The people making these decisions are completely detached from reality. For them it's a game, like kids fighting over toys.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
The people making these decisions are completely detached from reality. For them it's a game, like kids fighting over toys.
I agree, but taking out all of Assad's airfields would have taken away most of his tactical advantage.
Last I checked we weren't encouraging anyone to use chemical weapons. I'm not a fan of putting dictators in place (unless they're replacing a theocracy) but doing so is very different from the use of chemical weapons.
Yet you're advocating that we don't use troops because Russia may not like it.
I think enough support for the rebel groups to win their own war could and should have been offered without needing much in the way of troops on the ground. We could have targeted significant parts of what made Assad's army superior without having to ever set foot on the ground.
wiziwig
Steed Malbranque
@scaramanga... What's the evidence the Assad warplanes used chemical weapons?
Last edited:
Outside of Russia (a country only a small step above a tinpot theocracy) has anyone serious shown doubt that it was Assad? Genuine question - it seems as if the entire international community is convinced.
Do you consider that to have been a free and fair election? If so, what would have to be done for you to consider an election rigged?
I don't know where Assad got his (was it Russia?), but I know we sold Saddam his weapons. If you sell a ruthless dictator chemical weapons, you cannot be surprised if they get used. My position is for the west (and especially our country) not to arm vile regimes in any way at all, including the likes of Saudi Arabia.
The reason I don't advocate putting 200,000 troops on the ground is because there is no guarantee of success and a huge potential of another Iraq, a disastrous war. Russia has nothing to do with my view on that, apart from making it very difficult to get rid of Assad without a big war effort. And I do think avoiding war with Russia is a good thing for the world, if Russia fights the USA then we all lose in that situation, the world becomes much more dangerous for everybody.
The reason I don't agree with your last paragraph is because as soon as Assad started finding life difficult, Iran and then Russia backed him (Iran in particular with troops). I don't think bombing a year earlier than the yanks actually started would have changed Assad's backing, apart from bringing it forward. Assad has always been their man.
I genuinely think the best course would be to let Assad stay in power (which is the main sticking point), be neutral in the conflict as far as the different factions go, apart from Isis (as there is little evidence that the rebel groups are in any way 'moderate') and not arm anybody. As part of a deal to stop any US bombing/arming get the UN to take away Assad's chemical weapons and have them inspect continuously, as in Iraq. It worked in Iraq, until we pretended that it didn't work so as to go and remove Saddam.
They have, it's being discussed right now.
That doesn't make waiting for the UN the right decision though - it has a clear history of using any excuse it can find to avoid taking action.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/syria-election-vote-for-assad-or-else
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/syria-election-bashar-al-assad-president
http://time.com/2821649/syria-election-will-boost-assad/
As with the chemical weapons attack, the general opinion held by most people is the same as mine. The onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary as the holder of the fringe opinion.
Ah I see. The conspiracy theory approach.
In that case there's nothing I can do to dissuade you of your strange beliefs as it will all just be more evidence of the system covering up stuff that you chosen few who really understand the burning point of jet fuel and the melting point of steel can know.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
What do people think of a decapitation strategy? A special forces snatch of Bashar and deposit of him in the Hague (rather than Guantanamo). Could that instantly end everything and bring all sides to the table inside the country, or is there enough of a regime that would rally around a successor?
wiziwig
Steed Malbranque
Huh ?
I just posted the videos five minutes ago, you can't have watched the videos.
One is of a Democratic politician and one is of a reporter on the ground.
It's you that is the conspiracy theorist here and you're giving support the terrorism in Syria.
wiziwig
Steed Malbranque
Assad is winning , pushing back ISIS.
The Syrians understand that in the short term, he's their best hope.
wiziwig
Steed Malbranque
You've posted two videos containing the personal opinion of two people who have, at best, fringe opinions.
Your comment above them suggests that there's some almighty conspiracy in the West to present the news in a manner that hides the truth. That is the very basis of every conspiracy theory.
I'm not saying that he didn't do it, as I don't know. I'm just giving my opinion that, if he is winning the civil war, it doesn't make sense to do anything that might force the USA to become more involved and escalate the conflict to another level.
I think something like that might only strengthen the resolve of Iran and Russia to back whoever was left of the same regime as a puppet. And that supposes it could be done in the first place, which seems a bit unlikely. If it's that easy, every war would end that way.