|
Narmi posted:Now that the rebels are using their own planes does that complicates things? If this does somehow manage to pass, does that mean they won't be able to use them against Gaddafi? The rebels would have to stop using planes too, unless we were willing to straight up say our mission is regime change rather than simply implementing a no fly zone (at which point we may as well be bombing them ourselves).
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:I'm saying that while contaminated water is an important concern, it is outweighed by the widespread murder of democratic activists by foreign troops who consider them subhuman due to their religion. That's easy to say when you're not the one drinking contaminated water.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:"All the time we focus on a small number, the naughty, noisy people. We like them. They are sexy." No, he's saying the media covers the words and actions of a vocal minority because it makes for a "sexier" (less boring) story. Essentially he's once again blaming the rebellion on media sensationalism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That's precisely what 'media sexiness' means, but I guess the term isn't widely used in English. Oops. Yeah, that was me being dense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Which might well be what's happening anyway. Let Gadaffi kill the rebels and then the US can go and remove him from power to "punish" him and occupy the country (and its resources) without having to deal with a pesky democracy-minded rebel government to get in the way.  There's zero indication that Obama has even a remote interest in occupying Libya, let alone in stealing its resources. If he planned to out-Bush Bush and start a third war, he probably wouldn't have let his Secretary of Defense go around talking about how crazy it would be to put troops on the ground again in Africa or Asia.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:Narratives are pretty drat effective in that part of the world. During the Suez Crisis, the gods themselves (the US and the USSR) descended below, pulled a Deus Ex Machina, and drove out the Israelis, the British, and the French. Nasser took all the credit, and pan-Arabism was given a tremendous boost. If this wave of democracy is to continue or be strengthened, the gods themselves (namely, us), must engineer it so that the rebels win the day, inch by bloody inch, and hit the ground running. Why would the US want to selflessly promote a new Nasser rather than itself as savior of democracy? Edit: For that matter, wouldn't the optimal solution for the US be to save the rebels but do so in a way that shows they would have been hosed without US assistance? That way would-be rebels in US ally countries would be more likely to think twice before taking up arms. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:I'm not arguing from an assumption of how the United States used to be - as you're doing. I'm arguing from the realization that United States has been moving in the direction of "benign Superpower" for quite some time now (though we still haven't moved fast enough, and some of the baggage and bureaucratic stupidity from the realpolitik era still lingers). The US is terrified of the possibility of Islamists coming to power. Democracy promotion in Palestine was a big deal until the day Hamas won an election. The Muslim Brotherhood kept its head down in the Egyptian uprising because it knew the US would be much more likely to back Mubarak if it was seen as the alternative. Saudi Arabia seems to be allowed a free hand in Bahrain to suppress the Shia. The US still cares very much about protecting its geopolitical interests in the Middle East; Libya may turn out to be a special case because humanitarian objectives happen to coincide with the removal of an unfriendly regime this time, and it seems likely that this can be done without troops on the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
The problem I have with what you're saying is that I think you're buying the public relations efforts as being core interests rather than the cover under which the core interests may be pursued.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
Narmi posted:Egypt is out. Egypt to the Libyan people: "gently caress you, got mine."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
davebo posted:I feel kind of bad going in there and destroying all their expensive military gadgets, then shortly thereafter a new and free Libyan government is formed and doesn't have a single tank to its name. Why would a free Libya need tanks when they're bordered by free Tunisia and free Egypt?? Besides, the US will undoubtedly be happy to sell shiny new tanks to the US-sponsored rebels once they've taken power. Edit: I'm not trying to troll, I'm just feeling kind of cynical about the whole thing right now. No offense. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Why? 1. The real lesson of this week seems to be that if you're an African dictator and you want to murder your people you shouldn't be close enough to Europe to embarrass them. And if you're a Middle Eastern dictator and you want to murder your people you should be pals with Saudi Arabia. 2. Russia's representative at the Security Council seemed to make a decent point about the language in the resolution being incredibly vague, and about the belligerent countries not really offering any sort of indication as to what they actually plan to do to help the rebels and/or oppose Qaddafi, outside of saying occupation is out of the question. We don't know if they plan to defend current rebel holdings or if they intend to help the rebels advance across the country, and honestly I'm not sure if they even know yet given how quickly this has all come together. 