• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria

BillBrasky said:
Lets be honest, this is a war being spearheaded by Sunni and Shia extremists, and their benefactors.

I have no problem watching from the sidelines as the annihilate each other, in the name of Allah.
Click to expand...

Correct. Allah wants it that way, who are we to argue with the Prophet?
 
RJKarl said:
Your position has never worked in the real world.

There was a legitimate justification for going into Iraq and unless we wanted to become an imperialist, occupying force, we had no choice but to leave when asked to do so.

The only things staying would have done is piss off the Arabs throughout the region more each day of our immoral occupation and delaying the inevitable sectarian violence that started when we would leave.

There has never been a shred of evidence they would become more democratic.
Click to expand...

Never stopped you.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
So just to be clear, you are blaming violence in the early part of the 20th century on American Isolationism in the 19th century but completely denying the responsibility the policies of the 20th century have had on 21st century violence? You cannot blame the 20th century AND 21st century violence on isolationism. The issues currently occurring in the Middle East are a direct result of the 20th century intervention in that region and to say otherwise is a bunch of bullshit. You can try to say getting out of Iraq too soon gave Iran more power. You want to know what really gave Iran more power? Us going into Iraq in the first place. Saddam was one bad MFer but he was one bad MFer that Iran wasn't looking to fuck around with. By intervening, we just gave any hardliners about Western influence more fuel for their philosophical fire. It is mind numbing to me that you can simultaneously (and in some ways correctly) hold American Isolationism responsible for violence in the 20th century AND (this one being incorrect) violence in the 21st century since the 20th century was (as you acknowledge) well marked with examples of American intervention. Simple fact is Iran has gained FAR more power due to our policies of the last half century than they have because of isolationist principles in the 1800s and a "movement' back towards that in the last decade or so.
Click to expand...

I never said that our policies in the 20th century haven't contributed to violence in the Middle East. There is no clear cut set of policy choices that will result in world peace, only those that will enhance freedom around the globe and minimize bloodshed. I have also never said that I agree with every post-WWII policy decision. However, if i have to choose between our record as a globalist country and that of an isolationist country, I'll take the globalist record every damn day. And I think the facts would support my decision.
 
What is the exit strategy for Syria? There is no way to get involved without boots on the ground.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
What is the exit strategy for Syria? There is no way to get involved without boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. Selected stealth bombings of government positions. Arming the rebels with weapons that can effectively counter government forces. A no-fly zone is probably too risky, and probably not feasible with only stealth capable fighters, but we could certainly use naval based ordnance from the Sixth Fleet. Assad's infrastructure is primarily in Alawite majority areas and Damascus, both of which are close to the coast. Thankfully the President is moving in this direction. I fear it may be too late to prevent a government victory, but we'll see.
 
I don't know of anyone here who is an isolationist.

Not wanting to start an unjustified war in Iraq and then compound it with the years and years of immoral and unwanted occupation you think would work is not isolationism It's common sense.
 
TR1982 said:
Of course there is. Selected stealth bombings of government positions. Arming the rebels with weapons that can effectively counter government forces. A no-fly zone is probably too risky, and probably not feasible with only stealth capable fighters, but we could certainly use naval based ordnance from the Sixth Fleet. Assad's infrastructure is primarily in Alawite majority areas and Damascus, both of which are close to the coast. Thankfully the President is moving in this direction. I fear it may be too late to prevent a government victory, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

Arm the rebels who are also terrorists?
 
TR1982 said:
Of course there is. Selected stealth bombings of government positions. Arming the rebels with weapons that can effectively counter government forces. A no-fly zone is probably too risky, and probably not feasible with only stealth capable fighters, but we could certainly use naval based ordnance from the Sixth Fleet. Assad's infrastructure is primarily in Alawite majority areas and Damascus, both of which are close to the coast. Thankfully the President is moving in this direction. I fear it may be too late to prevent a government victory, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

Arming Al Qaeda and other shit head extremists? Haven't we been here before?
 
AQ was not in charge of areas in Libya.

Russia and Iran weren't supplying Qadaffi.
 
Last edited:
OGBDeacon07 said:
Holy.Shit.

Pray this doesn't turn into World War III

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
It won't if we don't let it. If Iran wants to intervene in a war between a despotic regime and terrorists, let them.
Click to expand...

Nothing "major" is going to happen in Syria unless Russia decides it's going to happen. They have an enormous vested interested in that nation specifically and an enormous number of citizens / children of citizens. Russia prefers the devil they know over the devil unknown (especially given Russia's experience with Islamic extremists within their own borders).

As long as the owner of the world's second largest nuclear arsenal tells everyone else to stay out of it, they will. When Russia decides that there is a valid replacement (in their mind) to replace Assad, they'll work with the west to get it done.
 
I love that TR did the classic "come in after others have laid out their arguments and call them out for not laying out their arguments" post.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Arm the rebels who are also terrorists?
Click to expand...

Ideally, no, but we should do what is necessary to assure that Assad falls. The risk isn't that Jabhat al-Nusra will have weapons. They already do. The danger is that our policies could propel them into control of the country. As long as the FSA maintains control of the resistance, we should do everything we can to help them.

Also, can we get some perspective here? Arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan was not a bad policy, and it didn't cause 9/11. First of all, we didn't arm bin Laden or his fighters. That is historical record. Second, that was a major strategic defeat for the Soviet Union. Our mistake was disengaging from the region after the Soviet's left and letting Najibullah's government fall to the Taliban.
 
PhDeac said:
I love that TR did the classic "come in after others have laid out their arguments and call them out for not laying out their arguments" post.
Click to expand...

What arguments have you made? I've responded to deacfreak. If you want to actually contribute to the thread, I'd be happy to respond.
 
Read the thread, specifically things posted before you posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top