Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Romney on Syria

15 posts in this topic

Posted

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 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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Provide some support to the rebels, and offer to recognize them immediately should they take control of the government. Maybe we should provide arms, but I would need a lot more information about the rebels before making a decision on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

same. i wouldnt go to war in that country regardless of the atrocities happening.

if we did we should also go to africa where most of that continent is a wasteland of genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Think Romney suggested supplying arms through Saudis, not directly.

Probably a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How about think to yourself "Hmm, that sucks for Syria."

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am not inclined to support an imperialistic doctrine. However, I was given pause to consider the observations by the early W Bush cabinet that we cannot abide a nation state that sponsors terrorism against US citizens. If we have proof of that, we are well within our rights to defend ourselves.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Would these be the same founders that accepted military assistance that France sent? The purpose of that assistance was to weaken the British empire and further french political and economic interest. If that actually was a belief or purpose of the founders, then it was extremely hypocritical of them.

Not that I buy that all the founders were of a single mind concerning various beliefs and goals that are attributed to them nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites