One should question whether these rebels will just do their own ethnic cleansing anyway. As I said, if any significant number of them are like or sympathize with the animals in that video I posted, fuck them.
Yeah... You're right. The United States should sit back and do nothing. Let Russia sell their arms to Syria, it's not our problem. And then, when Assad crushes the rebels and does another massive ethnic cleansing, we'll have an autocratic regime as a trading partner in the region!
Gosh, there's just so much win there - how in the world could you think that's a bad idea?
Do any of you realise that this "Arab Spring" uprising was the result of US and UK interference in the first place? And by the way, a lot of the replacements are worse than what we help to oust in the first place.
But anyways, I'm pretty tired of arguing about it now, so I'm quitting.
Do any of you realise that this "Arab Spring" uprising was the result of US and UK interference in the first place? And by the way, a lot of the replacements are worse than what we help to oust in the first place.
Do any of you realise that this "Arab Spring" uprising was the result of US and UK interference in the first place? And by the way, a lot of the replacements are worse than what we help to oust in the first place.
This thread is basically worthless until 2timer provides a response to a few people's questions on his willingness to go over there to die for them.
Not really understanding the merit of this. Maybe explain your demand a little bit clearer?
Sure, it's easy for you to tell other people to go die so long as you don't have to worry about it and it makes you feel better about yourself.
Lol. I never suggested anyone go to Syria and die?
I'm sure you are drawing conclusions about me based on false assumptions and it's not worth the effort arguing with you. Go back and read what I posted, I never said what you're claiming.
You do realize any intervention could potentially cause the deaths of US service men and women right? We didn't have "boots on the ground" in Lybia either.
Our question stands; Are you 2timer, willing to raise your hand and volunteer in service to your country in a direct combat role to specifically help the people of Syria and possibly give your life in the process?
EDIT: I'll go ahead and say it, the answer to the question is no you are not.
If you understood how to read or spell, I might actually take your question seriously.
If you understood how to read or spell, I might actually take your question seriously.
Talk about deflection. One word not spelled and you use such as an excuse for not answering the question.
Hot air and lack of understanding the situation
Talk about deflection. One word not spelled and you use such as an excuse for not answering the question.
Hot air and lack of understanding the situation
Meh, my argument still stands. A person who doesn't even know how to spell the name of a country in question has no qualification to opine on the situation.
Additionally, I'd note he deflects fairly well himself. My original question still stands :how many American lives were lost in Libya?
I'd say I have vastly more qualifications than one such as yourself considering I've been to most of these countries in question, have deployed in several combat zones, and read several studies and reports on American intervention abroad.
You're pussy footing around a simple question because you don't have the balls to fight for what you believe is something someone else should be fighting for. You're the exact type of individual who waves an American flag and proclaims America should fight on everyones behalf yet you're too chicken shit to actually do anything yourself. Your parents likely never served and your kids likely won't either. So instead of playing armchair general on the internet how about you cowboy up and go fight the Assad regime on the rebels behalf. I am positive they would welcome you with open arms.
You say how many Americans died in "LIBYA" and I say too goddamn many. Stop being a bitch and do something about it, then come back and tell us it's worth fighting for. Until then sit down and let the adults decide on what is the best course of action for all Americans not just you and your feelings.
Those 3 things wouldn't pose a great risk, would they?
And I'm sorry for not answering your question earlier, my answer is no, I would not go, but then I don't expect others too either.
If you understood how to read or spell, I might actually take your question seriously.
Well, they would pose *some* risk, but likely not a whole lot. The problems I can see, other than my opposition to the entire concept in the first place, are:
1) War weariness - Americans are tired of being at war. It would just increase the restlessness at home and would be a negative for whoever in Congress voted to intervene.
2) Cost - These things are certainly not free and we aren't exactly flush with cash. Would we possibly see any value out of it?
3) Escalation - The US intervenes so now what do Russia and China do? One wouldn't think they'd risk war, but wars can start with just a spark. Additionally, if they *are* buying weapons from Russia and China, that would increase the risk to American aircraft and ships. If they're buying recent military equipment, all the worse.
4) Collateral Damage - Our interventions have a habit of affecting civilians. Aside from the moral aspect in general, we'd also risk making new enemies.
5) Value - Assuming the rebels win, would we really gain any goodwill in the new Syria or would fundamentalists take power and declare us the "Great Satan"?
Like I said before, had the United States *not* taken a role, we wouldn't have seen the fledgling democracies, immature though they may be.
Given that I've repeatedly said I don't advocate an intervention with troops or unilaterally, the first two points would be null - like in Libya, a successful intervention would not equate to war. Go back and read my very first post: my complaint was about China and Russia vetoing a Security Council resolution to condemn Assad. Were such a resolution passed, it would give international legitimacy to a Western intervention, carried out multilaterally, much the same as in Libya.
In regards to points 3 and 4, yes, I would agree. Collateral damage and escalation are dangerous, but collateral damage could be considered a necessary evil because as of right now, the situation is so dire that inaction would mean prolonging the war. So either way, whether there is going to be collateral damage, the question is whether it's better dealt in ousting Assad or not.
Finally, your last point: outcome. The fact is, you don't know who or what will come into political power. But if Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt or Iraq are any indication, the powers in place, while no large success, are *certainly* better than what they replaced. Like I said before, had the United States *not* taken a role, we wouldn't have seen the fledgling democracies, immature though they may be.
They are set in place to prevent major attrocities which Syria is not.
They are in a civil war, it's not genocide the rebels are easily holding their own taking entire cities.
You keep bringing up no fly zones, providing arms, and other actions not associated with boots on the ground. The problem is any action by the US will naturally put our people in harms way. It's a matter of percentages on what can happen.
Which government that replaced a previous one provides a net positive for the US? Can you go into detail and give examples? Is Iraq better now than before? Afghanistan? Egypt? Libya? Most of these countries went from stable dictators to religious based governments and in Iraqs case will never work with the Sunnis and Shites.