Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Aleppo

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 1:46:58 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
So Assad's Syria has taken part of Aleppo back. So when, with Russian help, they turn next to Raqqa, do the anti-Isis people here want to help, hinder, or ...

I want nothing, I mean nothing to do with Syria. I don't want to continue to arm and train Kurds, no air support, no more tinkering with Iraq (we left them enough arms and have flown 800+ sorties since 2014). In short, let everyone over there figure this mess out knowing we helped create, and then exacerbate (jv team?) the situation.

Same with Iran. We normalize relations with Vietnamese and Cuba, time to do the same with Iran.

I did my time in Iraq.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 12:58:29 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
Yeah...but you're forgetting that the U.S has a political agenda-for five years now they've been attempting to remove Assad and have (had) a vested interest in supporting Syrian rebels.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 1:05:16 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 12:58:29 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Yeah...but you're forgetting that the U.S has a political agenda-for five years now they've been attempting to remove Assad and have (had) a vested interest in supporting Syrian rebels.

I'm not forgetting a damn thing besides people back foolish military endeavors solely based on whether they voted for someone...or not. It's asinine.

We have 0 interest in that part of the world. None.
Vaarka
Posts: 7,613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 1:09:22 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
And what is Aleppo?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Vaarka
Posts: 7,613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 1:22:31 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 1:20:25 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:09:22 PM, Vaarka wrote:
And what is Aleppo?

Nice Gary!

Tha- *has heart attack*
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 2:18:38 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 1:05:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 12:58:29 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Yeah...but you're forgetting that the U.S has a political agenda-for five years now they've been attempting to remove Assad and have (had) a vested interest in supporting Syrian rebels.

I'm not forgetting a damn thing besides people back foolish military endeavors solely based on whether they voted for someone...or not. It's asinine.

We have 0 interest in that part of the world. None.

Then why exactly is the U.S so heavily involved?

Technically, even the 'war on terror' (as flawed and as insincere as it is) could be considered an interest. And on a strategic level, It certainly does not have '0 interest' in the military activities of Russia and the leadership of Assad...the U.S is very much interested.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 2:29:29 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 2:18:38 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:05:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 12:58:29 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Yeah...but you're forgetting that the U.S has a political agenda-for five years now they've been attempting to remove Assad and have (had) a vested interest in supporting Syrian rebels.

I'm not forgetting a damn thing besides people back foolish military endeavors solely based on whether they voted for someone...or not. It's asinine.

We have 0 interest in that part of the world. None.

Then why exactly is the U.S so heavily involved?

Technically, even the 'war on terror' (as flawed and as insincere as it is) could be considered an interest. And on a strategic level, It certainly does not have '0 interest' in the military activities of Russia and the leadership of Assad...the U.S is very much interested.

Foolishly on both accounts.

Obama played cya after the jv team comments. He should have stuck to his guns on his much celebrated 'I'm getting us out of iraq' circa 2011. That was his second biggest platform.

The war on terror is not only an oxymoron but misguided and should have been stopped after the first month in Afghanistan when all objectives except killing bin laden were accomplished. Then we nation build.

Even Gulf War 2, just enforcing the un resolutions from GW 1 was fine and accomplished in 3 weeks (NOTE, I am NOT saying WMD bs. I'm talking about painting our and British patrols enforcing the no fly zone which are recognized acts of war. The WMD and links to terror in Iraq were specious and not necessary to make).

Why are we still there? Now people are making the humanitarian case? Please. ISIS? Bigger please. And it beats the holy hell out of me what the vested interest in Libya were considering q'adaffi was actively cooperating with world requests.

The arab spring? My friends were like 'we should help them'... and my response was simple: for what? Soread democracy that was so effective in Iraq?

Foolish.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 2:31:27 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 2:18:38 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:05:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 12:58:29 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Yeah...but you're forgetting that the U.S has a political agenda-for five years now they've been attempting to remove Assad and have (had) a vested interest in supporting Syrian rebels.

I'm not forgetting a damn thing besides people back foolish military endeavors solely based on whether they voted for someone...or not. It's asinine.

We have 0 interest in that part of the world. None.

Then why exactly is the U.S so heavily involved?

Technically, even the 'war on terror' (as flawed and as insincere as it is) could be considered an interest. And on a strategic level, It certainly does not have '0 interest' in the military activities of Russia and the leadership of Assad...the U.S is very much interested.

