A Sea Of Red

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2 ... 17014.html

This could be really bad. I hope we all pray for our president and possible future president and hopefully the president will just denounce this and not plan to start another unnecessary war.

Oh boy. John Bolton is somewhere getting very excited about this right now.

jbock13 wrote:Oh boy. John Bolton is somewhere getting very excited about this right now.

Yeah, no need to worry about this. If we leave them and their friends alone, they will leave us and our friends alone...

Purple Haize wrote:

jbock13 wrote:Oh boy. John Bolton is somewhere getting very excited about this right now.

Yeah, no need to worry about this. If we leave them and their friends alone, they will leave us and our friends alone...

And the events in Syria impact us in what way?

I think its a logical extrapolation that somehow it will become another training ground for terrorists who then come to the US and try to blow up planes, trains automobiles and tall/prominent buildings using underwear bombs or surgically implanted high explosives or UHaul trucks or what have you

BJWilliams wrote:I think its a logical extrapolation that somehow it will become another training ground for terrorists who then come to the US and try to blow up planes, trains automobiles and tall/prominent buildings using underwear bombs or surgically implanted high explosives or UHaul trucks or what have you

Okay. Terrorists could move to Siberia and train there. So let's go invade Siberia.

Or they could move to Monaco, or Liechtenstein, or France, or Spain... see where this goes? When does it end?

What point do we realize we can't just go around and killing everyone who doesn't like us in the world?

jbock13 wrote:

BJWilliams wrote:I think its a logical extrapolation that somehow it will become another training ground for terrorists who then come to the US and try to blow up planes, trains automobiles and tall/prominent buildings using underwear bombs or surgically implanted high explosives or UHaul trucks or what have you

Okay. Terrorists could move to Siberia and train there. So let's go invade Siberia.

Or they could move to Monaco, or Liechtenstein, or France, or Spain... see where this goes? When does it end?

What point do we realize we can't just go around and killing everyone who doesn't like us in the world?

Maybe if you grounded that a little more in reality you could have a point. But the hyperbole does not help you.

Lebanon is basically a suburb of Syria. They have a wonderful place there called the Bekka Valley. I'm sure those residents would be 'dying' ( couldn't resist) to get their hands on Iranian weapons and intel from their experiences in Iran. Of course, Assad would be grateful for the help too and that makes you wonder at what cost? It was just a short time ago Syria's nuclear facility was destroyed by he Israeli's. And of course there are many who believe that Syria was the final depot for Sadaam's WMD's, and have proof to back it up.
I will let your bearded argument about Siberia and Lichtenstein go without comment.

Haize, I hope when you're at Fenway you won't be sitting above the dugout with all your little neo-con friends, acting all... well... neo-cony...

All kidding aside, I know we disagree so we'll just leave it at that.

One question I do have that may not quite be related to the topic. Every time there's an attack in Syria, the media cites "human rights activists", or just "activists". Do we even know who these "activists" are? And why should we trust what they say? We did that in Libya and Egypt, and look what happened.

I hope not, that is all I will say.

Its not our problem. Stop sending ours kids to die for "democracy"

Yeah, that's the ticket, just bury your head in the sand. I'm not sure anyone here advocated invading Syria. I know I didn't. But this has the potential to be VERY much our problem. I would spell it out for you but why bother.

How will it become our problem? Explain to me

Purple Haize wrote:Yeah, that's the ticket, just bury your head in the sand. I'm not sure anyone here advocated invading Syria. I know I didn't. But this has the potential to be VERY much our problem. I would spell it out for you but why bother.

Though I am sure I do not hold the same views exactly as skywalker I really fail to see how having our presence in yet another middle eastern country keeps us safer. Secure OUR country, there are fantastic ways to do that with modern technology then sending 300,000 troops to another freaking country.

I could rant about this for so freaking long but I am sure you all would stop reading.

I think there is a growing sentiment on both sides of the aisle to avoid sending troops just about anywhere in the near future. But that doesn't mean that we can't exercise our influence and potentially assist those who have legitimate reasons in the region. Strategically Syria is a threat to not only our closest ally in the region but also to Europe.

