Ah Syria. So let me see. We have a ruthless dictator who used the military and a semi-modern airforce whom, among other things, appears to have dropped sarin gas on his own people who are trying to arrange his retirement.
Then we have the opposition, which while it contains some legitimate opposition political types, now seems to be made up primarily of Hezbollah foreign fighters, equipped and ideologically led by Iran and Al Quaeda, who are hoping the government that replaces the secular (yet evil) Assad will be an Islamic Republic in pursuit of the global Caliphate.
All the while the Christian minority and unaffiliated populace are being slaughtered in the crossfire.
Hmm... tough to decide who to back, isn't it? Of course, Russia backs Assad due to the very favourable deal he cut them, exchanging cold war era munitions and currency for deep water port access for the Russian mediterranean fleet. Anything else you hear is BS - Russia supports Assad entirely out of self-interest.
Frankly, if it were not so dysfunctional today, this is the type of mission a 1950's-era UN would/should have intervened in. Of course, Russia would veto it.
Now if only NATO weren't led by a democrat looking to pay for entitlements for the unemployed democrat-voting masses. Maybe something could be done to save the lives of those caught in between
Ah Syria. So let me see. We have a ruthless dictator who used the military and a semi-modern airforce whom, among other things, appears to have dropped sarin gas on his own people who are trying to arrange his retirement.
Then we have the opposition, which while it contains some legitimate opposition political types, now seems to be made up primarily of Hezbollah foreign fighters, equipped and ideologically led by Iran and Al Quaeda, who are hoping the government that replaces the secular (yet evil) Assad will be an Islamic Republic in pursuit of the global Caliphate.
All the while the Christian minority and unaffiliated populace are being slaughtered in the crossfire.
Hmm... tough to decide who to back, isn't it? Of course, Russia backs Assad due to the very favourable deal he cut them, exchanging cold war era munitions and currency for deep water port access for the Russian mediterranean fleet. Anything else you hear is BS - Russia supports Assad entirely out of self-interest.
Frankly, if it were not so dysfunctional today, this is the type of mission a 1950's-era UN would/should have intervened in. Of course, Russia would veto it.
Now if only NATO weren't led by a democrat looking to pay for entitlements for the unemployed democrat-voting masses. Maybe something could be done to save the lives of those caught in between
Ah Syria. So let me see. We have a ruthless dictator who used the military and a semi-modern airforce whom, among other things, appears to have dropped sarin gas on his own people who are trying to arrange his retirement.
Then we have the opposition, which while it contains some legitimate opposition political types, now seems to be made up primarily of Hezbollah foreign fighters, equipped and ideologically led by Iran and Al Quaeda, who are hoping the government that replaces the secular (yet evil) Assad will be an Islamic Republic in pursuit of the global Caliphate.
All the while the Christian minority and unaffiliated populace are being slaughtered in the crossfire.
Hmm... tough to decide who to back, isn't it? Of course, Russia backs Assad due to the very favourable deal he cut them, exchanging cold war era munitions and currency for deep water port access for the Russian mediterranean fleet. Anything else you hear is BS - Russia supports Assad entirely out of self-interest.
Frankly, if it were not so dysfunctional today, this is the type of mission a 1950's-era UN would/should have intervened in. Of course, Russia would veto it.
Now if only NATO weren't led by a democrat looking to pay for entitlements for the unemployed democrat-voting masses. Maybe something could be done to save the lives of those caught in between
Ah Syria. So let me see. We have a ruthless dictator who used the military and a semi-modern airforce whom, among other things, appears to have dropped sarin gas on his own people who are trying to arrange his retirement.
Then we have the opposition, which while it contains some legitimate opposition political types, now seems to be made up primarily of Hezbollah foreign fighters, equipped and ideologically led by Iran and Al Quaeda, who are hoping the government that replaces the secular (yet evil) Assad will be an Islamic Republic in pursuit of the global Caliphate.
All the while the Christian minority and unaffiliated populace are being slaughtered in the crossfire.
Hmm... tough to decide who to back, isn't it? Of course, Russia backs Assad due to the very favourable deal he cut them, exchanging cold war era munitions and currency for deep water port access for the Russian mediterranean fleet. Anything else you hear is BS - Russia supports Assad entirely out of self-interest.
Frankly, if it were not so dysfunctional today, this is the type of mission a 1950's-era UN would/should have intervened in. Of course, Russia would veto it.
Now if only NATO weren't led by a democrat looking to pay for entitlements for the unemployed democrat-voting masses. Maybe something could be done to save the lives of those caught in between
