I know you're being a troll, but come on, do better than that. Make what you're saying somewhat believable. If you do ACTUALLY believe that is the correct action to take, then it seems all you want is war and more conflict.
Oh, im not debating the fact that you have a drastically different opinion than mine, and that its equally valuable in a way. You are just human scum for it. I still respect it tho
The muslim percentage in Syria is upwards of 70%. Now assuming the refugees from Syria are about as indoctrinated to western culture as muslims in London are we know that upwards of 40% of them will support sharia law, a law which discriminates against women, homosexuals, and infidels. This is something I cannot accept having in society (which is why I would support a travel ban) and quite frankly I think shouldn't exist, hence my nuclear incentive.
> Types up multi paragraphs about this, realizes it's tl;dr tl;dr: Too many sides in this conflict, most of them pretty much evil. No side (except MAYBE Kurdistan) can be legitimately supported if our narrative is actually secular freedom.
As @Salisian said there are many sides to this, but there was no sharia rule in syria i'd like to point that out for you. Nuking them will only start WW3 and no one wins that war humanity loses as well as the environment. @Salisian The kurds have their own agenda to take land for themselves, and break off of syria. Turkey won't allow that.
I personally think that NATO should have intervened much earlier (2014) to stop the situation getting out of hand as it is now. IS could have been taken care of if they had intervened much earlier when it had much less territory.
I don't know. What should have happened was Russia (and China too I think, shout-out to my boy Trump) & the US coalition working to find some kind of peaceful agreement and then in unison work to stabilize the country for the sake of the many civilians that now have either: lost their lives, lost their family, lost their homes, fled their country, or any combination of the aforementioned. The people who have suffered most under this entire debacle were the innocent people who had no stake in the civil war. Your suggestion of NATO intervening earlier might sound good initially, but the problem is that NATO is for military intervention. And that, particularly at the beginning where Russia and US were more strongly opposed (well, after the recent bombing ordered by Trump who knows how well diplomacy is gonna work), would most likely just have brought about an all out war.
personally I'd rather deal with a potential problem before it affects us directly. that's why strikes like those are made.
Every attack has a risk of escalating the issue further, which is why I'd personally argue against it unless it's effectively the only option left. Revenge RDM is still RDM.
And it wasn't just any bomb IT WAS AMOTHER FUCKING M.O.A.B WHY IS THE FLYING FUCK WOULD YOU NEED TO USE THAT?
#AmericaIsOverParty The memes I see on twitter about this and world war 3 are so hilarious ngl. (Rip once the draft comes though)
Based on what I have heard it was to destroy some tunnel systems that would have been dangerous for our forces to go through. Now we can go do our thing with less risk of an ambush or IED. There isn't going to be a draft boys. It won't take a ton of bodies to deal with this. There isn't much to say about the Syria topic. We're stuck in the middle of the Middle East conflict. We put ourselves there 20 years ago when Osama started acting up after the civil war. Now it's either back out of the shit storm we kinda helped create or deal with it ourselves. ...Then again I am pulling stuff out of my ass a bit. Take this with at least 4 grain of salt.
