Would war with syria make us safer? Must watch

[darin]

Tucker hits the grand-slam of grand-slams.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSGf2ZpDENU

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I like Tucker, but he parades the craziest radical fascist demtards on the planet on his show, and I try and watch it but usually have to turn the channel because I'm always thinking, I'd have said this or I'd have said that, so it just leaves me pissed off.

[Drummond]

I like Tucker, but he parades the craziest radical fascist demtards on the planet on his show, and I try and watch it but usually have to turn the channel because I'm always thinking, I'd have said this or I'd have said that, so it just leaves me pissed off.

I'm wondering if this would have wider implications, years from now.

Difficult to plot what they'd be, of course. But I can't help thinking that what we have now is an Assad regime believed to be using chemical weapons even on innocent children. In this, as in everything else Assad does, Russia gives him automatic support.

A world in which Russia is given zero opposition during instances where other powers don't see it as being in their interests to challenge that country and what it'll approve of, is a world where principles founded upon decency are subordinated to mere convenience. In practical terms, it convinces Russia it can mostly do whatever it wants, in the certain knowledge that potential opposition is ragged and opportunistic at absolute best .. and, NOT driven by higher principle.

In other words -- there's actually zero deterrence to Russia's illegal and anti-humanitarian ambitions, of any meaningful and consistent substance. It can do what it chooses, support what it chooses, so long as 'I'm all right, Jack' ...

This is surely not the right message to send to 'Mother Russia' ...

[Gunny]

He's close enough to absolutely correct for me.

He left out the elephant in the room: Russia. Putin is not going to just vacate Syria. That's his warm water port in the Med. Russia has too much time and money invested to just leave. To NOT consider THAT is negligence.

Hezbollah is also well-entrenched in Syria and Iran isn't going to leave.

Then there's doing ANYTHING on the recommendations of Howard Dean or Lindsay Graham. Syria alone would just be another Iraq. We'd make a mess. Factor in Iran and Russia and it could get a LOT uglier. For what?

[Black Diamond]

He's close enough to absolutely correct for me.

He left out the elephant in the room: Russia. Putin is not going to just vacate Syria. That's his warm water port in the Med. Russia has too much time and money invested to just leave. To NOT consider THAT is negligence.

Hezbollah is also well-entrenched in Syria and Iran isn't going to leave.

Then there's doing ANYTHING on the recommendations of Howard Dean or Lindsay Graham. Syria alone would just be another Iraq. We'd make a mess. Factor in Iran and Russia and it could get a LOT uglier. For what?
I saw a headline that said my buddy Mac ripped trump about it.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I saw a headline that said my buddy Mac ripped trump about it.
That dude a pathetic PUTZ.

[Gunny]

I saw a headline that said my buddy Mac ripped trump about it.I expect nothing intelligent out of him.

What I don't want to see nor hear is a rush to war based on the usual lies. The biggest is "moral authority". Assad is a creep just like Saddam was. Neither of them being dead would cause me a minute's loss of sleep. But we allow all kinds of shenanigans depending on who we are supporting.

As Carlson mentioned, these "rebels" as it turns out want to set up a caliphate under Sharia law. THAT is us doing anyone a favor? But they hate ISIS and Assad so we support them :rolleyes:

When you add it all up, there's no real reason for us to go to war in Syria UNLESS we are prepared to take on Russia and Iran as well, kick ALL their asses -- which would mean noncombatant casualties -- out, rebuild the place and occupy it by force for as long as it takes to rebuild both the infrastructure and a secular society (which mean another strongman in that neck of the woods).

And I sure as Hell ain't expecting the left here to support anything once the first casualty report comes in and they get right back to blaming Trump. Sure the Dems are for war, but not for the right reason. They don't care who gets killed over there as long as the GOP and Trump are political casualties HERE.

[Black Diamond]

I expect nothing intelligent out of him.

What I don't want to see nor hear is a rush to war based on the usual lies. The biggest is "moral authority". Assad is a creep just like Saddam was. Neither of them being dead would cause me a minute's loss of sleep. But we allow all kinds of shenanigans depending on who we are supporting.

As Carlson mentioned, these "rebels" as it turns out want to set up a caliphate under Sharia law. THAT is us doing anyone a favor? But they hate ISIS and Assad so we support them :rolleyes:

When you add it all up, there's no real reason for us to go to war in Syria UNLESS we are prepared to take on Russia and Iran as well, kick ALL their asses -- which would mean noncombatant casualties -- out, rebuild the place and occupy it by force for as long as it takes to rebuild both the infrastructure and a secular society (which mean another strongman in that neck of the woods).

And I sure as Hell ain't expecting the left here to support anything once the first casualty report comes in and they get right back to blaming Trump. Sure the Dems are for war, but not for the right reason. They don't care who gets killed over there as long as the GOP and Trump are political casualties HERE.
They would be for war before being against it.

[Gunny]

They would be for war before being against it.That is EXACTLY what it would amount to on some "they didn't tell us THAT when we voted for it" pretext.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I expect nothing intelligent out of him.

What I don't want to see nor hear is a rush to war based on the usual lies. The biggest is "moral authority". Assad is a creep just like Saddam was. Neither of them being dead would cause me a minute's loss of sleep. But we allow all kinds of shenanigans depending on who we are supporting.

