US Switching Tactics in Syria

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34509793

So, having recently abandoned their efforts to train new rebels, the Obama administration is now switching tactics. Now they seem to have decided it's better to simply give weapons and ammunition to rebels already fighting in Syria. In addition to being more cost effective and quicker, this new strategy shows that America has come around to the fact that there are no outright "good guys" in this war, only relatively less extreme, less homicidal guys, and we can either back them, come to terms with a murderous regime that all the Sunni Arab world despises, or give up on the country completely.

Cold War 2.0

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34509793

So, having recently abandoned their efforts to train new rebels, the Obama administration is now switching tactics. Now they seem to have decided it's better to simply give weapons and ammunition to rebels already fighting in Syria. In addition to being more cost effective and quicker, this new strategy shows that America has come around to the fact that there are no outright "good guys" in this war, only relatively less extreme, less homicidal guys, and we can either back them, come to terms with a murderous regime that all the Sunni Arab world despises, or give up on the country completely.

I'm disappointed in this development, it seems that the US has sided with Russia when it comes to Bashar at least implicitly.

I hope we hear more on this in the next few weeks.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm disappointed in this development, it seems that the US has sided with Russia when it comes to Bashar at least implicitly.

I hope we hear more on this in the next few weeks.

With regards to Al-Assad, the question is if actively deposing him is worth risking direct confrontation with Russia. Very few people would say yes to that.

I think they do need to be more forceful about trying to dissuade Russia from attacking Western-backed rebels directly. I'm not sure how to go about that, but dropping a hint that we might "accidentally" start bombing regime targets if Russia doesn't dial back might help, or might make the situation much worse.

Obama's gotten us out of one war, to get us into another one.

LoL @ the ODS.

Arming allies, even loose ones isn't really getting the US into a war. It's just something the US does and has done.

I said Cold War, or can you not read,

CAAH.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I said Cold War, or can you not read,

CAAH.

I can read:

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama's gotten us out of one war, to get us into another one.

Despite your faulty claims here, you said "into another one (ie war)".

Your ODS seems really high right now.

Putin did all these moves so he could have a major involvement in how decisions are made about the ISIS war. But regarding Syria they were stupid moves that will leave a broken country behind (the Russian federation apparently doesn't care about that kind of civilization busting nowadays).

It'll come back to bite their derrières if left alone, so they will probably try to talk the problem away at some point.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Bashar Al-Assad has been on the back burner, and the recent moves by Russia have shown the Americans that Putin cares about Syria a lot more than we do, and he'll be prepared to do a lot more for it.

With regards to Al-Assad, the question is if actively deposing him is worth risking direct confrontation with Russia. Very few people would say yes to that.

I think they do need to be more forceful about trying to dissuade Russia from attacking Western-backed rebels directly. I'm not sure how to go about that, but dropping a hint that we might "accidentally" start bombing regime targets if Russia doesn't dial back might help, or might make the situation much worse.

Originally posted by Robtard
I can read:

Despite your faulty claims here, you said "into another war".

Yes a cold war is a war.

CAAH.

Yeah sure, the refugees are happy as hell that even more weapons are in their country to kill the family members still there, let's not pretend that the IS won't get their hands on it, one way or another. Europe can handle all of the refugees, what does the US Government care if people die or not.

I'm okay with this. The pros are that we're getting our hands a lot less dirty, while the con is that once these groups get their assholes plowed by ISIS, all those weapons are going to fall into their hands. But who cares.

I'm staunchly of the opinion that if Putin wants to play games in the ME, we should let him. I've had enough of America being World Police, and as far as Assad, **** him. As long as Saudi Arabia is one of our largest allies, I really don't give a **** about how "evil" this dude is. Morality has no place in global politics, unfortunately.

" I really don't give a **** about how "evil" this dude is."

So you don't care about him causing genocide?

Are the Saudi's killing their own people? Or are you just mad about how they treat women?

No offense guys but one thing that bothers me is the way such discussions go. Almost everyone here just views it from a political, strategical or economical point of view and no one gives a damn about the humans, the civilians, that die. In my free time I work in a refugee shelter and it's just sad to see that no one really cares what happens to them as long as the interests of their countries are enforced.

One should also try once to imagine what he/she would feel if they would live in that country, see their sister raped and killed, fleeing from the torture to another country, never knowing if one makes it and if they won't be just send back to the hell they came from.

How can it be right to support aynthing that makes this hell worse?

Take Irak for example. I talked to an iraki refugee who is here since over 2 years, he says it's worse then before, the whole war was just a way to get the oil and not help the people.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
How can it be right to support aynthing that makes this hell worse?

EDIT- I'd like to point out that appeals to moraltiy is partially responsible for this situation in the first place. It was all well and good to cheer for humanity and freedom and democracy when we were deposing Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi, but in hindsight all three of those decisions ended up resulting in even more blood-shed.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are the Saudi's killing their own people?

Yet you want Iran to get nukes, who are the lead sponser of terrorism in the world.

Appears you care more about women's rights in Saudi, then dead people in Syria.

Shamefully really considering your girl Hilary just took a bunch of money from the Saudi's and pays her female staffers less their male counterparts yet you dont care about that when it pertains to your hildog.

CAAS

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Because literally every single action that could realistically be taken is going to make the situation worse from a humanist perspective. You're making the mistake of thinking that my commentary is based on what I believe is ideal versus what I believe is the preferable alternative among the realistic scenarios.

EDIT- I'd like to point out that appeals to moraltiy is partially responsible for this situation in the first place. It was all well and good to cheer for humanity and freedom and democracy when we were deposing Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi, but in hindsight all three of those decisions ended up resulting in even more blood-shed.

I agree with this. To put it mildly, the ideals and moral appeal of the western world isn't the "right" one for everyone. Different cultures have different opinions and should never be forced to life to the rules of others. Our understanding of freedom, deomcracy itself and humanity isn't the way everyone on this planet wants to and should live. So live and let live, to each his/her own.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yet you want Iran to get nukes

The irony of your retardation here is that you're trying to make an appeal for refugees, yet you explicitly stated in our last discussion on this matter that military strikes on Iran is on the table if that's what it takes to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons- thus refugees and dead civilians obviously doesn't bother you if its for a cause you support.

It's amazing that you can be this stupid, yet still be alive. The odds are almost certainly in favor of you getting hit by a car or drowning by staring up at the rain with your mouth open for too long, or something.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
I agree with this. To put it mildly, the ideals and moral appeal of the western world isn't the "right" one for everyone. Different cultures have different opinions and should never be forced to life to the rules of others. Our understanding of freedom, deomcracy itself and humanity isn't the way everyone on this planet wants to and should live. So live and let live, to each his/her own.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
No, I'm just intelligent enough to realize that short of going to war with them, there is no way of preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons indefinitely.

The irony of your retardation here is that you're trying to make an appeal for refugees, yet you explicitly stated in our last discussion on this matter that military strikes on Iran is on the table if that's what it takes to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons- this refugees and dead civilians obviously doesn't bother you if its for a cause you support.

It's amazing that someone as stupid as yourself hasn't accidentally killed himself yet by staring up at the rain with your mouth open for too long or something.

So a small targeted conventional war now is more radical and bad then nuclear war in the future, interesting, and completely retarded. I can tell I struck a nerve of your bullshit and now you have started personal attacks to compensate for your double standard.

The time to strike Iran is now before they get nukes, sorry you can't see simple truths.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So a small targeted conventional war now is more radical and bad then nuclear war in the future

Kill yourself.