Bravo AAASSSSSad!!! Bravo Good Man

[ForeverYoung436]

The only reason we haven't helped the Syrian people free themselves from a brutal dictator is oil.

Lybia is swimming in oil.

So the UN with American support jumped right in to free the Lybian people from a brutal dictator.


But to the oil less Syrian people it was, "we can't help you, but good luck".

Also, Russia and China have Assad's back. And Libya didn't border Israel. With Assad gone and Islamists in, the whole region could spiral out of control.

 

[mememe]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...-new-syria-peace-initiative-constitution.html

 

[Hollie]

From what little I know of the matter I got the impression that the U.S. would like to see Assad gone but until the resistance has something in place that can take and maintain control of the country there is no use in ousting Assad.

I'm not all eager to immerse the U.S. in another religious/tribal conflict in the Middle East. This one called Syria.

In spite of what may be said concerning our overwhelming advantage in the application of force and the associated technology to direct it, my opinion is that we should stay clear of this mess. With Libya to serve as a reference, it seems we haven't learned a lesson about propping up "rebels" who, as in Libya, turned their weapons on each other almost as soon as Muammar "The Fashion Statement" Ghadaffi was dispatched. It seems to me that the west in general and the U.S. specifically lacks some forethought with its Nation Building enterprises that, hey, are going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our curent commander in chief inherited the campaigns currently winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "democratically elected" government in Iraq has taken to continuing the 1,400 year old sunni vs. Shia blood feud, while in Kabul, the female population is about to meet the blunt force trauma that is Islamic shariah.

Providing military aid to a disparate collection of what are called "rebels", has its own dangers. For example, we don't even have a clear idea as to who the "rebels" are. The "rebels" we equip one week have an uncomfortable history of becoming the "insurgents" that attack us the following week. Just as importantly, what is the policy to be concerning the inevitable non combatant causalities of a US / NATO bombing campaign? Would U.S. or international troops be needed as peace keepers after an overthrow of Assad?

I'm actually fine with letting these nutbars from the 7th century work out their differences the old faashioned way - let em' slaughter one another.

 

[Sunni Man]

Assad is on the ropes and he knows it.

It's just a matter of time until he is either deposed and exiled or killed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So we can be diplomatic with the murderers against Assad, but not diplomatic with the murderous Assad himself? That seems arbitrary.

freedom fighters have to kill in order to be free.

we did, as well as every other people that wanted to be free.

We didn't purposefully target Christians, or any other religion, however, the way the "freedom fighters" in Syria are.

You don't know your history very well, read up on Loyalists ( Tories) and how both of the American sides fought each other in the revolution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From what little I know of the matter I got the impression that the U.S. would like to see Assad gone but until the resistance has something in place that can take and maintain control of the country there is no use in ousting Assad.

I'm not all eager to immerse the U.S. in another religious/tribal conflict in the Middle East. This one called Syria.

In spite of what may be said concerning our overwhelming advantage in the application of force and the associated technology to direct it, my opinion is that we should stay clear of this mess. With Libya to serve as a reference, it seems we haven't learned a lesson about propping up "rebels" who, as in Libya, turned their weapons on each other almost as soon as Muammar "The Fashion Statement" Ghadaffi was dispatched. It seems to me that the west in general and the U.S. specifically lacks some forethought with its Nation Building enterprises that, hey, are going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our curent commander in chief inherited the campaigns currently winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "democratically elected" government in Iraq has taken to continuing the 1,400 year old sunni vs. Shia blood feud, while in Kabul, the female population is about to meet the blunt force trauma that is Islamic shariah.

Providing military aid to a disparate collection of what are called "rebels", has its own dangers. For example, we don't even have a clear idea as to who the "rebels" are. The "rebels" we equip one week have an uncomfortable history of becoming the "insurgents" that attack us the following week. Just as importantly, what is the policy to be concerning the inevitable non combatant causalities of a US / NATO bombing campaign? Would U.S. or international troops be needed as peace keepers after an overthrow of Assad?

