I wouldn't take action regardrless. Its not our fight. Nothing we do in the Middlle East helps us. Best to stay out and keep an ocean between them and us.
The Israelis have the best intelligence arm in the world, it's the only reason they still exist beyond the sheer will power of the IDF, not to mention the French and British are confirming the reports.
Me personally I don't really give two gaks. France seems to like invading people and air strikes, let them handle it. Or bring the Ruskies into NATO "Putin, you got this one mate"
Syria gets liberated
Russia joins NATO
Russia and Putin get to blow off steam using Assad's army and remaining government like a speed bag in the gym. (and said army would probably last about as long as a hamster that was inside said speed bag)
I don't like Isreal, but this is one of the few things I'd fight along side them against. Poison gas is the single most painful, horrible thing you will ever die from. I've been shot, stabbed, burned, blown up, run over, fallen off a cliff, and drown. I'd happily do all of them again if I never get a whiff of chlorine gas ever again.
Fraz, I occasionally respect you, but on this thing we will disagree.
BaronIveagh wrote: I don't like Isreal, but this is one of the few things I'd fight along side them against. Poison gas is the single most painful thing you will ever die from. I've been shot, stabbed, burned, blown up, run over, fallen off a cliff, and drown. I'd happily do all of them again if I never get a whiff of chlorine gas ever again.
Fraz, I occasionally respect you, but on this thing we will disagree. Send the troops.
Clearly Frazz is missing his opportunity to test the wiener dog legions, as Germany tested their tactics and equipment in the Spanish Civil War, so too can the rapid legions be tested. Wearing appropriate gas masks of course.
Grey Templar wrote: Clearly Frazz is missing his opportunity to test the wiener dog legions, as Germany tested their tactics and equipment in the Spanish Civil War, so too can the rapid legions be tested. Wearing appropriate gas masks of course.
I'm confused here. Do we back the Syrian Army and its dictator, who is a Russian and Iranian ally, or do we continue to back the Free Syrian Army with its ties to Al-Queda?
Or better yet, do we leave them to it because no matter what we do we'll get blamed anyway?
The chemical weapon "red line" was, as I think everyone anticipated, a bluff. The Syrians, as I think everyone anticipated, called it. The US, as I think everyone anticipated, ain't going in.
BaronIveagh wrote: Or we could leave it alone, and be blamed by all the people that survive for having been able to stop it and done nothing.
It's lose, lose, lose. I'd prefer to lose doing the thing that saves the most people from horrific deaths.
A lot of countries could stop it, if they really wanted to. I don't see the Germans or the French or the British or the Canadians suiting up. Or the Turks, for that matter. It's happening right next door to them. They could do it, if they chose.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm confused here. Do we back the Syrian Army and its dictator, who is a Russian and Iranian ally, or do we continue to back the Free Syrian Army with its ties to Al-Queda?
Or better yet, do we leave them to it because no matter what we do we'll get blamed anyway?
Guess which one I'm hoping for
Someone who understands. If we get involved, no matter who we back, we lose.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm confused here. Do we back the Syrian Army and its dictator, who is a Russian and Iranian ally, or do we continue to back the Free Syrian Army with its ties to Al-Queda?
Or better yet, do we leave them to it because no matter what we do we'll get blamed anyway?
Guess which one I'm hoping for
Someone who understands. If we get involved, no matter who we back, we lose.
And, as Baron mentioned, if we do nothing we also lose.
Frankly, as long as we get the UN's blessing so we're not going in solo, I'd rather pick the option that lets me sleep at night as an American citizen and save innocents if at all possible.
BaronIveagh wrote: Or we could leave it alone, and be blamed by all the people that survive for having been able to stop it and done nothing.
It's lose, lose, lose. I'd prefer to lose doing the thing that saves the most people from horrific deaths.
If we intervene in Assad's favour and we get accused of supporting a dictator, war crimes and helping Russia and Iran get a firmer grip on the region and have the international community bleat at us
If we side with the FSA then we get accused of imperialism, war crimes etc. we get to help AQ in the region get stronger, and give people ammunition for saying that we've always been in cahoots with AQ, and have the international community bleat at us
(we'll probbaly get accused of going in to steal whatever natural resources they have too)
If we sit out and do nothing then we don't get accused of war crimes, don't risk our own troops etc. and have the international community bleating at us
Well, if you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, why do? Same result for less effort.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Someone who understands. If we get involved, no matter who we back, we lose.
Yup, as they say in Alien vs Predator "Whoever Wins, We Lose"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: A lot of countries could stop it, if they really wanted to. I don't see the Germans or the French or the British or the Canadians suiting up. Or the Turks, for that matter. It's happening right next door to them. They could do it, if they chose.
They also had a jet shot down by Assad's forces and intercepted a Russian shipment of hard currency, as well as dealing with the refugees.
Frankly, as long as we get the UN's blessing so we're not going in solo, I'd rather pick the option that lets me sleep at night as an American citizen and save innocents if at all possible.
This isn't a black and white issue, its a damn sight more complex.
Your solution is that we intervene to help a group with strong ties to a global terror movement responsible for the worst atrocity on US soil, a group that will likely set up shop there with training camps and access to whatever weapons and equipment they can get, possibly including Assad's chemical weapons, which they will then use to carry out further attacks on innocent civilians. You'd sleep at night with that outcome?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm confused here. Do we back the Syrian Army and its dictator, who is a Russian and Iranian ally, or do we continue to back the Free Syrian Army with its ties to Al-Queda?
Or better yet, do we leave them to it because no matter what we do we'll get blamed anyway?
Guess which one I'm hoping for
Someone who understands. If we get involved, no matter who we back, we lose.
And, as Baron mentioned, if we do nothing we also lose.
Frankly, as long as we get the UN's blessing so we're not going in solo, I'd rather pick the option that lets me sleep at night as an American citizen and save innocents if at all possible.
The UN is irrelevant. We also had its blessing with desert storm. Shortly after Al Qaeda attacks began.
My children have never been alive when we didn't have forces in the Middle East getting shot at, or blown up, or something. Thats just crazy.
Frankly, as long as we get the UN's blessing so we're not going in solo, I'd rather pick the option that lets me sleep at night as an American citizen and save innocents if at all possible.
This isn't a black and white issue, its a damn sight more complex.
Your solution is that we intervene to help a group with strong ties to a global terror movement responsible for the worst atrocity on US soil, a group that will likely set up shop there with training camps and access to whatever weapons and equipment they can get, possibly including Assad's chemical weapons, which they will then use to carry out further attacks on innocent civilians. You'd sleep at night with that outcome?
What's to stop us from going in and destroying the chemical weapon dumps alone, and retaliatory strikes on the airfields or bases that participate in confirmed civilian-only attacks?
Basically break their dangerous toys and give them a slap in the face whenever they shoot at bystanders instead of at the rebels. Not a great solution, but at least basically playing referee might minimize the casualties of innocents.
Besides, regardless of who we back, either side, if they win, will continue to use the gas and other weapons on the innocent civilians if we don't intervene, and I'd rather support the option that prevents current atrocities rather than maybe-possibly-might-happen hypothesized casualties in the future.
A lot of countries could stop it, if they really wanted to. I don't see the Germans or the French or the British or the Canadians suiting up. Or the Turks, for that matter. It's happening right next door to them. They could do it, if they chose.
You ever hear about the case in New York City (IIRC) where a woman was beaten to death while all her neighbors watched and listened? No one did anything because they all assumed that someone else would call the police or intervene.
Spoiler tags added, please show discretion when posting things like this.
Note you may find the pictures upsetting or unpleasant.
Reds8n
Spoiler:
Take a long look. These people died of sarin.
I want you to look at that dead baby in the first one, and tell me that it's OK that it happens again, so long is it doesn't happen to 'one of us' and that it's OK if we wait for someone else to put a stop to it. Because someone will stop it. We just have to wait a little longer and someone else will stand up. So what if more people die horribly in the mean time. I don't know any of them.
*sigh*
Frazz, I've sen a lot of violence and a lot of death and a lot of pain. I've seen men cheer with triumph and weep as their homes burned behind them. I've seen desperate parents throw their children to safety while they stayed and died. I've seen a lot of things.
But I've never seen a Texan afraid to stand up for what was right before.
You think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well? A lot of good men lost their lives in places they couldn't even pronounce, but in the end, they saved a lot more people.
If we're going to be blamed, I'd rather be blamed for saving lives than standing back and watching it all over again.
darkPrince010 wrote: What's to stop us from going in and destroying the chemical weapon dumps alone, and retaliatory strikes on the airfields or bases that participate in confirmed civilian-only attacks?
Basically break their dangerous toys and give them a slap in the face whenever they shoot at bystanders instead of at the rebels. Not a great solution, but at least basically playing referee might minimize the casualties of innocents.
Besides, regardless of who we back, either side, if they win, will continue to use the gas and other weapons on the innocent civilians if we don't intervene, and I'd rather support the option that prevents current atrocities rather than maybe-possibly-might-happen hypothesized casualties in the future.
I thought you wanted the backing of the UN ans not go it alone?
You're also assuming that we have sufficient intelligence to put boots on the ground, destroy the chemical weapons (and not release the inadvertently) and get back out without getting bogged down. All this in the middle of a civil war. Also I can't imagine the Russians and the Iranians (who are rumoured to have troops in Syria) will be thrilled, what do you do if they respond and the situation escalates?
Why wait until now, they've already shot and shelled civilians. Where was the courage of your convictions months ago.
BaronIveagh wrote: You think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well? A lot of good men lost their lives in places they couldn't even pronounce, but in the end, they saved a lot more people.
You mean WW2, were the US stayed out of the conflict until the Japanese attacked them? That WW2?
So what happens when collateral damage happens, and it will? Will you tell us to pull out because civilians have died?
Why wait until now, they've already shot and shelled civilians. Where was the courage of your convictions months ago.
I said the same thing some months back (so did Frazz, come to think of it.) Now look where waiting, hands off, has gotten people. We'll tear a nation apart that might have WMDs but we'll sit on our hands when it comes to one that's currently using them on civilians, if they don't have oil enough.
Frazz, I've sen a lot of violence and a lot of death and a lot of pain. I've seen men cheer with triumph and weep as their homes burned behind them. I've seen desperate parents throw their children to safety while they stayed and died. I've seen a lot of things.
I've seen attack ships on fire off Orion's Belt. Wait, what were talking about again.
But I've never seen a Texan afraid to stand up for what was right before.
*Right by whom?
*You want to do what all the lefties scream about Bush about.
*You want others to do it. No. Again, get a ticket to Turkey then go south. Leave my country out of it.
You think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well?
We weren't involved until we were attacked.
A lot of good men lost their lives in places they couldn't even pronounce, but in the end, they saved a lot more people.
Yea my grandfather died in that shindig. My other grandfather lost an eye. Rich man's war, poor man's fight comes to mind.
If we're going to be blamed, I'd rather be blamed for saving lives than standing back and watching it all over again.
No soldiers in there, it's counter productive, the Islamics end up hating us for it. Flatten their military from afar.
Airstrikes against government facilities, drones and missile strikes, sure, let's show the tinpot dictators how we flatten a military base without leaving air conditioned offices.
But no more soldiers on the ground, bring the ones we already have stuck in the deserts home to their families.
Why wait until now, they've already shot and shelled civilians. Where was the courage of your convictions months ago.
I said the same thing some months back (so did Frazz, come to think of it.) Now look where waiting, hands off, has gotten people. We'll tear a nation apart that might have WMDs but we'll sit on our hands when it comes to one that's currently using them on civilians, if they don't have oil enough.
Hey I'm with the lefties and learned my lesson. To paraphrase the Princess Bride "never get in a land war in the Middle East."
You mean WW2, were the US stayed out of the conflict until the Japanese attacked them? That WW2?
So what happens when collateral damage happens, and it will? Will you tell us to pull out because civilians have died?
No, there will always be innocent bystanders killed in war, it's an unpleasant truth. But there's a world of difference between when someone screws up and innocent people die, and deliberately planning the deaths of innocent people. This is far more horrific than any bombing you can imagine.
BaronIveagh wrote: I said the same thing some months back (so did Frazz, come to think of it.) Now look where waiting, hands off, has gotten people. We'll tear a nation apart that might have WMDs but we'll sit on our hands when it comes to one that's currently using them on civilians, if they don't have oil enough.
I'm not going to say that Iraq was a well chosen conflict, but if your solution is to intervene in every country that has WMDs then we're going to be very busy, we're going to be bringing a lot of young men and women home maimed, we're going to be presenting a lot of folded flags to families, and we're going to run our country further into debt and for what? The international community to point out our failings yet again when they won't stand up? For people to tell us to p*ss off once we've sorted out their problems again?
The West needs to get more like the Eldar or something, show up from above, grease the military of whichever side we're not cool with and let the rest attend to it's self. Prune out each time a regime crops up that starts murdering children and fanaticising and programming the youth.
And no, not nuke them, you want to drop something on the civilian population, give them books in arabic or whatever, which aren't the koran.
BaronIveagh wrote: No, there will always be innocent bystanders killed in war, it's an unpleasant truth. But there's a world of difference between when someone screws up and innocent people die, and deliberately planning the deaths of innocent people. This is far more horrific than any bombing you can imagine.
Going to ignore my point about WW2 then?
So if there will always be innocent bystanders killed why must we intervene? If we do and we kill any innocent civilians then we're going to receive more critiscism than Assad and his forces have. I haven't heard you once make a compelling argument as to why the US in particular should intervene instead of any other country.
I'm not going to say that Iraq was a well chosen conflict, but if your solution is to intervene in every country that has WMDs then we're going to be very busy, we're going to be bringing a lot of young men and women home maimed, we're going to be presenting a lot of folded flags to families, and we're going to run our country further into debt and for what? The international community to point out our failings yet again when they won't stand up? For people to tell us to p*ss off once we've sorted out their problems again?
Every country that has them? No. Every country that uses them innocent men, women, and children? Sure.
People on this board are hot to hang men from the safety of their computer chairs when there's no risk to anyone they might know, but their righteousness seems to shrivel up and vanish when confronted with the possibility that men might die in doing right.
Would men die? Yes. Men die doing right every day. Should firemen not go into a burning building? Should policemen leave you at the mercy of armed robbers? Should ambulance drivers avoid the site of a bomb blast because they might be killed as well? Do you complain that they saved someone you don't know from a horrific death?
Do you complain that these men risk their own death to do the right thing? Do you complain that their work burdens your wallet with taxes in doing good?
I'll give you one good reason: Because if we don't, who will? You can't make people do right, you can only choose to do it yourself.
I'm not going to say that Iraq was a well chosen conflict, but if your solution is to intervene in every country that has WMDs then we're going to be very busy, we're going to be bringing a lot of young men and women home maimed, we're going to be presenting a lot of folded flags to families, and we're going to run our country further into debt and for what? The international community to point out our failings yet again when they won't stand up? For people to tell us to p*ss off once we've sorted out their problems again?
Every country that has them? No. Every country that uses them innocent men, women, and children? Sure.
People on this board are hot to hang men from the safety of their computer chairs when there's no risk to anyone they might know, but their righteousness seems to shrivel up and vanish when confronted with the possibility that men might die in doing right.
Would men die? Yes. Men die doing right every day. Should firemen not go into a burning building? Should policemen leave you at the mercy of armed robbers? Should ambulance drivers avoid the site of a bomb blast because they might be killed as well? Do you complain that they saved someone you don't know from a horrific death?
Do you complain that these men risk their own death to do the right thing? Do you complain that their work burdens your wallet with taxes in doing good?
Yes very righteous very righteous.
Did you support the Iraq War?
darkPrince010 wrote: What's to stop us from going in and destroying the chemical weapon dumps alone, and retaliatory strikes on the airfields or bases that participate in confirmed civilian-only attacks?
Basically break their dangerous toys and give them a slap in the face whenever they shoot at bystanders instead of at the rebels. Not a great solution, but at least basically playing referee might minimize the casualties of innocents.
Besides, regardless of who we back, either side, if they win, will continue to use the gas and other weapons on the innocent civilians if we don't intervene, and I'd rather support the option that prevents current atrocities rather than maybe-possibly-might-happen hypothesized casualties in the future.
I thought you wanted the backing of the UN ans not go it alone?
You're also assuming that we have sufficient intelligence to put boots on the ground, destroy the chemical weapons (and not release the inadvertently) and get back out without getting bogged down. All this in the middle of a civil war. Also I can't imagine the Russians and the Iranians (who are rumoured to have troops in Syria) will be thrilled, what do you do if they respond and the situation escalates?
I do want the backing of the UN for that process, and I'm not assuming we have the intelligence at all. I'm saying that would be the best way I can figure to save syrian civilians without getting bogged down in fighting on behalf of the rebels or the syrian government.
Plus, as for Russia, it would be akin to the Chinese presence in the Korean War. They might funnel troops in, but provided we don't have a dumbfuck general pressing into Russia itself (Hard to do when it's not an adjacent country), while their presence might make an ensuing fight harder, I doubt they would respond as aggressively as you think.
Why wait until now, they've already shot and shelled civilians. Where was the courage of your convictions months ago.
Nice strawman. I personally have wanted the US to have a similar presence as Libya, if not even stronger, in Syria since their rebellion began. But good try.
BaronIveagh wrote: Every country that has them? No. Every country that uses them innocent men, women, and children? Sure.
People on this board are hot to hang men from the safety of their computer chairs when there's no risk to anyone they might know, but their righteousness seems to shrivel up and vanish when confronted with the possibility that men might die in doing right.
So are we doing right in disarming Assad? Are we doing right in helping shore up the FSA with its ties to Al-Queda? Are we doing right in helping them gain a foothold in another country? Are we doing right helping them get set up with training camps and access to weapons?
Strange definition of right you have there.
BaronIveagh wrote: Would men die? Yes. Men die doing right every day. Should firemen not go into a burning building? Should policemen leave you at the mercy of armed robbers? Should ambulance drivers avoid the site of a bomb blast because they might be killed as well? Do you complain that they saved someone you don't know from a horrific death?
Do you complain that these men risk their own death to do the right thing? Do you complain that their work burdens your wallet with taxes in doing good?
There is a world of difference between a firefighter saving someone from a burning building, and sending troops to fight in a conflict that we'll be damned for no matter what we do. What is the point of the US military again? Is it to ensure that the world complies with international law, or is it for defense? How will intervening in Syria help make the US more secure?
You seem to be trying to simplify it and back the issue black an white when all we have are varying shades of very dark grey to work with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote: I do want the backing of the UN for that process, and I'm not assuming we have the intelligence at all. I'm saying that would be the best way I can figure to save syrian civilians without getting bogged down in fighting on behalf of the rebels or the syrian government.
So you don't have anything that is either realistic, or workable. You want to send in troops on the basis of some ideal whilst ignoring the very real ramifications.
darkPrince010 wrote: Plus, as for Russia, it would be akin to the Chinese presence in the Korean War. They might funnel troops in, but provided we don't have a dumbfuck general pressing into Russia itself (Hard to do when it's not an adjacent country), while their presence might make an ensuing fight harder, I doubt they would respond as aggressively as you think.
