Quote from: guest on 05/25/2017, 03:38 PMDefend it from what? You haven't attacked it. Tell me why you think it's bad and I'll tell you whether or not I agree.
Let's hear emerald and zero defend this one.
Quote from: guestYou wrote two sentences. Two. The first was a statement. The second was a (bad) analogy. It was clear that the second sentence was intended to support the first. Stop pretending otherwise.Quote from: Emerald Rocker1. You used a hypothetical WWII analogy as the evidence to "prove" your point about Syria and Russia...An analogy is proof now? Seriously?
Smart people question the logic that is used to support conclusions. Life tip. Remember it.
Quote from: necromancerThe main argument is that Syria and Russia are linked; if we went to war with Syria today, there simply is no way to fight only them, not when Russian troops are embedded with Syrian forces.Thank you for finally providing your non-analogy rationale as to why we can't fight Syria without also fighting Russia (embedded troops). I will now refute it.
4/7/2017: There were Russian troops stationed at a Syrian airfield. We bombed the airfield, and only hit Syrian targets.
If we ever go to war with Syria*, Russia will know in advance. They might work with Syria and fight us. But they also might decide to evacuate the warzone, just like they already did when we bombed the airfield. There is a historically demonstrated path to fight Syria without also fighting Russia.
* We won't.