Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: President Barack Obama said Monday he would put plans for airstrikes against Syria on hold if Bashar Assad's regime were to turn over control of its chemical weapons.

By: clo in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 11 Sep 13 12:08 AM | 42 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 14688 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 14687 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Hi Cactus Flower,

I'm on board.
This is a savvy move for Putin. Especially with the Olympics around the corner.

The 'GOAL' should be to get rid of these chemical weapons, worldwide. Starting with Syria.
Then if they want to continue their civil war, its theirs to work out.

Then, maybe we can get rid nuclear weapons...
I can dream, can't I ')




Avatar

DO SOMETHING!


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: President Barack Obama said Monday he would put plans for airstrikes against Syria on hold if Bashar Assad's regime were to turn over control of its chemical weapons.
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Tue, 10 Sep 13 11:52 PM 		Msg. 14687 of 54959

hi clo,

i'm not sure that is always true. but i know the us perceives it that way.

take the libyan conflict. the us wasn't the prime mover (britain and france pushed for western involvement) and didn't join in the air campaign.

but iraq was mostly a us adventure, ignoring good advice from france, germany, russia and china.

afghanistan involved most everyone you'd expect.

i agree that the us has far the strongest military and usually leads.

but the point i'm making is that in this case, russia seems to be pushing for a more sensible, non-military solution. so let's all back them. the us has a bad idea so let's not pursue it.

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next