As Carlson mentioned, these "rebels" as it turns out want to set up a caliphate under Sharia law. THAT is us doing anyone a favor? But they hate ISIS and Assad so we support them :rolleyes:

When you add it all up, there's no real reason for us to go to war in Syria UNLESS we are prepared to take on Russia and Iran as well, kick ALL their asses -- which would mean noncombatant casualties -- out, rebuild the place and occupy it by force for as long as it takes to rebuild both the infrastructure and a secular society (which mean another strongman in that neck of the woods).

And I sure as Hell ain't expecting the left here to support anything once the first casualty report comes in and they get right back to blaming Trump. Sure the Dems are for war, but not for the right reason. They don't care who gets killed over there as long as the GOP and Trump are political casualties HERE.
I don't know who started this "nation building" and "occupying" craze in the middle east, but that person/group is the one we should be at war with.

Bush junior was a dumbass going into Iraq. I remember watching the news about the troop build up and then the invasion and thinking, WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE WE DOING THAT FOR? He's the moron that opened this whole can of worthless worms.

[Black Diamond]

I don't know who started this "nation building" and "occupying" craze in the middle east, but that person/group is the one we should be at war with.

Bush junior was a dumbass going into Iraq. I remember watching the news about the troop build up and then the invasion and thinking, WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE WE DOING THAT FOR? He's the moron that opened this whole can of worthless worms.
Bushs decision. With wolfowitz and perle advising?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Bushs decision. With wolfowitz and perle advising?
Both Bushes are equally at fault. I never really liked either one of them. In fact, of the republican presidents in my life time, Reagan and Trump are the only ones I've liked. I can't remember Eisenhower, I was just a baby then but I'd have probably liked him too.

[Gunny]

The 'nation building crap" began when WWII ended. So did the "regime change" mentality. Communist? Bad. We replace you. Problem is, after South Korea and Israel (who we were opposed to at first), we've picked some really sorry "replacements and or anti-commies to back. Ngo din Diem in S Vietnam was as bad or worse a bigot and butcher as Ho Chi Minh. But he claimed to be against communism. He was a ruthless totalitarian who was as much a hindrance as an ally. Ho in fact came to us FIRST for help thinking we would understand his desire for independence and unification if anyone did. Sorry. You're a commie.

The Shah of Iran. Noriega in Panama. Bautista in Cuba. Technically, France in Vietnam (we were originally there as a UN peace-keeping force). Saddam Hussein. The opium peddler in Afghanistan we currently support. Jerry Brown in CA. Yep. We sure can pick 'em :rolleyes:

Of those countries listed above, may Iran had even a chance at being a "democracy".

We're not going to win anything in the Middle East. What it is coming down to is choosing between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The shia vs the sunni. People like Kadaffi, Sadam and Assad have been responsible for all these human attrocities but also for keeping most of the militant Muslims in check. We have been kind enough to remove those roadblocks for them. Iraq was the bigee, sitting squarely between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saddam kept what is happening now from happening then.

So it's name your poison. Ruthless, secular strongman or Islamic caliphate and possible supporter of Islamic terrorism as Iran is.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The 'nation building crap" began when WWII ended. So did the "regime change" mentality. Communist? Bad. We replace you. Problem is, after South Korea and Israel (who we were opposed to at first), we've picked some really sorry "replacements and or anti-commies to back. Ngo din Diem in S Vietnam was as bad or worse a bigot and butcher as Ho Chi Minh. But he claimed to be against communism. He was a ruthless totalitarian who was as much a hindrance as an ally. Ho in fact came to us FIRST for help thinking we would understand his desire for independence and unification if anyone did. Sorry. You're a commie.

The Shah of Iran. Noriega in Panama. Bautista in Cuba. Technically, France in Vietnam (we were originally there as a UN peace-keeping force). Saddam Hussein. The opium peddler in Afghanistan we currently support. Jerry Brown in CA. Yep. We sure can pick 'em :rolleyes:

Of those countries listed above, may Iran had even a chance at being a "democracy".

We're not going to win anything in the Middle East. What it is coming down to is choosing between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The shia vs the sunni. People like Kadaffi, Sadam and Assad have been responsible for all these human attrocities but also for keeping most of the militant Muslims in check. We have been kind enough to remove those roadblocks for them. Iraq was the bigee, sitting squarely between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saddam kept what is happening now from happening then.

So it's name your poison. Ruthless, secular strongman or Islamic caliphate and possible supporter of Islamic terrorism as Iran is.
I think nation building is the DUMBEST crap I've ever heard of. Isn't DESTROYING your enemy the whole idea of WAR? WHY go in after giving them a good ass kicking and REBUILD THEM? It's insane!

And you've on the money about the middle east, Gunny. There is NO, WINNING, over there. I wish we'd just get the hell otta ALL of it and let them be. If they screw with us, then go in like a bull in a china shop and absolutely LEVEL whoever screwed with us, and then LEAVE. Let them know that this is what will happen EVERY TIME. Fuck with us, we FLATTEN you, THEN LEAVE. No occupying, no nation building, no assistance of ANY KIND, just enjoy your DEVASTATION. Don't like us coming over and making a parking lot out of your country, then LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE.

WHAT is wrong with that policy? Too LOGICAL?

I swear, the M.E. is nothing more than a PROVING GROUND for all our new armament. A place for us to TRY OUT and hone our WAR SKILLS.