Should We Invade Syria And Intervene In The Wholesale Massacres Of A Brutal Tyrant?

[Deleted]

Probably because I have addressed that in the past multiple times and I grow tired of dismantling the same conjecture fifty times. Not all rebels are a like at all, only a faction of them are as brutal and murderous as the Assad regime. The faction of the rebels that we would support and endorse, the FSA, are completely secular, forward-thinking, not murderous or brutal, and are the best possibility for Syria's future. We only support the FSA, no other rebels.

Remember the last time America supported Rebels in a similar situation? Afghanistan in the 80's guess where that lead you?

[AssimilateTruthx]

the syrian people gave the answer to this in the very beginning: no, stay the fuck out.

Perhaps the "Syrian people" who benefit from a dynastic totalitarian regime that is the Assad regime, but certainly not the ones of the popular revolution that was responded to with the launching of the atrocities of the past two years.

[Deleted]

Perhaps the "Syrian people" who benefit from a dynastic totalitarian regime that is the Assad regime, but certainly not the ones of the popular revolution that was responded to with the launching of the atrocities of the past two years.

Atrocities have been committed on both sides, only total disarmament is the solution to spare bloodshed.

[Bakis]

Should We Invade Syria And Intervene In The Wholesale Massacres Of A Brutal Tyrant?

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility towards every form of tyranny over the mind of man"

I stopped reading there, I know it will continue to some rambling no matter what.
And I think Assad is a scum on earth.

[AssimilateTruthx]

Remember the last time America supported Rebels in a similar situation? Afghanistan in the 80's guess where that lead you?

I'm not sure why people insist upon comparing this to situations that are distinctly different (Second Gulf War, Afghanistan in the 1980s.) Afghanistan in the 1980s was not a progressive popular revolution against a tyrannical government, it was a proxy war that we fought by funding religious extremist fighters to repel the Soviets.

[anveena]

No, I don't think the United States should get involved. It's Syria's war and they can decide who gets to rule their country. Given the two sides to back in this, I hardly see any reason to get involved. Either support the current regime or support the rebels, which have done just as bad as Assad has in the war. I really don't see what there is to gain from US getting involved. I guess we could gain more debt and dead Americans...

[Alvito]

All medical residents start as O-3, which is a Captain, and become O-4s, which is a Major, upon completing their residencies. I'll probably be starting as an O-3, but it's all variable on what circumstances I activate my commission upon since I'm in the reserve.

And how am I at all blood thirsty? If anything, I'm tired of bloodthirsty, power-hungry monsters like the Assad regime wreaking havoc on innocent people.

That was a reference to your experience not your rank. You know who is normally eager for some sort of military campaign, people who have never been apart of one. The US needs to stay out of other countries and stop playing hall monitor for the world. We have plenty of our own issues at home that need some attention rather then this never ending cycle of conflicts abroad.

[smelltheglove]

Perhaps the "Syrian people" who benefit from a dynastic totalitarian regime that is the Assad regime, but certainly not the ones of the popular revolution that was responded to with the launching of the atrocities of the past two years.

actually you would be wrong. the rebels themselves said "no thanks, we'll handle this". the tune from them might have changed recently but that's only because they let shit go to hell before saying "um, can we has guns?" their initial stance is the one i am happy with

[AssimilateTruthx]

That was a reference to your experience not your rank. You know who is normally eager for some sort of military campaign, people who have never been apart of one. The US needs to stay out of other countries and stop playing hall monitor for the world. We have plenty of our own issues at home that need some attention rather then this never ending cycle of conflicts abroad.

Except I have multiple friends who are veterans of OIF-1 among other campaigns who are all ready to re-enlist in the event that we actively intervene in Syria.

[starkey]

Just let them duke it out themselves, but instead people are subjected too the media showing images/videos of dead children to rile up the masses

[AssimilateTruthx]

actually you would be wrong. the rebels themselves said "no thanks, we'll handle this". the tune from them might have changed recently but that's only because they let shit go to hell before saying "um, can we has guns?" their initial stance is the one i am happy with

Source? The rebels, particularly the FSA, have been demanding more help and our intervention (such as a no-fly zone) since the beginning. You're the first person I've seen claim otherwise.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure why people insist upon comparing this to situations that are distinctly different (Second Gulf War, Afghanistan in the 1980s.) Afghanistan in the 1980s was not a progressive popular revolution against a tyrannical government, it was a proxy war that we fought by funding religious extremist fighters to repel the Soviets.

To repel Soviets? The Soviet Union at that point was faltering and they had actually done some good for Afghanistan, intervention for the sole purpose of opposing the Russians fucked shit up and lead to what we have now.

[Kellhound]

Atrocities have been committed on both sides, only total disarmament is the solution to spare bloodshed.

That would require cutting off everyones arms, hardly bloodless.

[Deleted]

That would require cutting off everyones arms, hardly bloodless.

With surgical precision minimal blood will be lost.

[Åmbulance]

With surgical precision minimal blood will be lost.

Don't they have lasers that cut, and cauterize?

[AssimilateTruthx]

To repel Soviets? The Soviet Union at that point was faltering and they had actually done some good for Afghanistan, intervention for the sole purpose of opposing the Russians fucked shit up and lead to what we have now.

They may have done some good, but the Soviet invasion essentially amounted to killing everything in their path, especially innocent civilians. In that regard, it was somewhat justified that we aided in the resistance versus them, but we played it poorly by not considering the possibility of blowback.

[Skroe]

No, absolutely not. We should under no circumstance invade Syria. What madness that would be.

[Deleted]

Don't they have lasers that cut, and cauterize?

I have a hacksaw and a blowtorch, that should do.

- - - Updated - - -

They may have done some good, but the Soviet invasion essentially amounted to killing everything in their path, especially innocent civilians. In that regard, it was somewhat justified that we aided in the resistance versus them, but we played it poorly by not considering the possibility of blowback.

Exactly, that is why this shit needs to be thought through, not rushing headlong only after a few days of genuine deliberating.

[AssimilateTruthx]

Exactly, that is why this shit needs to be thought through, not rushing headlong only after a few days of genuine deliberating.

We have deliberated for more than a year, we have already considered all possible contingencies. We are ready to stop this humanitarian crisis and I have faith in President Obama giving the order to do just that.

[Kalis]

...we played it poorly by not considering the possibility of blowback.

So you propose to help religious fundamentalists again to see if you get a different outcome this time?