#1
Post rating: +
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=0

>Given this depressing state of affairs, a decisive outcome for either side would be unacceptable for the United States. An Iranian-backed restoration of the Assad regime would increase Iran’s power and status across the entire Middle East, while a victory by the extremist-dominated rebels would inaugurate another wave of Al Qaeda terrorism.

>There is only one outcome that the United States can possibly favor: an indefinite draw.

>Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.

>That this is now the best option is unfortunate, indeed tragic, but favoring it is not a cruel imposition on the people of Syria, because a great majority of them are facing exactly the same predicament.

Jews. If you needed any more evidence.
#2
Post rating: ~
or option 4: drop the "sides" requirement and just make our own "team america." then roll in, shoot 'um up, and put whoever we want in power because we're boss.
#3
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
remember the iran-iraq war
#4
Post rating: +
#5
Post rating: ~

gyrofry posted:

remember the iran-iraq war



That's apparently the plan.

#6
Post rating: +
i'm wondering if the blame can be placed on the concept of the nation state (as it's been the most successful means of legitimising capitalist rule) or whether this kind of geopolitical sociopathy would occur under any other system of global administration which has boundaries between centre and periphery
#7
Post rating: ~
I would argue that all leftist social experiments fall victim to the iron law of hierarchy, this is evidenced in eg Jools banning me for trying to correct his white supremacism.