To: SunkenCiv
Call me naive but I suspect that there's *no* possible outcome in Syria that would be *good* for Israel...there's just one that would be less (or least) bad.
6 posted on
06/16/2013 7:57:00 AM PDT by
Gay State Conservative
(The Civil Servants Are No Longer Servants...Or Civil.)
To: Gay State Conservative
I think Assad is the least bad one. Assad does not actively try to kill Syrian Christians, but the rebels do. Assad has learned from personal experience what happens when he directly challenges Israel, but the rebels haven’t and have would love a fight.
Assad understands that if he shoots chemicals at Israel, he could get nuked. The rebels only want to see the whole place destroyed.
The rebels have sworn allegiance to Al Qeida.
None are good guys there, buy who in their right mind would want the rebels to take over from Assad?
9 posted on
06/16/2013 8:05:27 AM PDT by
DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
To: Gay State Conservative
Indeed, like the rebels would be “good” for Israel.
To: Gay State Conservative
Israel has the choice between having Assad or the Muslim Brotherhood as its neighbor.
I believe Israel will be better off with Assad next door.
28 posted on
06/16/2013 12:03:21 PM PDT by
353FMG
( I do not say whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
To: Gay State Conservative
The good part of a Muzzie civil war is, everybody wins.
38 posted on
06/16/2013 12:52:13 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson