Australian Foreign Minister — U.S. Fears War With Syrian Army

"Why doesn't the outside world intervene to put an end to the killing in Syria?" one woman asked.

Senator Carr replied: "I think the big powers are afraid of getting involved in another war in an Islamic country. They're afraid of that.

"They think it'll be a drawn-out war of attrition, and I hear that not even the American armed forces want to take those risks with the strength of the Assad army."

LINK

So! Is it true? Is the Yan'kee really yella?

Syria is not an Islamic country (it's secular) and there are many good and sensible reasons why the West has no interest in starting a war with her.

Far better to let Syria crash and burn all by herself.

reply to post by Dumbspiracy

They think it'll be a drawn-out war of attrition, and I hear that not even the American armed forces want to take those risks with the strength of the Assad army

bah....

it would be drones against foot soldiers. The US can fight wars from the US mainland...no need to lose any soldiers. What a funny theater show this is...with actors and all...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Real people are dying for this

No actors in this mate!

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


yes but the US wouldn't be able to afford it.
There's no oil or anything to really fight over.
Its a hornets nest surrounded by killer ants nests.
Scared isnt the word, wise fits better!

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


You can't win a war with drones alone...boots on the ground are always needed. And yeah, it would be very foolish of the US to try and invade Syria, US could possibly 'win' but at a very high cost and only if Iran didn't help Syria.

The only reason Syria would be able to fight back is because they have Iran providing soldiers for them, and Russia providing anti-aircraft technology. Syria is not well provided, Assad is only a small tool in the middle-east. Which Iran and Russia are using for their own interest, they'd never provide them with enough weaponry to take over countries.

America can't risk attacking Syria, it would be seen as an attack against Iran, Russia and China. Just like America has taken over Europe, it would seem for the East that they're trying to take over the East also.

Just a thought.

According to an inside source I have, Syria is rife with Jihadists, most of the "rebel fighters" are not Syrian but jihadis from around the world who have gone to get rid of a secular government in the Middle East. So if America was serious about its war on terror they should be champing at the bit to get in and kill the terrorists of tomorrow. Imagine all the experience and training they are getting through this war. Unless the US is collecting all their names and is going to hunt them down and kill them accidently later.

America is imperialistic if we intervene.

America is cowardly if we don't.

It is a civil war. On one side we have a brutal dictator, and on the other side fanatical islamists.

Who do we support? Who do we side with? Why should we involve ourselves in another country's business?

As I've said, the only people we should consider helping is the refugees. The people who are the innocent victims caught in the middle of this.

There are no good guys here. It is not in America's best interests to go in.

Just my humble opinion.

If America npractised what it preached, it would be backing Assad against the Jihadi's, AlQaeda's and rebel fighters.

Whole thing is the same as George Orwell's "Double-Speak".

The Plan for Syriais a little more twisted than that i think.....
The rush of the Jihadis to syria, has put a lot of the most dedicated and violent among them in harms way....
Assad has a fairly well trained and armed force with which to deal with them.....
Perhaps its just a plot to get assad to rid us of a whole pile of nasty people.
When they fight to a standstill there will be a lot less of either side to deal with.