Really? You don't think that the Russians might be slightly upset at losing a vital port, a strategic ally and someone buying a lot of their weapons?
darkPrince010 wrote: Nice strawman. I personally have wanted the US to have a similar presence as Libya, if not even stronger, in Syria since their rebellion began. But good try.
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: BTW: the US was deeply involved in WW2 long before that point. We even committed troops as 'volunteers'.
Yeah, both sides had American volunteers. Doesn't change the fact that the US only got officially involved once it was attacked.
So are we doing right in disarming Assad? Are we doing right in helping shore up the FSA with its ties to Al-Queda? Are we doing right in helping them gain a foothold in another country? Are we doing right helping them get set up with training camps and access to weapons?
Strange definition of right you have there.
We've already been setting them up with guns and training camps. CIA has been backing the rebels for a year now.
I could make several other points, but I know at least one of you would insist that it's a Godwin (despite the fact that we're talking about a totalitarian regime practicing inhuman acts on civilians) to compare it to past events and their repercussions.
So I'll just say this: it would be better for the US and it's allies to replace Assad with the FSA than it would be for this to continue.
Here's a reason that even you might grasp: AQ sees the war in Syria as prime recruiting and training ground for exactly the reason that Assad is doing these things, and the US is seen to be sitting back and letting it happen. They play it up that only they, and not the west, care about the people of Syria.
There is a world of difference between a firefighter saving someone from a burning building, and sending troops to fight in a conflict that we'll be damned for no matter what we do. What is the point of the US military again? Is it to ensure that the world complies with international law, or is it for defense? How will intervening in Syria help make the US more secure?
How does sending US troops to assist in natural disaster relief make the US more secure?
Do we do it to be more secure, or do we do it because, to do nothing, would be to abandon basic humanity?
I am. And I don't want to help these people. Does it suck they got gassed? Yup, sure does. Does it mean we stick our hands into it? No. Sure we have done it before, but I think we've learned our lesson. Helping the Arab 3rd world countries gets us nowhere. Then we'll just get dragged into another insurgency and we'll stay there for years wasting US lives on a worthless endeavor. We're doing it now, I'm participating, and it sucks.
No thanks, I'll go back to Fort Couch and continue to watch the middle east destroy itself. They're pretty good at it. There is not a single thing you can say to me to convince me otherwise.
BaronIveagh wrote: We've already been setting them up with guns and training camps. CIA has been backing the rebels for a year now.
I meant AQ, not the FSA apologies if that was unclear
BaronIveagh wrote: So I'll just say this: it would be better for the US and it's allies to replace Assad with the FSA than it would be for this to continue.
Here's a reason that even you might grasp: AQ sees the war in Syria as prime recruiting and training ground for exactly the reason that Assad is doing these things, and the US is seen to be sitting back and letting it happen. They play it up that only they, and not the west, care about the people of Syria.
AQ have been managing to train and get recruits long before Syria's current unrest. Nice try though, I liked the attempt at a thinly veiled insult, bit obvious and unnecessary though for my tastes.
So what you're suggesting is that we help those loyal to AQ so that way instead of AQ getting recruits (not that I believe its a valid reason, but we'll follow your logic) they instead have a sympathetic government that they can obtain arms, training and recruits from, and a country that is rebuilding so they can make off with military hardware and/or establish themselves. So instead of giving them some cheap propaganda (that they'll be spouting in any event) we can now ensure that they receive substantial and material support after.
Oh, and remind us how well just trying to help civilians worked out for us in Somalia. Isn't there an Islamist group there with ties to AQ destabilising the region?
BaronIveagh wrote: How does sending US troops to assist in natural disaster relief make the US more secure?
Do we do it to be more secure, or do we do it because, to do nothing, would be to abandon basic humanity?
How does helping out in natural disaster relief male matters worse for the US or increase the power of a terrorist group, or our enemies in a region? That's right, it doesn't. Any more facetious comparisons or examples to make?
Once again. how will intervening in Syria make the United States safer?
Why must the US be the country to intervene, you still have not made a compelling case for out intervention.
Finally why should the United States military risk its men and women in a conflict that will not benefit us, nor make us more secure, just so YOU feel that YOU are doing something good?
I am. And I don't want to help these people. Does it suck they got gassed? Yup, sure does. Does it mean we stick our hands into it? No. Sure we have done it before, but I think we've learned our lesson. Helping the Arab 3rd world countries gets us nowhere. Then we'll just get dragged into another insurgency and we'll stay there for years wasting US lives on a worthless endeavor. We're doing it now, I'm participating, and it sucks.
No thanks, I'll go back to Fort Couch and continue to watch the middle east destroy itself. They're pretty good at it. There is not a single thing you can say to me to convince me otherwise.
I feel the same way about South America. That said, this is one of the few things that would bring me back to a place like that. I know what poison gas is like. You would not believe how painful it is or how long it hurts if you survive. That someone would give the order to use it on civilians, I can't see myself as a human being without opposing the people who would do it, and stopping them by whatever means necessary.
People on this board are hot to hang men from the safety of their computer chairs when there's no risk to anyone they might know, but their righteousness seems to shrivel up and vanish when confronted with the possibility that men might die in doing right.
Dang, you may just want to use the detail brush vice the 12 inch roller when you paint this way, Stud.
I suspect a few of us have gone into harm's way more than once, and/or have immediate family members that have and/or will, and have supported various military actions when we did have ass flesh on the line. Believing or not believing involvement in this particular conflict is a good or bad thing is not necessarily related to a person's willingness to accept risk. It may have to do with many other factors.
I am. And I don't want to help these people. Does it suck they got gassed? Yup, sure does. Does it mean we stick our hands into it? No. Sure we have done it before, but I think we've learned our lesson. Helping the Arab 3rd world countries gets us nowhere. Then we'll just get dragged into another insurgency and we'll stay there for years wasting US lives on a worthless endeavor. We're doing it now, I'm participating, and it sucks.
No thanks, I'll go back to Fort Couch and continue to watch the middle east destroy itself. They're pretty good at it. There is not a single thing you can say to me to convince me otherwise.
I feel the same way about South America. That said, this is one of the few things that would bring me back to a place like that. I know what poison gas is like. You would not believe how painful it is or how long it hurts if you survive. That someone would give the order to use it on civilians, I can't see myself as a human being without opposing the people who would do it, and stopping them by whatever means necessary.
What agents have you been exposed to? That is quite a statement to be making saying you have had WMDs/Chemical agents deployed on you before. CS and Chlorine gas doesn't really count as they aren't considered WMDs by the UN(as far as I know).
And for what purpose would sending our soldiers in the face of these same chemicals? I said it before, there is nothing to gain.
So, by sending in troops it will help you sleep at night, knowing we saved people?
So what about our soldiers that die from sarin in the following "help" we give?
Either way, its a lose lose situation, and people will die no matter what the outcome is.
You cant save everyone, as cruel as it sounds, you simply cant.
I'd rather leave another country to get on with it than lose more troops in something that really shouldnt have anything to do with us.
We get involved in too much as it is.
Here's a reason that even you might grasp: AQ sees the war in Syria as prime recruiting and training ground for exactly the reason that Assad is doing these things, and the US is seen to be sitting back and letting it happen. They play it up that only they, and not the west, care about the people of Syria.
So instead we make it a training and recruiting ground where they get to fight non-muslims, and they still accomplish what they want? Hate to break it to you, but trying to fight an IO campaign against AQ is extremely difficult. They WILL turn it against us, just as the Taliban do to us here in Afghanistan.
AQ have been managing to train and get recruits long before Syria's current unrest. Nice try though, I liked the attempt at a thinly veiled insult, bit obvious and unnecessary though for my tastes.
There's a big difference between the steady trickle of recruits they have been getting and the short of recruiting opportunities they have here. Experienced, motivated men are much more dangerous than inexperienced, motivated men.
So instead of giving them some cheap propaganda (that they'll be spouting in any event) we can now ensure that they receive substantial and material support after.
Except that position has almost as many assumptions in it as mine,
Oh, and remind us how well just trying to help civilians worked out for us in Somalia. Isn't there an Islamist group there with ties to AQ destabilising the region?
Yes, well, when we utterly abandon our former allies, they tend to be a bit ungrateful about it and might just join our enemies. Just ask Fidel Castro.
How does helping out in natural disaster relief male matters worse for the US or increase the power of a terrorist group, or our enemies in a region? That's right, it doesn't.
Are you looking for a specifc ocassion that humanitarian aid went ot back terrorists or just in general?
Finally why should the United States military risk its men and women in a conflict that will not benefit us, nor make us more secure, just so YOU feel that YOU are doing something good?
That's the first good question you've asked. I will admit my own experiences color my judgment on this issue, much as Firehead's do his and probably Frazz's do him.
Firehead158 wrote: What agents have you been exposed to? That is quite a statement to be making saying you have had WMDs/Chemical agents deployed on you before. CS and Chlorine gas doesn't really count as they aren't considered WMDs by the UN(as far as I know).
And for what purpose would sending our soldiers in the face of these same chemicals? I said it before, there is nothing to gain.
Did he answer whether or not he was in the military, and in what capacity, or did I miss that?
Firehead158 wrote: What agents have you been exposed to? That is quite a statement to be making saying you have had WMDs/Chemical agents deployed on you before. CS and Chlorine gas doesn't really count as they aren't considered WMDs by the UN(as far as I know).
And for what purpose would sending our soldiers in the face of these same chemicals? I said it before, there is nothing to gain.
Did he answer whether or not he was in the military, and in what capacity, or did I miss that?
No, he didn't. It is merely implied by the way he is speaking of his "experience", whatever that may be.
Adding my own two pffenigs we should avoid going into Syria like the plague. If they want to then the Arab league can get troops together and perform peace keeping ops.
But I suppose the Israelis wouldn't like a unified force getting ground experience in combined operations. And the Arab states have various conflicting interests.....
Which is why they should settle it themselves...
ad infinitum.
BaronIveagh wrote: There's a big difference between the steady trickle of recruits they have been getting and the short of recruiting opportunities they have here. Experienced, motivated men are much more dangerous than inexperienced, motivated men.
You mean like those men that are fighting in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, that are currently fighting in Syria? Those "inexperienced" men? Do you think that if the FSA wins that the AQ veterans from Syria and those sympathetic to them will beat their Ak-47s into ploughshares?
BaronIveagh wrote: Except that position has almost as many assumptions in it as mine,
Those assumptions have a pretty firm basis in reality, not a feeling to do something. So what other result do you think is plausible when a government that is sympathetic to terrorist groups takes over? Do you think that they won't reward them, gift them with weapons, allow them to recruit? Do you think that a terrorist group isn't going to take advantage of instability to set up shop (like Afghanistan)? In you need any clues try looking at the Lebanon (right next door to Syria), and all the terrorist training that took place in the Bequaa Valley (including Islamists and the IRA)
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, well, when we utterly abandon our former allies, they tend to be a bit ungrateful about it and might just join our enemies. Just ask Fidel Castro.
And in this case they aren't our allies - the FSA are allies with AQ (the CIA are using them as mercenaries), and Assad is allies with Russia and Iran. When the conflict is over no matter which side wins the US will not be in good standing with them, so why do you want to risk our troops for that?
BaronIveagh wrote: Are you looking for a specifc ocassion that humanitarian aid went ot back terrorists or just in general?
So now you're shifting the goal posts from "natural disaster relief" to "humanitarian aid" to try and make your point instead of dealing with the question that was asked.
BaronIveagh wrote: That's the first good question you've asked. I will admit my own experiences color my judgment on this issue, much as Firehead's do his and probably Frazz's do him.
If its a good question then maybe you'd oblige me with an answer - why should the United States military risk its men and women in a conflict that will not benefit us, nor make us more secure, just so YOU feel that YOU are doing something good?
Also, if its that important to you will you go to Syria yourself if the United States chooses not to deploy?
Maybe you can answer the other questions that you chose to ignore too;
How will intervening in Syria make the United States safer?
Why must the US be the country to intervene? You still have not made a compelling case for out intervention
Have you served in the United States military, and if so in what capacity?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firehead158 wrote: No, he didn't. It is merely implied by the way he is speaking of his "experience", whatever that may be.
No, he didn't. It is merely implied by the way he is speaking of his "experience", whatever that may be.
Well, mine doesn't 'count' as it was Chlorine. I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.
Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 1k+ tonnes of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.
... I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.
Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven. Very poser-ish to say stuff like that, the non-disclosure stuff, and the failing to name names, time frames, or places. I could be wrong, and that's okay because 9 out of 10 people that aren't girls trying to get picked up at a bar, won't believe what you just said.
BaronIveagh wrote: I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.
Well, if you hold no military rank why the need to wait for the US to decide to send troops in? You could take Frazzled's suggestion and hop a plane to Turkey. That way YOU can feel like YOU are doing something, and the US doesn't have to get involved.
BaronIveagh wrote: Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 2k+ tones of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.
Weren't you the one screaming conspiracy in the Boston Bombings thread and telling everyone not to take the official word at face value, and yet here you are jumping in both feet first at these reports. I guess its a funny old world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Firehead158 wrote: Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven. Very poser-ish to say stuff like that, the non-disclosure stuff, and the failing to name names, time frames, or places. I could be wrong, and that's okay because 9 out of 10 people that aren't girls trying to get picked up at a bar, won't believe what you just said.
... I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.
Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven. Very poser-ish to say stuff like that, the non-disclosure stuff, and the failing to name names, time frames, or places. I could be wrong, and that's okay because 9 out of 10 people that aren't girls trying to get picked up at a bar, won't believe what you just said.
Well, as a research lab employee who HAS been exposed (briefly) to chlorine gas (And that was a gakky experience, let me tell you) as well as more organic solvent vapors than I can name, I concur with his view on it and how we should treat individuals who weaponize it, regardless of whatever Baron's experience is.
... I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.
Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven. Very poser-ish to say stuff like that, the non-disclosure stuff, and the failing to name names, time frames, or places. I could be wrong, and that's okay because 9 out of 10 people that aren't girls trying to get picked up at a bar, won't believe what you just said.
Well, as a research lab employee who HAS been exposed (briefly) to chlorine gas (And that was a gakky experience, let me tell you) as well as more organic solvent vapors than I can name, I concur with his view on it and how we should treat individuals who weaponize it, regardless of whatever Baron's experience is.
Well in the case of Chlorine gas, my understanding is that in order to deploy it widely to be weaponized, most of the gas is dispersed rapidly through explosion, which in turn makes the majority of the gas disperse to the point of it being virtually non-lethal. My reference is when there was a 10K gallon tank was used as a SVBIED in attempt to delivery Chlorine gas, which failed miserably. I don't have a ton of experience in CBRN.
Now, if we are talking REAL blood, nerve, and blister agents...let them burn themselves. I don't particularly care. I refuse to agree with sending my battle brothers and sister into harms way for no significant gain, especially when we are talking about WMDs.
darkPrince010 wrote: Well, as a research lab employee who HAS been exposed (briefly) to chlorine gas (And that was a gakky experience, let me tell you) as well as more organic solvent vapors than I can name, I concur with his view on it and how we should treat individuals who weaponize it, regardless of whatever Baron's experience is
So you're a lab research assistant who wants to send US troops to Syria to fight and die so you can sleep better at night. Nevermind the fact that we're still not going to win in the long run, and that it will not make the country safer?
I'm torn on this, because there are 2 really good, really compelling, and totally diametrically opposite arguments at play here.
A.) It's not our problem
And it isn't, really. Syria is not in the national security interests of the United States. I think a much stronger case could be made for going back to Somalia then can be made for Syria. We have a lot of problems at home that can use our money, and we have a lot of children that need their fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters and husbands and wives at home, not bleeding out in ditches in yet another IED ridden hellhole for a people that we all know perfectly damn well will be burning American flags within 5 years anyway.
B.) With great power comes great responsibility
The United States has the greatest military machine in the history of war. Our great power in this arena requires us to act as we can to stop atrocities when other would not or cannot act. If you saw a old lady being mugged, and you were capable of stopping it, would you just walk by whistling? It's not different when you're a nation, not if you're a great, exceptional nation. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, and all that. Furthermore, our commander-in-chief has already publicly stated we would take action if this occurred. If we then do not, our reputation and soft power would be unambiguously and perhaps irrevocably harmed.
Which do we pick? Hell, man - I don't know. I am mostly in camp A. We could be taking better care of the wounded veterans that return now - I'd like to see us work on that rather then manufacture more of them.
But I think I'd also be willing to support a Libya-type action - where we spearhead either a UN or NATO enforcement action and we supply aircraft and aid. No boots on the ground under any circumstances.
BaronIveagh wrote: Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 1k+ tonnes of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.
Just in case you thought I wasn't answering this - provide the Israelis with the intelligence, weapon systems, logistics and political cover to obliterate the storage facilities. No US casualties from that.
CptJake wrote: By the way, CS gas does count as a chemical weapon if used in war according to the UN Chemical Weapons Convention.
It can be used for law enforcement though...
You're right, but it is not a WMD. I probably should have clarified my standpoint. Is it a chemical? Yes. Its used as a non-lethal weapon, however. If that is what he was referencing, whoopie-dee-do. I've been exposed to CS before. It sucks, yes, but the pain is temporary, and can be dealt with. Learn to fight through it, and you're good to go. It is not a good point to say "i've been hit with CS, it sucks. I think we should go to war because of my experience dealing with a non-lethal chemical".
Ouze wrote: I'm torn on this, because there are 2 really good, really compelling, and totally diametrically opposite arguments at play here.
B.) With great power comes great responsibility
The United States has the greatest military machine in the history of war. Our great power in this arena requires us to act as we can to stop atrocities when other would not or cannot act. If you saw a old lady being mugged, and you were capable of stopping it, would you just walk by whistling? It's not different when you're a nation, not if you're a great, exceptional nation. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, and all that. Furthermore, our commander-in-chief has already publicly stated we would take action if this occurred. If we then do not, our reputation and soft power would be unambiguously and perhaps irrevocably harmed.
Is that old lady's relatives going to try and kill us later because they don't like us? Because that's sort of what happens if we back the FSA seeing as they're in bed with AQ
Ouze wrote: Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?
No, the argument is that because the FAS is in bed with AQ then supporting them and helping them overthrow Assad would be a pretty bad idea - Syria get ruled by a group sympathetic to AQ, AQ can set up shop here (like they did after the instability in Afghanistan), as well as receive military and logistical support and supplies from the FSA who are grateful for helping them a la Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley for Hizbollah and various other terrorist groups, not to mention have a cadre of war veterans who could be persuaded to join their cause.
Ouze wrote: Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?
No, but if I save that old lady, and because I had to constantly supervise and assist her stay with her for 5 years while she recovered from her mugging, then her grandson came of age and blew me up, I'd probably think twice about having helped her in the first place.
Ouze wrote: Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?
For the last several years we have been trying to kill AQ guys all across the globe. Sending in troops to now aid them sounds more than an atmospheric level of coockoo.
Didn't we do that in Afghanistan in the late 80s? How did that work out for gratitude again?
Ouze wrote: Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?
For the last several years we have been trying to kill AQ guys all across the globe. Sending in troops to now aid them sounds more than an atmospheric level of coockoo.
Didn't we do that in Afghanistan in the late 80s? How did that work out for gratitude again?
