Romney on Syria
#1
Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:51 PM
http://www.guardian....m-syrian-rebels
Discuss
What should our involvement be, if any at all in your opinion?
This may be asking a lot but let's keep the ever so cute one-liners to a minimum if possible
#2
Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:09 PM
You see Turks and Arabs are on a verge of attacking Syria while Iran backing Syria. You encourage Turks and Arabs to push on Syria and Iran and then slowly back away. This will start internal conflict between Muslims... you just sit back and watch.
You start war with Syria, muslims will see US as a bully again and will unite against US. Right now Hamas and Hezbollah are on a verge of a war... why the fug would anyone intervene between 2 terrorist organizations that about to destroy each other? If we truly fighting terrorism in middle east, that's the time to just sit back and watch.
#3
Posted 09 October 2012 - 12:32 AM
Thing you do in this situation...
You see Turks and Arabs are on a verge of attacking Syria while Iran backing Syria. You encourage Turks and Arabs to push on Syria and Iran and then slowly back away. This will start internal conflict between Muslims... you just sit back and watch.
You start war with Syria, muslims will see US as a bully again and will united against US. Right now Hamas and Hezbollah are on a verge of a war... why the fug would anyone intervene between 2 terrorist organizations that about to destroy each other? If we truly fighting terrorism in middle east, that's the time to just sit back and watch.
SHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
(Dude! Don't suggest things that make sense! You'll jinx it!)
#4
Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:14 AM
#6
Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:25 AM
Probably a good idea.
#7
Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:08 AM
Think Romney suggested supplying arms through Saudis, not directly.
Probably a good idea.
If you announce to the world that you will, ‘‘ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets" then I dont think giving the arms directly or indirectly makes any difference
#8
Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:44 AM
Then you bring home the troops, cut the bloated defense budget and spend the tax money on infrastructure and education.
n/m, that's crazy.
#9
Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:30 PM
On the other hand, to adopt a policy of forwarding nations' revolutions to suit our own economical and political interests is inherently antithetical to the founders' mandates for the federal government. I believe their wisdom on the matter to be as prudent now as it was then.
#10
Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:52 PM
Not that I buy that all the founders were of a single mind concerning various beliefs and goals that are attributed to them nowadays.
#11
Posted 09 October 2012 - 06:02 PM
#12
Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:35 PM
If the attacks continue to spill over into Turkey, NATO would be within its rights to respond per the terms of the treaty. They wouldn't need UN Security council approval. But I do think that any response by Turkey with or without NATO, will likely be limited to the buffer zone you mentioned, or airstrikes on Syrian positions near the border, or some combination thereof.I'm really interested to see Turkeys next move. Do they secure areas across the Syrian border to create a buffer zone against arty/fire that has been crossing the border. I wonder??? As Turkey goes so goes NATO.
#13
Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:07 PM
#14
Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:51 PM
#15
Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:06 PM
http://www.huffingto...1/ml-jordan-us/
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users






