My solution to the Syrian blood bath

[dead0man]

Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war").  They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.

[dead0man]

Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war").  They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.

Um, look at Libya. It was mostly Republicans who were backing Bush and his wars 100% who acted like that.

A.sure some, but what does that have to do with the usual suspects and Syria?
II.your god in Thailand isn't a Republican and was certainly against it...and he wasn't alone
3.why are so many of the people on your side who were for intervention in Libya so quiet on Syria

My gut tells me their hatred of Israel plays a part in it, of course they wouldn't word it like that (though some certainly would).

[dead0man]

I know Fuzzy and Winston aren't typical, but they prove my point.  Thanks guys, you played your roles perfectly!

[dead0man]

I know Fuzzy and Winston aren't typical, but they prove my point.  Thanks guys, you played your roles perfectly!

And you played your role as a fauxbertarian hawk as well as I expected to. Gratz.

You're welcome sir!

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

Obviously you mean it sarcastically, but in all seriousness there are many places where this really should be done. However, we should keep in mind priorities - Iran, not Syria, should be Priority #1.

In Syria, unfortunately, the time window has passed; Russia's been giving Assad very active help and there's a chance of nuclear war if we aid the rebels (brinkmanship, anybody?). We did have a chance during the first rebellion back in early 2011, but we idiotically passed it up attacking Gaddafi, who was much friendlier to the United States than Assad (Gaddafi wasn't Mother Teresa, but I would've thought he's clearly better than Assad).

The Russians are NOT going to go to nuclear war over Syria and Assad.  That's just silly.  They'd cry and moan if we removed the governments ability to kill, almost as much as Winston, Fuzzy and friends would, but nobody is going to serious war over this.

[dead0man]

And what precedes his downfall is years of bloodbath too.

[dead0man]

Right, because it would be hard, we shouldn't help.  I understand.  I don't agree, but I understand.

[dead0man]

Ok, so it will be hard and we can't be guaranteed of a result that suits us because a lot of the people that live there are giant asshats, so Eff 'em?  I suppose I can buy into that. 

I just have a hard time watching people die, knowing we can do something to help and sitting on our hands.

[dead0man]

Well, it's basically impossible to "do" something like this without harming a few people you don't want to harm.  If we had "done" something earlier to help in the Sudan or the Congo we would have harmed people we'd prefer not to harm, but in the long run it would have been better for everybody involved if we had done something sooner.  We sat on our hands and millions died.  I'm not saying millions will die in Syria if we do nothing.  I'm not saying there will be rainbows and unicorns if do do something.  I guess I'm just saying we shouldn't just say "meh, it will be hard and we might not get the results that we want so lets not even consider doing something".