Aleppo on brink of collapse; no sign of U.S. action.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Sep 30, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    That is the CNN crawler as Poppy Harlow (great name) interviews a parade of forign policy experts on the impending collapse Aleppo who are attempting to shame Obama into "action," whatever that means. CNN has become of necon's and liberal interventionist's channel of choice. Very interesting.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    hope he stays OUT of it, let Assad win and bring peace to the area.
     
  3. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #3
    Do not intervene there, please.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 30, 2016 ---
    Unfortunately I think that after the elections Obama will intervene. Worse, if HRC is elected she will use Syria as a proxy theater of war with Russia.
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    Verge of collapse? The ****ing city hasn't had running water in over two years.
     
  5. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #5
    Hussein can't even run the government he's responsible for. Having neutered the USA, the sad little man is living off the emotional satisfaction he gets watching citizens and refugees attacking police.
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    pray/say/tell why the hell should we be involved?
     
  7. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #7
    you and mitch mcconell have a lot in common
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    What in ****s name are you talking about? When did the US annex Syria? How is the US responsible for the Syrian government?

    You really are something else.
     
  9. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #9
    If Obama and Clinton weren't propping up ISIS rebels in Syria, Assad would have restored order years ago.

    The globalists and corporatists are going to have to come to terms with there being no looting of Syrian natural resources to make a profit.
     
  10. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    Exactly. Obama and Hillary have prolonged the civil war for years and the result is over 400,000 deaths.
     
  11. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #11
    And it ain't for "regime change" either.

    Someone is looking to get paid at Assad's expense and he's not having it.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    it's ok when democrats do it......
     
  13. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #14
    Don't forget the caption

    [​IMG]
     
  14. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
  15. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    If the US gets involved in Syria we are in serious trouble. It's going to cost a lot of American (and non-American) lives, money, and it would cause a total collapse of the region. It would prompt Russians to act, probably followed by Turkey and Iraq. Israel would have to be also ready for action, all while ISIS will try to provoke as many nations as possible.
    Lord, I can't even begin to think what is going to happen there.
     
  16. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #17
    I though it was lack of "boots on the ground" that was the problem...the Americans wanted to support the democratic uprising, but republicans (now tired of the Afghan and Iraqi wars they started) refused to put more troops into combat.

    The Russians are now the ones bombing the hell out of Aleppo and killing the babies.
    It happened it's about time people dealt with it... it's now close to 100 years ago. Also it's funny they photoshopped the eyes
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    we have no ****ing business there, Libya was an amazing cluster **** and this will be no different.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #19
    Don't you think that a proxy war US-Russia would cause many more babies to die?
     
  19. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #20
    You can say that for a lot of conflicts like the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan (the 1980's Proxy war), Iraq II, Afghanistan II the search for Bin Laden... It doesn't split along party lines

    People have been dying, bombings aren't bringing peace, and the cancer that is growing in Syria is now called Daesh. The UN security council is broken as most of the "players" in Syira are on the counsel and a 4 out of 5 decision is impossible.

    You should all have a look at why Russia is so interested in supporting Assad.
     
  20. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    You have to realize that you can't destroy Daesh without Syria's cooperation. You can't have the best of both worlds. You either have Assad and a stable Syria, or Daesh. Otherwise you have a bad war that will go on forever.
     
  21. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #22
    So you're saying the choice is either tyranny or terror for Syria? The war can't go on forever, they'll run out of people to bomb eventually.
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    1000'S DYING & MILLIONS displaced after the Libya mess, WHEN are we going to learn? WHO gets to keep Assad weapons should we kill/depose him? WHO got Kaddafy's? all we are doing is making more ****ing terrorist
    --- Post Merged, Sep 30, 2016 ---
    HOW are they going to run out of people when WE arm and TRAIN the rebels heading there? did the slaughter end when Kadaffy was killed? NOPE we still have people fleeing that mess.
     
  23. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #24
    I don't know when the US is going to learn... it's been going on for almost 70(?) years now and the play-book and results haven't changed much. I used to say the UN should handle messes like this, but they've fallen into a trap of their own making.

    You can't bring peace to a region by flying a jet over it and dropping thousands of tonnes of bombs (not Russia, not the US). You need to get in there with a multinational force; boots on the ground, eyes and ears open, and let them know that this is a temporary measure to restore peace and not for profit.
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #25
    I am saying that it's a bad situation.
    1) Syria is a sovereign nation, recognized by the UN and the international community. If it says that it can deal with Daesh and no US help is needed, does the US have a right to attack it point blank?
    2) If you put boots on the ground you would have to put them in Iraq, and maybe Israel. That would bring Iraq in the equation which would be intolerable for both Syria and Iran. It might also cause political mayhem in Iraq itself.
    3) If you put boots on the ground without Syria's request, AND Syria calls Russia to help - as it is happening - Russia will have to engage American troops which at that point would be invaders of a sovereign country.
    4) There is no way to fight on two fronts (Daesh and Syria) while at the same time fighting the proxy war with Russia while keeping stability in the region.
    5) Fighting in Syria would cause relaxation over Iran, which means that once the US is tangled in the messy war there would be no way for the US to enforce the nuclear agreement signed by Kerry. Iran would have just to wait a couple of months before it could start the program back, with the particular that they are richer while the US AND Russia would be unable to threaten them. No government in its right mind would be open to fighting in both Syria and Iran (even a no-fly zone would be problematic).
    5b) if US is fighthing in Syria agains Syrian troops+Daesh, Russia could be seize the moment and conquest Ukraine in a weekend, causing a big European crisis. At the same time, North Korea could provoke South Korea (although China would likely intervene).

    No way I am open to this.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page