Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

joshcryer

(62,287 posts)

27. This is another reason we shouldn't get involved.

Reply to Gman (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:50 AM

Sep 2013

Because Syria is going to crack down harder after the strikes and it will be a very difficult position to be in. Syria might even use chemical weapons again (but if they did then even Russia would be on board).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Iran and Russia jumped in on Assad's side after the "limited strike"... [View all] Ken Burch Sep 2013 OP

I'm not exactly for it or against it now Gman Sep 2013 #1

Doubtful...Putin used part of Hitler's playbook(the "avenge the shame" meme) Ken Burch Sep 2013 #3

It's more than WWII, Ken Gman Sep 2013 #6

I don't think US or Russia would resort to nukes HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #7

Do we actually live in a post-nuclear deterrence world? Gman Sep 2013 #16

Russia has valid reasons to hold on to Syria... HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #21

"Nukes are probably the best thing to happen to humanity since penicillin" joshcryer Sep 2013 #26

+Infinity! This is some seriously scary shit. Way scarier than Iraq and that was pretty bad. - nt HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #17

Not by that much. AverageJoe90 Sep 2013 #29

There won't be WWIII over Syria without Jonesian conspiracies....or perhaps something truly bizarre. AverageJoe90 Sep 2013 #32

I think I know this song. Savannahmann Sep 2013 #4

"we better not back down from anyone" NoOneMan Sep 2013 #5

I think via the NSA and other ways we should have a pretty good idea Gman Sep 2013 #8

Who fuckn cares NoOneMan Sep 2013 #9

Or, as a sign I saw at a Los Angeles anti-war rally against the Iraq War simply said, HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #13

Please read some on the League of Nations .... Peace in our Time ... Neville Chamberlain MindMover Sep 2013 #30

Dude, there isn't gonna be a world war over Syria. It wouldn't be worth it for anybody. nt AverageJoe90 Sep 2013 #31

While I agree, Im just taking the scenario as it was presented NoOneMan Sep 2013 #33

Holy Shit. You do know, I hope, that Iran has 1 million soldiers in its Army. Are you prepared to HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #10

The decisions makers are very well aware of that Gman Sep 2013 #14

You really should read Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" before you go HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #15

They only fought Saddam to a stalemate Gman Sep 2013 #18

That is one deadly 'They'. At first I thought you were referring to the U.S. military which HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #20

No, I was totally dissing the Iranian army Gman Sep 2013 #22

Someone with over 20K posts here I would suspect to have at least a passing HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #23

Yes, that's a very famous picture Gman Sep 2013 #24

This is another reason we shouldn't get involved. joshcryer Sep 2013 #27

Sure. Imagine the cool new round of action movies! NoOneMan Sep 2013 #2

Not sure why your post makes me feel so much despair. But I can't disagree HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #11

Not eligible to vote since I don't back the limited strike. But this is the scenario that HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #12

Exactly. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #19

In their own back yard, even. polly7 Sep 2013 #28

Nope. Iggo Sep 2013 #25

Russia's already supporting Assad - that's why we cannot get 'use of force' resolution from the U.N. Tx4obama Sep 2013 #34