General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsspanone
(135,950 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)For the US--probably not. Not going to lose any significant numbers of troops or money there.
For the losing side in the civil war, absolutely. We're talking genocide.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)gopiscrap
(23,768 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)leftstreet
(36,119 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)We're not invading. We're lobbing cruise missiles in a kabuki show of force.
It's a fireworks show, that'll probably get a bunch of people killed, and it will solve nothing. And it's likely to lay the groundwork for America's next war, a few years from now.
Totally not worth it.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)"No plan for war" = "don't know what we're doing or when we'll be done"
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The AQ supported rebel groups present a serious problem....the US cant just waltz in, axe Assad, and let democracy bloom. We will have to deal with the islamicists, whom appear better armed, supported, and organized than Iraq's rag-tag bunch. So the potential is there to be worse.
OTOH, even at his corporatist Third Way Dem warmongering worst, Obama is still a hell of a lot more competent than Bush, Cheney, Rumfilled, Bremer, et al. And there's always the hope (perhaps naively) that after decade-long quagmires, the DoD may have learned how to wage these wars.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Iraq had Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shiite Arabs. Chaldeans, Turks, etc., were tiny minorities.
Syria has these, and it has significant Alawite, Christian and Druze populations.