The lack of reading comprehension in your post is legendary (even in hell). To be clear, I never suggested aiding Al Qaeda at any point so please do not pretend that I did.
Ouze wrote: Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?
No, but if I save that old lady, and because I had to constantly supervise and assist her stay with her for 5 years while she recovered from her mugging, then her grandson came of age and blew me up, I'd probably think twice about having helped her in the first place.
Well, I would respond to you, but due to this earlier post, I'm grateful I do not need to waste my time doing so.
Firehead158 wrote: There is not a single thing you can say to me to convince me otherwise.
Mr. Burning wrote: I too have suffered the sting of chlorine. Which is why I now wear goggles at the pool.
I know how my Syrian brothers and sisters feel.
Oho, the chlorine in a pool is nothing. The straight gas attacks water molecules in your lungs and the air itself, converting it straight to wonderful hydrochloric acid. Luckily my exposure resulted in coughing and a sore throat/watering eyes and a mild rash, but that was from a brief unexpected whiff.
dreadclaw69 wrote:
darkPrince010 wrote:
Well, as a research lab employee who HAS been exposed (briefly) to chlorine gas (And that was a gakky experience, let me tell you) as well as more organic solvent vapors than I can name, I concur with his view on it and how we should treat individuals who weaponize it, regardless of whatever Baron's experience is
So you're a lab research assistant who wants to send US troops to Syria to fight and die so you can sleep better at night.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that as a tax-paying citizen I should shut up about anything not directly related to my profession. Be sure to remember that next time you are in a discussion about genetics or genetics medicine, because that's only a discussion I can have!
dreadclaw69 wrote:
Nevermind the fact that we're still not going to win in the long run, and that it will not make the country safer?
Dunno about you, but knowing that our troops personally secured and destroyed chemical weapons makes me a hell of a lot more assured then sitting back and just letting the weapons exchange hands willy-nilly before being shipped overseas in say...a pressure cooker?
Mr. Burning wrote: I too have suffered the sting of chlorine. Which is why I now wear goggles at the pool.
I know how my Syrian brothers and sisters feel.
Whilst we establish if nerve gas, the same nerve gas used to massacre villages of peasants by Saddam or the subways of Tokyo by terrorist, has or has not been deployed against civilians including the elderly and children, let's go easy on the rapier wit in this thread.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: [Whilst we establish if nerve gas, the same nerve gas used to massacre villages of peasants by Saddam or the subways of Tokyo by terrorist, has or has not been deployed against civilians
Indeed, I'm not confident that it has been established. So far we have only the Israeli's word for this; and as they rarely work in the national security interest of this country, I'd prefer that we establish it ourselves before going forward with any activity, or inactivity.
I suppose Britain and France are somewhat more trustworthy, but I'd prefer a surfeit of first-party evidence.
As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder's men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. "Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags," said Abu Khuder. "They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?" But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. "We meet almost every day," he said. "We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations." Abu Khuder's men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.
Abu Khuder spoke later at length. He reclined on a pile of cushions in a house in Mohassen, resting his left arm which had been hit by a sniper's bullet and was wrapped in plaster and bandages. Four teenage boys kneeled in a tight crescent in front of him, craning their necks and listening with awe. Other villagers in the room looked uneasy.
Abu Khuder had been an officer in a mechanised Syrian border force called the Camel Corps when he took up arms against the regime. He fought the security forces with a pistol and a light hunting rifle, gaining a reputation as one of the bravest and most ruthless men in Deir el-Zour province and helped to form one of the first FSA battalions.
He soon became disillusioned with what he saw as the rebel army's disorganisation and inability to strike at the regime, however. He illustrated this by describing an attempt to attack the government garrison in Mohassen. Fortified in a former textile factory behind concrete walls, sand bags, machine-gun turrets and armoured vehicles, the garrison was immune to the rebels' puny attempt at assault.
"When we attacked the base with the FSA we tried everything and failed," said Abu Khuder. "Even with around 200 men attacking from multiple fronts they couldn't injure a single government soldier and instead wasted 1.5m Syrian pounds [£14,500] on firing ammunition at the walls."
Then a group of devout and disciplined Islamist fighters in the nearby village offered to help. They summoned an expert from Damascus and after two days of work handed Abu Khuder their token of friendship: a truck rigged with two tonnes of explosives.
Two men drove the truck close to the gate of the base and detonated it remotely. The explosion was so large, Abu Khuder said, that windows and metal shutters were blown hundreds of metres, trees were ripped up by their roots and a huge crater was left in the middle of the road.
The next day the army left and the town of Mohassen was free.
"The car bomb cost us 100,000 Syrian pounds and fewer than 10 people were involved [in the operation]," he said. "Within two days of the bomb expert arriving we had it ready. We didn't waste a single bullet.
"Al-Qaida has experience in these military activities and it knows how to deal with it."
After the bombing, Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida's organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.
"The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically," he said. "Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.
"The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.
"In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience," he told the gathered people. "Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion."
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: "So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?"
"[Al-Qaida's] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state," he replied. "Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah's jurisdiction. If you don't commit sins there is nothing to fear."
Religious rhetoric
Religious and sectarian rhetoric has taken a leading role in the Syrian revolution from the early days. This is partly because of the need for outside funding and weapons, which are coming through well-established Muslim networks, and partly because religion provides a useful rallying cry for fighters, with promises of martyrdom and redemption.
Almost every rebel brigade has adopted a Sunni religious name with rhetoric exalting jihad and martyrdom, even when the brigades are run by secular commanders and manned by fighters who barely pray.
"Religion is a major rallying force in this revolution – look at Ara'our [a rabid sectarian preacher], he is hysterical and we don't like him but he offers unquestionable support to the fighters and they need it," the activist said later.
Another FSA commander in Deir el-Zour city explained the role of religion in the uprising: "Religion is the best way to impose discipline. Even if the fighter is not religious he can't disobey a religious order in battle."
Al-Qaida has existed in this parched region of eastern Syria, where the desert and the tribes straddle the border with Iraq, for almost a decade.
During the years of American occupation of Iraq, Deir el-Zour became the gateway through which thousands of foreign jihadis flooded to fight the holy war. Many senior insurgents took refuge from American and Iraqi government raids in the villages and deserts of Deir el-Zour.
Osama, a young jihadi from Abu Khuder's unit with a kind smile, was 17 in 2003 when the Americans invaded Iraq, he said. He ran away from home and joined the thousands of other Syrians who crossed the porous border and went to fight. Like most of those volunteers, at first he was inspired by a mixture of nationalistic and tribal allegiances, but later religion became his sole motivation.
After returning to Syria he drifted closer to the jihadi ideology. It was dangerous then, and some of his friends were imprisoned by the regime, which for years played a double game, allowing jihadis to filter across the borders to fight the Americans while at the same time keeping them tightly under control at home.
In the first months of the Syrian uprising, he joined the protesters in the street, and when some of his relatives were killed he defected and joined the Free Syrian Army.
"I decided to join the others," he said. "But then I became very disappointed with the FSA. When they fought they were great, but then most of the time they sat in their rooms doing nothing but smoke and gossip and chat on Skype."
Fed up with his commanders' bickering and fighting over money, he turned to another fighting group based in the village of Shahail, 50 miles west of Mohassen, which has become the de facto capital of al-Qaida in Deir el-Zour. More than 20 of its young men were killed in Iraq. In Shahail the al-Qaida fighters drive around in white SUVs with al-Qaida flags fluttering.
The group there was led by a pious man. He knew a couple of them from his time in Iraq. One day, the group's leader – a Saudi who covered his hair with a red scarf and carried a small Kalashnikov, in the style of Bin Laden – visited Mohassen. He gave a long sermon during the funeral of a local commander, telling the audience how jihad was the only way to lead a revolution against the infidel regime of Bashar al-Assad, and how they, the Syrians, were not only victims of the regime but also of the hypocrisy of the west, which refused to help them.
"They were committed," said Osama. "They obeyed their leader and never argued. In the FSA, if you have 10 people they usually split and form three groups." The jihadis, by contrast, used their time "in useful things, even the chores are divided equally".
Osama joined the group. "He [the Saudi] is a very good man, he spends his days teaching us. You ask him anything and he will answer you with verses from the Qur'an, you want to read the Qur'an you can read. You want to study bomb-making he will teach you."
In the pre-revolutionary days when the regime was strong it would take a year to recruit someone to the secret cause of jihad. "Now, thanks to God, we are working in the open and many people are joining in," said Osama.
In Shahail we interviewed Saleem Abu Yassir, a village elder and the commander of the local FSA brigade. He sat in a room filled with tribal fighters and machine-guns. The relationship with al-Qaida had been very difficult, he said, with the jihadis being secretive and despising the FSA and even calling them infidel secularists. But now they had opened up, co-operating with other rebel groups.
"Are they good fighters?" he threw the question rhetorically into the room. "Yes, they are, but they have a problem with executions. They capture a soldier and they put a pistol to his head and shoot him. We have religious courts and we have to try people before executing them. This abundance of killing is what we fear. We fear they are trying to bring us back to the days of Iraq and we have seen what that achieved."
Osama had told me that his group was very cautious about not repeating the Iraq experience – "they admit they made a lot of mistakes in Iraq and they are keen to avoid it", he said – but others, including a young doctor working for the revolution, were not convinced. The opposition needed to admit Al-Qaida were among them, and be on their guard.
"Who kidnapped the foreign engineers who worked in the nearby oilfield?" he asked. "They have better financing than the FSA and we have to admit they are here.
"They are stealing the revolution from us and they are working for the day that comes after."
Add in that Al-Nursa, perhaps the most effective fighting force in the FSA, openly declared its affiliation with AQ and it doesn't look so rosy
Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven.
*shrug* Fair enough. One of the cooks on the USS Boxer a few years back heading to deployment in Iraq made a bet (they bet their hats) with a Marine Corps cook that he could serve more omelets than the corps cook could. The navy guy won by making everyone the same ham and cheese omelet while the corps cook tried to make a specific omelet for each person.
If you come back to the US on the Boxer ask them if it's true. The navy cook's name was Maurer or something (IIRC)
Dreadklaw, you do realize that things don't actually work that way, right? (And it's called a contract).
That said: You made your best points earlier. Dodging my question by stating that it's odd for me to accept this evidence (of people being killed with poison gas) while I point out that until something goes before a judge that no one is technically guilty of anything is disingenuous. I at no point denied that the people killed were dead from a bomb.
And it does not actually answer my question, though I have stopped to consider your earlier points as quite likely valid.
Let me clarify. I don't dispute AQ is present and on scene. What I'm not clear on is that they're there by invitation, and not just crashing the party?
I'd have to presume that any aid rendered would contingent on expelling the jihadists.
darkPrince010 wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that as a tax-paying citizen I should shut up about anything not directly related to my profession. Be sure to remember that next time you are in a discussion about genetics or genetics medicine, because that's only a discussion I can have!
Yay!! You read the link I posted about what a straw man argument was and then used it yourself!! No, my point was that its quite easy for you to sit in your lab and demand that the US sends troops into a country to fight and die so you can sleep at night, knowing full well that you won't be the one being called upon to fight.
Nice try at mis-direction though. Bit obvious though.
darkPrince010 wrote: Dunno about you, but knowing that our troops personally secured and destroyed chemical weapons makes me a hell of a lot more assured then sitting back and just letting the weapons exchange hands willy-nilly before being shipped overseas in say...a pressure cooker?
You're assuming that we need boots on the ground to destroy them. And you also ignore the long term ramifications of allowing AQ to get a foothold in the region.
Yes, because two men from Chechnya, with no ties to militant groups, or in receipt of support from militant groups did just that in Boston. To quote your goodself As far as attempting to tie two separate events together so that was spectacularly dreadful
Ouze wrote: Let me clarify. I don't dispute AQ is present and on scene. What I'm not clear on is that they're there by invitation, and not just crashing the party?
I'd have to presume that any aid rendered would contingent on expelling the jihadists.
Good luck doing that without having both parties breathing down your neck.
BaronIveagh wrote: Dreadklaw, you do realize that things don't actually work that way, right? (And it's called a contract).
That said: You made your best points earlier. Dodging my question by stating that it's odd for me to accept this evidence (of people being killed with poison gas) while I point out that until something goes before a judge that no one is technically guilty of anything is disingenuous. I at no point denied that the people killed were dead from a bomb.
And it does not actually answer my question, though I have stopped to consider your earlier points as quite likely valid.
Dreadclaw btw
No, but you are taking the reports about nerve gas on face value and not being as critical of those as you were with the events in Boston (you know with your conspiracy theories, about Gitmo, about the corrupt FBI and Boston PD etc.) But you are happy to send troops to fight and die on little to no concrete evidence
I didn't dodge your question. In fact I answered every point you made. However I'm still waiting to hear a compelling case from you, with all your tacticool experience, as to why the US needs to send in troops to Syria just so YOU can feel better. Or why you want the US to intervene and not another country.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But it's use has been confirmed right? Just not who used it?
If that is the case. Does anymore evidence really matter? Either the government has it and it may fall to the hands of terrorist organizations. Or said organizations already have them.
Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven.
*shrug* Fair enough. One of the cooks on the USS Boxer a few years back heading to deployment in Iraq made a bet (they bet their hats) with a Marine Corps cook that he could serve more omelets than the corps cook could. The navy guy won by making everyone the same ham and cheese omelet while the corps cook tried to make a specific omelet for each person.
If you come back to the US on the Boxer ask them if it's true. The navy cook's name was Maurer or something (IIRC)
Cook eh? Is that you Steven Segal?? I thought you were great in "Under Siege"
darkPrince010 wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that as a tax-paying citizen I should shut up about anything not directly related to my profession. Be sure to remember that next time you are in a discussion about genetics or genetics medicine, because that's only a discussion I can have!
Yay!! You read the link I posted about what a straw man argument was and then used it yourself!! No, my point was that its quite easy for you to sit in your lab and demand that the US sends troops into a country to fight and die so you can sleep at night, knowing full well that you won't be the one being called upon to fight.
Nice try at mis-direction though. Bit obvious though.
Yay! You can't apparently detect when I'm being sarcastic!
If I was called up to go overseas, then I would happily. I am registered for the draft, and am fairly annoyed at your attempt to imply that I would shy from going overseas if needed.
darkPrince010 wrote: Dunno about you, but knowing that our troops personally secured and destroyed chemical weapons makes me a hell of a lot more assured then sitting back and just letting the weapons exchange hands willy-nilly before being shipped overseas in say...a pressure cooker?
You're assuming that we need boots on the ground to destroy them. And you also ignore the long term ramifications of allowing AQ to get a foothold in the region.
Yes, because two men from Chechnya, with no ties to militant groups, or in receipt of support from militant groups did just that in Boston. To quote your goodself As far as attempting to tie two separate events together so that was spectacularly dreadful
I don't care if the boots are on the ground or sitting behind a predator control console, as long as something is being done besides sitting on our damned thumbs. As for the long-term AQ foothold, you'd see more casualties from a single chemical attack than you likely would from a half-dozen terrorist attacks. Do you want lots of civilians to die now just to offset the chance of some of them being attacked later, assuming the political attractiveness of AQ magically remains unchanged in a political vacuum?
Also, the note about pressure cookers was to try and give you a slap of reality that terrorist attacks aren't limited to the middle east, far away from your cozy home. I know they aren't remotely related to AQ, at least insofar as has been proven, but maybe you can accept the reality that it is far easier for them to get a chemical weapon into the country if they don't have to make it themselves?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Or why you want the US to intervene and not another country.
Hell, that's because no other country would. Not our fault everyone else is too busy hand-wringing
Ouze wrote: I'd have to presume that any aid rendered would contingent on expelling the jihadists.
Good luck with that, you're going to need it
BTW how do you propose we deal with Russia, Iran and Hizballah when you depose their ally?
While we'd obviously need to negotiate with Russia, I can't see how our current relationships with Iran or Hezbollah would be affected regardless of what we choose to do, nor are their opinions on this strictly relevant to whether or not we should act.
In general though I think our relationship with Russia could use a lot of fixing.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I was ignorant of the presence of AQ. This is a wrinkle I have to think on for a while frankly.
Between AQ and the parties backing Assad I can't think of much good that will come out of any US involvement in the country. We're going to get blamed regardless, we may as well get blamed without spending billions and burying more of our troops because of a thankless action.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I was ignorant of the presence of AQ. This is a wrinkle I have to think on for a while frankly.
Between AQ and the parties backing Assad I can't think of much good that will come out of any US involvement in the country. We're going to get blamed regardless, we may as well get blamed without spending billions and burying more of our troops because of a thankless action.
Sure, but the use of chemical weapons does need some kind of reaction from the UN, otherwise their rules will start to look even more like guidelines.
Ouze wrote: While we'd obviously need to negotiate with Russia, I can't see how our current relationships with Iran or Hezbollah would be affected regardless of what we choose to do, nor are their opinions on this strictly relevant to whether or not we should act.
In general though I think our relationship with Russia could use a lot of fixing.
We're still trying to get Iran to the table in a meaningful way over their nuclear program and potential breaches of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, killing their troops (as they are rumoured to be in Syria) or ousting a key ally for them in the region isn't likely to make that easy, nor reduce the chances of them doing something to the Straits of Hormz.
With Russia I can't see us fixing the relationship by removing a vital port for them, or ousting someone who buys a lot of arms from them
No, but you are taking the reports about nerve gas on face value and not being as critical of those as you were with the events in Boston (you know with your conspiracy theories, about Gitmo, about the corrupt FBI and Boston PD etc.) But you are happy to send troops to fight and die on little to no concrete evidence
Because this isn't a case of determining if an American citizen is guilty of a crime. By not acting swiftly you run the risk of a lot more casualties than if you do act,
I didn't dodge your question. In fact I answered every point you made. However I'm still waiting to hear a compelling case from you, with all your tacticool experience, as to why the US needs to send in troops to Syria just so YOU can feel better. Or why you want the US to intervene and not another country
There's nothing 'cool' about it. It was rather boring and smelled, most of the time. And dread, as I said, i conceded that point that maybe my own experience was clouding my judgement. I'll admit that I'm currently mulling it over. However, who do you think we can talk into it, if we're not willing to go ourselves? I'm curious where you're going with that.
And you did dodge my question: assuming, of course, that the Syrian chemical weapon stockpile is as large as has been stated, how would you go about securing it without intervening with boots on the ground?
darkPrince010 wrote: Sure, but the use of chemical weapons does need some kind of reaction from the UN, otherwise their rules will start to look even more like guidelines.
Remember when Saddam gassed all those Kurds after the Coalition left following Desert Storm? What reaction did that prompt? Or countless other genocides in Africa that the UN gave a mealy mouthed speech about for no effect? All those events that showed that the UN isn't worth the money pumped into it. Are you forgetting that Russia is one of the five countries that is a Permanent Member of the Security Council, and which has veto power to prevent UN involvement in Syria (they do need their port there and Assad has been getting a lot of weapons off them)?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Chicken hawks and internet mall ninjas screaming for blood makes me sad.
