White House Is Weighing a Syria Retreat

[Helix]

I wouldn't say that, but I would say that Russia seems pretty focused solely on Syria. I don't think they are actually going to occupy anyone.

nope, probably not,. however, they aren't going to accomplish their objective. the Middle East can't be fixed by extended bombing campaigns, though. it is going to have to happen internally.

 

[David_N]

I don't believe he is leading from behind.

I think he has and is making conscious decisions to empower radicals. ISIS, Iran, Al Qaeda.

Its been his game plan since day one

And this is why I can't take you seriously.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

nope, probably not,. however, they aren't going to accomplish their objective. the Middle East can't be fixed by extended bombing campaigns, though. it is going to have to happen internally.

They aren't looking to fix the region, just bomb the terrorists in Syria.

 

[Higgins86]

Never said he was a " Islamic double agent ", just said there's a consistency to the consequences of almost everyone of his foreign policy decisions.

Can anyone be THAT incompetent ?? I don't think so.

Here is the narrative for you and this narrative has been constant in every NATO country.

We should be bombing Assad.
" bombing Assad is dangerous and we don't know what we are targeting "

Assad is using chemical weapons on his own people.
" is that confirmed because we don't want another Iraq ".

We need to hit Isis now and help you the rebels.
" who are the rebels "

ISIS are a national security threat and need to be dealt with.

" what about turkey and Jordon ?".



Feel free to insert more arguments that I missed. The common theme is inaction and fear from both sides

 

[FlyingHippos]

Sending weapons and supplies that just end up in the hands of Al-Nusra Front, Al Qaeda, and ISIS, isn't a winning strategy.

The 'Free Syria Army' stopped being a force that could be backed, when the secular elements were killed off, leaving only a radical islamist core.

If the Russians want to play Middle East, then by all means let them be the fall guy, and not America.

Assad might be a brutal dictator, but everyone that isn't a 'terrorist' or an radical 'islamist' in Syria backs him over 'The Free Syria Army'.

 

[Helix]

They aren't looking to fix the region, just bomb the terrorists in Syria.

no, they are looking to prop up Assad. this is a much more complicated situation than good guys / bad guys. however, if they want to get hip deep into it, that's their decision to make.

 

[US Conservative]

the problems stop at the Syrian border, in your opinion?

Roads and bridges beat killing ISIS, in your opinion?

 

[US Conservative]

nope, probably not,. however, they aren't going to accomplish their objective. the Middle East can't be fixed by extended bombing campaigns, though. it is going to have to happen internally.

What do you think their objective is?

Hint-it rhymes with expanding their influence in both Iran and Syria-and maybe Iraq.

 

[humbolt]

The slow, quiet withdrawal begins. That sure didn't take long. Obama is an open book on international affairs, and is played like the chump he is.

 

[Thoreau72]

Because you know.... the strong retreat, but taking over the middle east is a sign of weakness on Putins part.




Wait. They no longer doubt that? Did they ever doubt that?



For the love of...

....how naïve are these people???




:doh

I'm going to start drinking now.

I hope you didn't get too drunk.

But seriously, by what legitimate authority does the US have the right or power to "change regime", anywhere?

 

[Thoreau72]

The slow, quiet withdrawal begins. That sure didn't take long. Obama is an open book on international affairs, and is played like the chump he is.

By what authority does the US government have the right or power to change regimes in foreign countries?

 

[humbolt]

By what authority does the US government have the right or power to change regimes in foreign countries?

While I may or may not agree with it, the US is exercising the same authority that tyrants use to claim power in the first place. i.e., that the most powerful can get to call the shots if they choose to.

 

[Helix]

Roads and bridges beat killing ISIS, in your opinion?

if the US defeated IS, another extremist group would follow. not to mention that those pounding their chests for a perpetual state of war aren't even willing to pay more in taxes to fund it. it's time to nation build here and let that region solve its own problems. if Russia wants to spend a significant portion of its resources on war in the Middle East, let them.

 

[Thoreau72]

While I may or may not agree with it, the US is exercising the same authority that tyrants use to claim power in the first place. i.e., that the most powerful can get to call the shots if they choose to.

You mean the "law of the jungle" idea?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

In terms of Realpolitik, Assad was the lesser evil.
They should of left it alone in the first place.

 

[Erod]

It is really entertaining to watch really conservative posters, especially on uberconsevative forums, in these meltdown threads.

It's even more fun to watch uber liberals bury their heads in the sand.

This is not a good man you support.

 

[Helix]

What do you think their objective is?

Hint-it rhymes with expanding their influence in both Iran and Syria-and maybe Iraq.

maybe we should change our transportation energy model so we don't ever have to give a **** about oil again. seems like that would be a better use of the money than perpetual war. plus, oil is what actually funds terror.

 

[humbolt]

You mean the "law of the jungle" idea?

Call it whatever suits you. I'm not characterizing it as good or bad - it's simply reality.

 

[Erod]

maybe we should change our transportation energy model so we don't ever have to give a **** about oil again. seems like that would be a better use of the money than perpetual war. plus, oil is what actually funds terror.

That should only take 100 years to develop and implement.

In the meantime......

 

[reinoe]

That should only take 100 years to develop and implement.

In the meantime......

No, it would not take that long.

 

[Helix]

That should only take 100 years to develop and implement.

In the meantime......

we got to the moon in ten. even a significant national program with the stated goal of replacing oil in twenty years would pull the floor out from under the market price. it's something we should do. i know the "get a horse" crowd imagines that people will still be driving around in cars that run on a nineteenth century energy technology in two hundred years and that this is the only acceptable outcome, but there will always be naysayers on the wrong side of history. enough is enough.

 

[Thoreau72]

Call it whatever suits you. I'm not characterizing it as good or bad - it's simply reality.

Yes, I completely agree that it is reality, no doubt at all.

But I was trying to fit it in with the idea that the US claims to be a nation and government of laws. You know, "rule of law" and all that.

In that context, we have no legal authority and no moral authority to change regimes. Yes, this is the law of the jungle working--we do what we please because we have a military industrial complex that doesn't give a good god-damn about the law. It rules the government, and business is real good, thanks very much.

 

[mak2]

Who do I support? I just find the conservatives constant hysteria funny. Has nothing to do with Obama.

It's even more fun to watch uber liberals bury their heads in the sand.

This is not a good man you support.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

no, they are looking to prop up Assad. this is a much more complicated situation than good guys / bad guys. however, if they want to get hip deep into it, that's their decision to make.

I've looked very much into this and I do agree with they are trying to prop up Assad- by killing terrorists.

 

[Fenton]

Well a lot of what you are saying is true at least to a large extent, however, you may want to ask yourself: What benefit does the US gain strategically from empowering radical Islamists, specifically in the places we have been recently bombing (eg Syria and Libya)?

The US gains nothing which fits right in to Obama's plan to knock this Nation down a peg or two

Obama' s a radical ideologue, not a proud patriot