3 ms·

I believe the issue is not the invasion itself but what they did/didn't do after they "won". It's indeed sad to see no good side/party. Just a mess that broug

I believe the issue is not the invasion itself but what they did/didn't do after they "won". It's indeed sad to see no good side/party. Just a mess that brought a lot of misery.

pazimzadeh 6y ago
Let's agree that it's the result of short term thinking
- csomar 6y ago
  I'd say it was worth the cost. The US used to suck in civil warefare. But after the Syria civil war, they clearly have the upper hand vs. Russia.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Yea, Syria's a much better place now that those Russians have left.
    - dionian 6y ago
      theyre still there
      - Rebbitor 6y ago
        I don't understand what your comment is trying to convey because it has incorrect grammar and punctuation.
      - monadic2 6y ago
        That was the joke.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Unless an explicit claim to hegemony is involved, when a party isn't part of the country involved, we normally don't say "civil" but instead "proxy" warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars
- thefounder 6y ago
  I hope at least that's the case and it was not just a totally selfish/reckless/"evil" act. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
082349872349872 6y ago
As CIA and the Pentagon support different sides in Syria, does this imply they're likely running offensive ops against each other? Do black (psywar) black (hat) hackers have any sort of IFF to prevent blue-on-blue? (for a different blue-on-blue scenario: what might the cyber equivalent of leaving a grenade pin on an officer's pillow be?)