3 ms·

> Except that at the time, Iraq was itself a highly unstable conflict zone. I fail to see how turning Syria into an unstable conflict zone would help.

• Reason077 9y ago
  Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria. Those who were backing the opposition factions were no doubt hoping for a quick, orderly transition of power. But obviously it didn't work out that way.
  • jessaustin 9y ago
    Does it ever work out that way? This myth of USA military effectiveness isn't promoted in order to ensure transfers of power or [snicker, haha] natural gas in pipelines. It is promoted to ensure the continuing transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to armaments manufacturers and their sockpuppets in government and media.
  • geezerjay 9y ago
    > Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria. That's precisely the point. Nobody set out to cause long-lasting, destructive conflict in Iraq as well. Furthermore, in Iraq there was a multinational coallition allocating hefty amounts of resourses to ensure a clean politically advantgeous outcome, while the war in Syria would be, according to that conspiracy theory, at best a covert operation leading to a drawn out conflict.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]