So the US could end the Syria conflict in a week. Why didn't they?
Thanks, Repugs!
Putin gets OK from Russian parliament to start the airstrikes.
Meanwhile the US gives armoured vehicles to Kurdish forces. Except, the vehicles lack armour. KURDISH leaders say riding those vehicles would equate to commiting suicide
Oh
RUSSIA has performed their first airtrike. They have ordered the US to get their ing planes out of Syrian airspace
Neither. But both WOULD work. And this action would come with extraordinary human cost. Don't play stupid.
We also could conventionally bomb and level the area.
No . Lots of countries could bomb Syria and ISIS to oblivion not just US
Bring us a solution not something we all know.
Humanitarian cost and geopolitical costs dumbfck.
Now you answer your own question. Quit playing the idiot.
Russia, china, Israel, Germany, France , etc
All these countries could also solve the conflict in a week by a mass bombing. Bring something new
Then quit asking stupid questions.No . Lots of countries could bomb Syria and ISIS to oblivion not just US
Bring us a solution not something we all know.
If the solution was easy it WOULD have been tried.
Try READING my posts and not changing them.
Read.
You have typed so many false comments I can't tell what you actually know.
The above.
You don't get the nature of our role.
I have start at the elementary school level with your kind of BS.
So no solutions? Thanks for playing.
"There was a reason the first Bush stopped short of Baghdad."
CIA Bush pere, aka WIMP, didn't LIE to the UN to get UN approval to invade Iraq.
CIA Bush pere and the neocons were not intimidated, or even concerned, about Iraq's (oppressed) sectarian divisions as the reason not to invade Iraq during Gulf War.
This is BS. Then you changed your numbers.You see m to do the opposite
chastise Assad and Putin and applaud Obama.
There's only 1 country that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the middle east
that country is the USA
And you come to Bball board for solutions? Are you serious?
Ok. You want to play.
What outcome do YOU want in the region and then state YOUR SOLUTION.
You don't even realize that different parties have different goals and then ask for A solution?
Get the outta here.
Fine.
But they did understand the destabilization that would occur. No one said he stopped short out of love for Iraq.
Rumsfield basically dismissed a general when told how many troops it would minimally require (3x the amount he wanted to hear) 2nd time round. Half assed efforts give horrible results.
Not changing any numbers. Statistics show about 100,000 to 150,000 deaths in Iraq war. 80% civilian look it up.
Still waiting on your solutions to Syria crisis
Your desired outcome and your solution?
Civilians killed by the US. As you stated.Not changing any numbers. Statistics show about 100,000 to 150,000 deaths in Iraq war. 80% civilian look it up.
Still waiting on your solutions to Syria crisis
Link?
Read again.
I really doubt they did, since the neocons a few years later were pushing Clinton to invade Iraq, and then actually did criminally invade Iraq when Repugs got in power and got a false pretext.
The MIC said Iraq war and US military presence would be finished in a few months after invasion.
They and the Repugs/UK didn't have a clue what was going to happen after the invasion, and certainly didn't give a about Sunni vs Shia animosity.
The objective was Iraqi oil (Mission Accomplished), and US hegemony over the M/E, including regime change in Syria and Iran. Worked like a dream.
Thanks, Repugs, every one of you and your voters.
READ AGAIN
Hundreds of thousands to thousands.Blah blah. I'm talking about the U S bombings in Iraq.
Who delivered those bombs killing thousands of women and children?
Factors of 100X escape you or you just change stuff randomly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
