DemonicAppleGuY
King
The United States can ONLY lose if they get involved.
Except the US does lose from not getting involved.
The United States can ONLY lose if they get involved.
Except the US does lose from not getting involved.
Vizzini would be proud.This whole 'But Assad has no reason' thing gives Assad a pretty good reason: people will blame it on the rebels because Assad 'has no reason'.
I'd only look at the actual evidence if I were you (leaving in the middle who did it).
They take a minor prestige hit for Obama's dumb red line comment, but at this point the prestige is taking a hit regardless because a unilateral strike with absolutely no support is damaging as well and Im not convinced a slap on the wrist cruise missile strike is going to terrify despots everywhere from using chemical weapons.
Better to have a couple of hippies mad at you then have the despots start thinking you'll do literally nothing.
As least the missiles are only figuratively nothing
Better to have a couple of hippies mad at you then have the despots start thinking you'll do literally nothing.
As least the missiles are only figuratively nothing
You DO KNOW how many despots there are in the world right ?
You DO KNOW that the US is actually allied with many such despots right ?
I dont know if Im a despot US foriegn policy is so haphazard and almost random that I wouldnt feel safe assuming just because Assad got off the hook I would. Look at Ghadafi, uses absolutely no chemical weapons and the US is suddenly mauling through his army. Saddam suddenly get thrown out of control a decade after we passed on doing it. I dont know, frankly Id still be afraid to cross the line just in fear that I randomly was the dictator the foreign policy roulette wheel chose for smackdown.
US foreign policy isn't that haphazard. Just not as moral as some might think
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong about that, and as Winner said in his original response to my post, it is starting to look like some of Assad's people may have gone rogue and used the weapons without his knowledge. I am deferring actual judgement of whether Assad used chemical weapons or not until I see the proof one way or the other, but for now am simply using my intuition to determine what scenario seems most likely. I'm also the guy who thought this war wouldn't last six months until Assad won, so what do I know?This whole 'But Assad has no reason' thing gives Assad a pretty good reason: people will blame it on the rebels because Assad 'has no reason'.
I'd only look at the actual evidence if I were you (leaving in the middle who did it).
Sometimes in foreign affairs, it's about what screws you the least, rather than what doesn't screw you at all.Except the US does lose from not getting involved.
\Except the US does lose from not getting involved.
\
Frankly I think we should help whatever side is losing, switching sides freely.
But that is just me. I borrowed this idea from Harry Truman.
\
Would we lose credibility on our threats if we acted rather than not acted?Really? What exactly do they lose by doing nothing?
Please enlighten me. To be a loss, it has to be something that we would not lose anyway.
So?Both sides in Syria hate us. No matter what side we choose to help, the other will scream imperialism.
Helping people that wont even say 'thank you' is self-defeating.
Well the rebels are in trouble right now.Frankly I think we should help whatever side is losing, switching sides freely.
But that is just me. I borrowed this idea from Harry Truman.
I admit, I had to laugh. Especially considering what Italy got out of this in the end.I have a better Idea, we need to help which ever side is winning, switching sides freely. But that is just me. I borrowed this idea from Italy during ww1 and ww2.
most glorious yahoo news said:JERUSALEM/RIYADH (Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East.
Israel and Saudi Arabia have little love for each other but both are pressing their mutual friend in the White House to hit President Bashar al-Assad hard. And both do so with one eye fixed firmly not on Syria but on their common adversary - Iran.
Israel's response to Obama's surprise move to delay or even possibly cancel air strikes made clear that connection: looking soft on Assad after accusing him of killing hundreds of people with chemical weapons may embolden his backers in Tehran to develop nuclear arms, Israeli officials said. And if they do, Israel may strike Iran alone, unsure Washington can be trusted.
\
So?
I know you are against intervention