Hands up everyone who thinks Syria will end up worse than Iraq.

[sibelian]

[spanone]

1. 2 things...horse & shit.

[geek tragedy]

2. Worse for whom?

For the US--probably not. Not going to lose any significant numbers of troops or money there.

For the losing side in the civil war, absolutely. We're talking genocide.

[zappaman]

3. Um....no.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. In what way?

[gopiscrap]

5. Explain.

[sibelian]

11. There really ARE terrorists in Syria!

[leftstreet]

6. Worse for Syrians, better for War Profiteers n/t

[backscatter712]

7. Not worse than Iraq, but still a clusterfuck.

We're not invading. We're lobbing cruise missiles in a kabuki show of force.

It's a fireworks show, that'll probably get a bunch of people killed, and it will solve nothing. And it's likely to lay the groundwork for America's next war, a few years from now.

Totally not worth it.

[winter is coming]

8. For us or for them? Likely both.

"No plan for war" = "don't know what we're doing or when we'll be done"

[HooptieWagon]

9. It could, but probably not.

The AQ supported rebel groups present a serious problem....the US cant just waltz in, axe Assad, and let democracy bloom. We will have to deal with the islamicists, whom appear better armed, supported, and organized than Iraq's rag-tag bunch. So the potential is there to be worse.

OTOH, even at his corporatist Third Way Dem warmongering worst, Obama is still a hell of a lot more competent than Bush, Cheney, Rumfilled, Bremer, et al. And there's always the hope (perhaps naively) that after decade-long quagmires, the DoD may have learned how to wage these wars.

[FarCenter]

10. Syria is more complex ethnically and religiously

Iraq had Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shiite Arabs. Chaldeans, Turks, etc., were tiny minorities.

Syria has these, and it has significant Alawite, Christian and Druze populations.