3. The Arab League supported a no fly zone, not outright regime change. We'll see what the Arab Street has to say about this as time goes on, but my initial guess is that the US won't come out of this any more popular in the Arab world than it is now. 4. Obama didn't make the case to the American people, or engage Congress in a meaningful way. This doesn't negate the good that could potentially come of a successful humanitarian intervention, but it's kind of ironic to support democracy abroad while avoiding democratic accountability at home. All that said, I obviously hope things turn out well. Qaddafi's a piece of poo poo and deserves pretty much anything that happens to him at this point. But I'm not cheering everything on without reservations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:I don't agree with any one point you made at all. In-fact, your points are so ridiculous and out-of-touch with reality .... ...Gaddafi? I'm not going to compare you to Qaddafi, but you have some ego to think that disagreeing with your opinion = being out of touch with reality. I'm not even sure I oppose what's going to happen, since we haven't heard a real plan. I don't think there's anything wrong with voicing a few reservations as the US starts a third (admittedly much smaller than the other two) war in the broader Middle East.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
Competition posted:Peaceful revolutions rose up and a mad dictator responsible for propping up half the worlds terrorist organisations over past 40 years decided to put them down violently and indiscriminately. Until the world is one big happy democracy, dictators are always going to rule based on the threat of and (if pushed) use of force against their populace. The difference is that this time the dictator is someone we don't like, and his country is embarrassingly close to Europe. Coincidentally, he's also not strong enough to really threaten any of our interests if we attack him. The free world has a moral obligation to act when it's convenient and painless. Again, I'm not sure that's wrong. It's probably better than never acting anyway. Let's just not pretend the forces of freedom are stamping out injustice around the world here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Does anybody have a good read on why the US is refusing to evacuate its citizens from Yemen? It seems particularly odd given that they're actively supporting a Saudi bombing campaign in the country and a number of other countries have evacuated their own citizens. The only thing I could think of is that they're afraid of transporting citizens back who've been radicalized over there, but leaving the rest to rot because of that possibility seems crazy. Any better guesses?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
One of the things that frustrates me most about America's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide in favor of placating Turkey as an ally is that Turkey hasn't even been a particularly helpful ally in recent years. I get that you can say that about pretty much every US ally in the region, and we can't tell them all to gently caress themselves, but tiptoeing around the sensitive feelings of an ally that's becoming increasingly authoritarian and hasn't been on the same page as the US in quite some time seems absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Not to mention that they're easily and by far the most strategically vital member of NATO. I hope you mean aside from the United States, which is more vital than the rest of the members combined. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
If Obama caved to Turkey, he may as well just tell every ally in the world they can walk all over the US. Turkey has plenty of leverage in this situation, but telling the US to gently caress itself really shouldn't be a consequence free action from a supposed ally ostensibly on the same side in a conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Preventing free Russian access in and out of the Mediterranean would be vital in an actual war, and Turkey covers that since they do own the straits leading into Russia's southern naval bases. In an actual war, wouldn't Russian ships in the Mediterranean pretty much be fish in a barrel at this point anyway? FaustianQ posted:I honestly don't think he's going to cave to Turkey, but what choice does he have on making this situation right, that isn't just going to make things worse? Erdogan is dead set on this powerplay it seems, what is Obama going to do, withhold something or use ISIS-AKP links to get Erdogan to drop charges on the HDP? That won't satisfy the PKK, Erdogan would have to step down. Erdogan can probably get away with fighting the PKK in Iraq if that's what he wants, particularly if they're actively participating in reprisal attacks; there's a lot of precedent for everyone looking the other way when that happens. He may even get away with banning an opposition party, since nobody really minded too much when Sisi did that in Egypt, though he'll presumably at least face some criticism in Western media for being a tyrant. What I don't think the US should allow is for Erdogan to use that as a justification to attack other Kurdish groups in Syria just because he feels like it, at least as long as the Syrian Kurds continue to focus on ISIS rather than what's going on across the border. I don't know if the military has any teeth left after more than a decade of being defanged, but one would think they'd be pretty unhappy with Erdogan going out of his way to alienate their most important ally if this turned into a real pissing contest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:Exactly, so then what do we do? Continue to bomb ISIS as we are and let the rest of the country fight their civil war. Or, I guess, we'd also have to still be bombing Assad as well but we'd have to make sure that we were bombing them both the same because otherwise we'd have one side start winning. Or maybe we'd have to bomb one side more because it was winning and eventually enough bombs would lead to peace and reconciliation. No matter how many times bombing for peace fails to work, the instinctive feeling that there has to be something we can do means there will always be people trying to make the case that this time will be different.