General Discussion

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)

21. Our policy regarding Syria and Iraq is incoherent.

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:52 PM

Jun 2014

We want to fund "good" Sunni rebels in Syria to weaken Assad, thus providing breathing space for the "bad" Sunni rebels. Then we want to fight the "bad" Sunni rebels we have just helped strengthen by out Syria policy.

We need to quit fucking around in Syria. It's not our country. And since Assad is not going anywhere, all we're doing is getting more Syrians killed. And more Iraqis, too.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

And Creeeeeeep: White House beginning to consider conflicts in Syria and Iraq as single challenge [View all] morningfog Jun 2014 OP

And they are right to Shivering Jemmy Jun 2014 #1

All the more reason for the US military to stay the hell out. morningfog Jun 2014 #13

I have no opinion on that Shivering Jemmy Jun 2014 #41

+1000000000 woo me with science Jun 2014 #45

I am beginning to wonder Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #2

you are wrong Shivering Jemmy Jun 2014 #42

Good evidence for that: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) woo me with science Jun 2014 #46

"Stay in Syria, and we'll give you all kinds of money and arms, but bullwinkle428 Jun 2014 #3

Cambodia and Laos redux. hobbit709 Jun 2014 #4

this is the Viet Nam/ Cambodia syndrome. Javaman Jun 2014 #5

That's it. My here is no reason for us to get involved morningfog Jun 2014 #6

Unless it was part of a greater plan Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #7

That's an interesting observation. Javaman Jun 2014 #8

Isolate Iran? Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #9

how would that be achieved? Javaman Jun 2014 #10

Maybe neutralizing Iran's allies. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #11

Good point. Javaman Jun 2014 #12

Change the borders so that the mix would be less volatile. Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #43

I agree. the Treaty of Versailles destroyed that area of the world. Javaman Jun 2014 #47

defense of nebulous Iraqi political goals used as pretext for attacking neighbor Syria? bigtree Jun 2014 #14

Yes, clearly we should continue the UK's mistake from the end of WWI jeff47 Jun 2014 #15

The ultimate point is that this is not our conflict to solve. morningfog Jun 2014 #16

We can't solve it, but we can try to steer it some. jeff47 Jun 2014 #17

The "up to 300" military advisers are not there to provide security to the embassy. morningfog Jun 2014 #19

Good thing I mentioned training and advice!! jeff47 Jun 2014 #20

Target strikes are "training and advice?" morningfog Jun 2014 #22

You mean the ones we ruled out? jeff47 Jun 2014 #27

"...for now" on Tuesday, the 17th. Yesterday, Obama said U.S. Prepared to Take 'Targeted' Action morningfog Jun 2014 #28

How, exactly, will we be conducting airstrikes without using any American forces? jeff47 Jun 2014 #29

Because they don't consider air strikes the same as "troops returning to combat". n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #30

Sure they do. Someone has to fly the planes/drones. That's combat. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2014 #32

If you notice the statements from the White House, they distinguish "combat troops" on the ground PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #36

Yes, when they say "troops on the ground". jeff47 Jun 2014 #39

Well, obviously, we will be using American forces. That is my point. morningfog Jun 2014 #31

You can't declare future events to have already happened. jeff47 Jun 2014 #33

I have not said we have or will have "troops on the ground in combat." morningfog Jun 2014 #34

It's the logical result from where you're heading. jeff47 Jun 2014 #35

I haven't seen Obama or anyone say that airstrikes aren't happening. morningfog Jun 2014 #37

Yes you have, I linked the WSJ article where they did. jeff47 Jun 2014 #38

"...FOR NOW" form your linked article. morningfog Jun 2014 #40

And now we have US forces conducting aristrikes in Iraq, as was clear over a month ago. morningfog Aug 2014 #48

Also, assistance grew from 100 "trainers" to now 300 trainers/special forces. YUP! We're ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2014 #18

Our policy regarding Syria and Iraq is incoherent. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2014 #21

I don't know how the White House can articulate the policy with a straight face, amandabeech Jun 2014 #23

It has all the earmarks of "nation building" and "defending our vital national interests". Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #24

and 'terror' bigtree Jun 2014 #25

Even now the Syrians and Iraqis are combining their mighty fleets to invade Malibu. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #26

Hey, why not? That way, they can blame it all on Russia... MattSh Jun 2014 #44