypt, dumb fuck... you just have no clue which side.

It wasn't on fox this morning?

You seem confused without your"girl"friends, girlyboy.

 

[Recidiva]

The US has a vested interest in keeping the middle east destabilized... The government of this country doesn't particularly care if authoritarian dictatorships are established, as long as they are beholden to US interests, primarily corporate ones.

Egypt had a democratically elected leader, but since he wasn't a US patsy, there was most likely a lot of support in the coup that overthrew him.

Same thing in Syria.

We're fighting a war with Russia through proxy there. They're casually supporting one side, and we're casually supporting another, but since there's not as much in terms of natural resources, neither side really wants to commit much to it.

Afghanistan on the other hand, has lots of resources, and is a key point for oil supply (not to mention the drug trade) so there's lots of interest in that country... Too bad our that Paul Wolfowitz apparently didn't study history before coming up with the invasion plan.

All in all:

I don't think I buy that America wants the middle east destabilized, I'd have to hear that argument.

Yes, the main reason why Syria isn't scoured is Russia, the same reason that North Korea isn't a parking lot is because of China.

Afghanistan...has...a lot...of resources? Now we know that due to surveys, we didn't know that before we went to war. Afghanistan was turned into a Parking lot because they'd pissed off Russia and China didn't care and they're so resource poor that they couldn't bribe their way out of it.

People with lots of market stable resources (Saudia Arabia) buy weapons and faux good will and relations with them.

 

[richard_daily]

You seem confused without your"girl"friends, girlyboy.

And you just seem confused.

 

[jordanp76]

-----on second thought, better not---

 

[koalabear]

And you just seem confused.

You are the one talking Egypt in a Syria thread.

 

[Sean]

Where is the US financial aid going to in Egypt, genius? Please tell me.

Same as it always has been, the military. The US loves to throw the word democracy around, but, when push comes to shove, they're more comfortable dealing with dictators and military juntas.