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Volkerball, don't you see any contradiction at all between condemning Russia as a belligerent power we shouldn't be worried about working with because they illegally invaded a country friendly to the US in Ukraine while advocating for the US to illegally overthrow the government of a country friendly to Russia in Syria? I'm not saying the two situations are the same, since clearly Assad is a monster and Ukraine doesn't deserve what's happened to it, but illegal wars of choice are bad precisely because they make it more difficult to plausibly stand on principle when saying might should not equal right in affairs between states. If the US could plausibly make Syria all better again by bombing the gently caress out of it, maybe it would be worth risking the cascade effects of continuing to chip away at state sovereignty, but when you throw in the reality that our track record is very poor at making situations better by blowing poo poo up, maybe upholding the international order doesn't look so bad. I know you like to believe there was a window in which true liberal democracy could have flourished in Syria if only the West had been willing to impose it, but the track record of liberals triumphing over radicalism in times of crisis is also very poor. Iran was in a far better position to become a liberal society in 1979, but that very clearly didn't happen. Egypt has been a disappointment more recently, as has, of course, Iraq. Even in the best case, Syria would still have been a country divided by ethnic and sectarian differences, and expecting a new government to be able to peacefully paper those over while terrorist groups and hostile foreign powers would be working to destroy this fantasy you envision is absurd. Maybe you're right that the West encouraged rebellion only to abandon it later, but the problem there was meddling in the first place, not the later refusal to stand by a foolish commitment and contribute further to the chaos.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Not at all. Legal and illegal are subjective when it comes to this type of action, due to the way the UNSC works. There's clear video evidence on a massive scale of the regimes war crimes, which provide more than enough to support invoking R2P. Sovereignty is forfeited by illegitimate rulers who massacre their own people. Russia has consistently prevented a UNSC resolution from going through, and they've done so through outright lies about what the regime is doing. But that's not representative of the global consensus. A February 2012 general assembly vote on a resolution that "condemned President Bashar al-Assad’s unbridled crackdown on an 11-month-old uprising and called for his resignation under an Arab League peace proposal to resolve the conflict," passed 137-12 with 17 abstaining. There was more than enough for the US to point to when it comes to taking action in Syria. Contrast that with Russian justification for Ukraine, which, lol. You basically just said intervening would be legal because the mechanism established to decide if a war is legal or not refused to say intervening would be legal; R2P isn't a legal principle so much as it is an excuse to say our values are more important than international law. China would almost certainly veto a Security Council resolution too, so this isn't just about Russia either. As I said before, maybe I'd be on board with continuing to destabilize the (admittedly broken) international order if the evidence suggested that we're capable of creating a better world through force, but there's every reason to believe we aren't and that continuing to add precedent to the idea that powerful states are free to start wars of choice when they feel like it is a bad idea for the status quo global power.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:I actually believe it should be the other way around; the security council is inherently flawed because it includes regimes that are already violating human rights in mass scale, whereas R2P is a great concept and should be a clear legal definition and an independent branch of the UN makes decisions that the UN members must adide by to remain a member. The UNSC is just a way for major powers to politik and hasn't prevented any escalations including Syria and Ukraine, because of course it won't when opposed super powers have vested interests in those regions. Every permanent member of the security council has engaged in massive human rights abuses since the creation of the UN, so I don't think that would have worked out too well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Same. I've heard their public executions of dissidents are some of the best produced in the world. Real can't miss shows. You were just trying to talk yourself into an alliance with literal Al Qaeda in Syria.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:An alliance where we try to steal their fighters. BFF's. That claim doesn't hold up beyond a sensationalist headline, which is obviously all you've read. I mean you can dress some wolves up as sheep, but I have a feeling as soon as it's convenient a lot of those sheep are going to turn back into wolves. How did working with the brave mujaheddin of Afghanistan work out for us?