If that makes you sad, the realization that the civilian population's taxes pay for the employment of the public servants we call the armed forces must bring you to wailing laments and teeth gnashing.
darkPrince010 wrote: Sure, but the use of chemical weapons does need some kind of reaction from the UN, otherwise their rules will start to look even more like guidelines.
Remember when Saddam gassed all those Kurds after the Coalition left following Desert Storm? What reaction did that prompt? Or countless other genocides in Africa that the UN gave a mealy mouthed speech about for no effect? All those events that showed that the UN isn't worth the money pumped into it. Are you forgetting that Russia is one of the five countries that is a Permanent Member of the Security Council, and which has veto power to prevent UN involvement in Syria (they do need their port there and Assad has been getting a lot of weapons off them)?
Fine then, US involvement then if the UN is useless. Still, as Baron has said several times and you've still failed to actually answer, what would your "better" solution be to fix the problem of there being a chemical weapons stockpile being used on civilians in Syria? Just sit back and yawn dramatically?
BaronIveagh wrote: Because this isn't a case of determining if an American citizen is guilty of a crime. By not acting swiftly you run the risk of a lot more casualties than if you do act,
You're quite right. It is in fact more serious than a determination of guilt. You're talking about entering an armed conflict with the very real possibility of casualties from your own troops (also US citizens in case that had slipped your attention), civilians and long term consequences from Russia, Iran and AQ. Given that I thought you would at least exercise the same level of skepticism as you did concerning someone's guilt after he threw explosives and shot at police
BaronIveagh wrote: There's nothing 'cool' about it. It was rather boring and smelled, most of the time. And dread, as I said, i conceded that point that maybe my own experience was clouding my judgement. I'll admit that I'm currently mulling it over. However, who do you think we can talk into it, if we're not willing to go ourselves? I'm curious where you're going with that.
And you did dodge my question: assuming, of course, that the Syrian chemical weapon stockpile is as large as has been stated, how would you go about securing it without intervening with boots on the ground?
It would behoove you to check before you continue to insist that I didn't answer a question of yours. Especially when I ensured that it was a seperate post so you would be less likely to miss it;
BaronIveagh wrote: Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 1k+ tonnes of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.
Just in case you thought I wasn't answering this - provide the Israelis with the intelligence, weapon systems, logistics and political cover to obliterate the storage facilities. No US casualties from that.
As for who we can talk into it I think we can rule out the UN, Russia is one of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council and with that comes veto power to protect an ally, long standing weapon purchaser and maintaining an important port in the region
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Chicken hawks and internet mall ninjas screaming for blood makes me sad.
If that makes you sad, the realization that the civilian population's taxes pay for the employment of the public servants we call the armed forces must bring you to wailing laments and teeth gnashing.
Absolutely, the military serves a purpose but our defense budget is so hilariously oversized right now it's not even funny, adding another useless war for useless people in a part of the world we're openly despised helps no one except do gooders who will be egging us and calling us child murderers for the war they demanded the day after we get boots on the ground.
Ouze you misunderstand, they have an absolute right to their opinion about U.S. foreign policy, and I have the right to call their position out of the hogwash it is.
Remember when Saddam gassed all those Kurds after the Coalition left following Desert Storm? What reaction did that prompt? Or countless other genocides in Africa that the UN gave a mealy mouthed speech about for no effect?
And yet, every time someone spoke up and said 'let's put a stop to these things' someone else said 'why should our soldiers die for this? What has 'Darkest Africa' done for my national security lately?' And so round and round we go, with the atrocities piling ever higher and no one willing to act as the first world sits around and wrings it's hands and US an Asian corporations make a killing, sometimes literally, off the chaos.
BaronIveagh wrote: Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 1k+ tonnes of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.
Just in case you thought I wasn't answering this - provide the Israelis with the intelligence, weapon systems, logistics and political cover to obliterate the storage facilities. No US casualties from that.
Didn't spot this earlier. The problem with that is every side would likely turn against the Israelis. It's the reason they have stayed out of it so far. It'd have to be someone that one side or the other are not going to attack out of hand. I wonder if Jordan or Saudi Arabia would be willing to step in?
If I was called up to go overseas, then I would happily. I am registered for the draft, and am fairly annoyed at your attempt to imply that I would shy from going overseas if needed.
Because sarcasm is one of those things that translates so well on the internet, right?
darkPrince010 wrote: I don't care if the boots are on the ground or sitting behind a predator control console, as long as something is being done besides sitting on our damned thumbs. As for the long-term AQ foothold, you'd see more casualties from a single chemical attack than you likely would from a half-dozen terrorist attacks. Do you want lots of civilians to die now just to offset the chance of some of them being attacked later, assuming the political attractiveness of AQ magically remains unchanged in a political vacuum?
Also, the note about pressure cookers was to try and give you a slap of reality that terrorist attacks aren't limited to the middle east, far away from your cozy home. I know they aren't remotely related to AQ, at least insofar as has been proven, but maybe you can accept the reality that it is far easier for them to get a chemical weapon into the country if they don't have to make it themselves?
Slap of reality? I grew up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, I moved to the US nine months ago. I think I have plenty of experience of terrorism without your attempts to give me a slap of reality. I remember soldiers on the streets, masked men with guns, evacuating because of security alerts and all the rest. So I am very, VERY aware that terrorism isn't just in the Middle East.
You keep saying that you want something done, yet you have no idea what to do in the aftermath or what the long term consequences will be. And smuggling chemical weapons (with a pretty obvious chemical signature) into the US is pretty easy right? As easy as making an IED from household, easily obtainable materials right?
darkPrince010 wrote: Hell, that's because no other country would. Not our fault everyone else is too busy hand-wringing
Or because everyone else knows what an almighty mess getting involved would be and has more sense than to get involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: And yet, every time someone spoke up and said 'let's put a stop to these things' someone else said 'why should our soldiers die for this? What has 'Darkest Africa' done for my national security lately?' And so round and round we go, with the atrocities piling ever higher and no one willing to act as the first world sits around and wrings it's hands and US an Asian corporations make a killing, sometimes literally, off the chaos.
Pssst. You sort of ignored the rest of that post to try and score some cheap points and detract from the matter at hand.
I would address your point but you still haven't given any reason why we should do anything to intervene (you know, the same question I've been asking you for quite some time)
Slap of reality? I grew up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, I moved to the US nine months ago. I think I have plenty of experience of terrorism without your attempts to give me a slap of reality. I remember soldiers on the streets, masked men with guns, evacuating because of security alerts and all the rest. So I am very, VERY aware that terrorism isn't just in the Middle East.
You keep saying that you want something done, yet you have no idea what to do in the aftermath or what the long term consequences will be. And smuggling chemical weapons (with a pretty obvious chemical signature) into the US is pretty easy right? As easy as making an IED from household, easily obtainable materials right?
Well, for having grown up in the Troubles I am baffled as to why you seem to treat the idea of the ability for a known terrorist group getting their hands on chemical WMDs so dismissively.
For the aftermath of destroying the chemical weapons caches? I do agree that the decision to fully jump into the conflict needs to be deliberated over, but ignoring the chemical weapons seems like a damned stupid thing to just ignore, and I don't foresee much "aftermath," whether from the Syrian rebels or Russia, for destroying them. Only problem is the time delay of being able to get information of confirmed locations for the strikes.
As for long-term consequences, as long as direct US-Russian conflict doesn't occur (Again, see China vs US in the Korean War), the long-term consequences would be minimal for just destroying the weapons caches. As for interfering, you result in either a quashed rebellion and a North Korea/Iran military police state eating itself from the inside, or you result in a new government with the chance of being sympathetic to a terrorist group.
darkPrince010 wrote: Hell, that's because no other country would. Not our fault everyone else is too busy hand-wringing
Or because everyone else knows what an almighty mess getting involved would be and has more sense than to get involved.
Well, sitting back and just letting them use the chemical weapons certainly won't save lives in the short term, and so far you seem to be full of a great deal of conjecture as to the supposedly-vast loss of life resulting from a military intervention. I guess at that point it boils down to whether you think saving the life of any number of foreigners is worth the life of an American soldier.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: [Ouze you misunderstand, they have an absolute right to their opinion about U.S. foreign policy, and I have the right to call their position out of the hogwash it is.
Did I misunderstand? You don't appear to couch your argument in that someone's made a factual error, simply that their lack of military experience makes it "hogwash"
To which I respond that, if you are in the military, you generally will have no special perspective into this discussion to offer over a non-military citizen. Being a grunt (and I mean that respectfully, as most of the military types on this site I think would generally be considered grunts, not generals) doesn't give you insight into into WHY we should fight, only how, and even then only limited to whatever is within your purview.
And if you think about it, you already know this is true. When you call the cable company to tell them the cable is out, you wouldn't accept them telling you that you're not qualified to hold that opinion because you're not a networking expert; it's an appeal to authority fallacy and especially broken in that unless you work for State or whatever, there isn't even any actual authority.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: adding another useless war for useless people in a part of the world we're openly despised helps no one except do gooders who will be egging us and calling us child murderers for the war they demanded the day after we get boots on the ground.
Is this a thing that has actually happened, post-Vietnam? Like, in a meaningful way? Because I have really seen the contrary, festishistic hero-worship, especially post 9/11.
CptJake wrote: By the way, CS gas does count as a chemical weapon if used in war according to the UN Chemical Weapons Convention.
It can be used for law enforcement though...
You're right, but it is not a WMD. I probably should have clarified my standpoint. Is it a chemical? Yes. Its used as a non-lethal weapon, however. If that is what he was referencing, whoopie-dee-do. I've been exposed to CS before. It sucks, yes, but the pain is temporary, and can be dealt with. Learn to fight through it, and you're good to go. It is not a good point to say "i've been hit with CS, it sucks. I think we should go to war because of my experience dealing with a non-lethal chemical".
Oh, I know how much fun CS is. I've inhaled way more than my share.
And you did dodge my question: assuming, of course, that the Syrian chemical weapon stockpile is as large as has been stated, how would you go about securing it without intervening with boots on the ground?
We have air dropped munitions especially made to destroy that crap.
Pssst. You sort of ignored the rest of that post to try and score some cheap points and detract from the matter at hand.
I would address your point but you still haven't given any reason why we should do anything to intervene (you know, the same question I've been asking you for quite some time)
In Africa or in Syria? France has finally broken down and admitted that thy needed to step in in Africa, it only took the destruction of millions of lives and thousands of years of history to do it.
My fundamental position is that if we can stop these people's suffering, somehow, do we not have a moral responsibility to do so? I grant my views and experiences cloud my objectivity on this, but so far 'it will be costly in lives and material, and could possibly advance the goals of our enemies' is your rebuttal, as I see it, and while I agree, and again admit that my objectivity is questionable, on the other side I ask 'Do these things out weigh such a moral obligation, and the potential lives not lost, the homes not burned, the suffering not caused?'. At what point does it become unfair to ask a soldier to risk his life? Do we sit back until full blown genocide starts? While I know that many of you don't care what happens to people you don't know, I have to ask myself "what if it was happening where I live? Wouldn't I want someone to come help us?"
And then:
'And wouldn't I hate the bastards that sat back and let this happen?'
The longer this drags on, the more people suffer and die, the more desperate the parties involved become, the better the odds that something will happen that effects the US directly and arose out of this. Anyone want to argue that is an unfair assessment of the situation?
We have air dropped munitions especially made to destroy that crap.
Yeah, but we also have to know where it is. ATM we, in all likelyhood, have very little idea. Remember Salman Pak? What a cluster feth that was? How many people got accidentally exposed to god knows what?
darkPrince010 wrote: Well, for having grown up in the Troubles I am baffled as to why you seem to treat the idea of the ability for a known terrorist group getting their hands on chemical WMDs so dismissively.
Who said I was being dismissive of the threat? Remember the strawman thing I linked to earlier? You're doing it again. Badly. Maybe you missed my solution to dealing with any stockpiles, its not as if it was a stand alone post or I had to quote it myself later....
darkPrince010 wrote: For the aftermath of destroying the chemical weapons caches? I do agree that the decision to fully jump into the conflict needs to be deliberated over, but ignoring the chemical weapons seems like a damned stupid thing to just ignore, and I don't foresee much "aftermath," whether from the Syrian rebels or Russia, for destroying them. Only problem is the time delay of being able to get information of confirmed locations for the strikes.
As for long-term consequences, as long as direct US-Russian conflict doesn't occur (Again, see China vs US in the Korean War), the long-term consequences would be minimal for just destroying the weapons caches. As for interfering, you result in either a quashed rebellion and a North Korea/Iran military police state eating itself from the inside, or you result in a new government with the chance of being sympathetic to a terrorist group.
You're the one calling for boots on the ground, then drones (which wouldn't be able to carry the weapon systems needed to destroy a stockpile of chemical weapons) and you don't seem to consider the possibility of a drone strike with improper weapons releasing the agent instead of destroying it.
So you don't think that Russia would have much reaction to you destroying an ally's stockpiles of WMDs? Even if he doesn't use them they are still a potent psychological weapon. Weakening Assad and hastening his downfall isn't something that I'd imagine the Russians would be thrilled with - he owes them money for weapons, he has a port that they need etc. You're also ignoring Iran and their likely reaction that I mentioned above too.
Its a damn sight more than a chance - look at what happened in the Lebanon which borders Syria. Hizbollah is the de facto government in large parts of the country. Do you honestly think that if the FSA ousts Assad that their best groups (who have ties to AQ) won't be rewarded, or be able to extract what they want by force? Once again, you're trying to see things as black and white instead of varying shades of dark grey were there is no good outcome for intervention.
darkPrince010 wrote: Well, sitting back and just letting them use the chemical weapons certainly won't save lives in the short term, and so far you seem to be full of a great deal of conjecture as to the supposedly-vast loss of life resulting from a military intervention. I guess at that point it boils down to whether you think saving the life of any number of foreigners is worth the life of an American soldier.
And invading a country involved in a civil war isn't going to help save many civilian lives either, in the short or long term. Especially when you'll be blamed for every civilian death because you interfered in a matter that is not your concern.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: [Ouze you misunderstand, they have an absolute right to their opinion about U.S. foreign policy, and I have the right to call their position out of the hogwash it is.
Did I misunderstand? You don't appear to couch your argument in that someone's made a factual error, simply that their lack of military experience makes it "hogwash"
To which I respond that, if you are in the military, you generally will have no special perspective into this discussion to offer over a non-military citizen. Being a grunt (and I mean that respectfully, as most of the military types on this site I think would generally be considered grunts, not generals) doesn't give you insight into into WHY we should fight, only how, and even then only limited to whatever is within your purview.
And if you think about it, you already know this is true. When you call the cable company to tell them the cable is out, you wouldn't accept them telling you that you're not qualified to hold that opinion because you're not a networking expert; it's an appeal to authority fallacy and especially broken in that unless you work for State or whatever, there isn't even any actual authority.
My being in the military or not has nothing to do with my opinion of the people screaming for blood in some other useless hell hole are idiots. That opinion's easy enough to form on one's own.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: adding another useless war for useless people in a part of the world we're openly despised helps no one except do gooders who will be egging us and calling us child murderers for the war they demanded the day after we get boots on the ground.
Is this a thing that has actually happened, post-Vietnam? Like, in a meaningful way? Because I have really seen the contrary, festishistic hero-worship, especially post 9/11. /quote]
I've certainly seen it. Not sure what your standard for "meaningful" is.
BaronIveagh wrote: In Africa or in Syria? France has finally broken down and admitted that thy needed to step in in Africa, it only took the destruction of millions of lives and thousands of years of history to do it.
My fundamental position is that if we can stop these people's suffering, somehow, do we not have a moral responsibility to do so? I grant my views and experiences cloud my objectivity on this, but so far 'it will be costly in lives and material, and could possibly advance the goals of our enemies' is your rebuttal, as I see it, and while I agree, and again admit that my objectivity is questionable, on the other side I ask 'Do these things out weigh such a moral obligation, and the potential lives not lost, the homes not burned, the suffering not caused?'. At what point does it become unfair to ask a soldier to risk his life? Do we sit back until full blown genocide starts? While I know that many of you don't care what happens to people you don't know, I have to ask myself "what if it was happening where I live? Wouldn't I want someone to come help us?"
And then:
'And wouldn't I hate the bastards that sat back and let this happen?'
The longer this drags on, the more people suffer and die, the more desperate the parties involved become, the better the odds that something will happen that effects the US directly and arose out of this. Anyone want to argue that is an unfair assessment of the situation?
Stop obfuscating, you know I meant Syria. That's what we've been talking about. You keep bleating on about something needing to be done - yet you have no solution, much less a reason as to why the US has to get involved.
Your attempts to turn this discussion into a war of attrition whereby you simply restate your position, attempt to score minor points, and distract from the actual discussion is not going to work. I'm still waiting on answers to my questions, so maybe you'd care to put the effort into that instead of trying to look for minor threads in my posts to tug and hope that they're lose.
I'd have to think that in the last few years, a military member being egged and called a child murderers would be a national news story, on Fox if nowhere else.
On topic, though, I haven't really see anyone "screaming for blood" ITT.
darkPrince010 wrote: Well, for having grown up in the Troubles I am baffled as to why you seem to treat the idea of the ability for a known terrorist group getting their hands on chemical WMDs so dismissively.
Who said I was being dismissive of the threat? Remember the strawman thing I linked to earlier? You're doing it again. Badly. Maybe you missed my solution to dealing with any stockpiles, its not as if it was a stand alone post or I had to quote it myself later....
Well, do you mind linking to it again since I've combed over the entire thread, again, and still can't find anything about your proposed solution?
darkPrince010 wrote: For the aftermath of destroying the chemical weapons caches? I do agree that the decision to fully jump into the conflict needs to be deliberated over, but ignoring the chemical weapons seems like a damned stupid thing to just ignore, and I don't foresee much "aftermath," whether from the Syrian rebels or Russia, for destroying them. Only problem is the time delay of being able to get information of confirmed locations for the strikes.
As for long-term consequences, as long as direct US-Russian conflict doesn't occur (Again, see China vs US in the Korean War), the long-term consequences would be minimal for just destroying the weapons caches. As for interfering, you result in either a quashed rebellion and a North Korea/Iran military police state eating itself from the inside, or you result in a new government with the chance of being sympathetic to a terrorist group.
You're the one calling for boots on the ground, then drones (which wouldn't be able to carry the weapon systems needed to destroy a stockpile of chemical weapons) and you don't seem to consider the possibility of a drone strike with improper weapons releasing the agent instead of destroying it.
So you don't think that Russia would have much reaction to you destroying an ally's stockpiles of WMDs? Even if he doesn't use them they are still a potent psychological weapon. Weakening Assad and hastening his downfall isn't something that I'd imagine the Russians would be thrilled with - he owes them money for weapons, he has a port that they need etc. You're also ignoring Iran and their likely reaction that I mentioned above too.
Its a damn sight more than a chance - look at what happened in the Lebanon which borders Syria. Hizbollah is the de facto government in large parts of the country. Do you honestly think that if the FSA ousts Assad that their best groups (who have ties to AQ) won't be rewarded, or be able to extract what they want by force? Once again, you're trying to see things as black and white instead of varying shades of dark grey were there is no good outcome for intervention.
