Well it's regime change... again.

[Atreus21]

So because the previous president enacted a terrible policy of toppling a dictator. Obama should be allowed to make the same mistake twice in his administration? Remember Libya? Yeah, that place is chaos right now. Im sure Syria will have a different result from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

It's not fair to blame the US for everything that has happened. One would think we got a wild hair on our ass one day and just decided to uncork things in the middle east.

The war on terror is because of 9/11. We were attacked. At the time, attacking Iraq wasn't just Bush's idea. Clinton was for it. Gore was for it.

Did we think it would just be a case of walking in there, kicking ass, leaving, and expecting people there just to act like westerners? Furthermore, what should we have done after 9/11? Just say, "Oh well, 3000 people got killed along with two skyscrapers, one side of the pentagon, and luckily not the white house. Guess we'll just take it."?

Sooner or later, we're going to have to accept that this is actually a war. The crazies aren't going away on their own. The sooner we learn that, the sooner we finally take them seriously, the less lives and money we'll have to lose to defeat them.

If we had been serious about Iraq, we'd still be there. In force. Now, because we weren't serious, we'll have to go back.

 

[Exterous]

That's US policy, change regime first, ask questions later.

You'd think we'd learn after about 60 years or so...

 

[theeedude]

Non sequitur?

We want to be rid of BOTH.

And a pony.

 

[werepossum]

Obama is a jack ass for getting involved.

#1, I suspect this is what triggered the birth of ISIS; http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801, all though it was not intended, in 2012, he sent assistance to a group of 'rebels'. And, all though we won't get a member from ISIS stating; O yeah, Uncle Barry sent us these AK47 and trained me to use them!, we will get someone pointing out the creation of ISIS, and it will point back to Barry - give it a few years after he out of the White House.

#2, OK, you fucked up, by unintentionally sparking the birth of a pretty powerful terrorist nation (not even an organization, dumb ass),... and you are still involved in that area? Why?

#3, I think Barry wants to 'get Assad', to one up the previous administration. Back when we invaded Iraq for the 2nd time, there was suspicion that pointed weapons movement INTO Syria from Iraq; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-basis-for-wmd-smuggling-claims/


The above link disputes these claims,.. but, there is "something" there; be it a gut feeling, or a report/evidence that they could not share, there is something somewhere that has Obama itching to get at Assad - and, it's resulted in disaster so far.

The man has let his ego get the best of him (and thousands murders by his ISIS love child), just so he can prove he succeeded where Bush has failed.

Stop it, Barry - people have gotten butchered.

Meh. I suspect ISIS is merely a combination and a relabeling of existing Islamicist groups, and while Obama certainly strengthened them he did not create them.

I agree that at this point we should be fighting alongside Assad as the lesser evil, but it's worth pointing out that both Assad is and Qadaffi (or as I refer to him, He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spelled The Same Way Twice) was very significant sponsors of terrorism, compared to Saddam. Obama is not my guy and granted is probably making things worse in Syria, but how much worse it can theoretically get (with respect to terrorism, not with respect to people forced to live in those hell holes) the worst case is much less bad than in Iraq.* If Iraq falls to ISIS, that's hugely worse as terrorism goes, since Saddam generally gave terrorist groups only enough aid to buy some Islamic street cred and keep himself off the target list.

* The one caveat to this is that Iraq scared the hell out of Gaddafi, who gave up his sponsorship of terrorism and turned over his WMDs and the associated manufacturing apparatus. Obviously I'm assuming here that that conversion would have lasted only as long as Bush was in office and once the perceived threat passed, ol' Crazy Uncle Muammar would have returned to business as usual.

 

[unokitty]

...Personally i think the US should stay the fuck out of it. I'm tired of having a war continuously...

I can't be any more articulate than Waggy.

Not our revolution. Not our fight. Bring all the boys home. Now!

Let the Syrians, Iraqis, whoever fight it out themselves... After one side wins, lets try some diplomacy (without drones).

I'm past tired of old politicians sending other people's children overseas to fight in other people's revolutions...

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71

 

[Jaskalas]

The war on terror is because of 9/11. We were attacked. At the time, attacking Iraq wasn't just Bush's idea. Clinton was for it. Gore was for it.

Did we think it would just be a case of walking in there, kicking ass, leaving, and expecting people there just to act like westerners? Furthermore, what should we have done after 9/11?

9/11 = Afghanistan.
It boils my blood to hear it discussed in an Iraq / Syria / ISIS topic.

Moreover, if we want to deal with terrorists then destroying the local governments / dictators in the region is counter productive. Men like Saddam and Assad provide command and control, a power structure. If you remove that control then tribal warfare replaces it. Anarchy and terror reign by our action.

Our action to destroy those countries is the source of terrorism.