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:KSA couldn't have the impact Iran has had in the current state of the Middle East in their wildest dreams How do you figure? KSA leads a bloc of monarchies in the Gulf Cooperation Council, helps finance dictators like Sisi in Egypt, funds conservative religious education in many, many countries, has the third largest defense budget in the world and has been bombing the poo poo out of one of its neighbors with US approval for months now. Iran has some influence in Iraq of course, but they aren't the ones who created the situation there: we are. They are active in Syria, but of course KSA is active by proxy in Syria as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Remember when the US doing this would have been ~WW3~? Russia's aiding their longstanding ally in defense of one of their naval bases, whereas we would have been attacking a longstanding ally of Russia's which hosts one of their naval bases. Do you see the difference yet? I'm not under any impression that Assad's a good guy, and I doubt Russian intervention is going to be the magic bullet that brings peace to the devastated country (any more than US intervention has been or will be if we escalate), but given that there is disagreement between permanent members of the Security Council on the issue, Russia's actually abiding by international law more than we are in Syria since they're intervening at the request of the guy who still holds Syria's seat at the UN, whereas we've been dropping bombs in Syria's territory without any sort of authority.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Why do you think they can negotiate with Assad, who has inflicted the lions share of civilian casualties, attacked civilians with chemical weapons, and uses ceasefires as a tool to wipe out his opposition? ISIS is a threat both inside and outside Syria's borders, whereas a victorious Assad would be ruling over a battered Syria posing no threat to anyone but his own people. Assad is a horrible tyrant who's unleashed unimaginable violence against the people of Syria, but he's fighting to hold on to power as a status quo entity, which is still better than ISIS' universalist theological insanity that they feel obligates them to wage war against even those of their own faith who mostly agree with them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The status quo being what we have now. This is the best Assad has to offer. There's no stability, and drat sure no end to ISIS as long as he's in power. The US had more leverage towards ending the insurgency in Iraq than Assad has in ending it in Syria. You're also not taking into account that ISIS is not all encompassing of other rebel groups. They primarily own desert, and the majority of rebels fight against them. When Assad goes, you'll see just how true that is. In the meantime, we get this. ISIS hasn't exactly been stamped out in Iraq even without an Assad figure to point to. I do think they'll be defeated eventually just because their continued existence is an irritant to just about everyone, but so far every estimate about them losing has proven to be wildly optimistic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:ISIS was essentially gone in Iraq until Maliki tried to imprison al-Hashemi, disbanded the sahwat, and cracked down on protests. Then things got violent, the Shia militias showed up, courtesy of Iran, burning people alive for being named Omar, and poo poo went downhill fast. My point was that if Iraq's government has failed miserably at preventing and defeating the ISIS insurgency, even after the US warred with their predecessor group, I don't see how a loose coalition of warring rebel militias can be expected to do better, even in the absence of Assad. Even if the West manages to cobble together a coalition of moderates to present as the new government of Syria, that government will be under threat from day one, and not just from ISIS. The West can come in and kick over the most obvious manifestations of rebellion (and try to prevent the inevitable reprisal attacks against the Shia population, and try to prevent the Kurds and Arabs from killing each other), but the Iraqi occupation and aftermath, as well as the war in Afghanistan, suggest that our resources for ensuring long-term security have serious limits.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:I expect that the rebels are suddenly getting their hands on a lot of captured anti air equipment. Totally not provided by another state to shot down russian planes. How'd that work out in Afghanistan?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Better than it worked out in Ukraine. You're insane if you'd rather live in Afghanistan than Ukraine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Vernii posted:Pretty well, given a lot of dead Russians was the objective and accomplishment. Mission accomplished, good thing there weren't any unintended consequences!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:The withdrawal was what the US (and Pakistan, Iran, the PRC, and most Afghans) wanted. Intended or not, it certainly doesn't seem like a model worth repeating. Russia intervening in the conflict isn't a sufficient threat to US interests to justify handing over anti-air weaponry which could easily be used against people who aren't Russians in the future. Moderate groups in Syria, to the extent that they still exist, have a history of having their weapons taken by more radical groups. We aren't giving anti-air weapons to the local Al Qaeda affiliate for obvious reasons. Even the YPG, who seem like the closest things to heroes existing in Syria today, have ties with a terrorist group currently in conflict with a NATO ally of ours. As unhappy as I am with Turkey's opportunistic war on the PKK right now, I think it would clearly be bad if US weaponry were used to shoot down Turkish aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Honestly, is Turkey really a net positive for NATO anymore? If you think NATO's primary mission of minimizing Russian influence is still important, they definitely are since the Turkish Straits are incredibly important strategically. If you don't think keeping Russia down should be priority one (and this needn't imply Russophilia, simply a belief that Russia isn't capable of projecting power far beyond its borders anymore) then the answer is closer to being no, but pushing Turkey out and turning them into yet another (particularly powerful) dysfunctional Middle Eastern state instead of a borderline