Well unfortunately you have two sides waging a war of attrition against the other, the negotiation table is in the past.
I read what was actually said about the attack helicopters:So claims that the administration was "lying" are based on the false idea that they claimed the attack helos had already been delivered. In fact, they did not claim that at all.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/worl...les-syria.html
On Tuesday, Clinton again launched a verbal broadside at Russia, asserting in Washington that "there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria, which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically." The State Department declined to provide specifics.
Once again I ask why the US is involved. Let them figure it out.
The thing I was referring to was the fact that US does not get directly involved without a considerable national interest (be it economic, geopolitical or something else). World policing done by US has the clear aim to shape the world better suit US interests. Nothing happens out of good will, especially boots on the ground. One thing to remember also is the fact that US are influenced by corporate interests in a major way. War is big and lucrative business.
Good post and thanks.^^
I know this is outlandish, but im beginning to wonder, are we actually doing this to create tommorow's boogey man??? This is what it begins to look like to me.
Are we laying the pieces for a regional war that will draw us in at a later date?
The "humanitarian" label is a piece of rubbish i just couldnt swallow, let alone digest.
I think im beginning to hate humans
I'd be nice one day if we managed to get the political will together around the world to consistently and effectively intervene in these sorts of situations but our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to suggest that we're not there yet and pretending that we can continue this policy as is would be foolish.