320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #81
Graham was an idiot. He was proposing at the debate that we send 10k troops into SYRIA! ...For WHAT? So that we can help radical Muslims defeat ISIS?
When you have your two biggest enemies fighting each other, you don't jump in the middle of it!
Does the U.S. truly have two enemies, to say nothing of two big ones? Syria may not be an ally, but that hardly makes them an enemy per se. Aside from ISIS/ISIL being "all up in their nation," what threat do Syrians really pose to the U.S? Seems to me the biggest threat associated with Syria is that of the chaos that nation has become opening the door to ISIS/ISIL's gaining a stronger and larger territorial hold.
The point of sending troops to Syria or to any extent using our armed forces there has not to do with Syria and Assad. It has to do with ISIS/ISIL, and the proof that it does is seen in the Syrian armed forces being unable to literally dispense with ISIS/ISIL as we did with Iraq's force in both our wars there. Syrian forces, quite simply are incapable of dealing decisively with the threats that face them.
The matter of what the U.S., indeed the rest of the world, should do about Syria's civil war that is happening concurrently with ISIS/ISIL undertaking a "land grab" there is one of doing what one can to ensure that the lesser of two evils prevails. For whatever one may think of Syria and it's political regime, one cannot deny that the Syria we've known and disliked for years is nonetheless a better "world citizen" than would be ISIS/ISIL and Islamic State were it to overcome the Assad regime.
Sorry... I think it's pure stupidity for us to expend human lives in a war there. We have absolutely nothing to gain from that venture. You said it best yourself, Syria poses NO threat to us, they can't even deal with ISIS. Back in 2001, George W. Bush asked the world to stand with us and help us eliminate radical Islamic terror and countries like Syria turned their noses up at the idea. Others chose to politicize his efforts and turn him into a pariah. Fuck Syria... they had their chance! We don't owe them a damn thing, certainly not the blood of American soldiers.
Lindsey Graham is a retarded idiot who wants to put us in the middle of a war we cannot win! ...AND YOU SUPPORT HIM!
Red:
I accept that that is what you think. I do not think that it is pure stupidity for the U.S. to send fighting forces there.
Green:
I did write that and I stand by it. Syria does not pose any such threat. ISIS/ISIL does, at least I think it does.
The critical thing one must understand is that Syria is not ISIS/ISIL. Syria is a sovereign nation headed politically by a man who, for whatever onerous things he may do, he is not about to order Syrian government personnel to deliberately execute attacks on America, American resources, or non-American resources that are important -- to great and small extent -- to America. ISIS/ISIL, on the other hand, most has and will attempt to do so again.
Accordingly, while there is little to gain by fighting in Syria with Assad, his regime and assets as our targets, there is definitely something to gain by fighting there. The reason to send our military resources and people to Syria is to advance the objective of defeating ISIS/ISIL, or at least to ensure it does not expand their territorial control to include the whole of Syria wherefrom it can establish a more robust base of operations and begin the process of actually forming the sovereign state that it presumably would call "Islamic State."
If ISIS/ISIL are allowed to gain control of an entire country, we would, instead of stopping it from doing so be forced to overthrow it. If you are of a mind to argue the relative preponderance of value accruing from overthrowing a state as compared with and contrasted to preventing a group from acquiring one, have at it. I'll read your argument.
Blue:
You clearly did not read or understand, or God forbid both, what I wrote here.
