Moment of Truth In The Middle East.

But can we kill Assad w/o boots on the ground? We certainly cannot afford another extended war right now.

 

Depends on your definition of boots on the ground, and whether or not we want to be perceived as a country that will willingly target another country's leader.

If lax on the first and don't care on the second, then yea. We can. Easily.

Also, we can work Syria over pretty quickly. Now, if we stick around to "build them back up." And then put on kid gloves, then yea, we'll be there a while.

It entirely depends on who we want to be, but we can be the big kid on the block.

 

That's cool. I'm with the others. If we're gonna go in, you better be playing to win and completely annihilate the enemy. I'm talking

[video=youtube;IEBL-k_vF0E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEBL-k_vF0E&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

Crank up the Enola Gay.

 

Well to me, not killing Assad is not "decisive." As far as the second, I certainly don't mind being known as the country that takes out thugs using N,B or C weapons. If we can take the joker out with special ops and airstrikes, I think I'd be for it.

 

Bomb his military back to the stone age. At least that way the two sides are fighting on equal footing.

 

Either kill them all or don't get involved

 

all this.

 

... and this.

 

The more I hear, the more I'm convinced Assad has finally jumped the shark. The international community is galvanizing.

 

I'm not sure I want us to be in the middle of that shit show. If only we had an organization like the UN to handle these kinds of issues.

 

I'll ask this, and fully accepting all that comes with it:

1. Why must any action be taken against Syria?
2. What action must be taken?
3. Why must this action be taken by the U.S.?
4. How would this operation, outside of the obvious differences of scale, be any different than what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan - and which remains an overwhelmingly denounced action by the rest of the world.

Last I checked, Syria has neither attacked the U.S., its interests or allies - and we've made plenty of enemies in that region to last a lifetime.

So, help me to understand our role in doing anything about this. I'm willing to learn.

 

I understand your feelings. I really do, and I honestly have no answers to your questions. I admit it is woefully inadequate, but I just don't think this type of behavior should be tolerated with good conscience. I don't know what to say beyond that.

 

When did Hitler or Mussolini ever attack the US?

 

And I appreciate that, but I don't have any feelings about it at all, at least that I intend to make known.

I'm merely asking what I think to be reasonable questions, before we all agree that the U.S. should intervene.

Unfortunately, and from the sound of things, there are more difficult questions being raised here, than in the White House SitRoom.

 

If it is to be tolerated, we need to go ahead and shut the hell up about America being a beacon of good in the world and just start taking care of nothing but ourselves, a la the Russians.

 

Japan did, and their agreements with Hitler and Mussolini compelled them to join Japan in declaring war on the US.

How many years had the Nazis been bombing Britain and invading France - two of our strongest allies - before we did anything, again?

Your analogy is invalid. But I'm willing to hear any others.

 

While I don't disagree absolutely and think your questions are completely with merit, you are truly a puzzling riddle of an enigma wrapped inside a mystery. Your brain works on such a higher level than this ole country boy's.

 

So, we should act to protect our international image of being "beacons of goodness", or risk losing it? And the best way to protect and to promote this image is to drop bombs on a country whom has done nothing to us, whatsoever?

How wonderfully quaint and naive that sounds.

Id prefer you simply said, "It's the polite thing to do.", instead.

 

Not true.

Everyone here could have quite easily thought of these questions - and dozens more, and better ones.

That's my point, that is, if I have one.