ilovefuzz.com

Iommic Pope wrote:

jrfox92 wrote:

Mudfuzz wrote:it's funny you know, no one ever talks about not doing or stopping things that cause refugees...

That's because the only thing that might stop refugees would be total invasion of Iraq and Syria.
If we did that, Russia might pull out, which would address the whole bombing civilians thing, but it's more likely we'd end up in a completely FUBAR'd war with ISIS on one side and Russia/Assad on the other.
So, it'd look about the same as it does now, just with a bunch of dead Americans to top it off.

Dude, what?

To stop refugees (from Syria, not in general, obviously), you'd have to stop the war there.
To stop the war there you'd have to:
1) Get Russia to back off
2) Invade Syria and Iraq with troops
3) Defeat ISIS
4) Replace the Assad regime (now, back to #1) with either a democratic or controllable dictatorship

Since #1 is unlikely because of #4, the whole thing would just turn into Gulf War II on steroids.

I'm pretty sure the Gulf War was completely different.

jrfox92 wrote:

Iommic Pope wrote:

jrfox92 wrote:

Mudfuzz wrote:it's funny you know, no one ever talks about not doing or stopping things that cause refugees...

That's because the only thing that might stop refugees would be total invasion of Iraq and Syria.
If we did that, Russia might pull out, which would address the whole bombing civilians thing, but it's more likely we'd end up in a completely FUBAR'd war with ISIS on one side and Russia/Assad on the other.
So, it'd look about the same as it does now, just with a bunch of dead Americans to top it off.

Dude, what?

To stop refugees (from Syria, not in general, obviously), you'd have to stop the war there.
To stop the war there you'd have to:
1) Get Russia to back off
2) Invade Syria and Iraq with troops
3) Defeat ISIS
4) Replace the Assad regime (now, back to #1) with either a democratic or controllable dictatorship

Since #1 is unlikely because of #4, the whole thing would just turn into Gulf War II on steroids.

Aside from the fact that 2) would put us in yet another unwinnable, protracted nightmare in the Middle East, it would also almost inevitably violate the #1 rule of the modern world - nuclear superpowers do NOT shoot at each other.

jrfox92 wrote: 1) Get Russia to back off

I guess Russia is far away enough from USA , isn't it?

vidret wrote:What if we just.. bomb the refugees?

See! I knew there was a way out. Well done, gentlemen.

Yeah, WTF, why not? We'll ask Vladimir to nuke 'em, and then Trump can waterboard any survivors.

gaussgunn wrote:

jrfox92 wrote: 1) Get Russia to back off

I guess Russia is far away enough from USA , isn't it?

Sarah Palin can still see it from her backyard.

snipelfritz wrote:

gaussgunn wrote:

jrfox92 wrote: 1) Get Russia to back off

I guess Russia is far away enough from USA , isn't it?

Sarah Palin can still see it from her backyard.

Hmmm thats the eastern side of Russia. So If US will be keep moving Russia from the western side - then the eastern will be even closer.

What even goes on in eastern Russia?

snipelfritz wrote:What even goes on in eastern Russia?

Ask the Japanese. They'll tell you all about it.

Chankgeez wrote:Ask the Japanese. They'll tell you all about it.

And after Trump arms them with nukes, they can help nuke the refugees too.

coworker's brother works at the white house and has worked there since clinton. says it's the most disorganized and hellish the white house has ever been. not surprising.

Lurker13 wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:Ask the Japanese. They'll tell you all about it.

And after Trump arms them with nukes, they can help nuke the refugees too.

and the russians can nuke us and we can nuke china and Sparrow can finally have his rapture

Good plan.