US troops to Syria
|
US troops to Syria
|
10-31-2015, 02:08 PM
(10-31-2015, 02:00 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Interesting....would like to see the link to the source though. Sure. It was in a NYT article. I will have to dig it up when I get a chance. And I know you don't edit posts for nefarious purposes lol. All good mate.
10-31-2015, 02:16 PM
(10-31-2015, 04:15 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Agreed. I just don't think we should create more instability. That region is already a mess. Russia and Iran are right here. Russia can impose pressure on Assad and he has to comply because he is so dependant on them . It's better to have that rather than another Egypt. Agreed the area is already a mess. But Russia and Iran are wrong here. Kerry is right in getting rid of both, however possible, and allowing transparent elections (yes I realize that they'd probably elect another Muslim, who woulda thunk in a country occupied predominately by...Muslims. :crazy: ).
10-31-2015, 03:43 PM
(10-31-2015, 02:16 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Agreed the area is already a mess. But Russia and Iran are wrong here. Kerry is right in getting rid of both, however possible, and allowing transparent elections (yes I realize that they'd probably elect another Muslim, who woulda thunk in a country occupied predominately by...Muslims. :crazy: ). Yes but that is the issue. There will be more killing of innocents with a Muslim led govenment vs Assad. It would be different if a Muslim led government would be able to be secular. Right now Assad keeps non Muslims safe. He cracks down hard on the violence directed based off religion. It's a death sentence to non Muslims by throwing out Assad. Iran is a Muslim country and even they know this ...
10-31-2015, 03:46 PM
For all those railing Assad. What will you say when the genocide will be non Muslims.
Which group will you be ok with their demise? Non Muslims or just anti Assad dissenters. No matter who is in charge in Syria one of these groups will take a lot of deaths. Most of anti Assad forces are terrorists anyway. 
10-31-2015, 03:51 PM
(10-31-2015, 03:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There will be more killing of innocents with a Muslim led govenment vs Assad. Since Syria is over 90% Muslim I am guessing there would be a lot more people killed if Assad stays in power than if a muslim faction took control of the country. But I guess with you Muslim deaths don't count. Instead we should do what is best for the 10% that are not Muslim no matter how many Muslims would die.
10-31-2015, 03:52 PM
10-31-2015, 03:59 PM
(10-31-2015, 03:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since Syria is over 90% Muslim I am guessing there would be a lot more people killed if Assad stays in power than if a muslim faction took control of the country. Is Assad targeting only Muslims? For their religious views..... Charging them higher taxes..... Raping Muslim women and children to make them non Muslim? Seems to me Assad is targeting those who are against his govenment. So basically he is just keeping the peace. I guess you think the Muslim Brotherhood led government went well for Egypt? Assad isn't ideal, and a Muslim led gov is not either. A govenment solely based on religious laws from the dark ages is never a good thing. You need a secular government to allow people the freedom to worship as they choose. And until they can ensure this, there is no reason to make a change.... Just for the sake of making a change. That's just trading one tyrant for another. Unless you want non Muslims killed, raped, and exploited. If that is what you favor then yes overthrow Assad.
10-31-2015, 04:01 PM
10-31-2015, 04:25 PM
(10-30-2015, 08:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We should have not been doing any of this... And where was the authorization to enter these countries? I don't remember congress voting.... Your ability to analyze a situation and consistently come to the wrong conclusion is amazing. 1) Haven't you consistently railed against ISIS? Yes. Haven't you repeatedly suggested the US should do something about ISIS? Yes. So when the US does exactly what you have suggested "your" against it. Figures. Makes perfect sense considering the source of the contradiction. 2) Do some research on the history of the presidential use of force authorization. The President doesn't need Congress to vote of the use of force. The President certainly wouldn't ask for a public vote for covert operations. Like Bengalzona mentioned there is a reason they have publicly announced our involvement in operations I am certain we have already been conducting. 3) The Special Operation Forces (SOFs) will be involved in training and coordinating non-Assaud forces to combat ISIS. Question: Why the **** would we want our SOFs training Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces to be better war fighters? Especially since ISIS and Iran have common interest in the region and we certainly don't want Iran increasing their influence in the region any more than they already have since we interceded in Iraq. Answer: We don't want that which is why we aren't working with them. You have zero ability to think strategically. Your only concern is religion so you and these "savages" share something in common.
10-31-2015, 04:27 PM
10-31-2015, 04:32 PM
(10-31-2015, 04:25 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Your ability to analyze a situation and consistently come to the wrong conclusion is amazing. Ah your answer..... Send more troops . I don't have a problem sending but this back and forth bs by Obama.... Half in half out is a joke. If we send troops I want to send them with 0 limitations. But we never do that .... Yes we don't want Iran getting any more power ..... Yet we remove sanctions. Obviously Obama administration wants Iran to be a leader in the region. Or did they only do that deal to validate a foreign policy gain in his presidency.? The lack of consistency of this administration annoys me.
10-31-2015, 04:34 PM
10-31-2015, 04:38 PM
(10-31-2015, 04:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ah your answer..... Send more troops . I stopped reading right there because that is a blatant lie. I didn't write that anywhere in my post. Jesus Christ! It is impossible for you to have an honest conversation. Read my post again. When "your" done respond again, but this time save the strawman BS.
10-31-2015, 04:40 PM
10-31-2015, 09:00 PM
(10-31-2015, 04:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I stopped reading right there because that is a blatant lie. I didn't write that anywhere in my post. Jesus Christ! It is impossible for you to have an honest conversation. Keep reading. Are we going to be consistent or not?
10-31-2015, 09:02 PM
11-01-2015, 01:32 PM
(10-31-2015, 04:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes we don't want Iran getting any more power ..... Yet we remove sanctions. The United States sanctions against Iran are still mostly in place. Almost all of the sanctions that were released were from other governments. Those governments agreed to those sanctions just in order to get Iran to negotiate. They would never have remained in place indefinitely like many here in the US seem to believe. And they worked. We did not get a "lifetime ban" on Iran's nuclear weapons program, but we got a ten year deal. That is better than the alternative. The only problem is that we will have to start working on another deal in8 years or so.
11-01-2015, 01:34 PM
(10-31-2015, 03:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You need a secular government to allow people the freedom to worship as they choose. And until they can ensure this, there is no reason to make a change.... Just for the sake of making a change. Yeah, right, there is no reason to address the Syrian Civil War other than just making a change for the sake of change. The refugee problem is irrelevant.
11-01-2015, 02:25 PM
(10-31-2015, 09:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Keep reading. Are we going to be consistent or not? Why should I keep reading? 1) You don't understand what "your" reading. 2) You don't have any education, training, or experience in military operations of any sort to understand their strategic impact in the region. 3) As I just pointed out, you lie frequently.
11-01-2015, 02:27 PM
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