Syria is a sovereign country. Russia is there ally. All we are doing is actively inflaming a family fight.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 6:44:53 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 2:31:27 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 2:18:38 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:05:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 12:58:29 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Yeah...but you're forgetting that the U.S has a political agenda-for five years now they've been attempting to remove Assad and have (had) a vested interest in supporting Syrian rebels.

I'm not forgetting a damn thing besides people back foolish military endeavors solely based on whether they voted for someone...or not. It's asinine.

We have 0 interest in that part of the world. None.

Then why exactly is the U.S so heavily involved?

Technically, even the 'war on terror' (as flawed and as insincere as it is) could be considered an interest. And on a strategic level, It certainly does not have '0 interest' in the military activities of Russia and the leadership of Assad...the U.S is very much interested.

Syria is a sovereign country. Russia is there ally. All we are doing is actively inflaming a family fight.

Ahem, I never claimed that it wasn't. My point was to demonstrate that the U.S government obviously does have a vested interest in Syria, otherwise they wouldn't be supporting the Syrian rebels, criticising the actions of Russia, etc. I certainly did not say that it was justified but was merely pointing out that the U.S, has an agenda.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 6:48:57 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 6:44:53 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/28/2016 2:31:27 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 2:18:38 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:05:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 12:58:29 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Yeah...but you're forgetting that the U.S has a political agenda-for five years now they've been attempting to remove Assad and have (had) a vested interest in supporting Syrian rebels.

I'm not forgetting a damn thing besides people back foolish military endeavors solely based on whether they voted for someone...or not. It's asinine.

We have 0 interest in that part of the world. None.

Then why exactly is the U.S so heavily involved?

Technically, even the 'war on terror' (as flawed and as insincere as it is) could be considered an interest. And on a strategic level, It certainly does not have '0 interest' in the military activities of Russia and the leadership of Assad...the U.S is very much interested.

Syria is a sovereign country. Russia is there ally. All we are doing is actively inflaming a family fight.

Ahem, I never claimed that it wasn't. My point was to demonstrate that the U.S government obviously does have a vested interest in Syria, otherwise they wouldn't be supporting the Syrian rebels, criticising the actions of Russia, etc. I certainly did not say that it was justified but was merely pointing out that the U.S, has an agenda.

The interests that the US has in Syria is like nation building. And it also reminds me of the deal they made with Japan after the bomb was dropped on them during World Word 2. Don't be surprised if the US rebuilds Syria and then use it as a pawn in business and manufacturing.
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 6:49:22 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 6:44:53 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/28/2016 2:31:27 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 2:18:38 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:05:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 12:58:29 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Yeah...but you're forgetting that the U.S has a political agenda-for five years now they've been attempting to remove Assad and have (had) a vested interest in supporting Syrian rebels.

I'm not forgetting a damn thing besides people back foolish military endeavors solely based on whether they voted for someone...or not. It's asinine.

We have 0 interest in that part of the world. None.

Then why exactly is the U.S so heavily involved?

Technically, even the 'war on terror' (as flawed and as insincere as it is) could be considered an interest. And on a strategic level, It certainly does not have '0 interest' in the military activities of Russia and the leadership of Assad...the U.S is very much interested.

Syria is a sovereign country. Russia is there ally. All we are doing is actively inflaming a family fight.

Ahem, I never claimed that it wasn't. My point was to demonstrate that the U.S government obviously does have a vested interest in Syria, otherwise they wouldn't be supporting the Syrian rebels, criticising the actions of Russia, etc. I certainly did not say that it was justified but was merely pointing out that the U.S, has an agenda.

The interests that the US has in Syria is like nation building. And perhaps Cuba. And it also reminds me of the deal they made with Japan after the bomb was dropped on them during World Word 2. Don't be surprised if the US rebuilds Syria and then use it as a pawn in business and manufacturing.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 7:01:03 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 1:46:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
So Assad's Syria has taken part of Aleppo back. So when, with Russian help, they turn next to Raqqa, do the anti-Isis people here want to help, hinder, or ...

I want nothing, I mean nothing to do with Syria. I don't want to continue to arm and train Kurds, no air support, no more tinkering with Iraq (we left them enough arms and have flown 800+ sorties since 2014). In short, let everyone over there figure this mess out knowing we helped create, and then exacerbate (jv team?) the situation.

Same with Iran. We normalize relations with Vietnamese and Cuba, time to do the same with Iran.

I did my time in Iraq.

