(October 11, 2016 at 1:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Better the devil we know, then?  Seems to me like that's exactly what got us into shit in the middle east in the first place.

No, we did the exact opposite. I'm not going to respond to the rest of what you said, since you either misunderstood or twisted what I was saying on purpose. I hope it was the former, but I'm not going there.

Unfortunately, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.  If we take that hat off and watch misery unfold the world will rightly condemn us for doing nothing. -Just as they're doing now-....we're balking at refugees, ffs, lol. Our presidential election seems to be about it, somehow...when you'd think that both sides would have every reason to crow about accepting more refugees...because it;s the american thing to do, and we're a great god-damned country.

But no, lol, no.....that would be too obvious, too sensible, too easy.

(October 11, 2016 at 1:26 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 11, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What are we doing?  Our ludicrous effort to identify "moderates" to support was a failure mainly because there are none.  We completely fail to understand the sectarian nature of this civil war.

Took me a while to figure out you're quoting me.

Nice attempt at quote mining, since my full sentence pretty much say what you're saying, while giving the semblance of disagreeing.

It's not apparent to me that we are doing much of anything in Syria.  Nor can we.  Some time back a bunch of state department officials wrote to demand increased air efforts in Syria.  But we have learned that you can't fire missiles and bombs at random.  In Iraq we have finally reached the point where we can reliably identify targets to attack but that is mainly because we have our own observers there directing the strikes.

There is no support for ground intervention in Syria.

(October 11, 2016 at 1:59 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 11, 2016 at 1:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Better the devil we know, then?  Seems to me like that's exactly what got us into shit in the middle east in the first place.

No, we did the exact opposite. I'm not going to respond to the rest of what you said, since you either misunderstood or twisted what I was saying on purpose. I hope it was the former, but I'm not going there.

Twisted?  Misunderstood?

You put yourself in the corner of putin.  You did that, I didn't do that.  It's not my fault they're bombing the shit out of aleppo....which has jack shit to do with isis.

You put yourself in the corner of assad.  You did that, I didn't do that.  It's not my fault that he gassed the shit...out of aleppo...which has jack shit to do with isis.

You decided to claim that there was some interest for us in supporting these forces, because they were, at least, secular.  I didn't do that, it's not my fault that you think that this is somehow the relevant factor at play.  

-and so we see, as soon as a situation is un-sanitized, it becomes untouchable. But, by all means, feel free to clarify any misunderstanding I have?

That you think we did the opposite, with Saddam, suggests that you have a short memory. You must know that the business in iraq was round two, and that he was our boy? No one disputes that egregious human rights abuses occurred under his regime...and one wonders how that would have happened had we not set him up as a bulwark against Iran, and then later failed to depose him when he was completely defeated? All of that, to varying extents, is blood on our hands... better the devil we knew. Maybe it would work, this time...though, in Syria?

I merely said Putin is more realistic - in a cynical way. look it up.

Also I said we're arming any wayward rebels without any regards of their ultimate goals. What I said about secular was that as long as there is no proven and largely accepted secular faction among these rebels, we should steer clear.

That's what I said.

As for noone giving a shit over the locals, that was sarcasm, if you didn't notice. It's only lip service on the part of our politicians, while at the same time, not even admitting refugees to cross their borders.

What are you talking about, arming wayward rebels?  Do you not recall the bombshell of that story being that our incredibly expensive program -failed- to identify, train, and arm rebels?

Quote:US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, top general testifies

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015...s-fighters

-that's a fair few rebels short .......

(October 11, 2016 at 1:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Unfortunately, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.  If we take that hat off and watch misery unfold the world will rightly condemn us for doing nothing.  -Just as they're doing now-....we're balking at refugees, ffs, lol.  Our presidential election seems to be about it, somehow...when you'd think that both sides would have every reason to crow about accepting more refugees...because it;s the american thing to do, and we're a great god-damned country.

Meh.  I don't mind the argument over whether we should take the refugees or not.  That's why we have elections.  I'm a fan of "fuck 'em, we've got our own problems."  But when Hillary's elected, and they come over, that's fine.  

But I don't think what the rest of the world thinks should matter.  It isn't my impression that the rest of the world is in a habit of doing favors for the US at their own expense.  Seems like they are willing to let the US pay them to be friends.  

I think that's why Trump keeps hanging around.  People view him, rightly or wrongly, as the money manager telling the Rap Artist he can't keep spending all that money on his crew or he's going to go broke.

Putin is merely continuing a decades long Russian strategy of supporting the Assad family.  They have had access to a naval base in Syria since the 70's and it is their only such base in the Mediterranean.  Letting Assad fall risks losing that base as well as 40 years of Russian/Soviet influence.  Cynical?  Yes.  But nations have interests.

It's easy to see what interest russia has in Syria, I just wonder what our interest is supposed to be?

(October 11, 2016 at 3:26 am)Aroura Wrote: Trump agreed with her on the no fly zone, it as one of the few times in either debate he fully agreed with her...so you think he too wants to start ww3? Or are we just overlooking facts as usual?

https://twitter.com/JFABtm/status/785506369390522373