The Cysko Kid Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 what does that even mean? Why do we have "play ball" with pieces of shit anyway? You're not making your case well for decades of miserable U.S and western foreign policy. And it is literally too late now to fix anything, have to isolate the middle east militarily with all the major powers on board. Only way That would include telling the Syrian refugees to fuck themselves. Find some where in the middle east to hole up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 That would include telling the Syrian refugees to fuck themselves. Find some where in the middle east to hole up. well I wouldn't tell them to go fuck themselves, but I would set up some place in the middle east that they can at least be temporarily protected while this mess in Syria get's resolved. I would be hitting the reset button with Assad yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Backing the forces opposing assad is a very bad idea. We need to double down ON assad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Backing the forces opposing assad is a very bad idea. We need to double down ON assad Risky business with Russia currently backing Assad and names like China pretty close to getting in on that action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Risky business with Russia currently backing Assad and names like China pretty close to getting in on that action. When has Assad been a problem for us? When was Kadafi ever a problem for us? Kadafi turned over his nukes.Saddam fucking Hussein was playing ball with us until Europeans and the IN talked us into booting him out of Kuwait. Jimmy Carter back the rebels against the Shah of Iran. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Assad is the least bad person involved in that dump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 The immediate stabilization of Syria requires working with Assad. I pretty much want to slap all the dems and reps who keep doubling down on their assertions that he's the root cause of all of Syria's problems. We simply could not be inundated with stupider people than we currently have seeking the office of the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 When has Assad been a problem for us? When was Kadafi ever a problem for us? Kadafi turned over his nukes. Saddam fucking Hussein was playing ball with us until Europeans and the IN talked us into booting him out of Kuwait. Jimmy Carter back the rebels against the Shah of Iran. WSS Assad's Syria is beneficial to Russia. It provides a number of warm-water ports for them, Assad nixed the Qatari pipeline which would have take away $ from Russia, and it gives Russia influence in the middle east - and potentially with Iran. I think the chemical weapons fiasco was little more than an excuse to nix Assad and Russian influence from the region - for above said reasons coupled with the fact we are still scared of them. We Butchered the whole thing terribly and now it's a disaster - Assad was 100x better than what is there now for everybody - Russia, Syria, Rest of the region, US, etc. China's interest may reach a point where they want to get involved actively for similar reasons - especially now that Russia is there. There was a higher level Isis-defector in Syria who said that Isis gives some of its people lots of money - and those people it sends to FSA controlled regions - where they can quickly get into positions of power (because they go in rich). Some of them get higher ranking positions in the FSA and then can use that power to indirectly serve to the benefits of Isis. These FSA people we're backing, who isn't even one united group - stands no chance against either Isis or Assad. We need to stop arming them, double down on Isis and al Nusra (who, by the way, we don't hear anything about - sounds shady to me that we allow them to keep power) - while cooperating with Russia. Forget about the FSA people, let them fight their own war against Russian-backed Assad - cooperate on Isis and Al Nusra and that should be it. Doubling down on Assad is not only a waste of money and weaponry to a bunch of FSA people who are largely driven by the will of Isis and extremists - it's also potentially catastrophic for future relations with Russia-US and other NATO members. ---- TL;DR The world and the region was a safer place before we took down Gaddafi, Assad (well, trying to), Saddam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Risky business with Russia currently backing Assad and names like China pretty close to getting in on that action. Why is it a problem to work with other superpowers instead of oppose them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Why is it a problem to work with other superpowers instead of oppose them It isn't, but that's not what we're doing currently. Russia wants Assad back in power - which can only be made by defeating isis, al nusra, FSA, etc - and all the groups that oppose him (including the ones the US supports) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 what's going in Syria is the result of decade after decade of feckless self interested U.S policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Fuck the terrorists the us supports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 Why can't we just kill'em all??????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 at least there's a general consensus here that we're being morons opposing Assad. I'm not saying we gotta play like he's our boy as we have with Mubarak and others, but fucking stop this insistence he has to leave...it's just empowering Isis. Let the rooskies have their boy in Damascus, means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 at least there's a general consensus here that we're being morons opposing Assad. I'm not saying we gotta play like he's our boy as we have with Mubarak and others, but fucking stop this insistence he has to leave...it's just empowering Isis. Let the rooskies have their boy in Damascus, means nothing. There's 3 candidates who will take this approach - and I'd consider all 3 Rand Paul Bernie Sanders .....Trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 If sanders really did take that road I'd gain some respect for him on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 BB Unfortunately weak and ineffectual leadership in the United States has already blown the opportunity to get a piece of the pie. Because little bam bam wants to look butch and oppose the Ruskies we are now de facto in bed with Assads opposition the real bad guys. Sure we can make a deal now but then how do we look? We weren't there at the beginning so they won't look at us as friends. When we supposed Kadafi the administration said they feared that his administration would go door-to-door executing his opponents. The minute we turn the tide against him his opposition went door-to-door executing Kaddafi's people. I see no reason we shouldn't make some sort of pact with Putin. They've got their own worries in places like the Ukraine and Chechnya. What was our reward for taking the Chechnya side? The Boston Marathon. What's our reward for opposing Assad? Isis. Some sort of understanding between the United States and Russia would be a formidable alliance. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 A strong partnership between the us and Russia would probably not please China and that's ok with me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 A strong partnership between the us and Russia would probably not please China and that's ok with me At some point, the major powers of the world have to get over their egos and start working together. We won't colonise the stars as countries but as a planet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 At some point, the major powers of the world have to get over their egos and start working together. We won't colonise the stars as countries but as a planet... Wow you English just can't get over the love of colonization! (I'm looking forward to Alpha Centauri pale ale) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 Wow you English just can't get over the love of colonization! (I'm looking forward to Alpha Centauri pale ale) WSS It travels better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 It travels better. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 This is another interesting read, talking about what ISIS wants. http://www.cracked.com/blog/isis-wants-us-to-invade-7-facts-revealed-by-their-magazine/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 I read that article the other day. I like how they have articles in their mag about the weapons we are supplying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 Two things struck me: 1) They're trying to provoke us in to a full on assault so that they can 'crush the infidels on the battle field' or whatever, in Syria 2) People leaving their territory is killing them in tax revenue and 'domestic' skill set loss - any skilled people like doctors, engineers etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 1. They're stupid as fuck if they think they could even defeat France on a full scale battlefield let alone Russia or the U.S. 2. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 1. They're stupid as fuck if they think they could even defeat France on a full scale battlefield let alone Russia or the U.S. Agreed - but until it happens they're going to keep taking shots at the civilised world, keep executing anybody they can get their hands on in increasingly barbaric ways to try to provoke a response 2. Good. Except we're not really facilitating that very well. We should be happy to get people out of that shit hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 Isis couldn't even defeat the Kurds in Kobani - Isis defectors have called them incompetent fighters. They'd have no chance against a full on American/Russian/French/British/etc. ground force - but there's a lot of other issues with going on a full on assault like that, like a ton of money and lives that would be lost/change/etc. which is why we're sticking to aerial assaults. What else can you do other than beef up homeland security and keep the borders in check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 I don't think a full on assault is what's required. We need to fight guerrilla warfare with highly trained elite troops - marines, SAS, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 20, 2015 Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 I don't think a full on assault is what's required. We need to fight guerrilla warfare with highly trained elite troops - marines, SAS, etc. Even if you are right both the President and Senator Harry Reid are promising to block efforts to screen the refugees. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.