[Ringo S.]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...rian_islamists

So the rebels aren't secular Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter.э

"... Many outside observers find the Islamist character of the revolt disconcerting, with some even counseling indirect U.S. military intervention as a means of suppressing it.

Unfortunately, there's not much the United States can do about it..."

Nothing? For start, US can stop support islamists in Syria...

[GAFinch]

The best we can do is sit back and let them weaken each other. The Muslim Brotherhood is capable of being just as dangerous as the Iranian axis of powers.

[Big Mad Dawg]

And the Russians can stop supporting for profit the oppressive corrupt government

[Ringo S.]

Originally Posted by Big Mad Dawg

And the Russians can stop supporting for profit the oppressive corrupt government

"For profit"? Are you anti-capitalist? I think it's should be clear now, that five "corrupt regimes" better that one islamic one...
By your standards, should USA stop sending money to corrupt regimes? How many non-corrupt regimes you can name among those, who collect money from US?

[Cavalry Doc]

Syria? The best possible outcome is high casualties on both sides. I think they are half arsing it so far. They should really try harder. The longer it goes on the better as far as I'm concerned.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Syria? The best possible outcome is high casualties on both sides. I think they are half arsing it so far. They should really try harder. The longer it goes on the better as far as I'm concerned.

The practical view is refreshing

[Ringo S.]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Syria? The best possible outcome is high casualties on both sides...The longer it goes on the better as far as I'm concerned.

I read something similar:
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible..." H.Truman. 1941
-
But then came Pearl Harbor and view on war was changed...
We already had our Pearl Harbor moment in 2001 and more, but idiots in government still dragging along old strategy. Syrian "regime" now fighting the war with militant islam and I think it is in our interest, that they would win this war.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Ringo S.

I read something similar:
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible..." H.Truman. 1941
-
But then came Pearl Harbor and view on war was changed...
We already had our Pearl Harbor moment in 2001 and more, but idiots in government still dragging along old strategy. Syrian "regime" now fighting the war with militant islam and I think it is in our interest, that they would win this war.

The historical tipping point for the war in Europe had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor (different theater and all) but was actually the attacking of an American maritime convoy sending supplies to Britain. Now the convoy and the "Lend-Lease" program may have been hanging a bit of provocation out there but Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with it.

No Mr. Blutarski, it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Ringo S.]

Originally Posted by countrygun

The historical tipping point for the war in Europe had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor

Really? And fact, that Germany declared the war on US precisely several days after Pearl Harbor means nothing to you? Still not a tipping point for the war in Europe?
Germany was attacking US ships before Pearl Harbor, like islamists were attacking US before 9.11, but 9.11, same as Pearl Harbor, became a turning point in events.
And as criminally stupid would be to continue to hold on to Truman's view "let them kill each other" after Pearl Harbor, and engage in "Cold war" with USSR in 1941-45, same criminally stupid is to continue to hold on to blame Syria now as "regime", while they fighting our sworn enemies, islamists. But, as I said, we are ruled by the idiots, if not worse. And I am sure, it worse...

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Ringo S.

Really? And fact, that Germany declared the war on US precisely several days after Pearl Harbor means nothing to you? Still not a tipping point for the war in Europe?
Germany was attacking US ships before Pearl Harbor, like islamists were attacking US before 9.11, but 9.11, same as Pearl Harbor, became a turning point in events.
And as criminally stupid would be to continue to hold on to Truman's view "let them kill each other" after Pearl Harbor, and engage in "Cold war" with USSR in 1941-45, same criminally stupid is to continue to hold on to blame Syria now as "regime", while they fighting our sworn enemies, islamists. But, as I said, we are ruled by the idiots, if not worse. And I am sure, it worse...

You really need a history lesson outside of the pablum you have been fed under the guise of education. Here are some things for you to research and consider.

In 1939 Roosevelt invoked the "Neutrality Act" yet was also responsible for the Lend-Lease" program and then on August 14, 1941 Churchill and Roosevelt anounced the "Atlantic Charter".
If you look back to newspapers of the time and published reports, the concentration of the American public was on the war in Europe.
Hitler's sudden declaration of war (the first time he ever declared a war without invading another Country and causing them to declare war first) caused the immediate return response from the US, but, in light of the attack in the Pacific doesn't it strike you as odd, given what you have been taught that, on January 26, less that two months after Pearl Harbor, the first US troops arrived in Great Britain. In less than six weeks after Pearl Harbor we had troops on the way to Europe.
The tipping point of the attacks on American shipping had most of America prepared for a war in Europe. Americans had already been killed in the Atlantic and preparations were already underway for a move into Europe.

