Quote:

---

Why is President Obama escalating U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war? Dan Drezner offers this take, which he's been murmuring about occasionally for the past year:

[Obama's goal] is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources....For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

....Now let's be clear: to describe this as "morally questionable" would be an understatement. It's a policy that makes me very uncomfortable... until one considers the alternatives. What it's not, however, is a return to liberal hawkery.

In a nutshell, the idea here is that we want both sides to be evenly matched so the fighting continues as long as possible. That will weaken pretty much everyone we hate: Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Al Qaeda groups among the rebels. As long as these folks continue killing each other, we're happy.

Is it a sign of terminal naiveté that I find myself unable to believe that this is conscious Obama administration policy? Or has Drezner simply been watching too much Game of Thrones?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289

Well Auraptor, do you admit you were wrong with all you were saying about Pres. Obama sticking to his word?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289

Well Auraptor, do you admit you were wrong with all you were saying about Pres. Obama sticking to his word?



Only took him 2 months ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289

Well Auraptor, do you admit you were wrong with all you were saying about Pres. Obama sticking to his word?



Only took him 2 months ?

---

That's a no then.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Too bad Reagan isn't alive to see this, but he's dead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Too bad Reagan isn't alive to see this, but he's dead.

---

Yeah, he could have sold arms to the Iranians and used the money to fund ... oh, wait, he did that already!

---

Quote:

---

..and still dead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

..and still dead.

---

Thank goodness!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
One analyst's take - Obama wants to prolong the war to make it attritional for all the US's regional enemies:

Quote:

---

Why is President Obama escalating U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war? Dan Drezner offers this take, which he's been murmuring about occasionally for the past year:

[Obama's goal] is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources....For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

....Now let's be clear: to describe this as "morally questionable" would be an understatement. It's a policy that makes me very uncomfortable... until one considers the alternatives. What it's not, however, is a return to liberal hawkery.

In a nutshell, the idea here is that we want both sides to be evenly matched so the fighting continues as long as possible. That will weaken pretty much everyone we hate: Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Al Qaeda groups among the rebels. As long as these folks continue killing each other, we're happy.

Is it a sign of terminal naiveté that I find myself unable to believe that this is conscious Obama administration policy? Or has Drezner simply been watching too much Game of Thrones?

---

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

So what Barry is doing is pouring gas on a fire and who ever wins Barry also wins? So what ever happens you libs will say Barry did the right thing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289

Well Auraptor, do you admit you were wrong with all you were saying about Pres. Obama sticking to his word?



Only took him 2 months ?

---

That's a no then.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Actually, I said it was a stupid threat to make in the 1st place, and he DID flounder and do nothing for 2 months. Hell, he's still done nothing, other than make more promises.

" In a nutshell, the idea here is that we want both sides to be evenly matched so the fighting continues as long as possible. That will weaken pretty much everyone we hate: Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Al Qaeda groups among the rebels. As long as these folks continue killing each other, we're happy. "

Boy, that Nobel Peace Prize is sure getting a great return on THAT investment, ain't it ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


Do you have a cite for that "quote", or is that just another of your endless stream of made up "facts"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
You took the words of a journalist, who paraphrased the commentary of a conservative, and implied they were to be attributed to Obama.

That's classy. Not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Yes, like all your ilk, you STILL can't read. Anyone else would understand why I think you're a shit from my very, very short post. So, what's you're problem - no pictures with my post? Too many big words?

Here, let me help you out:

A man said that another man said some words, and * you said that a third man said them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The 'quote' I posted, was pulled from the article which KPO included in at the very start of the thread.

My reply was with ... who ? KPO. It's called context.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

In a nutshell, the idea here is that we want both sides to be evenly matched so the fighting continues as long as possible. That will weaken pretty much everyone we hate: Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Al Qaeda groups among the rebels. As long as these folks continue killing each other, we're happy.

---

Quote:

---

US approves arms to Syrian rebels

---