(12-02-2015, 03:15 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(12-02-2015, 03:12 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: "Thanks in great measure to your service, and you sacrifice and your families' sacrifice, the situation in Iraq has improved."

I'd give that comment some weight if the people of Iraq were saying it.

It sounded good at the time though. So did the war in Iraq after 911. 10 years from now someone will say that killing Bin Laden was a bad idea. Hind sight is always 20/20.

In December 2011, just days before the last U.S. troops would leave the country, he spoke at North Carolina's Fort Bragg. "Everything that American troops have done in Iraq, all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering — all of it has led to this moment of success," he said.

He acknowledged that Iraq is not a perfect place and had challenges yet ahead. But he argued that "we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq."

(12-02-2015, 03:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: It sounded good at the time though.

Maybe to some but doubtful from those whose country was invaded.

(12-02-2015, 03:49 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(12-02-2015, 03:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: It sounded good at the time though.

Maybe to some but doubtful from those whose country was invaded.

Those were Obama's words.

That doesn't make a difference to me.

(12-02-2015, 04:39 PM)Duchess Wrote:

That doesn't make a difference to me.

That is my point. Do we praise him for his restraint or hold him responsible for making a mess by not doing anything? Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Not getting involved has just as many consequences as getting involved.

(12-02-2015, 05:17 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(12-02-2015, 04:39 PM)Duchess Wrote:

That doesn't make a difference to me.

That is my point. Do we praise him for his restraint or hold him responsible for making a mess by not doing anything? Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Not getting involved has just as many consequences as getting involved.

Maybe there are the same number of consequences. But, certainly, the consequences are different in scale and type.

If we'd have sent ground forces into Syria in the first few years of its civil war, we'd have undoubtedly lost American soldiers.

And, if we'd have succeeded in overthrowing Assad, we'd be looking at people designated as 'terrorists' poised to run the country under the opposition/rebel umbrella; probably with the intent to convert Syria into an Islamic/Sharia State instead of its current secular state.

And, if we weren't willing to let the opposition take control under those circumstances, we'd be once again occupying a ME country for years and trying to democratize it according to western standards; never a good long term strategy.

The coalition approach was a better strategy with less objectionable consequences than a direct U.S. intervention, from my perspective.

(12-02-2015, 10:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(12-02-2015, 05:17 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(12-02-2015, 04:39 PM)Duchess Wrote:

That doesn't make a difference to me.

That is my point. Do we praise him for his restraint or hold him responsible for making a mess by not doing anything? Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Not getting involved has just as many consequences as getting involved.

Maybe there are the same number of consequences. But, certainly, the consequences are different in scale and type.

If we'd have sent ground forces into Syria in the first few years of its civil war, we'd have undoubtedly lost American soldiers.

And, if we'd have succeeded in overthrowing Assad, we'd be looking at people designated as 'terrorists' poised to run the country under the opposition/rebel umbrella; probably with the intent to convert Syria into an Islamic/Sharia State instead of its current secular state.

And, if we weren't willing to let the opposition take control under those circumstances, we'd be once again occupying a ME country for years and trying to democratize it according to western standards; never a good long term strategy.

The coalition approach was a better strategy with less objectionable consequences than a direct U.S. intervention, from my perspective.

We will agree to disagree. Losing American soldiers vs. losing American citizens isn't a push for me. Teaching the freedom rebels how to fight for the country they love instead of doing nothing and letting our enemies outgun and out fund them created refugees when we could conceivably have had allies.

If there was a definitive group of "freedom rebels" without terrorist affiliations, things would be more clear cut.

So, yeah, we can just agree to disagree.

Saddam/Assad same same attacking a country under the guise of moral obligation is always cover for something else.

(12-03-2015, 01:10 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If there was a definitive group of "freedom rebels" without terrorist affiliations, things would be more clear cut.

So, yeah, we can just agree to disagree.

There was a piece done on this back in 2012 called The Free Syrian Army and the Children of Aleppo. They were former Assad fighters, with structure and non- terrorist affiliations. You should check it out sometime. It was pretty clear cut.

(12-03-2015, 02:21 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(12-03-2015, 01:10 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If there was a definitive group of "freedom rebels" without terrorist affiliations, things would be more clear cut.

So, yeah, we can just agree to disagree.

There was a piece done on this back in 2012 called The Free Syrian Army and the Children of Aleppo. They were former Assad fighters, with structure and non- terrorist affiliations. You should check it out sometime. It was pretty clear cut.

Let's just stick to agreeing to disagree. These topics have been discussed in the "Syria" thread.

(12-03-2015, 03:04 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(12-03-2015, 02:21 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(12-03-2015, 01:10 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If there was a definitive group of "freedom rebels" without terrorist affiliations, things would be more clear cut.

So, yeah, we can just agree to disagree.

There was a piece done on this back in 2012 called The Free Syrian Army and the Children of Aleppo. They were former Assad fighters, with structure and non- terrorist affiliations. You should check it out sometime. It was pretty clear cut.

Let's just stick to agreeing to disagree. These topics have been discussed in the "Syria" thread.

Oh, well, you've discussed it in another thread so clearly you must be an expert on the subject. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

I didn't say I was an expert, doofus.

I'm just aware of the references to which you pointed me and have already shared my thoughts on the subject, at length, in the thread dedicated to Syria.

So, you can read that thread if you're interested, or you can just agree to disagree with me and carry on.

I am stuck in Trumpethead hell.

Yea BG, don't you read and memorize every thread here? Come on man, get with the program.

Ouch F.U.!

You boys are pretty cute when you band together to whine about comments that were never even made. Hahahaha.

Drama llamas.

On a totally unrelated note. I just came across an article on Thrillist about the 10 Wonders of San Francisco and to my surprise those obviously ignorant fuckers never even mentioned our HotD!! Preposterous!!

But one thing that surprised me, apparently you got an area named Tenderloin there. It's where you put your town hall in. Into the .... Tenderloin. How fucking cool is that?! I bet Seattle is soon gonna come up with calling one of their districts Rump!

I'm not sure if you're hungry for a nice steak or a nice set of tits here Mo.

I am totally confused myself right now as I ventured further up there when I saw your name there, and I got to say, right now a steak is the furthest from my mind!