[Ringo S.]

Originally Posted by countrygun

The tipping point of the attacks on American shipping had most of America prepared for a war in Europe. Americans had already been killed in the Atlantic and preparations were already underway for a move into Europe.

I don't know, you didn't read my previous post, or you just don't want to see my point of view, but it is not about how exactly WWII was going on. Anyway, read it one more time. In short - we should be helping syrian government to fight islamists, not obstructing their fight. Similar to what we did in WWII - to fight Evil alongside with guys we maybe didn't like, but could live with, at least, because their are fighting on our side, with our enemie.
But level of lunacy and corruption in modern western governments too high, to see this simple and obvious truth.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Ringo S.

I don't know, you didn't read my previous post, or you just don't want to see my point of view, but it is not about how exactly WWII was going on. Anyway, read it one more time.

I see your point about the current situation and I disagree with your premise as it currently applies,

To WWII I am a stickler for correctly representing the war from the perspective of the times, not what has been taught as "common knowledge)

I would have agreed, years ago that we should support the "enemies of our enemies". If I read yor post correctly.

"And as criminally stupid would be to continue to hold on to Truman's view "let them kill each other" after Pearl Harbor, and engage in "Cold war" with USSR in 1941-45, same criminally stupid is to continue to hold on to blame Syria now as "regime", while they fighting our sworn enemies, islamists."

One of the problems you have in seeing the situation, based on your post is that we have not sworn "islamists" as enemies. In fact we are having a hard time calling anyone an "enemy" officially.

the other problem is a lack of understanding of the mindset of those we deal with. NONE of them are our "Friends" they just take time out from trying to stick it to us, to stick it to each other once in a while. The killings in A-Stan by those we are trying to help who turn on us ought well prove the point.

So yes, let's let them cut down on their own numbers and save us the ammo for a later date.

[Ringo S.]

Originally Posted by countrygun

So yes, let's let them cut down on their own numbers and save us the ammo for a later date.

In this case we should at least be neutral, but all I can see is one sided help to islamists, help political and military. While they keep killing civilians. And that hypocritical media campaign about "crimes of regime"!!! I just can't stand it... Everybody knows the media is liberal. Everybody knows - liberal media lies. They lie about events in Syria and their lies printed in blood.

[Ringo S.]

Originally Posted by countrygun

In fact we are having a hard time calling anyone an "enemy" officially.
the other problem is a lack of understanding of the mindset of those we deal with.

Because, as I said already, we are ruled by the idiots. Otherwise Barack Obama is great president and Hilary Clinton is magnificent diplomat...
Good rulers and diplomats don't have hard time to figure out who enemy is and don't have "lack of understanding" of mindset of opponent.
So, back to were I started - we are ruled by...

[Ringo S.]

Turkey Lied About Syria Taking Responsibility For Attack

NATO powers desperate to create


pretext for regime change

http://www.infowars.com/turkey-lied-...ty-for-attack/


"...This again emphasizes how NATO powers and compliant Gulf states are desperate to create a pretext for regime change in Syria, and will not stop at fabricating an incident and then inventing lies about it in order to manufacture a casus belli for a military assault..."

[janice6]

It seems the only objective is to swap one dictatorship for another. Democracy is counter to Muslim ideals.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Ringo S.

Turkey Lied About Syria Taking Responsibility For Attack

NATO powers desperate to create


pretext for regime change

http://www.infowars.com/turkey-lied-...ty-for-attack/


"...This again emphasizes how NATO powers and compliant Gulf states are desperate to create a pretext for regime change in Syria, and will not stop at fabricating an incident and then inventing lies about it in order to manufacture a casus belli for a military assault..."

I am really getting curious here.

With your Stalin fanship established in another thread, now we are getting the "Western and pro-western nations against poor Syria", just where did you stand on the Beslan incident?

[GAFinch]

Info Wars is not a credible news source. Try again.