Decent point, although I doubt Russia wants to remain too closely associated with a country known to use chemical weapons. However, the potential loss of life from terrorist activities coming from an AQ-aligned post-Assad government still seems like you're inflating your estimate compared to the loss of life that has occurred, and will continue to occur, if we don't attempt to neutralize the Syrian government response in a similar way to how we handled Libya. There are probably no "good" outcomes to getting involved, but quite frankly the outcome occurring today, right here and now in Syria, seems to me to be far worse.
darkPrince010 wrote: Well, sitting back and just letting them use the chemical weapons certainly won't save lives in the short term, and so far you seem to be full of a great deal of conjecture as to the supposedly-vast loss of life resulting from a military intervention. I guess at that point it boils down to whether you think saving the life of any number of foreigners is worth the life of an American soldier.
And invading a country involved in a civil war isn't going to help save many civilian lives either, in the short or long term. Especially when you'll be blamed for every civilian death because you interfered in a matter that is not your concern.
Source, for both points? Because I'm pretty damned sure if the US had actually involved itself in Rwanda instead of sat back and "just let it handle itself" then the civil war there would have been recorded as a fething war, not a genocide.
Stop obfuscating, you know I meant Syria. That's what we've been talking about. You keep bleating on about something needing to be done - yet you have no solution, much less a reason as to why the US has to get involved.
Your attempts to turn this discussion into a war of attrition whereby you simply restate your position, attempt to score minor points, and distract from the actual discussion is not going to work. I'm still waiting on answers to my questions, so maybe you'd care to put the effort into that instead of trying to look for minor threads in my posts to tug and hope that they're lose.
I'm actually sort of mulling it over. As I said, your position has merit and I'll sit here and consider it. Your answer about the chemical weapons though, still does not have a workable answer, as I pointed out, palming it off on Israel is unlikely to succeed no matter how much air support and intel we provide. Jihadin had a much better idea, but we'd need very accurate intel on the munitions, their storage, etc. I like the airstrikes idea, but we'd need to be absolutely sure that it wouldn't make the situation worse, which is what we failed to do at Salman Pak.
It's a thorny issue, and I can understand the reluctance of many Americans to potentially get burned by opening up another can of worms. To which I would say this.
If there were a referendum taken here to support a UN or NATO coalition takeover of Syria, I would vote in favour of it. I'm not convinced that the US should undertake such an action alone, or that support of either side in the civil war would be conducive at this point in time.
No, if we're going in, we take whole goddam place, and impose democracy and law and order. Put it under direct UN rule for a period of twenty years, and get the greatest minds throughout the West to help redesign and rebuild it. Put in place the schools, the hospitals, the law courts, the organs of Government. Train an army, codify the separation of powers, institute a police force that is the servant of the people.
Put it under the silk clad mail fist of democracy and freedom, and I think that whilst there may be some losses to home grown terrorists, they would be less than if we supported either side.
If you educate in the main curriculum what the last Government did to its people (gas, war, dragging people away in the night) over a long enough period, you cut off the youth support. Set regular goals for passing power back to the people at certain clearly defined steps, and then you'll find that people learn to trust the word of your occupation, and that you'll withdraw when you say you will. That again reduces the whole, 'fight the outsider' complex, as long as they can see clear progression towards regaining control of their own territory.
I myself would gladly take up arms in the advancement of such a goal. Not to secure oil supplies, the profits of various corporations with large lobbying funds, or to support one of two corrupt and murderous sides in a civil war. But to aid an international effort to end a war and the deaths of innocent people through the establishment of a real democracy?
Definitely.
Oh, and for everyone mocking the Baron for his experiences and doubting his word, you're half right. Yes, you shouldn't believe what people say blindly, but on the other hand, neither should you disregard a reasonably believable statement without any good counter-factual evidence.
There have been plenty of PMC's over the years, and here in England, I believe most of them have their offices opposite barracks to recruit soldiers who have just been made redundant. Be it working as a guard on a shipment going past Somalia, to private security in Iraq, there are plenty of soldiers who put their only real skills to good use to earn a living in ways that aren't connected to national governments.
Absolutely, the military serves a purpose but our defense budget is so hilariously oversized right now it's not even funny, adding another useless war for useless people in a part of the world we're openly despised helps no one except do gooders who will be egging us and calling us child murderers for the war they demanded the day after we get boots on the ground.
We agree, I would much rather see less of the 'world police' and the military budget cut in half, the funds turned to universal healthcare in America.
If this turns out to be true, we will have to respond. We've flat out said we would use force, that line was drawn.
Now, the type of force is up for debate. I'd say it'll most likely be concentrated missile strikes on the facilities that we know harbor the NBC weapons. We may have our B-2's fly in to attack their air defense facilities, and then use our more conventional aircraft in targetted strikes as well.
If we put any boots on the ground, it'll be SOF forces that'll be securing the NBC weapons.
Oh, and for everyone mocking the Baron for his experiences and doubting his word, you're half right. Yes, you shouldn't believe what people say blindly, but on the other hand, neither should you disregard a reasonably believable statement without any good counter-factual evidence.
There have been plenty of PMC's over the years, and here in England, I believe most of them have their offices opposite barracks to recruit soldiers who have just been made redundant. Be it working as a guard on a shipment going past Somalia, to private security in Iraq, there are plenty of soldiers who put their only real skills to good use to earn a living in ways that aren't connected to national governments.
In all fairness to them , rather than starting as a soldier, I started as an on site tech, and got to discover that things like front lines and rear areas are somewhat hazy these days. After that I went to work for a Native American Casino and then on to my own tech firm. Which then collapsed in 2008 and led to my current situation.
And I don't get specific about my life posting on online chat rooms and forum threads. It's bad enough so many of you know my real name as is.
We agree, I would much rather see less of the 'world police' and the military budget cut in half, the funds turned to universal healthcare in America.
This should be telling us something:
*carrier snipped*
That does include LHDs which are actually amphib assault ships rather than 'true' carriers. Having been aboard Boxer, I still wonder how she'd do in a rough sea. Seems to me those doors would come right off if a wave hit her the wrong way.
Read all five pages and did not see a good or compelling reason to have "Boots on the ground" in Syria. I can argue from a strong position on "NO" why we should not go. Like a few others on here I have been in the "Box" and "Embrace the Suck". Before someone does offer a good reason why should we go in I remind you how little you all know what occurs on deployments. Example would be the Afghan hospital thread awhile back.
Jihadin wrote: Read all five pages and did not see a good or compelling reason to have "Boots on the ground" in Syria. I can argue from a strong position on "NO" why we should not go. Like a few others on here I have been in the "Box" and "Embrace the Suck". Before someone does offer a good reason why should we go in I remind you how little you all know what occurs on deployments. Example would be the Afghan hospital thread awhile back.
I can't say that I'm unhappy to have missed that thread.
Jihadin, let me say again that I like your airstrike idea. Let me ask you then, assuming that the chemical weapon issue is a viable threat, how would you, personally, go about planning this op? I've sat here and considered it (and calmed down a bit from my initial state of agitation) and I don't see palming it off on Israel like Dread suggests to be a viable plan, for a variety of reasons, but your airstrike idea smells viable.
Airstrike. Drone Strike. Establish a "No FLy" over Syria to prevent that option of delivery of Assad. Espacially NO FLY of everyone 10 miles away from the russian naval base. I'm leaning more to Drone Strike since the Turkish fighter that was shot down a few months ago by syrian forces was equipped with a ALQ 144 system version for jet fighters by a SA missile
I also want to mention that seems a lot of people have forgotten. Saddam gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq and in response the UN (I believe) establish the no fly zone there because of it.
The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.
agnosto wrote: The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.
agnosto wrote: The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.
Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.
There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.
Absolutely, the military serves a purpose but our defense budget is so hilariously oversized right now it's not even funny, adding another useless war for useless people in a part of the world we're openly despised helps no one except do gooders who will be egging us and calling us child murderers for the war they demanded the day after we get boots on the ground.
We agree, I would much rather see less of the 'world police' and the military budget cut in half, the funds turned to universal healthcare in America.
This should be telling us something:
Actually the "Blue" forces are the last things I'd touch, expeditionary fighting units such as the Marines and rangers serve a purpose even in peace time, indeed I can't remember the last time the Marines weren't combat engaged somewhere globally. Ships and aircraft take time to ramp up and produce, especially top tier ships and aircraft, the "green" forces would be the primary target if I was conducting a par down, with combat experienced veterans being hand picked and trained hard to form training cadres and maintain several expeditionary brigades, as well as say two or three full strength divisions, these men in time of war would be passed out for training the mass influx of bodies then green forces need in a wartime ramp up. By letting experienced veterans control the training, and by expanding the reserves and national guard, we can bring a large active duty force to bear in a hurry without the current mass expensive. The next thing I'd go after is the appropriations programs. With a freaking plasma cutter.
I don't advocate troops on the ground, because the region is a mess and now that chemical weapons have been deployed it gets very complicated and dangerous to deploy troops when WMDs could be used.
However, the US is a great power, still number 1 last time I checked and the US cannot simply go isolationist unless they are willing to surrender their number 1 spot to other nations. Its the reason the US has the worlds largest navy, its not to make US policy makers feel good about having massive floating penis extensions, its because possessing a blue water navy allows you to project your power, its what makes a nation a great power. Command of the oceans is the command of the world. Now if the US simply stops using all that power then whats the point of having it?
I'm digressing but the United States cannot claim to be the leader of the free world if they don't at least do something. Certainly not sending troops in, the US Army and Marine Corps are not the tools for this job but a multinational intervention Lybian style might be better. Take a page from Britain's book, when a nation was getting uppity in the 19th century they would send some naval vessels off their coast. We can do the same park a battle fleet off the coast, fly some sorties, we don't even need to get involved in actual fighting yet.
Edit: Asking other nations to intervene (without us also doing something) is probably the worst thing the US could do, basically saying "We don't have the means of will to actually act like a great power, you do it"
agnosto wrote: The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.
Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.
There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.
On that basis, why would a (almost certainly protracted) intervention in Syria not end up killing more people? Yes, there may be less civvy casualties. But last time I checked a dead human is still a dead human, regardless of the label on his panties.
agnosto wrote: The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.
Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.
There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.
Didn't stop us in the 50s and 60s and 70s. There was a time when people didn't lack the spirit of their convictions no matter who they made angry. I'm not saying war is good, I'm not saying killing people is good, I'm just saying that if you're willing to kill people in the one part of the world because of a "cause" then you should also be willing to fight for a bigger need in the same "cause" in another place regardless. You can't be the moral compass of the world if you're not going to actually do it when it matters.
KM...I can't help but laugh and occasionaly chuckle...and resisting the urge to reread the new Tau Codex again....Let Syria tear itself apart...let russia clean them up....Russia can be in control. At least we can predict Putin. He can reinstate the Gulag system there. pPenty sand there to move from one spot to another and back again.
BTW....North Korea it seems has nukes....not sure if they can fit it in a missile...but they seem to have nukes...also Russia shares part of the border with NK I believe...
Jihadin wrote: Airstrike. Drone Strike. Establish a "No FLy" over Syria to prevent that option of delivery of Assad. Espacially NO FLY of everyone 10 miles away from the russian naval base. I'm leaning more to Drone Strike since the Turkish fighter that was shot down a few months ago by syrian forces was equipped with a ALQ 144 system version for jet fighters by a SA missile
I also want to mention that seems a lot of people have forgotten. Saddam gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq and in response the UN (I believe) establish the no fly zone there because of it.
Eh...sadly, the No Fly zone did very little to prevent Saddam from continuing his pogrom, however. I just made him shift from poison gas to more conventional methods.
Hmm... well, it would partially settle the debate if Drones can perform as well as pilots, since I have near zero doubt that Assad's air force would try and intercept. The other problem is enforcing the no fly zone. It could be done with Saddam because his airforce was essentially a non-entity as far as UN forces were concerned, but with Syria there would be a struggle to get anything done if the Russia decides to block anything in the security council plus the relatively larger concentration of SAMs in Syria as opposed to Northern Iraq.
Ok, let's say we do slip drones in. How do we determine that the chemicals have in fact been destroyed?
agnosto wrote: The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.
Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.
There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.
On that basis, why would a (almost certainly protracted) intervention in Syria not end up killing more people? Yes, there may be less civvy casualties. But last time I checked a dead human is still a dead human, regardless of the label on his panties.
agnosto wrote: The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.
Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.
There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.
Didn't stop us in the 50s and 60s and 70s. There was a time when people didn't lack the spirit of their convictions no matter who they made angry. I'm not saying war is good, I'm not saying killing people is good, I'm just saying that if you're willing to kill people in the one part of the world because of a "cause" then you should also be willing to fight for a bigger need in the same "cause" in another place regardless. You can't be the moral compass of the world if you're not going to actually do it when it matters.
Let me put it like this.
I would see potentially tens of thousands of casualties in a current civil war avoided, in addition to whatever people a future regime will kill. Not to mention the home grown terrorists spawned by hamfisted international action. And the potential further casualties that are guaranteed to occur regardless of whichever side wins this, as they begin to butcher the remnants of the opposing faction. Oh, and the elimination of potential casualties by future despotic regimes.
I know that between the UK, the US, and France alone, we have the military capacity to win a war in Syria and occupy it completely within a matter of weeks. There would be casualties. And should occupation be the action decided upon for the motivation I have given earlier, I would be quite willing to run the risk of being of them.
But those casualties would be infinitely lesser than allowing what is currently happening to continue.
Where I would draw the line is when the casualties incurred in attempting to save the country potentially far outweigh the number of lives you're trying to save and the good you're trying to accomplish. A country does have the duty to protect its own citizens.
An invasion of China would kill so many, not to mention the risk of nuclear war and fallout, that it would fall into this category. I do not advocate risking the lives of several million to save those of a few hundred thousand, or even a few million. Not without direct demonstration of something along the lines of the Holocaust (systematic industrialised murder on that scale).
An invasion of, say, Zimbabwe though? Where a very small minority oppresses and butchers the majority? I would be in favour of similar action as I just advocated for Syria. The potential for good far outweighs the potential loss.
Our army is made up of volunteers, nobody should be forced on these excursions who did not agree with them, or fighting for the principles of your home country and Government. And I myself would genuinely be willing to risk myself in the advancement of human culture and the elimination of those who kill wantonly. I think you'll find I'm morally consistent in this particular case.
Ouze wrote: As sad as thinking only soldiers have the right to an opinion on US foreign policy?
Certainly as sad as tinfoil Israeli conspiracies. I hope people will talk to the UN "police" about the nerve gas.
I'm very much okay with a little bit of world policing.
Are we going to pretend it's a conspiracy theory that Israel has it's own national security interests, which often do not mesh with our own? If so, someone should spring Jonathan Pollard, I'd sure he'd be pleased to know he's free to go and it was just internet dumbwads.
Israel's own PM said he couldn't confirm the reports. We're not exactly talking bedrock intelligence, here, and I think one yellowcake uranium fiasco was enough.
Soladrin wrote: The idea of one country being a moral compass for the world is stupid anyway.
I wish more people would agree with this statement .
Ketara when you invade another country it isn't as simple as remove the government problem solved ( i thought the US' last two efforts would have proven that) . If you don't know how the country works socially you are just going to leave it worse than when you invaded.
The horror of a huge cloud of Chlorine spreading across the ground and killing thousands of civvies is not funny.
I'm rather scratching my head, simply because I don't see how we can ever be sure without at least sending someone to go look. Even borrowing one of NASA's sniffers wouldn't really tell us how much of the stockpile is destroyed.
Ketara, one can always go the Legion approach, but the UN doesn't like mercenaries. Even when they cause more stability than instability.
Are we going to pretend it's a conspiracy theory that Israel has it's own national security interests, which often do not mesh with our own? If so, someone should spring Jonathan Pollard, I'd sure he'd be pleased to know he's free to go and it was just internet dumbwads.
Israel's own PM said he couldn't confirm the reports. We're not exactly talking bedrock intelligence, here, and I think one yellowcake uranium fiasco was enough.
Accusations about this have been flying for months now, with each attack slowly getting worse. This is the first time anything approaching intel has been available. The question is what sort of horror will be unleashed that gives rock solid proof? The destruction of the entire city of Damascus by poison gas?
You can say it's hte yellow cake uranium bit all over again. But what it it's not?
Post damage assesment of strike. Have to remember the strike in itself is nail the missile on whatever delivery system its on. Question though is the "gas" persistent or non persistent.
Jihadin wrote: Post damage assessment of strike. Have to remember the strike in itself is nail the missile on whatever delivery system its on. Question though is the "gas" persistent or non persistent.
Last I heard they didn't use missiles. Artillery shells and bombs. We're not looking at a few big targets, we're looking at a stockpile of thousands of small devices.
BaronIveagh wrote: Accusations about this have been flying for months now, with each attack slowly getting worse. This is the first time anything approaching intel has been available. The question is what sort of horror will be unleashed that gives rock solid proof? The destruction of the entire city of Damascus by poison gas?
You can say it's hte yellow cake uranium bit all over again. But what it it's not?
Do you understand there is a middle ground between "a random general's unconfirmed report" and "the destruction of the entire city of Damascus by poison gas"?
Absolutely, the military serves a purpose but our defense budget is so hilariously oversized right now it's not even funny, adding another useless war for useless people in a part of the world we're openly despised helps no one except do gooders who will be egging us and calling us child murderers for the war they demanded the day after we get boots on the ground.
We agree, I would much rather see less of the 'world police' and the military budget cut in half, the funds turned to universal healthcare in America.
This should be telling us something:
Except the money the military gets wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to what universal healthcare would cost.
Ouze wrote: As sad as thinking only soldiers have the right to an opinion on US foreign policy?
Certainly as sad as tinfoil Israeli conspiracies. I hope people will talk to the UN "police" about the nerve gas.
I'm very much okay with a little bit of world policing.
Are we going to pretend it's a conspiracy theory that Israel has it's own national security interests, which often do not mesh with our own? If so, someone should spring Jonathan Pollard, I'd sure he'd be pleased to know he's free to go and it was just internet dumbwads.
Israel's own PM said he couldn't confirm the reports. We're not exactly talking bedrock intelligence, here, and I think one yellowcake uranium fiasco was enough.
Unconfirmed reports and insinuating that the Israelis are making things up aren't exactly the same thing.
Do you understand there is a middle ground between "a random general's unconfirmed report" and "the destruction of the entire city of Damascus by poison gas"?
It's called exaggeration for dramatic effect. However, each reported gas attack has steadily been increasing in severity since last November, with both sides accusing the other of being responsible. My point being that by the time 100% rock solid intel comes around of someone using poison gas, it could already be too late for a whole lot of people.
We agree, I would much rather see less of the 'world police' and the military budget cut in half, the funds turned to universal healthcare in America.
This should be telling us something:
Your point?
At the height of its power Britain had 35 dreadnought battleships. The navy is the most important service the US owns, the army and air force are the offenders when it comes to over spending.
Soladrin wrote: The idea of one country being a moral compass for the world is stupid anyway.
I wish more people would agree with this statement .
Ketara when you invade another country it isn't as simple as remove the government problem solved ( i thought the US' last two efforts would have proven that) . If you don't know how the country works socially you are just going to leave it worse than when you invaded.