I'm actually fine with letting these nutbars from the 7th century work out their differences the old faashioned way - let em' slaughter one another.

Wow. Sadly I agree. I'm not fine with civilians being slaughtered by the nut bars, but we've spent enough blood and treasure on trying to civilize the uncivilized.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

freedom fighters have to kill in order to be free.

we did, as well as every other people that wanted to be free.

We didn't purposefully target Christians, or any other religion, however, the way the "freedom fighters" in Syria are.

You don't know your history very well, read up on Loyalists ( Tories) and how both of the American sides fought each other in the revolution.

Which is in no way comparable to the way the "freedom fighters" are targeting Christians in Syria.

 

[emptystep]

From what little I know of the matter I got the impression that the U.S. would like to see Assad gone but until the resistance has something in place that can take and maintain control of the country there is no use in ousting Assad.

I'm not all eager to immerse the U.S. in another religious/tribal conflict in the Middle East. This one called Syria.

In spite of what may be said concerning our overwhelming advantage in the application of force and the associated technology to direct it, my opinion is that we should stay clear of this mess. With Libya to serve as a reference, it seems we haven't learned a lesson about propping up "rebels" who, as in Libya, turned their weapons on each other almost as soon as Muammar "The Fashion Statement" Ghadaffi was dispatched. It seems to me that the west in general and the U.S. specifically lacks some forethought with its Nation Building enterprises that, hey, are going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our curent commander in chief inherited the campaigns currently winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "democratically elected" government in Iraq has taken to continuing the 1,400 year old sunni vs. Shia blood feud, while in Kabul, the female population is about to meet the blunt force trauma that is Islamic shariah.

Providing military aid to a disparate collection of what are called "rebels", has its own dangers. For example, we don't even have a clear idea as to who the "rebels" are. The "rebels" we equip one week have an uncomfortable history of becoming the "insurgents" that attack us the following week. Just as importantly, what is the policy to be concerning the inevitable non combatant causalities of a US / NATO bombing campaign? Would U.S. or international troops be needed as peace keepers after an overthrow of Assad?

I'm actually fine with letting these nutbars from the 7th century work out their differences the old faashioned way - let em' slaughter one another.

Many, many excellent points. What good is advantage of force if all you can do is blow things up. I think the jury is still out on Libya although however that comes down it not going down as a shining moment in world history to say the least. And Iraq, nothing like a free and open election to make one question the absolute rightness of democracy.

I think mememe has one heck of an interesting perspective. Wouldn't it be the damnedest thing if the way out of this mess was through Assad.

 

[yidnar]

yeah, innocent people are being murdered so we should just stand there and watch it happen.

well

I guess if we go; "tsk tsk" every now and then, it'll be ok.

So what do we do? Go to war against both Assad and the resistance?

no

but putting assad in a tomb isn't a bad idea.

aside from that, we have these things called diplomats, we can have them try diplomacy

and the UN can get off it's ass and do something useful for a change.

the Arab spring is putting worse regeims into power.

 

[SAYIT]

The only reason we haven't helped the Syrian people free themselves from a brutal dictator is oil.

Lybia is swimming in oil.
So the UN with American support jumped right in to free the Lybian people from a brutal dictator.
But to the oil less Syrian people it was, "we can't help you, but good luck".

Interesting.
Just a few months ago the anti-Israel crowd here was claiming the Syrians were loyal to Assad, the rebels were mercenaries and the rebellion was a US/MOSSAD/ black op.
Now you are singing a very different tune. What's up with that?

 

[Sunni Man]

Interesting.
Just a few months ago the anti-Israel crowd here was claiming the Syrians were loyal to Assad, the rebels were mercenaries and the rebellion was a US/MOSSAD/ black op.
Now you are singing a very different tune. What's up with that?

If you are referring to me.......you are way off track.

Syria is about 90% sunni muslim.

The brutal dictator Asaad is an Alawite.

So it's not to hard to figure out which side I support.

Hint: check out my user name.........