Status quo until Jan. Nobody is certain if Trump means what he says. If he does, it sounds like we stop supporting Syrian rebels and join Russia to destroy ISIS. However, I don't think Russia much cares about ISIS outside of securing Syria.

Trump has made ISIS our number one threat, so expect escalation and possibly more boots on the ground to enable fighting ISIS, while trying to diminish Shia control in Iraq.

I don't see Trump leaving ISIS and Iraq alone. He will send everyone else's kids there but his own.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 7:10:54 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 1:46:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
So Assad's Syria has taken part of Aleppo back. So when, with Russian help, they turn next to Raqqa, do the anti-Isis people here want to help, hinder, or ...

Personally I support a NATO deal with Russia and the Assad regime to allow Assad to take back control of all of Syria apart from the Kurdish controlled region, ending support for all other rebel groups. I would give the Kurdish region international recognition as a country.

I want nothing, I mean nothing to do with Syria. I don't want to continue to arm and train Kurds, no air support, no more tinkering with Iraq (we left them enough arms and have flown 800+ sorties since 2014). In short, let everyone over there figure this mess out knowing we helped create, and then exacerbate (jv team?) the situation.

I would prefer to get a deal together to end this war while keeping NATO out of any fighting.

Same with Iran. We normalize relations with Vietnamese and Cuba, time to do the same with Iran.

In my opinion Iran is not that bad a country and certainly a more tolerant country than Saudi Arabia which is about as far from holding Western values as you can get yet is an ally of the west. Therefore I agree improving relations is a good idea.

I did my time in Iraq.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 7:23:07 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 1:46:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
So Assad's Syria has taken part of Aleppo back. So when, with Russian help, they turn next to Raqqa, do the anti-Isis people here want to help, hinder, or ...

I want nothing, I mean nothing to do with Syria. I don't want to continue to arm and train Kurds, no air support, no more tinkering with Iraq (we left them enough arms and have flown 800+ sorties since 2014). In short, let everyone over there figure this mess out knowing we helped create, and then exacerbate (jv team?) the situation.

Same with Iran. We normalize relations with Vietnamese and Cuba, time to do the same with Iran.

I did my time in Iraq.

I voted for you this election.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 7:55:27 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 7:23:07 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:46:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
So Assad's Syria has taken part of Aleppo back. So when, with Russian help, they turn next to Raqqa, do the anti-Isis people here want to help, hinder, or ...

I want nothing, I mean nothing to do with Syria. I don't want to continue to arm and train Kurds, no air support, no more tinkering with Iraq (we left them enough arms and have flown 800+ sorties since 2014). In short, let everyone over there figure this mess out knowing we helped create, and then exacerbate (jv team?) the situation.

Same with Iran. We normalize relations with Vietnamese and Cuba, time to do the same with Iran.

I did my time in Iraq.

I voted for you this election.

Lol. Sorry I'm on another board where someone's trying to turn the osu event into a gun ban while others are bringing blm. Been 'slapping' people around.

I am no obama supporter and applauded his adherence to the bush negotiated timeline for w/d from Iraq. But I guess our presidents, party irrelevant, just can't keep their hands off a 'crisis', real or manufactured for 'national interest'. Assad is a douche. Putins no better. The Iraqi gov just wants us to do the heavy lifting when they ran a few years back. Israel can handle their own. Jordan will mind its own business. Now we are parking destroyers off Yemen. And we think they won't shoot when we are droning the hell out of them? And Iran: I'm as fearful of their nuclear program as I am of Independence Day resurgent.

ISIS is being fought by:
Syria
Russia
Iraq
Iran
Turkey

Yet we still feel a need to lend air support? Just foolish, no, foolhardy. And trumps super secret take Mosul-raqqa... why?

And I'm a HAWK! But only when necessary. Sure, we will get the 'inspired' clowns here (withholding judgement on the Somali guy at osu pending info) but most of them are mentally ill individuals reaching for straws. The more we meddle, the worse we make things.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:27:53 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 7:01:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:46:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
So Assad's Syria has taken part of Aleppo back. So when, with Russian help, they turn next to Raqqa, do the anti-Isis people here want to help, hinder, or ...

I want nothing, I mean nothing to do with Syria. I don't want to continue to arm and train Kurds, no air support, no more tinkering with Iraq (we left them enough arms and have flown 800+ sorties since 2014). In short, let everyone over there figure this mess out knowing we helped create, and then exacerbate (jv team?) the situation.