I think there is a growing sentiment on both sides of the aisle to avoid sending troops just about anywhere in the near future. But that doesn't mean that we can't exercise our influence and potentially assist those who have legitimate reasons in the region. Strategically Syria is a threat to not only our closest ally in the region but also to Europe.

skywalker5291 wrote:How will it become our problem? Explain to me

Do you not have access to a map and a history book that goes back to before you were born? I've already mentioned The Bekka Valley and Syria's proxy. Now let's look east. If Iran and Syria strengthen ties that leaves a big gaping hole in the middle. It's a small country called Iraq. So once Iran exerts its influence, Iraq will quickly tumble because it's has no one else to turn too. Now you have a nice stretch of not just oil rich land, but also a stranglehold on the Gulf. The jumping Jihadists of the Bekka have their most erotic dreams fulfilled by the influx of intelligence and materiel pouring in from their new friends and allies. Non of which will make its way to the Gaza Strip or across our borders. Because heck, we will just play nice nice, pat them on the head give them a cookie and they will leave us alone.
Then we Can go further East and see 2 lovely honeymoon spots, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They of course will have no interest in Iranian influence intelligence or oil. Back to the west, we will skip that little country with a blue and white flag and look at some recent unrest in Egypt and Libya. Jordan would actually be a wild card so we got that going for us.
No one is saying Invade Invade Invade but we do need to pay attention and be active in our interests. Not turning a blind eye.

I understand the history and how problematic this area is but most of the issues you listed are things that were in some way or another started by us being over there. I just dont think getting involved more helps us out. Nothing wrong with watching them but this whole beating of the war drums that happens every 4 years is so stupid. I get no one on here said invade but thats what alot of people in our govt think we should do. BTW i always enjoy your sarcasm when you post. Enjoy the discussion just disagree with you I guess.

The world is a chessboard. It doesn't take very long to make a move to a new space - and anyone that does not see that Iran is on the move and is actively pursuing a strategy to cause chaos in the world is blind. I agree with the sentiment that we need to choose our conflicts carefully and resecure our future at home within our borders. However, until we become energy independent, the Middle East will be of vital importance to our well-being and that's before considering the Israeli piece of the puzzle.

I personally don't believe the "caused by us being over there" theory holds any water, and a lot of whatever a person's opinion is on the matter hinges on that.

Humble_Opinion wrote: until we become energy independent, the Middle East will be of vital importance to our well-being and that's before considering the Israeli piece of the puzzle.

This. We would ALL like to remain within our borders, but even a domestic focus requires a keen awareness and involvement in Middle Eastern affairs because we are dependent upon them. A non-interventionist theory is a nice thought, but reality speaks to it's not being sensible at this time.

skywalker5291 wrote:I understand the history and how problematic this area is but most of the issues you listed are things that were in some way or another started by us being over there.

See - it's always you questioning us. And by you, I mean those that hold to the theory that it's America's fault the Middle East is in turmoil. The line listed above is really one giant contradiction. You can't reference history in showing that the area is problematic and then follow that up by blaming it on America. Please connect those dots for me.

Now, does America getting involved help the situation? I'll agree that it's up for debate, but to say we don't have any business being over there is in my opinion, really naive.

I'm not going to say that we directly stoke violence. But honestly who cares? This doesn't impact us at all. If you want to save the Syrians, go book a flight. It's a noble cause, but we shouldn't get involved.

I get irritated when I see these Navy commercials, "A global force for good." Really? That's not what our Navy is for. The Navy exists to protect us if (to use a silly example,) Bahamas ever invaded us by sea. That's it.

It's funny how some conservatives hate big government, right until the point where they gain the power to invade nations and pry into personal lives. As a conservative libertarian, quite frankly, I don't see what's so conservative about that.

Haize - you could have saved yourself a lot of typin' & explainin' by just posting this:

jbock13 wrote:I'm not going to say that we directly stoke violence. But honestly who cares? This doesn't impact us at all. If you want to save the Syrians, go book a flight. It's a noble cause, but we shouldn't get involved.

I get irritated when I see these Navy commercials, "A global force for good." Really? That's not what our Navy is for. The Navy exists to protect us if (to use a silly example,) Bahamas ever invaded us by sea. That's it.

It's funny how some conservatives hate big government, right until the point where they gain the power to invade nations and pry into personal lives. As a conservative libertarian, quite frankly, I don't see what's so conservative about that.

I believe it is important to have strong and rather large military and even have some strategic bases located around the world, but that doesn't mean we need to be involved in every single conflict in the middle freaking east. we all know why we are over there so much and it has little to do with our protection but if it gets brought up you're called a tin foil wearing idiot.

That reason?? Oil..