You will be given access to modern drone technology and cruise missiles giving you the ability to snuff out your opponent with the touch of a button. Tracking down and killing family members to prevent future retaliation is allowed and encouraged. Torture will be at your disposal but if knowledge of its use becomes available to the general public you will lose the game. Killing all prisoners is encouraged as keeping them in detentions for prolonged periods of time is politically problematic. If you take out Assad with a drone strike you win the game. If you take out Assad and his entire family you get additional honors. You can use your spy satellites to figure out where Assad or his family may be hiding.
You will have access to chemical weapons which you can use liberally to snuff out your opponents and snipers to use against UN war crime investigators. Your goal is to kill as many insurgents who threaten you before Obama can snuff you out. Women and children count as kills so you your gas with this in mind. Mass executions will win you extra points for you and will take points away from Obama.
May the odds be ever in your favor.
The average American does not give a schitt about the Middle East. They want the tax revenue spent on them. Now that the US is a net exporter of oil who cares what happens in the sand? Chalk Israel up to a bad experiment and let's all move on...
I shouldn't be so hard on you. I just heard Simon on CNBC say that the USA is a net exporter of oil. That's a great example of CNBC's lack of understanding of the conditions in the world, and their ability to spread false information.
The USA remains the largest IMPORTER of oil, but has become a net exporter of refined products. We import a large amount of oil, consume most of it, but some is refined for export.
The best way to manage this Syrian disaster is to keep our distance. So far, it's estimated that 100,000 have been killed in the fighting. If they choose to kill each other, should we deny them that right? And why should we deny them the option of using chemical weapons? Are such less humane than road side bombs, firing squads, or slitting throats in the local tradition? On one day within the last two weeks there were terror attacks in Iraq which killed 55 persons. Why should we get so bent out of shape over one incident that only laid to rest five times the casualties that Iraq can muster in one day? Keep things in perspective.
If we give the Syrians more time, their numbers will be reduced, making the situation more manageable. Eventually, as with the United States after the Civil War, they will come to recognize the advantages of living peacefully with others. To interfere will deny them the opportunity to lean a very important lesson, and prolong conflict in the Middle East.
Obama has waited until Radical Islam of various stripes have stabilized positions in Syria. If we go in who do we kill? All of them? It's too late for the Middle East , the Salt and Pepper team of Bush and Obama have blew it. I say secure the borders, arm Israel and use out own energy sources. Simply let all of them kill each other .
Obama could send in his secret weapon which is 72 clones of Sarah Palin stating that this is what you will get if you die and go to heaven. Hmmm, maybe that is a bad idea because then he might decide it would be better to go go hell. Who knows what he would do then.
Obama set his "red line" and now he's backed into a corner with Putin looking to embarrass at every turn.
There's no appetite for major operations.
What you will see are strikes on military airports and aircraft, key command and control, air defenses. Not much more.
Obama is too smart to take out Assad and expose Syria to takeover by an even more unfriendly government that would threaten Jordan and Israel. His objective is to get all parties to the table to negotiate a new government, but could use surgical strikes to force Assad to see that as the only way to save his own skin. Perhaps Assad remembers what Iraq did to Saddam Hussein.
Saudi Arabia and the Arab League is beginning to take a leading role in resolving the Syrian affair, something they should have done a long time ago. It's a local affair and should be dealt with by the regional governments. We have no business getting involved. Keep in mind that Assad only gassed a couple hundred people; whereas, about 100,000 have been killed so far.
The only country that is misguided enough to do something that is not in their own self interest is the US. The worst case scenario in my mind is that Obama may want to appear to be doing the "right thing." On the other hand, if he is as selfish as everyone else in the world he will do nothing which in my mind is a better thing to do. It is not our problem. Europe is closer so why don't they do something if it bothers them so much? I was surprised they aided Libya at all, but only from a distance. Not up close and personal.
When has the Arab league ever attacked another Arab country in the last 100 years? Never. And they won't in the future either. They have so many reasons for not wanting to. China and Russia don't like to ever see interventions because they don't want the same thing to ever happen to them in the future, like when Russia attacked Georgia or when China fights over territorial water rights with neighbors. So they almost always vote no. So there will probably be no UN vote for intervention.
If Obama acts it will have to be against the UN and the US would be going it alone or maybe with the token help of England or France. But it won't be substantial because they are saddled with social programs and thus are in a financial corner unable to anything else but make ends meet.
In reality if Assad is over thrown the government that replaces it will be more anti US than Assad’s government because they will be voted in office by a population that hates Israel and thus they hate the US by proxy because we aid Israel. Assad on the other hand probably doesn’t care that much about what Israel or the US does as long has he can live a comfortable life. He will make token jesters but only for appearances so as to appease the general population sense of righteousness. Similar to what Obama does when he makes promises but rarely follows through. Same concept.
I think we can all see by now that only dictatorships can govern Muslims. Because when given the opportunity to vote and when the minority loses they won't accept it without a fight and always want to over throw the majority and put in place their own government which obviously has to be a dictatorship or the majority will simply vote it out again.
It is illogical to think that Muslims can vote for their leadership. They are simply too stubborn to accept losing an election. However in some cases a dictatorship is the only logical solution.
In many Arab countries the most sophisticated segment of their society are in the minority. And the majority is often made up of ignorant uneducated peasants who don't understand how a modern country can be successfully run and thus have adolescent like concepts of what should or can be done. Eventually the more sophisticated people say to heck with it and take over having had enough chaos for one life time.
And in many cases I cannot blame them. I’m not sure I would not want the same if I lived there. Democracy only works if the people understand how it functions and work within the system to make it function properly. This doesn’t seem to be the case in most Muslim dominated countries.
In some other countries the people are no more intellegent but they are passive and accept what happens and thus the leadership can at least attempt to lead. But Muslims are far from passive and way to impatient.