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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

applegrove

(133,023 posts)

2. Yeah. That is why the US says they want a political solution...with everyone at the table. That

Reply to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 10:21 PM

Sep 2013

way al Qaeda's voice will be diluted. If the rebels win, al Qaeda will have half a say in what Syria becomes. Which is why the USA doesn't want a military solution in Syria. Thought they are arming the rebels...so that Assad will not be winning militarily anymore..... and he might then go to the table for that 'political solution'. No doubt nobody wants al Qaeda to have access to chemical weapons. They already lost rocket propelled launchers to god knows who in Libya.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Kerry's Syria Switch May Not Have Been Offhanded After All" [View all] applegrove Sep 2013 OP

More than likely solutions had been discussed prior to August, Assad must have thought he could lie Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #1

Yeah. That is why the US says they want a political solution...with everyone at the table. That applegrove Sep 2013 #2

We know that Obama is the kind of leader who play every sides at the same time. Sand Wind Sep 2013 #3

The right prefers the "Kerry as buffoon; Putin as diplomatic genius" view of events. pampango Sep 2013 #4