Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

I'd say persons, plural...

Wow... so that means that in this obscure discussion group more than one person shares the same opinion? That makes the small group of like minded 'persons' right?

Could be. If so, likely a function of the cataract in my left eye...

Not one of your more intelligent comments, Ken... maybe you are indulging in a little bit of grandstanding? Unbecoming.

Oh, I care but I also know we've, on balance, done more good than harm. Shame others cannot say that. Equally regrettable that some who know that purposely elide.

Don't agree that more good than harm has been done... but I appreciate that you need to feel that way. You have my sympathies.

I think the one eyed slant is actually in which view is really the "fringe."

You've lost it.

My position has been clear in that I believe that intervention in Syria is required and can be justified... but should not be carried out by the US.

This is a 'fringe' view?

Because I read all they write and most of them expand on that; you just ignore that bit as you tend to do to all things inimical to your positions.

No, I suspect it is more that you choose not to challenge your constituency... know what I mean

"Worry" is an extremely poor choice of words. Tickled is more appropriate.

Whatever. You obviously missed it in D's post which you appear to have salivated over.

Finally he has articulated his position with some clarity ... took him paragraphs to say what should have taken a few sentences. In so doing he has undermined his earlier cost argument (which you failed to note) and has now reach the position where it is all a matter of personal opinion as to what conforms to compelling national interest. You USians may well find it fun to argue amongst yourselves as to what constitutes compelling national interest but out here in the colonies we just watch what the 'suit' in the White House does. Seems lost on this talk shop that like in the case of Libya despite local consensus that there should be no intervention, intervention went ahead anyway. So who is the fringe opinion now?

Of course my opinions are not necessarily the truth -- nor are yours.

The difference is that I never present anything in any other way.

Staff training would have taught you (and others around here - maybe) that you reach an end point (decision) by considering a number of factors along the way... and not by selecting an end point then building a case to support it. Common problem... always leads to a fail grade.

Okay, consider your self duly "flipped," to use your word.

Expected US arrogance.

There's that "fringe" bit again -- I think you might've misplaced it. Well, WWII is the last one I can recall -- and I went to most of the others, not one of which merited the force applied. As for wasting time, I'm retired and can piddle away like this for days doing little or nothing of consequence.

You forgot to add in my opinion after 'not one of which merited the force applied'.

In my opinion it is less about that force was used than about how it was used. With repeated incompetent execution it should be clear that the US political / senior military planning for such intervention ensures failure and more national humiliation.

The political and often humanitarian motives behind these interventions were often (in my opinion) sound. I suggest that repeated failure has blinded USians to the merits of the intervention and as such like a Pavolv's Dog respond to the memories of previous failure.

I think we've degenerated into nothingness. I'd love to continue to play but must unfortunately go and do things of consequence for a bit. You be nice, hear...

Back to the thread. Syria.

Speak for yourself. If you wish to continue you need to up your game.