I think the world has had enough "policing".
Trust me, I'm aware of that.
The trick is to instill the necessary cultural traits, which none of our 'interventions' of late do. Mainly because they tend to be motivated by money and business interests rather than humanitarian concerns. Allow me to contrast for you.
Take Afghanistan. All the aid money we send there is either embezzled by a corrupt and morally bankrupt Government little better than the one we toppled. The Taliban run back and forth across the border, and our soldiers are not viewed particularly well by the public. The hearts and minds campaign is shoddily run, and consists of us giving contracts to private organisations who then siphon off as much as they can. We are also under massive pressure to withdraw at home, because we're achieving absolutely nothing. Which is correct.
Contrast this with post war Japan or West Germany. Military occupations, vast amounts of cash funneled in, our own administrators and bureaucrats temporarily positioned there to ensure things go accordingly. Significant amounts of funding channeled into what is, in effect, cultural reprogramming. State apparatus set up in such a way as to ensure the inability of future coups by aggressive administrations, and ingrained over time.
I would rather have something more like the latter, only modelled along humanitarian concerns. Direct occupation for a clearly defined set of time (twenty years I would have thought) with checkboxes along the way. As the country begins to resemble a democratic and free nation, we withdraw more and more controls and hand over more and more power. The fact that it is an joint international effort erases any concept of individual colonialism and ensures the 'occupiers' adhere to their withdrawal.
To fund it? Aid budgets. We've been throwing money at Africa and the Middle East for nigh on fifty years now. The drip drip approach to aid clearly does not work. What countries like Syria and Zimbabwe need is us taking direct control for a period of time to install stability, law and order, and the freedom of political affiliation, worship, and so on. It'll save us money in the long run, as opposed to continuing our current approach.
The trick is to instill the necessary cultural traits, which none of our 'interventions' of late do. Mainly because they tend to be motivated by money and business interests rather than humanitarian concerns. Allow me to contrast for you.
Take Afghanistan. All the aid money we send there is either embezzled by a corrupt and morally bankrupt Government little better than the one we toppled. The Taliban run back and forth across the border, and our soldiers are not viewed particularly well by the public. The hearts and minds campaign is shoddily run, and consists of us giving contracts to private organisations who then siphon off as much as they can. We are also under massive pressure to withdraw at home, because we're achieving absolutely nothing. Which is correct.
Contrast this with post war Japan or West Germany. Military occupations, vast amounts of cash funneled in, our own administrators and bureaucrats temporarily positioned there to ensure things go accordingly. Significant amounts of funding channeled into what is, in effect, cultural reprogramming. State apparatus set up in such a way as to ensure the inability of future coups by aggressive administrations, and ingrained over time.
I would rather have something more like the latter, only modelled along humanitarian concerns. Direct occupation for a clearly defined set of time with checkboxes along the way. As the country begins to resemble a democratic and free nation, we withdraw more and more controls and hand over more and more power. The fact that it is an joint international effort erases any concept of individual colonialism and ensures the 'occupiers' adhere to their withdrawal.
To fund it? Aid budgets. We've been throwing money at Africa and the Middle East for nigh on fifty years now. The drip drip approach to aid clearly does not work. What countries like Syria and Zimbabwe need is us taking direct control for a period of time to install stability, law and order, and the freedom of political affiliation, worship, and so on. It'll save us money in the long run, as opposed to continuing our current approach.
Marshall was right? Who'da thunk?
Remember though that the US alone had over 3 million servicemen in Europe to draw on. We could put a rifle squad and a tank on every street corner in Germany. While Syria is smaller, I'm not sure that the US or anyone else is going to commit to that level.
Like I said. Post Assesment Damage Pic's. When in doubt hit it again....repeatedly. BV you keep limiting yourself to "Drones". Have you forgotten Tomahawks? You mention arty shells and bombs..which should be 155mm two chamber shells and landmines. They do not store them already loaded with whatever agent they want to use. They have to be moved to whatever site the agent is stored and made at and filled with the agent or vice versa. Then moved again to whatevever artillery unit or area to be mined. Why are you asking me questions you should already know? If its a persistant agent everyone screwed regardless.
Remember though that the US alone had over 3 million servicemen in Europe to draw on. We could put a rifle squad and a tank on every street corner in Germany. While Syria is smaller, I'm not sure that the US or anyone else is going to commit to that level.
Hence the need for an international effort. I'm pretty certain that if we switched even half of the twelve billion pounds aid budget we currently have over to the effort, we could put in a substantial contribution. If the US and France did the same, I think we could occupy Syria without much difficulty. It is, after all, in the middle of a civil war. Your average citizen longs for peace and stability.
Jihadin wrote: Like I said. Post Assesment Damage Pic's. When in doubt hit it again....repeatedly. BV you keep limiting yourself to "Drones". Have you forgotten Tomahawks? You mention arty shells and bombs..which should be 155mm two chamber shells and landmines. They do not store them already loaded with whatever agent they want to use. They have to be moved to whatever site the agent is stored and made at and filled with the agent or vice versa. Then moved again to whatevever artillery unit or area to be mined. Why are you asking me questions you should already know? If its a persistant agent everyone screwed regardless.
*points to the people posting* Because anything I say is suspect and subject to debate from certain quarters. If you say it, they're more likely to take it as fact.
So we're looking at sat surveillance to spot the storage facilities, a strike with 129s and some tomahawks with TALDs followed by drones with JDAMs to bat cleanup. SOP I worry about missing a facility though or having bad intel on what's in it. I still think that Gulf War Syndrome came from exposure to whatever leaked out of the facility at Salman Pak after we hit it (most likely Sarin, which is what they're supposedly using.). But that's a personal opinion.
Sarin has a short shelf life, but a fairly small lethal dose.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".
I'd like to see what NASA could do with 19% of the budget instead of 2% for just one year.
Hardly a unbiased source, but it does add more detail. Seems England and France have supposedly determined the same thing, and that the Syrians are not allowing the UN inspectors in to determine if Sarin has really been deployed.
BaronIveagh wrote: I'd like to see what NASA could do with 19% of the budget instead of 2% for just one year.
NASA with ten times the budget?
We'd probably be mining asteroids, putting a base on the moon, or landing on mars or something, by 2030.
As it is, it seems incredibly unlikely.
On topic: I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I hope the US does intervene to end the slaughter.
On the other hand... sarin gas is a horrible way to die and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and if Syria's using that now, that means they might try to use it on US troops if we land. Which would just piss us off but still, damn.
Really? This again. This has nothing to do with the US. If NATO or the UN want to go in fine let them. If the arab league wants to try, go for it. It's not our fight, it's not our people and it's not our allies. In fact, this is another situation where the people we "save" will be shooting at us while we are saving them and for years and/or decades afterword.
Nobody acts, not because they think someone else is going to step in, but because they expect the US to spend blood and treasure FOR NO GD REASON. We have absolutely nothing to gain here and everything to lose. Enough already!
Here is a tip, if you are not a soldier willing to die in the conflict, get the frack out! Can't kill civilians if they are not there. The way I see it let Assads guy's and AQ duke it out all day, just means less of them we have to kill in the next god forsaken shithole that somebody thinks the US needs to rescue.
If NATO or the UN or anyone wants us to bomb the place, fine, we will do the work, you foot the bill and you put your troops on the ground.
The must be a positive end game strategy here that legitimizes our involvement. I don't see one. In fact it almost works in our favor to let it go on and drag the whole region with it. Let the place turn into thunderdome millions go in, one comes out. At least them we will know who we are dealing with.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".
Why is there so much angst about this?
Turkey is a NATO country... they have every reason to get involved, but don't want a major war in Syria because of two main things...
1) The influx of survivors would be massive
2) May encourage the Kurds to rebel.
If there's 100% proof that gases were used... then under the guise of NATO, fething dominate the air... not just "No Fly Zones", but take out ALL anti-air... then destroy ANY militarily.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".
Why is there so much angst about this?
Turkey is a NATO country... they have every reason to get involved, but don't want a major war in Syria because of two main things...
1) The influx of survivors would be massive
2) May encourage the Kurds to rebel.
If there's 100% proof that gases were used... then under the guise of NATO, fething dominate the air... not just "No Fly Zones", but take out ALL anti-air... then destroy ANY militarily.
Then, have NATO/UN go in...
NO US BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
That's fine, looks like a UN, NATO or even possibly a EU problem if they want it, not a US one. Let the UN, NATO or EU take care of it if they want. I'd rather see all the Muslims that cry about crusaders invading their land take care of their own issues. Especially one that is such a no win tar pit as this one.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".
Why is there so much angst about this?
Turkey is a NATO country... they have every reason to get involved, but don't want a major war in Syria because of two main things...
1) The influx of survivors would be massive
2) May encourage the Kurds to rebel.
If there's 100% proof that gases were used... then under the guise of NATO, fething dominate the air... not just "No Fly Zones", but take out ALL anti-air... then destroy ANY militarily.
Then, have NATO/UN go in...
NO US BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
That's fine, looks like a UN, NATO or even possibly a EU problem if they want it, not a US one. Let the UN, NATO or EU take care of it if they want. I'd rather see all the Muslims that cry about crusaders invading their land take care of their own issues. Especially one that is such a no win tar pit as this one.
Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?
It's closer to the EU then the U.S. therefore it's your problem by international law of "It's not in my yard" Bloody hell, worthless Eurozone, when you're not bankrupting yourselves or trying to let the Germans conquer the continent again you're not even able to keep your backyard in a semblance of order.
Not that we can talk too much trash with Mexico, but people got all butt hurt the last time the U.S. started air strikes on sovereign nations/allies.
This is sarcasm.
The fact of the matter is it's the EU's problem just as much as it is the U.S.'s problem, which is to say... not at all. The case could be made for a NATO problem if/when Turkey calls in the Cavalry.
EmilCrane wrote: Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?
And as soon as you start footing the bill for our defense budget, you can tell us how to use it.
EmilCrane wrote: Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?
And as soon as you start footing the bill for our defense budget, you can tell us how to use it.
So is this a slam about me not being an american or not being in the military?
Because I was born in Dallas Texas, and have lived most of my life in the United States of America, I happen to live in New Zealand now but I still have to file taxes in the United States so actually I do "foot the bill" as it were
But no I am not in the military, I'm a post-grad history student doing a PHD in the role of Naval Power in winning the First World War if you must know
US will lead NATO forces if a Syrian missile by chance "miss" its target and lands in Turkey and release sarin gas or some other agent.Russia can protest all it wants in the UN but Turkey a member of NATO so its a NATO response. Like if North Korea launches an attack in Jan and eb of whatever year....ground frozen hard enough to support the weight of armored vehicles. Thats a UN response and not a NATO one. US will lead on that one to...drive them right back to the 38th parallel.
If Syria use a persistant agent though thats a whole new ball game. I'm sure Putin would even start sharing intell on what, where, and who on Syrian units so we can crush them. I wouldn't be suprise if the russian naval base expands their foot print to avoid dealing with decontamination on their base by putting syrian units out of range.
MOPP 4 in the Middle East.....thats some serious casualties waiting to happen. Gawd forbid if they have a worth while Blood agent. Promask filter can handle a blood agent for 2-3 hours before its compromise
Hope whatever units that might get the orders to launch a WMD agent attack refuse the orders. I highly doubt it al commanders say a Hell No...might get one or two
EmilCrane wrote: Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?
And as soon as you start footing the bill for our defense budget, you can tell us how to use it.
So is this a slam about me not being an american or not being in the military?
Because I was born in Dallas Texas, and have lived most of my life in the United States of America, I happen to live in New Zealand now but I still have to file taxes in the United States so actually I do "foot the bill" as it were
But no I am not in the military, I'm a post-grad history student doing a PHD in the role of Naval Power in winning the First World War if you must know
But how much in Taxes do you actually pay? If you spend 330 Days overseas, the first 95K you make is Federally Tax free.
Anyway, We'll have to see how this develops. I'm really curious to see the Obamas Administrations choice in this matter. If we are getting this news now, it's a fair bet that Govt already knows what's going on.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".
Why is there so much angst about this?
Turkey is a NATO country... they have every reason to get involved, but don't want a major war in Syria because of two main things... 1) The influx of survivors would be massive 2) May encourage the Kurds to rebel.
If there's 100% proof that gases were used... then under the guise of NATO, fething dominate the air... not just "No Fly Zones", but take out ALL anti-air... then destroy ANY militarily.
Then, have NATO/UN go in...
NO US BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
That's fine, looks like a UN, NATO or even possibly a EU problem if they want it, not a US one. Let the UN, NATO or EU take care of it if they want. I'd rather see all the Muslims that cry about crusaders invading their land take care of their own issues. Especially one that is such a no win tar pit as this one.
Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?
We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.
We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.
I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.
We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.
I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.
I think he's saying, why is everyone looking at America to fix this when you have a lot of modern nation/militaries who are right there and can step up and deal with it as well?
Personally I was tickled pink when European nations seemed to be eager to take the lead in Libya, and despite my French bashing, I respected their going at it in Mali. It's nice to see other countries stepping up.
That being said, I'm certainly of the camp that ANYONE who uses these weapons needs to be dealt with immediately, and harshly, and I have no compunction with using US resources to deal with people who will unleash some of the most vile weapons mankind has created on their own people.
We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.
I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.
Thats why we have the Second Amendment, and a democratic republic.
We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.
I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.
I think he's saying, why is everyone looking at America to fix this when you have a lot of modern nation/militaries who are right there and can step up and deal with it as well?
Personally I was tickled pink when European nations seemed to be eager to take the lead in Libya, and despite my French bashing, I respected their going at it in Mali. It's nice to see other countries stepping up.
That being said, I'm certainly of the camp that ANYONE who uses these weapons needs to be dealt with immediately, and harshly, and I have no compunction with using US resources to deal with people who will unleash some of the most vile weapons mankind has created on their own people.
Depends. Is it the civil or WMDs. If its because of WMDs we should respond with WMDs. If its not worth us using WMDs then its not a threat in the first place.
We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.
I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.
Thats why we have the Second Amendment, and a democratic republic.
IIRC so did the Syrians (before the long series of coups starting in 1949, though I'm not sure what order their rights were in)
And, Frazz, I have to ask, how does the second amendment protect you from Sarin gas? It's not exactly something you can kill with a gun.
And thank you, Doctor Strangelove, for suggesting we nuke the place. I'm sure that we need to slaughter the populace to prevent their slaughter. [/sarcasm]
I sat around last night and mulled over Dreadclaws questions. Other than my conclusions about his utter lack of empathy or humanity, my gut reaction that the US needs to be involved, both politically and militarily, in this stands. Jihadin has posted a very good alternative to boots on the ground, one that I'm 90% sure would succeed. Conversely, Ketra does have a point that we can't just bomb the place back to he stone age and expect everything to turn up roses either. While 'nation building' seems to be abhorrent to politicians atm, the reality is that is exactly what we'd have to do for any chance at stability in Syria post war.
If you get don to it, ther are two good reasons ot go to war: to defend yourself, and to stop a mass murder/genocide in progress.
We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.
I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.
So the Brits are going in then, eh?
Good to hear. Have fun.
Sorry, what planet are you on?
I already gave my views on the matter earlier on, and what I thought would be appropriate. Perhaps you should read them before you trip over your own wit trying to dismiss my point again, hmm?
Frazzled, governments rise and fall, and mutate over time. You may find that in a hundred years time, those things no longer apply. Whilst I'm not saying America should jump to invade and put things to right now (I'm not sure it would do much good for anyone unless under the plan I outlined earlier), I would hope that basic human empathy would make you want to help them in some way if possible, that wouldn't be too badly to the detriment of your own populace. As opposed to just going, 'eh, too far away to care'.
BaronIveagh wrote: Conversely, Ketra does have a point that we can't just bomb the place back to he stone age and expect everything to turn up roses either. While 'nation building' seems to be abhorrent to politicians atm, the reality is that is exactly what we'd have to do for any chance at stability in Syria post war.
The problem with bombing things back to the stone age is that that it builds nothing. It only destroys. And when all you do is destroy, it actually makes it easier for another autocratic regime to take charge, as the chap left with the most guns on the ground takes control. And then you're just looking at the same problem repeating in twenty years.
The only way to break that trend is a marshall plan-esque international occupation. Whilst its still possible that things might go wrong after that, the proof to date would seem to indicate that it takes far longer, and that the populace becomes far more culturally acclimatized to democracy and justice.
I already gave my views on the matter earlier on, and what I thought would be appropriate. Perhaps you should read them before you trip over your own wit trying to dismiss my point again, hmm?
Your view appears to be that someone should do something, just not you.
Thats why we have the Second Amendment, and a democratic republic.
IIRC so did the Syrians (before the long series of coups starting in 1949, though I'm not sure what order their rights were in)
And, Frazz, I have to ask, how does the second amendment protect you from Sarin gas? It's not exactly something you can kill with a gun.
And thank you, Doctor Strangelove, for suggesting we nuke the place. I'm sure that we need to slaughter the populace to prevent their slaughter. [/sarcasm]
I sat around last night and mulled over Dreadclaws questions. Other than my conclusions about his utter lack of empathy or humanity, my gut reaction that the US needs to be involved, both politically and militarily, in this stands. Jihadin has posted a very good alternative to boots on the ground, one that I'm 90% sure would succeed. Conversely, Ketra does have a point that we can't just bomb the place back to he stone age and expect everything to turn up roses either. While 'nation building' seems to be abhorrent to politicians atm, the reality is that is exactly what we'd have to do for any chance at stability in Syria post war.
If you get don to it, ther are two good reasons ot go to war: to defend yourself, and to stop a mass murder/genocide in progress.
The Second Amendment is there to insure, along with the military, that the democratically elected Republic remains a democratically elerted Republic. As long as they don't rely on my typing and proofing skills the Republic shall stand.
So, its not worth nuking them then. So its not really about WMDs then, it really is just the civil war. Then I restate - you go. After your side wins and you end up in prison or deaded by your former colleagues, call me and tell me how it worked out.
darkPrince010 wrote: Well, do you mind linking to it again since I've combed over the entire thread, again, and still can't find anything about your proposed solution?
I'm not sure how you manage to miss this (twice) in a 5 page thread but here you go.
BaronIveagh wrote: Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 1k+ tonnes of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.
Just in case you thought I wasn't answering this - provide the Israelis with the intelligence, weapon systems, logistics and political cover to obliterate the storage facilities. No US casualties from that.
darkPrince010 wrote: Decent point, although I doubt Russia wants to remain too closely associated with a country known to use chemical weapons. However, the potential loss of life from terrorist activities coming from an AQ-aligned post-Assad government still seems like you're inflating your estimate compared to the loss of life that has occurred, and will continue to occur, if we don't attempt to neutralize the Syrian government response in a similar way to how we handled Libya. There are probably no "good" outcomes to getting involved, but quite frankly the outcome occurring today, right here and now in Syria, seems to me to be far worse.
Really? Remember the theater siege in Moscow? A lot of the deaths from that were from the Russians using gas on their own citizens. You might have missed Russia's glowing record on human rights in places like Chechnya and elsewhere, showing that they don't spend much time worrying about human rights. Russia has been a firm Syrian ally to date, including weapons, hard currency etc. and to date they haven't made any attempt to distance themselves, nor reign in their ally. Very different response compared to China's handling of North Korea recently.