European country would be even worse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:They've never been a 'borderline European country' and them no longer being part of NATO wouldn't cause them to immediately implode into a Syria-style hellscape. It might start a three/four-way arms race between them, Iran, SA, and Israel though, whereas now they're content to just sit back, ethnically cleanse the few minorities they have left, and let the US take care of their foreign policy Part of Turkey is literally in Europe, and they're the only "non-European" country to ever negotiate to join the EU, even if it never ends up happening. Even without the EU, NATO membership definitely integrates them in some way with Europe. I think you're kind of splitting hairs about the second part too, since a deeper involvement in the conflicts in the region would be a big part of what would make them a dysfunctional Middle Eastern state, combined with the already increasingly paranoid and autocratic leader they have who'd almost certainly become even more extreme if the West tore up their alliance with his country. This will never happen though; it would be far more likely for NATO to push the military of Turkey to overthrow Erdogan than it would be for them to kick Turkey out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Remember when Petraeus suggested we should co-opt Al Qaeda and take their recruits for our approved rebel groups? I wouldn't bet on that happening any time soon since they're busy beating up our hapless trainees and taking their lunch money. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34368073
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Walk into the Russian embassy in Baghdad and say planes start falling in an hour. Get out of our airspace. Suggesting we should shoot down Russian planes if they violate our hypothetical no fly zone which would have no justification under international law is hilarious. I personally think Russia is more of a bad actor than the US, but they have more of a legal right to operate in Syria than we do since they've been invited by what is (I'd say regrettably, but I haven't seen a credible alternative proposed by anyone yet) still the internationally recognized legitimate government of Syria. As the principle benefactor of the status quo which the international order is meant to uphold, this rogue superpower bullshit in which we do whatever we want is a really bad idea. Given that the US is responsible for the environment in which ISIS was born in the first place, you'd think some humility would be in order rather than all this neocon cheerleading nonsense. Volkerball posted:Russia is best buds with Iran and Sisi too, so you can stop trying to pretend poor plucky Russia has no choice but to support their only ally in the middle east, even though said ally is an evil loving dictatorship in a failed state. Sisi is definitely more in the US-Saudi camp than the Russian camp, but nice try pretending there's an alliance of evil dictators led by Russia being opposed by the plucky forces of freedom and democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Does anybody else ever feel that abiding by rules to fight wars against non-state actors in the 21st century is about as absurd, and doomed to failure, as marching out in Napoleon-era shooting formations to fight a 20th century war? I mean I'm glad my country's military isn't indiscriminately murdering all the civilians it can, especially since the wars we fight today are wars of choice we arguably shouldn't be fighting in the first place, but I also can't help wondering if our moral horror at civilian casualties is a big part of why we don't win wars anymore. Again, I'm glad we're not actually doing this (I've been as socialized to think it's immoral as anyone else), but I can't help feeling if we'd carpet bombed Raqqa the moment we started bombing in Syria, and made it clear that any new stronghold they set up in is next, ISIS probably wouldn't be the center of international recruitment and emulation that it is today. Am I crazy for wondering if our squeamishness and sense of moral superiority leads to more casualties in the long run as these conflicts never end?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:If indiscriminately killing civilians was an effective counter insurgency tactic Assad wouldn't be In the position he's in Comparing Assad's ramshackle air force with ours seems a bit insulting, but even there he's presumably seeing some military benefit from the bombings or why would he risk his planes? Dilkington posted:^^^^^^ I get that it's not as easy as being willing to kill more people and the war is over, but one would expect air power to be more effective in the desert (it certainly stopped Qaddafi) than in the jungle or mountains, and our capacity to kill has certainly grown since WWII (even as our willingness to do so has fallen). Am I overlooking the fact that we've also become far more casualty averse as far as getting our own people killed, so we're bad at attacking moving targets on the ground since we're flying out of effective range? Even if we're (reasonably) not prepared to carpet bomb their cities, I genuinely don't understand how ISIS is capable of moving between cities without being annihilated unless it's because we can't always distinguish their convoys from refugees.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Squalid posted:If we were okay with slaughtering civilians why would we be bombing ISIS in the first place? Better to ally together against the Iranian proxies, which obviously represent a more serious and long term threat to U.S. interests. In fact if the conflict lasts forever that'd be great, just let the Iranians keep bleeding. Iran doesn't chop off Americans' heads and declare war on the world. Iran may be an adversary, but they're a stakeholder in the international order we oversee in a way ISIS refuses to be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 21:08
|
|