Syria will NOT end well.

[SoFa]

I personally don't think Syria will end badly.
But I have no problem with there being a thread about it. When I see a thread I'm not interested in, i don't read it.

[SilverDragon72]

Tell me Neilgin, does the blade glow blue when Orcs are close? I have to ask, since you have Sting next to you.....

[neilgin1]

Tell me Neilgin, does the blade glow blue when Orcs are close? I have to ask, since you have Sting next to you.....

hasn't glowed yet....though there have been rumors of strange folk and beast at the outliers. the shirriffs grow uneasy.

the wind is heavy, and bears ill tidings....but no glow.

[AGgressive Metal]

I don't watch the news, so maybe I'm missing something. But why are we even involved in Syria? To the best of my understanding, on one side, you have a fairly mild, secular dictator and on the other side, you have militant Muslims. I don't see how picking a side (either side) is really going to help us in any way. What am I missing?

Syria hosts the Russian Navy in their only Mediterranean base - otherwise Russian fleet must pass through the Sea of Marma/Bosporus, which is very narrow and controlled by NATO ally Turkey. Also, Assad is allied with Iran and friendly with Hezbollah, Iran's proxy army. Further, Syria has sold oil for Euros, which is a major no-no. Obama is influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski), who is Polish by birth and still sees the old communist bloc of Russia/China as the major threat to be dealt with, rather than the standard neo-con position of invading smaller terrorist countries (Brzenzinski was against Iraq war). When viewed in this light, Afghan occupation makes more sense because it gives us bases deep in the bunghole of China and Russia, and recognizing southern Sudan makes sense to get the oil away from China. Also the attempted interference in Uganda (remember "Kony 2012") makes more sense because China is heavily invested natural resources in that region.

[neilgin1]

I don't watch the news, so maybe I'm missing something. But why are we even involved in Syria? To the best of my understanding, on one side, you have a fairly mild, secular dictator and on the other side, you have militant Muslims. I don't see how picking a side (either side) is really going to help us in any way. What am I missing?

Syria hosts the Russian Navy in their only Mediterranean base - otherwise Russian fleet must pass through the Sea of Marma/Bosporus, which is very narrow and controlled by NATO ally Turkey. Also, Assad is allied with Iran and friendly with Hezbollah, Iran's proxy army. Further, Syria has sold oil for Euros, which is a major no-no. Obama is influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski), who is Polish by birth and still sees the old communist bloc of Russia/China as the major threat to be dealt with, rather than the standard neo-con position of invading smaller terrorist countries (Brzenzinski was against Iraq war). When viewed in this light, Afghan occupation makes more sense because it gives us bases deep in the bunghole of China and Russia, and recognizing southern Sudan makes sense to get the oil away from China. Also the attempted interference in Uganda (remember "Kony 2012") makes more sense because China is heavily invested natural resources in that region.

you nailed it!! Zbig's back.....your the first fellow I seen that's brought forefront....nice.

i'm not going "Zbig's this"...or "Zbig's that"....but God only knows what going to happen. I sure am glad i'm not a "big shot". Nice read on the situation though sir. neil