XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: dead@gone.com
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:41:16 -0700, Wayne wrote:
> "Zepp" wrote in message news:kpn0u1$6kr$3@dont-email.me...
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:36:28 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>> On Jun 15, 11:33 am, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>> I'd like to know how many folks in these groups support the planned US
>>> intervention in the civil war in Syria.
>>>
>>> Basically, a "Yes" or "No" is sufficient but if you want to provide a
>>> few sentences supporting your opinion, that's fine.
>>
>> No. This administration seems to be supporting any situation which will
>> result in Muslim Brotherhood domination of as many countries as
>> possible. It's already happened in Egypt and Libya and it will happen
>> in Syria. The MB is against everything that the West stands for. They
>> should be our enemies.
>>
>> Typical for the B. Hussein Obama administration to be supporting them.
>
> # So it's your contention that moderate Moslem groups should have no say
> in # their own lands.
>
> Well, the rebels consist of moderates and extremists that have bonded
> for the moment.
Yeah, there's a wide spectrum of Syrians and others opposed to Assad.
>
> Since the extremists outnumber the moderates, should the rebels win, the
> next step is for extremists to purge the moderates.
Given that we don't really know who the players all are, that's an
unsupported supposition.
>
> This is clearly a conflict that the US should run like hell from.
> Supporting the rebels means getting crossways with the Russians and
> Iranians. Thus, with US support, the rebels may very well still lose.
I am worried about a wider regional war which could spin completely out
of control.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
