Chump for President

[naplesE30]

Well it all depends on how its done, and maybe more importantly percieved. Iraq was an opportunity lost. When we pulled out completely we left a huge power vacuum. Had it been done differently things may have been better.

Maybe that region of the world is just not capable of restrained self governance. Its awefully hard to just stand by and see the attrocities done on innocent people. Its also hard to see groups like ISIS and Hamas hide behind innocent groups of the population and use them as shields and propoganda when they are killed as collateral damage.

[Dagamus(NM)]

I actually don't think Assad (although he has committed atrocities) should be removed from Syria. As bad as he is, if he is removed the alternative is probably worse. Look what happened when bad guy Saddam Hussein was removed from Iraq...we ended up with ISIS. No need to create another power vacuum just as it looks like ISIS is being beaten back and we may have turned a corner in some respects toward a more stable future.

Hate him as I do and many others do, I just think removing him would be worse.

He can be removed and somebody else installed without creating the power vacuum. We created a power vacuum in Libya, well we contributed to it. In Iraq the issue was disbanding the Iraqi army. These guys had their lives turned upside down so they left to syria. Formed their own thing and became the big employer.

[mbonder]

Who exactly is the "someone else" that we can install? I'm not against removing him, just to make it clear, I don't like him in the least. But when an authoritarian such as Assad comes to power and keeps it, it's usually because the military is on his side (much like the Iraq military was on Saddam's side). How do you deal with these guys after you remove their leader in favor of someone that might not be as favorable to the military? Do they just accept the change?

Far as I can see, there are many occasions across the globe where the US has intervened in the government of another nation and installed someone that they felt was better than the current administration and it has ended in a worse situation. Look at the countries of Central and South America, where the CIA attempted to play those governments like a game of chess, many of them show a disdain toward the US now and I don't really blame them.

With the exception of Japan after WWII, I just don't see a country where the US has successfully toppled a leader and it's ended well.

[decay]

Nahh, I am 6'2" 300.

for real? dude, as much as we love fucking with each other, i am now actually concerned for your health. that's morbid-obesity territory. i'm the same height but a buck-eighty. do some laps around the block; who the hell am i gonna argue with if your heart explodes?

[marshallnoise]

for real? dude, as much as we love fucking with each other, i am now actually concerned for your health. that's morbid-obesity territory. i'm the same height but a buck-eighty. do some laps around the block; who the hell am i gonna argue with if your heart explodes?

No reason to be concerned with my health. Blood Pressure is 120/80, resting heart rate is 68 bpm, low cholesterol, etc. I could stand to lose about 40 lbs but you and I are not built the same by the sounds of it. Ever see just a REALLY big dude? Like Worlds Strongest Man type guy? Yeah, I am built like that. I make big guys look small. I was a pretty respectable athlete in my day and as such, put on muscle, everywhere. My chest is a size 54 and was 50 when I was super skinny at 220 lbs, waist is 42 but was 38 at my thinnest. Size 16 shoe. XXXL gloves and the list goes on.

Unfortunately for you, I am still going to be here to annoy the shit out of you. Thanks for the concern.

[marshallnoise]

Who exactly is the "someone else" that we can install? I'm not against removing him, just to make it clear, I don't like him in the least. But when an authoritarian such as Assad comes to power and keeps it, it's usually because the military is on his side (much like the Iraq military was on Saddam's side). How do you deal with these guys after you remove their leader in favor of someone that might not be as favorable to the military? Do they just accept the change?

Far as I can see, there are many occasions across the globe where the US has intervened in the government of another nation and installed someone that they felt was better than the current administration and it has ended in a worse situation. Look at the countries of Central and South America, where the CIA attempted to play those governments like a game of chess, many of them show a disdain toward the US now and I don't really blame them.

With the exception of Japan after WWII, I just don't see a country where the US has successfully toppled a leader and it's ended well.

Yeah, I would really like to stay out of the nation building thing that every Democrat has loved to do as well as GWB. The only thing worse is what Obama did. We got extremely lucky with Egypt. But Libya did not turn out well and in Syria, Assad hasn't been toppled yet like Barry wanted to.

[BraveUlysses]

fox news grandpa still doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about

[decay]

I could stand to lose about 40 lbs but you and I are not built the same by the sounds of it.

nope. i'm a marathon-runner type build.

good to hear, carry on.

on syria/libya/egypt... i'm actually a little confused by your message. the experiment of nation-building in iraq *was* a complete clusterfuck; we are in agreement there. but there was a larger plan in place; look at the middle east- we occupied iraq and afghanistan. guess what country is right in between and would have had to fight a two-front battle should we have decided it needed to happen?

we didn't really get involved in egypt at all (i was still in service at the time, but had gone reservist)- and i actually think that's how a revolution should go. they threw the existing guy out, tried another guy, and threw him out too when he didn't work out.

what do you think should have been done differently in libya and syria?

[marshallnoise]

nope. i'm a marathon-runner type build.

good to hear, carry on.

on syria... i'm actually a little confused by your message. the experiment of nation-building in iraq *was* a complete clusterfuck; we are in agreement there.

we didn't really get involved in egypt at all (i was still in service at the time, but had gone reservist)- and i actually think that's how a revolution should go. they threw the existing guy out, tried another guy, and threw him out too when he didn't work out.

what do you think should have been done differently in libya and syria?