 

[SAYIT]

Interesting.
Just a few months ago the anti-Israel crowd here was claiming the Syrians were loyal to Assad, the rebels were mercenaries and the rebellion was a US/MOSSAD/ black op.
Now you are singing a very different tune. What's up with that?

If you are referring to me.......you are way off track.

Syria is about 90% sunni muslim.
The brutal dictator Asaad is an Alawite.
So it's not to hard to figure out which side I support.
Hint: check out my user name.........

Ya know, it was a couple of your bros here ... BecauseIKnowSquat for one. You know, stupid people who blame the Jooos for everything.

 

[SAYIT]

Our beloved Pres. Obama believes in helping people free themselves from brutal dictators.

It's in the DNA of freedom loving and patriotic Americans like him to help the underdog.

And makes a true red blooded American like me very proud of our nation and people.

I wonder how you would feel about US support if a minority Sunni regime was under attack in Syria by an Alawite majority rebellion. Eh, Sunni Man? How proud would you then be of our support for the underdog?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We didn't purposefully target Christians, or any other religion, however, the way the "freedom fighters" in Syria are.

You don't know your history very well, read up on Loyalists ( Tories) and how both of the American sides fought each other in the revolution.

Which is in no way comparable to the way the "freedom fighters" are targeting Christians in Syria.

It is and you know it. Murder for murders sake no matter the supposed reason is the same thing. And the Loyalists and those on the side of freedom for the US were murdering each other in some pretty horrendous ways.

 

[GHook93]

Who?
Where?

muslims killing muslims?

The Arabs and Left don't carry because Muslims killing Muslims are cool!

 

[GHook93]

Why is it any of our business what goes on in Syria?

You misinterpret the OP, I am against us intervening in Syria. No military intervention, no sanctions, no boycotts, no blockade and no stopping Russia and/or China from selling weapons to ASSSSSSad!

 

[GHook93]

Why is it any of our business what goes on in Syria?

innocent people are being slaughtered by a ruthless dictator.

As a human, that kinda bothers me.

imagine coming home from work to dig your family, piece by piece out of what was your home.

Now imagine it as if you had children.

Like Libya, Egypt or Iraq, if ASSSSad falls Al Qaeda and Sharia loving IslamoNazis take over. I prefer ASSSSad and I hope he kills and destroys half the country before remains in power!

 

[GHook93]

Defiant Assad pledges to continue fighting - World news

He vows to fight on! 60K isn't good enough, he needs to take out 1 mil! The Arabs and the Hypocritical left don't give a shit, they only care about Israel killing Palestinians in self-defense! All the while AAAASSSad kills more Syrians in one week than Israel has killed Palestinians since 1948 to the present!

I say fight on good man! If they start bounding at your gate, gas them back to the countryside. Once they hide amongst civilians destroy the entire town they are hiding in!

Shoot for the 1 mil body count!

Godspeed AAAAASSSSad!!!

You're an idiot Ghook. The Arab League has a duty to protect the Syrian people, President Obama does not nor - whatever in your tiny little mind you consider - does the "left". Left and Right Americans have deep empathy for the people of Syria, punks like you putting their plight into our political arena are disgusting.

JJJEEEZZZUUSSSS, was my OP not clear??? I like the Obama stance!!! I agree with it! He (we) should do nothing! I have no empathy for Syrian people or rebels!!! If ASSSSad falls, then even worse Al Qaeda type Sharia loving IslamoNazis take over!

 

[GHook93]

The only reason we haven't helped the Syrian people free themselves from a brutal dictator is oil.

Lybia is swimming in oil.

So the UN with American support jumped right in to free the Lybian people from a brutal dictator.


But to the oil less Syrian people it was, "we can't help you, but good luck".

Very true and I hope it stays that way! Let them kill each other!

 

[GHook93]

Assad is on the ropes and he knows it.

It's just a matter of time until he is either deposed and exiled or killed.

Hopefully he gases a few 100 thousand cockroaches before he goes!