You're still omitting Iran from the equation, as well as ignoring the historical precedent of what may happen to Syria by looking at it's neighbour Lebanon.
Glad to see you're finally realising that there isn't a good outcome. But you still seem to think that sending in troops to a civil war, were both sides have ample reason to kill you seems like a good idea. Never mind the mess that the country will be in for decades to come, and the strengthening of an enemy no matter what the outcome is, as well as weakening ourselves through yet more debt. Still waiting on a compelling reason for why it has to be the US too.
darkPrince010 wrote: Source, for both points? Because I'm pretty damned sure if the US had actually involved itself in Rwanda instead of sat back and "just let it handle itself" then the civil war there would have been recorded as a fething war, not a genocide.
You're looking for a source to say that civilians in a heavily populated country, with a roughly equal portions on each side, engaged in a civil war won't get killed in crossfire or military operations? That source is common sense
And as far as the second point goes, just about every civilian death in either Iraq or Afghanistan, regardless of who was responsible (yes, the US got blamed for civilian deaths from AQ attacks because of the argument that it wouldn't have happened if the US didn't invade)
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm actually sort of mulling it over. As I said, your position has merit and I'll sit here and consider it. Your answer about the chemical weapons though, still does not have a workable answer, as I pointed out, palming it off on Israel is unlikely to succeed no matter how much air support and intel we provide. Jihadin had a much better idea, but we'd need very accurate intel on the munitions, their storage, etc. I like the airstrikes idea, but we'd need to be absolutely sure that it wouldn't make the situation worse, which is what we failed to do at Salman Pak.
So getting Israel to carry out airstrikes won't work for reasons that you have not specified (because they have no experience right? Its not like they took out Saddam's nuclear reactor in Operation Opera, or took out an Iranian nuclear reactor in Operation Orchard, or that their airforce has a long history of tragetted strikes against their enemies), but us carrying out airstrikes will work....
Monster Rain wrote: I wonder how effective shooting at sarin gas with guns would be.
Is that a serious question?
The second amendment was cited as a deterrent from this sort of thing ever happening in the US. While I'm pro second amendment and all, I question the logic behind that idea.
You can't rely on the Israelis to do this for a few reasons:
1. There is no way we give them the correct munitions needed to destroy chem stockpiles, and even if we did they don't have the training in delivery nor the right platforms to deliver them.
2. Hitting them will require taking down an integrated ADA system that is pretty modern, meaning it is going to take a number of sorties that Israel would have trouble maintaining.
3. In the region you already have Arab nations friendly to us providing various support to ops in Syria (Jordan, Saudi, the Emirates) and bringing Israel as the striking force would NOT be a good thing for them, especially as it would be a multi-week extensive campaign.
Monster Rain wrote: I wonder how effective shooting at sarin gas with guns would be.
Is that a serious question?
The second amendment was cited as a deterrent from this sort of thing ever happening in the US. While I'm pro second amendment and all, I question the logic behind that idea.
You don't shoot the gas. You insure that the republic remains a republic and thats not an issue.
CptJake wrote: You can't rely on the Israelis to do this for a few reasons:
1. There is no way we give them the correct munitions needed to destroy chem stockpiles, and even if we did they don't have the training in delivery nor the right platforms to deliver them.
2. Hitting them will require taking down an integrated ADA system that is pretty modern, meaning it is going to take a number of sorties that Israel would have trouble maintaining.
3. In the region you already have Arab nations friendly to us providing various support to ops in Syria (Jordan, Saudi, the Emirates) and bringing Israel as the striking force would NOT be a good thing for them, especially as it would be a multi-week extensive campaign.
1. Israel has every capability of deliviring munitions that we do, short of space borne nukes.
2. Israel has repeatedly shown their ability to penetrate Syria's ADA system with impugnity.
djones520 wrote: That is really old as well, since 3 of those carriers are no longer in active service.
Really? I would have thought that our resident "Operator" would have known that. Can't win 'em all I guess
It also showed a carrier that is still being built. So 4 of the 14 it showed aren't actually in service. We currently have a 10 Carrier fleet, and I believe one of those is stuck in dock indefinitely due to fuel issues.
Monster Rain wrote: Certainly as sad as tinfoil Israeli conspiracies. I hope people will talk to the UN "police" about the nerve gas.
I'm very much okay with a little bit of world policing.
I'm sure they will. But I'm also sure that Assad's ally Russia will have their veto power ready as one of the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council
CptJake wrote: You can't rely on the Israelis to do this for a few reasons:
1. There is no way we give them the correct munitions needed to destroy chem stockpiles, and even if we did they don't have the training in delivery nor the right platforms to deliver them.
2. Hitting them will require taking down an integrated ADA system that is pretty modern, meaning it is going to take a number of sorties that Israel would have trouble maintaining.
3. In the region you already have Arab nations friendly to us providing various support to ops in Syria (Jordan, Saudi, the Emirates) and bringing Israel as the striking force would NOT be a good thing for them, especially as it would be a multi-week extensive campaign.
1. Israel has every capability of deliviring munitions that we do, short of space borne nukes.
2. Israel has repeatedly shown their ability to penetrate Syria's ADA system with impugnity.
3. Israel don't give a gak.
1. Not remotely true, unless they have a bunch of B2s, B52s and B1s I don't know about. The aircraft they have do NOT have the capability to drop some of the munitions we can.
2. Big difference between a raid and a campaign (and a raid does not get this job done)
3. Irrelevant, WE care because we need the support of those other nations.
Soladrin wrote: The idea of one country being a moral compass for the world is stupid anyway.
I wish more people would agree with this statement .
Ketara when you invade another country it isn't as simple as remove the government problem solved ( i thought the US' last two efforts would have proven that) . If you don't know how the country works socially you are just going to leave it worse than when you invaded.
I think the world has had enough "policing".
Trust me, I'm aware of that.
The trick is to instill the necessary cultural traits, which none of our 'interventions' of late do. Mainly because they tend to be motivated by money and business interests rather than humanitarian concerns. Allow me to contrast for you.
Take Afghanistan. All the aid money we send there is either embezzled by a corrupt and morally bankrupt Government little better than the one we toppled. The Taliban run back and forth across the border, and our soldiers are not viewed particularly well by the public. The hearts and minds campaign is shoddily run, and consists of us giving contracts to private organisations who then siphon off as much as they can. We are also under massive pressure to withdraw at home, because we're achieving absolutely nothing. Which is correct.
Contrast this with post war Japan or West Germany. Military occupations, vast amounts of cash funneled in, our own administrators and bureaucrats temporarily positioned there to ensure things go accordingly. Significant amounts of funding channeled into what is, in effect, cultural reprogramming. State apparatus set up in such a way as to ensure the inability of future coups by aggressive administrations, and ingrained over time.
I would rather have something more like the latter, only modelled along humanitarian concerns. Direct occupation for a clearly defined set of time (twenty years I would have thought) with checkboxes along the way. As the country begins to resemble a democratic and free nation, we withdraw more and more controls and hand over more and more power. The fact that it is an joint international effort erases any concept of individual colonialism and ensures the 'occupiers' adhere to their withdrawal.
To fund it? Aid budgets. We've been throwing money at Africa and the Middle East for nigh on fifty years now. The drip drip approach to aid clearly does not work. What countries like Syria and Zimbabwe need is us taking direct control for a period of time to install stability, law and order, and the freedom of political affiliation, worship, and so on. It'll save us money in the long run, as opposed to continuing our current approach.
So what you're really saying is that you want another country that produces really effed porn?
Why does US occupation have that effect on nations.....
BaronIveagh wrote: I sat around last night and mulled over Dreadclaws questions. Other than my conclusions about his utter lack of empathy or humanity, my gut reaction that the US needs to be involved, both politically and militarily, in this stands. Jihadin has posted a very good alternative to boots on the ground, one that I'm 90% sure would succeed. Conversely, Ketra does have a point that we can't just bomb the place back to he stone age and expect everything to turn up roses either. While 'nation building' seems to be abhorrent to politicians atm, the reality is that is exactly what we'd have to do for any chance at stability in Syria post war.
If you get don to it, ther are two good reasons ot go to war: to defend yourself, and to stop a mass murder/genocide in progress.
Nice, yet unnecessary slur So your gut still tells you that you feel that something must be done. Yet you cannot come up with an actual thought out reason why we need to leap into a bloody civil war, were both sides are likely to be hostile in the long run, which will strengthen an enemy while weakening us? You want troops deployed for what could be years and possibly killed not because it'll make the US safer, but because your gut tells you so.
Still waiting on hearing how exactly Syria is our problem, and why we have to be the world police
I'll just para-phrase what Frazz said - if you feel that strongly hop a plane to Turkey. Just because you, who isn't currently serving in the military, want something done that isn't a reason for you to want others to risk their lives.
Israel has a significant supply of GBU-28's. That is our go to weapon for bunker busting. They are deliverable by conventional fighters like the F-15 and F-16, which Israel also has a considerable amount of. You do not need strategic bombers to hit isolated sites where you know these weapons to be located at. And I'd bet my next pay check that Israeli intelligence knows the location of Syria's chemical and biological weapons.
Israel is more then capable of getting into Syria and destroying their ADA. All they need is a "raid" to get the radar sites down, and then they can operate with relative ease. Again, a sustained campaign wouldn't be necessary. The goal is to neautralize the NBC threat, not win a war. Several quick strikes would mostly assure that.
Now, the odds of this happening are pretty slim, but Israel would be more then capable of getting it done, and as they've shown in the past, they could give two craps about international opinion on the matter if they feel it's in their best interest to get the job done.
djones520 wrote: Israel has a significant supply of GBU-28's. That is our go to weapon for bunker busting. They are deliverable by conventional fighters like the F-15 and F-16, which Israel also has a considerable amount of. You do not need strategic bombers to hit isolated sites where you know these weapons to be located at. And I'd bet my next pay check that Israeli intelligence knows the location of Syria's chemical and biological weapons.
Israel is more then capable of getting into Syria and destroying their ADA. All they need is a "raid" to get the radar sites down, and then they can operate with relative ease. Again, a sustained campaign wouldn't be necessary. The goal is to neautralize the NBC threat, not win a war. Several quick strikes would mostly assure that.
Now, the odds of this happening are pretty slim, but Israel would be more then capable of getting it done, and as they've shown in the past, they could give two craps about international opinion on the matter if they feel it's in their best interest to get the job done.
Israel has also taken out nuclear reactors in Iraq and Iran, as well as surgical strikes on munitions moving from Syria into Lebanon for Hizbollah. Their pilots have the tools, resources and experience and are a much safer bet than asking Turkey to carry out the strikes. Add in the fact that Syria is in a state of civil war so dealing with their air defenses should not tax the Israeli airforce much.
Israel will make sure that she is safe. Its hard to care about international opinion when surrounded by previously hostile countries and an international community content to sit back and let events unfold.
djones520 wrote: Israel has a significant supply of GBU-28's. That is our go to weapon for bunker busting. They are deliverable by conventional fighters like the F-15 and F-16, which Israel also has a considerable amount of. You do not need strategic bombers to hit isolated sites where you know these weapons to be located at. And I'd bet my next pay check that Israeli intelligence knows the location of Syria's chemical and biological weapons.
Israel is more then capable of getting into Syria and destroying their ADA. All they need is a "raid" to get the radar sites down, and then they can operate with relative ease. Again, a sustained campaign wouldn't be necessary. The goal is to neautralize the NBC threat, not win a war. Several quick strikes would mostly assure that.
Now, the odds of this happening are pretty slim, but Israel would be more then capable of getting it done, and as they've shown in the past, they could give two craps about international opinion on the matter if they feel it's in their best interest to get the job done.
I doubt Israel gets involved. I'd proffer Hezzbullah and Hamas will get the call by their masters and start firing thousands of rockets into Israel the moment they go into Syria, and it will rile up the rest of ME. Like us, they don't have a good scenario here. At least with the current government they probalby wouldn't have a major shooting war in the next decade or two. With the New Guys (TM) that can't be said at all.
They'd love a break between the Syria and Iran alliance, I just don't think they see that happening with any of the players involved.
I already gave my views on the matter earlier on, and what I thought would be appropriate. Perhaps you should read them before you trip over your own wit trying to dismiss my point again, hmm?
Your view appears to be that someone should do something, just not you.
Ahhh! So you didn't read it! I'll say it again in the hope that your reading comprehension won't fail you this time.
I would gladly donate towards a cause such as I outlined. I would happily sign up to support a limited marshall plan-esque humanitarian occupation, be it in a role as an administrator, a teacher, or even a soldier.
Frazzled wrote: I doubt Israel gets involved. I'd proffer Hezzbullah and Hamas will get the call by their masters and start firing thousands of rockets into Israel the moment they go into Syria, and it will rile up the rest of ME. Like us, they don't have a good scenario here. At least with the current government they probalby wouldn't have a major shooting war in the next decade or two. With the New Guys (TM) that can't be said at all.
They'd love a break between the Syria and Iran alliance, I just don't think they see that happening with any of the players involved.
And that is the one big issue with asking Israel to get involved. We're asking a country, with who's leader our President does not always see eye to eye and were there are trust issues, to paint an awful big target on themselves.
Frazzled wrote: I doubt Israel gets involved. I'd proffer Hezzbullah and Hamas will get the call by their masters and start firing thousands of rockets into Israel the moment they go into Syria, and it will rile up the rest of ME. Like us, they don't have a good scenario here. At least with the current government they probalby wouldn't have a major shooting war in the next decade or two. With the New Guys (TM) that can't be said at all.
They'd love a break between the Syria and Iran alliance, I just don't think they see that happening with any of the players involved.
And that is the one big issue with asking Israel to get involved. We're asking a country, with who's leader our President does not always see eye to eye and were there are trust issues, to paint an awful big target on themselves.
Of course its not like they don't already have a big target on themselves that got there for no reason other than existing.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course its not like they don't already have a big target on themselves that got there for no reason other than existing.
That's true. But they have had a period of relative quiet with a lot of their former enemies. Asking them to bomb Syria, which some have friendly ties to, might be lighting the fuse on another round of hostilities. And that's without factoring in Iran's response.
So your gut still tells you that you feel that something must be done. Yet you cannot come up with an actual thought out reason why we need to leap into a bloody civil war, were both sides are likely to be hostile in the long run, which will strengthen an enemy while weakening us? You want troops deployed for what could be years and possibly killed not because it'll make the US safer, but because your gut tells you so.
Still waiting on hearing how exactly Syria is our problem, and why we have to be the world police
Well, one, hopping a plane to turkey and just presenting myself as a merc is actually a crime. There are rules for that sort of thing.
Two I've explained my position and my reasoning.
Sending in Israel has the potential to make this an even bigger blood bath. Their track record in Syria and Lebanon is so bad that accusations of crimes against humanity have been leveled at Israel BY Israel. From the view of Joe Average in those places, it'd be like sending the Nazis in to restore order in Jerusalem. Use your head.
You can argue that attempting to stabilize Syria (no matter who wins) is bad for the US, but a destabilized Syria is much worse in the long run. This is already spilling over the boarder into NATO member states. Eventually the US will be dragged into this unless we're going to back out of NATO and the UN. It's better to enter now, on our own terms, than sit back and wait for it to become a much larger regional conflict with terrorists making out like bandits from the confusion.
The choice is a relatively small deployment now, vs a much larger deployment later, and the situation going from one that can be brought under something resembling control, to one where we no longer have any real chance of containing the potential spread of chemical weapons technology in the hands of terrorists.
CptJake: that's my major concern with Jihadins plan, but so far, unlike some posters, he actually came up with a reasonable, viable alternative to 'boots on the ground'. Frankly without actual Intel we're a bunch of armchair generals spouting a lot of theory, so he may be right he may be wrong, but his responses have at least been constructive. I remember that when we hit Salman Pak we inadvertently released a lot of biological and chemical agents that friendly forces got exposed to. Even at sub lethal doses, there have been long term health effects (Gulf War Syndrome). An airstrike would eliminate the production and storage facilities and remove the immediate security risk to the US, but there's chance of causing a massive loss of civilian life if we screw the pooch.
Remember Bari?
If we do it right, it is potentially workable. 90% is my odds on it succeeding. There's always the 10% chance of FUBAR. That's why I pointed out we'd need very good intel on the storage and location of these weapons. If they're storing them in the middle of a major city, then logically this would have to be reevaluated.
Ahhh! So you didn't read it! I'll say it again in the hope that your reading comprehension won't fail you this time.
I would gladly donate towards a cause such as I outlined. I would happily sign up to support a limited marshall plan-esque humanitarian occupation, be it in a role as an administrator, a teacher, or even a soldier.
Next time read what I write.
I read it. I just didn't buy it. There's nothing stopping you from doing so, yet...here you are.
Well, there's that, and there's the fact that your country lacks the resources to run a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, or even a country within it.
CptJake wrote: You can't rely on the Israelis to do this for a few reasons:
1. There is no way we give them the correct munitions needed to destroy chem stockpiles, and even if we did they don't have the training in delivery nor the right platforms to deliver them.
2. Hitting them will require taking down an integrated ADA system that is pretty modern, meaning it is going to take a number of sorties that Israel would have trouble maintaining.
3. In the region you already have Arab nations friendly to us providing various support to ops in Syria (Jordan, Saudi, the Emirates) and bringing Israel as the striking force would NOT be a good thing for them, especially as it would be a multi-week extensive campaign.
1. Israel has every capability of deliviring munitions that we do, short of space borne nukes.
2. Israel has repeatedly shown their ability to penetrate Syria's ADA system with impugnity.
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, one, hopping a plane to turkey and just presenting myself as a merc is actually a crime. There are rules for that sort of thing.
So a minor crime is putting YOU off actually doing something, but lets send in the troops and damn the lives lost there? For someone with NDA military knowledge you're pretty blase about sending people to die for no benefit to the US.
No, you've just said that something should be done because of your gut feeling concerning people in a country that we are not responsible for may have had chemical weapons used on them (requiring a lower standard of proof to send in soldiers to fight and die than you wanted to send someone to face justice for crimes he is accused of). All the while ignoring the larger issues and future ramifications. So yes, you've explained your position, but if that is what you consider reasoning from someone who has military knowledge then I despair
BaronIveagh wrote: Sending in Israel has the potential to make this an even bigger blood bath. Their track record in Syria and Lebanon is so bad that accusations of crimes against humanity have been leveled at Israel BY Israel. From the view of Joe Average in those places, it'd be like sending the Nazis in to restore order in Jerusalem. Use your head.
Read the rest of my posts where I say it isn't ideal, but it lets us do something while keeping US soldiers from dying.
And Godwin again? Really?? Change the record, its sounding broken
BaronIveagh wrote: You can argue that attempting to stabilize Syria (no matter who wins) is bad for the US, but a destabilized Syria is much worse in the long run. This is already spilling over the boarder into NATO member states. Eventually the US will be dragged into this unless we're going to back out of NATO and the UN. It's better to enter now, on our own terms, than sit back and wait for it to become a much larger regional conflict with terrorists making out like bandits from the confusion.
