The other option is Al Qaeda.<quoted text>Iran and Hezbollah prefer Assad__are you right wing slugs asleep on Syria__or simply waiting for Brietfart and Limpdik to tell you what to think.
There is no winning strategy for Syria and increasingly Lebanon beyond staying the fk away and allowing, cough, nature to take it's course.
Israel will be OK__but I wouldn't plan any trips there.
Are you people complete idiots?
What you are proposing is helping Al Qaeda take over a country, you morons.
Have you given any thought as to what Al Qaeda will do with the chemical weapons when they take possession of them?
If Assad sinks an American aircraft carrier with the Russian anti-ship missiles, the Arab world cheers. We already know the Arab world cheered on 9/11(2001).
It's a now-win situation for the US.
How about we let Europe take the lead on this. Europe helps whomever they desire, and we stand behind Europe. The Europeans are probably helping the secular rebels, whereas Obama is arming the Al Qaeda terrorist insurgents.
If Europe takes the lead, there is a chance a secular government will be installed, like in Libya. If Obama takes the lead, Al Qaeda will take control of Syria.
Now, who here is in favor of putting chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda?
Still, it isn't certain Assad used chemical weapons. It could very well be the so-called "rebels" (who are actually Al Qaeda insurgents - Syria is being invaded) used them to assist the US involvement.
It's a trap. An idiot can see it. Obama is Putin's bitch. And Putin will spank Obama's sycophant ass once more.