Same with Iran. We normalize relations with Vietnamese and Cuba, time to do the same with Iran.

I did my time in Iraq.

Status quo until Jan. Nobody is certain if Trump means what he says. If he does, it sounds like we stop supporting Syrian rebels and join Russia to destroy ISIS. However, I don't think Russia much cares about ISIS outside of securing Syria.

Trump has made ISIS our number one threat, so expect escalation and possibly more boots on the ground to enable fighting ISIS, while trying to diminish Shia control in Iraq.

I don't see Trump leaving ISIS and Iraq alone. He will send everyone else's kids there but his own.

I'm not a trump backer but I'd turn into pretty much a detractor if he escalates especially with more ground troops.

As stated, I'm a hawk when there is a reason. The stretched rationale we've used by ALL since 03 makes me question sanity.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:57:23 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 1:27:53 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 7:01:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:46:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
So Assad's Syria has taken part of Aleppo back. So when, with Russian help, they turn next to Raqqa, do the anti-Isis people here want to help, hinder, or ...

I want nothing, I mean nothing to do with Syria. I don't want to continue to arm and train Kurds, no air support, no more tinkering with Iraq (we left them enough arms and have flown 800+ sorties since 2014). In short, let everyone over there figure this mess out knowing we helped create, and then exacerbate (jv team?) the situation.

Same with Iran. We normalize relations with Vietnamese and Cuba, time to do the same with Iran.

I did my time in Iraq.

Status quo until Jan. Nobody is certain if Trump means what he says. If he does, it sounds like we stop supporting Syrian rebels and join Russia to destroy ISIS. However, I don't think Russia much cares about ISIS outside of securing Syria.

Trump has made ISIS our number one threat, so expect escalation and possibly more boots on the ground to enable fighting ISIS, while trying to diminish Shia control in Iraq.

I don't see Trump leaving ISIS and Iraq alone. He will send everyone else's kids there but his own.

I'm not a trump backer but I'd turn into pretty much a detractor if he escalates especially with more ground troops.

As stated, I'm a hawk when there is a reason. The stretched rationale we've used by ALL since 03 makes me question sanity.

I'm with you on that.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:18:01 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 1:57:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 1:27:53 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 7:01:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 1:46:58 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
So Assad's Syria has taken part of Aleppo back. So when, with Russian help, they turn next to Raqqa, do the anti-Isis people here want to help, hinder, or ...

I want nothing, I mean nothing to do with Syria. I don't want to continue to arm and train Kurds, no air support, no more tinkering with Iraq (we left them enough arms and have flown 800+ sorties since 2014). In short, let everyone over there figure this mess out knowing we helped create, and then exacerbate (jv team?) the situation.

Same with Iran. We normalize relations with Vietnamese and Cuba, time to do the same with Iran.

I did my time in Iraq.

Status quo until Jan. Nobody is certain if Trump means what he says. If he does, it sounds like we stop supporting Syrian rebels and join Russia to destroy ISIS. However, I don't think Russia much cares about ISIS outside of securing Syria.

Trump has made ISIS our number one threat, so expect escalation and possibly more boots on the ground to enable fighting ISIS, while trying to diminish Shia control in Iraq.

I don't see Trump leaving ISIS and Iraq alone. He will send everyone else's kids there but his own.

I'm not a trump backer but I'd turn into pretty much a detractor if he escalates especially with more ground troops.

As stated, I'm a hawk when there is a reason. The stretched rationale we've used by ALL since 03 makes me question sanity.

I'm with you on that.

I think you are more left leaning. I'm a contrarian independent (left republicans after they nominated McCain and are just big gov R. I interact with conservatives as well. However what I've noticed is many that espouse left, right, and flippants (me) are sick of the meddling and nation building for no real reason. It's a shame people can agree on this but those making decisions are beholden to past decisions. Barack to bush to clinton to bush 1... its like we just don't learn there is nothing for us there except misery and expenditure... then we tear ourselves apart.

Most of us (there are some that say they deserve it) don't like seeing civilians getting pounded in a civil war but it's just that. Similar as Iraq: not only did we arm them to the teeth and train them, then we bail them back out after they dropped our guns and ran when ISIS swept north. I guess I just take a utilitarian position. What good is it to still keep Iran in pariah stAtus? As stated, I'm as worried about their nuke program along the same vein as Independence Day aliens. If we, and the Vietnamese of all countries, can normalize, why not Iran?

Just makes little sense.