*checks geographic location* pretty liberal use of the word "only" here
Thats not the question anyone is asking. The Russians have been helping the Syrians. The Americans have been helping the rebels. Nobody cares about Russian "intervention." The most important factor is the balance of power. A civil war that drags on and on and on is a perfect scenario for everyone. It focuses all extremist aggression on Syria thus relieving the pressure off of other governments/us having to look harder for people. Assad in power keeps Syria from focusing on Israel. Assad in power keeps the extremist from focusing on Israel.
That is our point. We're saying a military strike doesn't change the dynamics at all. The threat of military action was always on the table, and chemical weapons were still used. How does striking Assad over 90 days change his position on chemical use? If we know he'll use chemical weapons when he's winning, doesn't that mean he's twice as likely to use them when he starts losing? The point of this military intervention isn't to end the civil war, so why do it at all? According to the US, Assad is the devil reincarnate, but he's not evil enough to be removed from power? Hmmm why is that? Because an unstable country is more dangerous than a chemical weapons using tyrant (a harsh reality that the US will never publicly admit).
I keep saying this over and over again. How is it possible to attack Assad and NOT shift the balance of power in the war, while crippling his ability to deploy chemical weapons, and killing less than the 350-1500 Syrians civilians (the estimate of civilians killed during the chem attacks)?
First, the term "only" isn't being used liberally. If military conflicts do extend outside Syria, those conflicts would be confined in limited spaces and wouldn't come close to threatening American shores. At most, small conflicts in the immediate surroundings of Syria may crop up. Still, it's very likely that most, if not all, military conflict related to this issue will remain in Syria itself, in my opinion. Refer to the third point to understand why I mentioned the conflict not reaching American shores.
Secondly, do you not remember our previous discussion about my calculations on Syria? I'm not in favor of military strikes.
Third, do you not remember how this current discussion began? I responded to a post made by Leasy, which you quoted and began debating. However, Leasy's post was in response to a question asked by Ghost305. My response to Leasy was made because I disagreed with Leasy's assessment, and I wanted to provide another answer to Ghost305's question. His question was: "[Do] you guys think [R]ussia is going to get involved should we attack Syria?" Again, that depends on what he means by Russia getting "involved," which I've been over. So, your response of, "That's not the question anyone is asking" is just not correct. In fact, that's the
only question I was answering. I'm not sure how you got so confused, but there ya go.
this ain english class. this is politics. this is sohh. lighten up a little bit. use some smileys and sh1iit. i need pictures to visualize sh1t.