We tinkered and fed the insurrection. I don't believe this is the proper role of our government. We ran guns for both people's "anti-establishment" side. In the process, we supported the terrorists. That's what the Obama administration was doing in Syria. We were literally arming the rebels who are legitimate terrorists.

[decay]

We tinkered and fed the insurrection. I don't believe this is the proper role of our government. We ran guns for both people's "anti-establishment" side. In the process, we supported the terrorists. That's what the Obama administration was doing in Syria. We were literally arming the rebels who are legitimate terrorists.

well that's the thing... war is sort of a way of life over there. if you're going to define "terrorist" as "anyone willing to pick up an AK and fight for what they believe in", you're casting a very big net.

as an example; we have a treaty with turkey, and they call the kurds terrorists, but the KPA has been the most effective force in terms of countering ISIS.

it's a giant fucking mess, and the "good/bad guy" thing is not at all clearly defined.

[marshallnoise]

well that's the thing... war is sort of a way of life over there. if you're going to define "terrorist" as "anyone willing to pick up an AK and fight for what they believe in", you're casting a very big net.

as an example; we have a treaty with turkey, and they call the kurds terrorists, but the KPA has been the most effective force in terms of countering ISIS.

it's a giant fucking mess, and the "good/bad guy" thing is not at all clearly defined.

I wouldn't define a terrorist as you did. You can believe in purging Jews from the Earth, pick up your AK and fight accordingly. You would be a terrorist.

Your point about the Kurds and Turkey is well taken. And it is a mess, but just because we have a treaty, that shouldn't mean we take Turkey's side when we know the Kurds stand on the right side of these issues and Turkey doesn't.

What it comes down to is if might makes right, or right is a principle we use to filter out these distinctions and sometimes we have two bad choices. This is where I support Assad as the lesser of two evils. He is not a great guy, but he is better than turning Syria into another Iran. I believe that fewer Syrians will die if he is left in power and ISIS is stomped out of that country.

[Dagamus(NM)]

Who exactly is the "someone else" that we can install? I'm not against removing him, just to make it clear, I don't like him in the least. But when an authoritarian such as Assad comes to power and keeps it, it's usually because the military is on his side (much like the Iraq military was on Saddam's side). How do you deal with these guys after you remove their leader in favor of someone that might not be as favorable to the military? Do they just accept the change?

Far as I can see, there are many occasions across the globe where the US has intervened in the government of another nation and installed someone that they felt was better than the current administration and it has ended in a worse situation. Look at the countries of Central and South America, where the CIA attempted to play those governments like a game of chess, many of them show a disdain toward the US now and I don't really blame them.

With the exception of Japan after WWII, I just don't see a country where the US has successfully toppled a leader and it's ended well.

In the words of Rex Tillerson it should be for the Syrian people to decide. Kind of a useless statement in a time of civil war. The problem is that Russia wanted to maintain their position with the Assad regime and access to the mediterranean sea and decided to beat the rebels back. Ok, so now we have refugees everywhere. Created by an unwillingness to go to war with Russia over Syria. These are Putin's refugees. Putin claimed he should get a nobel peace prize for stopping the U.S. from attacking the Assad regime and claimed to completely remove Syria's capacity for carrying out chemical weapon attacks. This turned out to not be true so Russia should be sanctioned accordingly.

This won't happen as Russia got their guy elected in the U.S. for this reason specifically.

I love how Trump and Spicer claim that this is a result of Obama being weak. Sure, nothing to do with Tillerson's official position that it is up to the Syrian people and that the U.S. is going to do nothing about Assad just one day earlier.

Maybe Assad has a martyrdom complex or is just a narcissist and wants the attention. Why carry out an attack that does nothing to advance your domestic agenda, yet turns the international focus back on you? Maybe because he wants the attention. Maybe he wants to draw the U.S. into war with Russia. Who knows, but this move is not one that a rational leader makes. He has as much credibility as Kim Jong Un. He lacks the showmanship of Gaddafi, but his goals seem to be the same.

[marshallnoise]

Maybe Assad has a martyrdom complex or is just a narcissist and wants the attention. Why carry out an attack that does nothing to advance your domestic agenda, yet turns the international focus back on you? Maybe because he wants the attention. Maybe he wants to draw the U.S. into war with Russia. Who knows, but this move is not one that a rational leader makes. He has as much credibility as Kim Jong Un. He lacks the showmanship of Gaddafi, but his goals seem to be the same.

That's part of it that doesn't make sense to anyone. Assad has shown to be quite rational. Not to be a conspiracy theorist but if the CIA can make a cyber attack look like it came from someone else...

[Dagamus(NM)]

That's part of it that doesn't make sense to anyone. Assad has shown to be quite rational. Not to be a conspiracy theorist but if the CIA can make a cyber attack look like it came from someone else...

It is a game to him. This was a response to Rex Tillerson.

[decay]

I believe that fewer Syrians will die if he is left in power and ISIS is stomped out of that country.

to drag us back on-topic for the thread...from the news today, it looks like you and dear leader might not be aligned on this.

as for me, i'm just glad i'm no longer in IRR status (stop-loss-able) with the army because i have zero desire to get involved again.