Al-Qaeda, Our Allies

[Samwell Seed Well]

Where are all the anti-war protestors now?

we still hate war . . .but i guess thats the quaker in me

 

[budlover13]

we still hate war . . .but i guess thats the quaker in me

As do I. War is hell.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Move the civilians out, and let them kill each other. Problem solved.

god idea god...../not!

 

[GOD HERE]

god idea god...../not!

That's how I've solved problems in the past, not sure if you've read my book...

 

[fr3d12]

How is it that we can support a nation, provide weapons and money during the conflict, security, safety (through UN & NATO resolutions), then, a decade later, enact legislation and declarations of war against that very same country that used to be out ally?

Why don't American citizens know about proxy wars?

Afghanistan, 1980's, against the USSR, we weaponized them, we gave them money, to fight the Soviets.. the Soviets failed, the Afghans won, and held a considerable amount of goodies left over from the war.. Later, the Mujahideen took over, AQ and the Taliban came into a failed state, our weapons eventually were left in the hands of terrorists.. Today, we face the exact same shit in Syria.. "Should we arm the rebels?!" Fucking idiotic! Of course we shouldn't! What would be the difference? How can we be sure if we do, the Syrian state that comes to power won't become aggressive in the region later?

Exactly, we can't..

Exactly what I was thinking.
Free the people from one despotic regime and then you get some nutjob religious fanatic in charge preaching about the evils of the West etc etc.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

That's how I've solved problems in the past, not sure if you've read my book...

i have read your book . . jesiah begat abraham, and abraham begat Tony HAwk, tony hawk begat lance armstrong . .thee end
[video=youtube;rh9WXb3HH_Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh9WXb3HH_Q[/video]

 

[UncleBuck]

it's pretty clear that a lot of you are under many misconceptions about the impending military action.

it is not in support of one faction or the other, it is a retaliatory action against the use of WMDs on one's own people.

i may as well have made a fart joke though, that distinction will fall on deaf ears.

 

[budlover13]

it's pretty clear that a lot of you are under many misconceptions about the impending military action.

it is not in support of one faction or the other, it is a retaliatory action against the use of WMDs on one's own people.

i may as well have made a fart joke though, that distinction will fall on deaf ears.

Your argument appears to be that because a nation is not supposed to use chemical weapons against their own people then we are justified in intervening even if those same "people" are using chemical weapons against their government.?.? BOTH sides are likely guilty in the use of chemical weapons from all I've read. Club meets club, gun meets gun.

 

[UncleBuck]

Your argument appears to be that because a nation is not supposed to use chemical weapons against their own people then we are justified in intervening even if those same "people" are using chemical weapons against their government.?.? BOTH sides are likely guilty in the use of chemical weapons from all I've read. Club meets club, gun meets gun.

to what extent?

 

[budlover13]

to what extent?

Does it matter? Would you not expect a small radical group to use any means at their disposal to further their cause (thinking Tim McVeigh and OK City, Al-Qaeda and planes/buildings, Afghan and Iraqi rebels/IEDs, etc)? IF I were a part of such a small and radical group I would consider it as well. But your argument is like saying the rapist isn't as deserving of punishment as the rapist/murderer imo. I disagree.

 

[abandonconflict]

Move the civilians out, and let them kill each other. Problem solved.

Seriously?

Just evacuate them?

Let the rebels We've funded to just keep fighting against the baathist? Then what? Permanent refugee camps?

Bashar Al Assad is fighting against Al Qaeda and winning. There is a Syrian diplomat going around Europe insisting he has evidence that the Western backed Al Qaeda rebels were the ones who used chem weapons.

Why would Assad invite Western response by using chem weapons in a war he was already winning?

 

[UncleBuck]

Does it matter?

it certainly does.

killing one or two combatants with chemical weapons to intimidate others is one thing, gassing hundreds or thousands of non-combatants is another.

but good job on the hillary impression!

But your argument is like saying the rapist isn't as deserving of punishment as the rapist/murderer imo. I disagree.

no, that's not my argument at all. we're talking combatants versus non-combatants with huge, lopsided death tallies.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why would Assad invite Western response by using chem weapons in a war he was already winning?

and then fire on them and bomb the gassed site, let's not forget.

 

[fr3d12]

and then fire on them and bomb the gassed site, let's not forget.

If that did happen Assad would feel the wrath of the US and it's allies and lose the war.
Why would he do this?

 

[UncleBuck]

If that did happen Assad would feel the wrath of the US and it's allies and lose the war.
Why would he do this?

so you're saying assad didn't fire on the inspectors?

 

[abandonconflict]

Yeah. I'll go there.

so you're saying assad didn't fire on the inspectors?

 

[fr3d12]

so you're saying assad didn't fire on the inspectors?

I have no idea who fired on the inspectors.
The rebels despite what you may think aren't this noble bunch who want freedom, democracy and equality for all Syrians, they are most likely being headed by power hungry warlords who are equally capable of firing on UN inspectors.
Assad knows only too well that if there is international intervention it will be on the side of the rebels so I asked what would he have to gain by firing on them?

 

[echelon1k1]

this is gonna be another in and out military action like libya.

Yeah we've all heard that before... Syria is a part of the Libya problem...

there will certainly not be 4,000+ dead americans, 100k dead iraqis, and tens of thousands more injured, maimed, or suffering from PTSD.

Nah Obama wants those casualties to come from the US' civilian populace, at home... Theres no other reason to support sunni jihadists...

someone wake me when there is a serious conflict rather than a UN-mandated retaliatory action.

LOLerskates... What constitutes a serious conflict in your book?

 

[echelon1k1]

A military action in SUPPORT of Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra. Just being clear on what's happening

To be clear this is the continued push to ensure a full on sectarian war between sunni and shia.

Everything in Syria Is Going to Plan

Turning the Shia-affiliated Alawi regime into a Sunni one that can be influenced would be a tremendous victory for the Gulf Arabs. It would weaken the Iranians and break the exaggerated but still very real threat of Shia encirclement — Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. And that’s why Riyadh is backing the rebels with money and arms and allowing individual Saudi clerics to sermonize about jihad and encourage non-Syrian foreign fighters to carry it out. This, of course has a potential downside. We saw the blowback in Afghanistan, where Saudi-inspired Wahhabi doctrine motivated a cadre of Arabs to fight first against the Russians and then against the West.

 

[echelon1k1]

i believe the military action that's to come is not in support of anyone but rather in retalition for assad gassing his own people, in accordance with a UN treaty.

Citation? We've provided enough to the contrary...