The choice is a relatively small deployment now, vs a much larger deployment later, and the situation going from one that can be brought under something resembling control, to one where we no longer have any real chance of containing the potential spread of chemical weapons technology in the hands of terrorists.
You keep mentioning the UN and ignoring the fact that Russia has a veto on their action. You also ignore Iran and its reaction to any involvement in Syria. A destabilised Syria means that Jihadis are going there to fight and die instead of plotting attacks against the US and its interests. Remind me how that's a bad thing?
You talk about entering on our own terms, I don't think that getting dragged into a long standing civil war that we don't have to, which has wider geo-political ramifications is called entering on our own terms. What about the end game? You want Syria brought under "something resembling control" when we've already been in Afghanistan for ten years trying to establish something resembling control so we can leave, we did the same with Iraq and now it seems to be getting friendly with Syria. Your "something resembling control" involves either a long term investment that we cannot afford, either in human lives or resources, or handing the country over to the FSA and its AQ allies. What do you think will happen then?
No. The choice is between;
- Getting involved in a civil war were there is no viable group to back. So we send in service members to fight and die in a conflict that does not benefit us, but instead makes us weaker
- Doing nothing and not deploying. Instead we let our intelligence agencies deal with any threat that may emerge, as they have been doing for decades. That's part of the reason for their existence.
Frazzled wrote: Wait you're ok with killing people, but blanche at a minor crime? Must go with the tacticool battle armor you're wearing.
Just renounce your citizenship. Problem solved.
First, I'm ok with killing people, as long as it keeps other people from being killed in one of the most horrible manners I can think of.
Second, It's not just a crime in the United States frazz. Even if I showed up and made the offer (and had someone translate because I don't speak Turkish), Turkey would be unlikely to accept because of international law. Just look at the mess that PMCs are in in Iraq right now due to the departure of the US changing their status, since technically, mercs get lumped in with terrorists as 'unlawful combatants' when the nation they're citizens of is not party to the conflict and is a violation of the laws of war.
So a minor crime is putting YOU off actually doing something, but lets send in the troops and damn the lives lost there? For someone with NDA military knowledge you're pretty blase about sending people to die for no benefit to the US.
As I pointed out before, it's technically a war crime for both parties to such a contract. Not a minor thing.
Read the rest of my posts where I say it isn't ideal, but it lets us do something while keeping US soldiers from dying.
And Godwin again? Really?? Change the record, its sounding broken
Then come up with something half way viable instead of 'palm off problem on someone else, bury head in sand, hope nothing happens'.
When discussing war crimes, Godwin again specifically does not apply. If you doubt me, consult wikipedia or usenet.
You keep mentioning the UN and ignoring the fact that Russia has a veto on their action. You also ignore Iran and its reaction to any involvement in Syria. A destabilised Syria means that Jihadis are going there to fight and die instead of plotting attacks against the US and its interests. Remind me how that's a bad thing?
Yes, but they have no such Veto in NATO. And make no mistake, when Turkey is attacked, and they have been a few times already, do you think the US is going to abandon NATO?
Further, it's a bad thing because they're the ones winning the war for the Syrian people right now. You're quick to point out that a post war government if we back the rebels *may* be pro AQ. I'll point out that if we do nothing, they most definitely *will* be pro AQ.
You talk about entering on our own terms, I don't think that getting dragged into a long standing civil war that we don't have to, which has wider geo-political ramifications is called entering on our own terms. What about the end game? You want Syria brought under "something resembling control" when we've already been in Afghanistan for ten years trying to establish something resembling control so we can leave, we did the same with Iraq and now it seems to be getting friendly with Syria. Your "something resembling control" involves either a long term investment that we cannot afford, either in human lives or resources, or handing the country over to the FSA and its AQ allies. What do you think will happen then?
No. The choice is between;
- Getting involved in a civil war were there is no viable group to back. So we send in service members to fight and die in a conflict that does not benefit us, but instead makes us weaker
- Doing nothing and not deploying. Instead we let our intelligence agencies deal with any threat that may emerge, as they have been doing for decades. That's part of the reason for their existence.
My question is, do you want to be involved when it's small or when it spreads over the boarder into Turkey and forces the US in? Because it not only will, it's already started to. Assuming that this situation continues to get worse, not an unfair assessment, there is no viable 'not deploying' option. The question is how and when to best do it in order to maximize lives saved and minimize men lost.
BaronIveagh wrote: First, I'm ok with killing people, as long as it keeps other people from being killed in one of the most horrible manners I can think of.
You're also ok with throwing explosives at the police and shooting at them to escape legitimate arrest lest we forget. Now you're content to send other people to die to assuage your gut feeling that something needs done.
BaronIveagh wrote: Second, It's not just a crime in the United States frazz. Even if I showed up and made the offer (and had someone translate because I don't speak Turkish), Turkey would be unlikely to accept because of international law. Just look at the mess that PMCs are in in Iraq right now due to the departure of the US changing their status, since technically, mercs get lumped in with terrorists as 'unlawful combatants' when the nation they're citizens of is not party to the conflict and is a violation of the laws of war.
That's an awful abrupt about turn. On Page 1 of this very thread you had no problems going, now you're scrambling for a reason not to
And yet there are thousands of people streaming to Syria to fight. A man of morality would not let a mere law stop him. DId laws stop Martin Luther King? No way Jose! Come on, pick up that tacticool pen. Cut a check for the flight and boogie. Put those badass mofo 'operator' skills to work. I'm sure they can use a person of your obvious nefarious talents.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".
Why is there so much angst about this?
Turkey is a NATO country... they have every reason to get involved, but don't want a major war in Syria because of two main things...
1) The influx of survivors would be massive
2) May encourage the Kurds to rebel.
If there's 100% proof that gases were used... then under the guise of NATO, fething dominate the air... not just "No Fly Zones", but take out ALL anti-air... then destroy ANY militarily.
Then, have NATO/UN go in...
NO US BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
That's fine, looks like a UN, NATO or even possibly a EU problem if they want it, not a US one. Let the UN, NATO or EU take care of it if they want. I'd rather see all the Muslims that cry about crusaders invading their land take care of their own issues. Especially one that is such a no win tar pit as this one.
Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?
Yes of course I understand that historically the US is the leading arm of NATO and the UN. It's time for someone else to take that role in theaters that are closer to our allies than us. Libya is a good example but I bet the US still spent more than it's allies combined on that operation.
I don't think it's an EU problem, but it's more of an EU problem than a US problem. Turkey is a member of NATO, but it is also very close to being a member of the EU.
I'm saying this is a Middle east problem first (Arab League), possibly an EU problem if Turkey gets involved, and a US problem dead fracking last.
Seriously, why does Europe have all this military if all they are going to do is call the US every time there is a problem? I don't really have a problem with it, but then just liquidate your forces and send the US your budgets. I'm not positive but I bet the US has more more military and spends more money on bases and military in Europe than Europe does!
MARSHAL PLAN? Are you kidding? Do you know how incredibly expensive that is? Not just in money, but in lives? Who pays the bill for that in money, blood and political capitol? There is a giant bomb heading to the US right now called the National Debt and you want to spend Billions throwing money into the toilet that is Syria. For what? If you can't sleep at night take an ambian!
Look at all the countries that the US has to fly over just to get to Syria, if they can't be bothered to do something about this besides tell us we need to do something, I don't see why the country that is the farthest away is required to step up.
Ahhh! So you didn't read it! I'll say it again in the hope that your reading comprehension won't fail you this time.
I would gladly donate towards a cause such as I outlined. I would happily sign up to support a limited marshall plan-esque humanitarian occupation, be it in a role as an administrator, a teacher, or even a soldier.
Next time read what I write.
I read it. I just didn't buy it. There's nothing stopping you from doing so, yet...here you are.
Well, there's that, and there's the fact that your country lacks the resources to run a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, or even a country within it.
Oh I see.
So you said that I just wanted other people to go and do it for me, even though you were aware I had already said I'd be part of such an effort. Genius! You had me completely fooled! Here I was just thinking that it was just your reading comprehension that had failed, when you were actually just raising contradictions to be obtuse!
I'm sure you're a popular fellow back home.
MARSHAL PLAN? Are you kidding? Do you know how incredibly expensive that is? Not just in money, but in lives? Who pays the bill for that in money, blood and political capitol? There is a giant bomb heading to the US right now called the National Debt and you want to spend Billions throwing money into the toilet that is Syria. For what? If you can't sleep at night take an ambian!
As I already said, we urinate a vast amount of money up the wall in overseas aid budgets collectively, that achieves absolutely nothing. If you took say, fifty percent of that (that's six billion pounds in the UK alone), I think you'd find that the West would find it quite affordable.
And its nothing to do with being able to sleep at night. I just know that for a little bit of good luck, I'd be in the same godforsaken plight that the civilians over there are in. And in their shoes, I'd be praying for someone to stop the autocratic regime and terrorist partisans from shooting and lobbing shells around.
That's an awful abrupt about turn. On Page 1 of this very thread you had no problems going, now you're scrambling for a reason not to
Might want to read that second post you quoted again. The people that make that decision have not yet. I don't get to. If I did, I'd be on a plane.
And while you can mock and insult me, you don't actually disprove anything I said. In fact, in the case of Dreadclaw, all you do is reenforce my supposed 'slurs' against you, proving that, while I may be many things, you went from having a single good point to being just another internet donkey-cave.
There are rules to PMCs, you follow them, or you get fired if you're very lucky. If you're not, you end up with your head chopped off.
Frazz, most of the people streaming into Syria at least speak the language. I do not. Rather than just randomly show up, I'll use common sense and wait the things that go along with waiting for a decision like a line of supply. I know a guy that went to Central America an just sort of showed up to paradrop for a rebel group. They didn't factor in that he was larger than the average rebel there and gave him the wrong sized chute. He was lucky and just broke his leg on landing. There's a big difference between going to fight and going to commit suicide.
As I already said, we urinate a vast amount of money up the wall in overseas aid budgets collectively, that achieves absolutely nothing. If you took say, fifty percent of that (that's six billion pounds in the UK alone), I think you'd find that the West would find it quite affordable.
And its nothing to do with being able to sleep at night. I just know that for a little bit of good luck, I'd be in the same godforsaken plight that the civilians over there are in. And in their shoes, I'd be praying for someone to stop the autocratic regime and terrorist partisans from shooting and lobbing shells around.
First of all, if we could just simply change allocations like that we would be better off just cancelling them and keeping the money to ourselves, but it doesn't work that way.
Second you are forgetting about blood and political capitol.
They should "pray" for a bus to get them out of the warzone or use those "shoes" to start walking. This is not a new conflict, get the hell out!
There is injustice all over the world, I just don't see why it is always the US's problem when there are capable countries that should have much more interest in what is going on in their regions.
There is injustice right here in the US, I see hungry people in the streets, some of them are vets. I would rather see the money going to help our people where it is needed, before we go off on some crusade to help people that to be honest will never appreciate what we do for them and will probably be shooting at us as we try to hand them a sandwich. There are people right here in the states that are more deserving of help and might actually contribute if they are given the opportunity.
Someone is going to come in and say something about "Drop in the bucket". I'm so sick of this. If we paid attention to "every drop in the bucket" eventually the bucket would be full instead of pissing it all over the world for nothing.
Might want to read that second post you quoted again. The people that make that decision have not yet. I don't get to. If I did, I'd be on a plane.
Whats stopping you from going? I'm sure they will take volunteers. Plenty of Americans have gone to war without the US going.
What an absolute crock of gak. You want to go, you go.
You want to go and die or you want to go and win? Let me ask you, let's say I want to go without bothering to go with people: how do I bring my gear? Can't just put it on a plane and go, nor do you want to depend on them to arm you when you get there. So you need to ship your gear. So which gear? I've never been to either Syria or Turkey, so I don't know. I'll assume that I'd need better engine filters in particular than are currently equipped. How about NBC sealing? Will that hold up in this environment? Dunno, never been there.
BaronIveagh wrote: As I pointed out before, it's technically a war crime for both parties to such a contract. Not a minor thing.
I can't hear you over the sound of your back tracking Shame you didn't remember this when you were all hot to trot on Page 1
BaronIveagh wrote: Then come up with something half way viable instead of 'palm off problem on someone else, bury head in sand, hope nothing happens'.
I'm not the one pushing for intervention here. You are. Why do you want me to make an argument for intervention and undermine my own position when you can't even put forward a coherent argument yourself. So far all you've managed is;
- I'm thinking
- My gut tells me something needs done
You haven't considered the long term effects of intervention on Syria, on the region, on the United States, on the men and women we'll send into harms way, on Russia, on AQ, on the geo-political landscape. Nothing. You're living in a world where we need to solve everyone's problems and you have no problem having others sacrifice their lives to do so
BaronIveagh wrote: When discussing war crimes, Godwin again specifically does not apply. If you doubt me, consult wikipedia or usenet.
Yes, because to compare Israel to the Nazis is always classy....
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, but they have no such Veto in NATO. And make no mistake, when Turkey is attacked, and they have been a few times already, do you think the US is going to abandon NATO?
Further, it's a bad thing because they're the ones winning the war for the Syrian people right now. You're quick to point out that a post war government if we back the rebels *may* be pro AQ. I'll point out that if we do nothing, they most definitely *will* be pro AQ.
So your solution is to set the organisation designed to counter the USSR up against Russian interests in the region? Do you honestly think that Russia will tolerate that, or that there won't be long term repercussions when Russian help is needed on Iran or North Korea? Will the US abandon NATO, unlikely. But will it rush in to conduct an ill advised war that no one wants and back a country that's been butting heads with a long standing ally (Israel)?
No matter what we do they'll be pro-AQ, or failing that then those loyal to AQ will take what they want by force. That's what I've been saying. Why do you want US servicemen and women to die so that AQ benefits? Intervening won't solve anything there, you're forgetting the attitude of - me against my brother; my brother and I against our cousins; my brother, my cousins and I against the outsider.
BaronIveagh wrote: My question is, do you want to be involved when it's small or when it spreads over the boarder into Turkey and forces the US in? Because it not only will, it's already started to. Assuming that this situation continues to get worse, not an unfair assessment, there is no viable 'not deploying' option. The question is how and when to best do it in order to maximize lives saved and minimize men lost.
No. Your question ignores the fundamental point that intervention will not be small and it is instead likely to escalate matters in the region and further afield when Russia and Iran decide to get more hands on because they have too much to lose from your ill thought out intervention. You keep ignoring everything that I say and just repeat your own argument again. You aren't having a discussion. You're trying to lecture me instead of addressing any of the points that I raise. You're trying to win a discussion by attrition instead of reason. You ignored everything I typed when I said
'You talk about entering on our own terms, I don't think that getting dragged into a long standing civil war that we don't have to, which has wider geo-political ramifications is called entering on our own terms. What about the end game? You want Syria brought under "something resembling control" when we've already been in Afghanistan for ten years trying to establish something resembling control so we can leave, we did the same with Iraq and now it seems to be getting friendly with Syria. Your "something resembling control" involves either a long term investment that we cannot afford, either in human lives or resources, or handing the country over to the FSA and its AQ allies. What do you think will happen then?
No. The choice is between;
- Getting involved in a civil war were there is no viable group to back. So we send in service members to fight and die in a conflict that does not benefit us, but instead makes us weaker
- Doing nothing and not deploying. Instead we let our intelligence agencies deal with any threat that may emerge, as they have been doing for decades. That's part of the reason for their existence."
If you want to maximise lives saved then stay as far away from it as you can. It is not our problem and I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why we need to make it our problem.
I think people should calm down a touch...
It would be nice if we (We being NATO) could roll up and help restore order and a nice government but the political reality is that it won't happen.
Not only does the current regime not want us but it looks like the rebels don't particularly want us there either.
Furthermore it would, like many here have said, just provide bad or misled people with more targets. Those targets being our troops.
Them's the breaks...
Might want to read that second post you quoted again. The people that make that decision have not yet. I don't get to. If I did, I'd be on a plane.
And while you can mock and insult me, you don't actually disprove anything I said. In fact, in the case of Dreadclaw, all you do is reenforce my supposed 'slurs' against you, proving that, while I may be many things, you went from having a single good point to being just another internet donkey-cave.
If you have to throw mud you're losing ground. Don't forget that
I have had many good points in this discussion with you, as testament to that fact you still haven't addressed most of them. So when you do I'll be waiting.
Frazzled wrote: Hiding behind your kit bag now I see. Excellent.
Don't mistake idiocy for bravery or common sense for cowardice.
A tacticool mall ninja would say such when called out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote: I think people should calm down a touch...
It would be nice if we (We being NATO) could roll up and help restore order and a nice government but the political reality is that it won't happen.
Not only does the current regime not want us but it looks like the rebels don't particularly want us there either.
Furthermore it would, like many here have said, just provide bad or misled people with more targets. Those targets being our troops.
Them's the breaks...
What an absolute crock of gak. You want to go, you go.
You want to go and die or you want to go and win? Let me ask you, let's say I want to go without bothering to go with people: how do I bring my gear? Can't just put it on a plane and go, nor do you want to depend on them to arm you when you get there. So you need to ship your gear. So which gear? I've never been to either Syria or Turkey, so I don't know. I'll assume that I'd need better engine filters in particular than are currently equipped. How about NBC sealing? Will that hold up in this environment? Dunno, never been there.
US history is full of volunteers that went to war on their own, sometimes with the blessing of the government, but many times without it. Hell we even caught some of our own people fighting for AQ in Iraq. If you really felt like you needed to go, any of you can go to sooth your sensibilities. I'll even golf clap as you leave.
What I'm not going to do is advice to US to take another hit economically or politically for a lose, lose situation, all the while sending some kid who probably just wanted a college education in harms way. WHY? So that a few people can feel better behind their desk at work or some politician or munitions maker can make a killing? Frak that.
I'm at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Do you know how much money we could save if we closed just half of our bases in Europe alone, much less the world?
Monster Rain wrote: Certainly as sad as tinfoil Israeli conspiracies. I hope people will talk to the UN "police" about the nerve gas.
I'm very much okay with a little bit of world policing.
I'm sure they will. But I'm also sure that Assad's ally Russia will have their veto power ready as one of the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council
It all seems rather similar to what happened in Iraq. All I'm saying is if it can be proven that Chemical weapons are being used the world has an obligation to step in.
BaronIveagh wrote: You want to go and die or you want to go and win? Let me ask you, let's say I want to go without bothering to go with people: how do I bring my gear? Can't just put it on a plane and go, nor do you want to depend on them to arm you when you get there. So you need to ship your gear. So which gear? I've never been to either Syria or Turkey, so I don't know. I'll assume that I'd need better engine filters in particular than are currently equipped. How about NBC sealing? Will that hold up in this environment? Dunno, never been there.
Couldn't you go over as as "volunteer"? You were singing their praises earlier in this thread. Why not keep that glowing tradition alive, like the Flying Tigers that you mentioned if you're so concerned? After all that way YOU get to do something about YOUR gut feeling instead of sending others to fight YOUR battle.
But maybe it would be worth just using airpower and limited ground force activity. Don't send in troops and occupy the area, just bomb whatever targets you can. And send in strike teams that accomplish and objective and immediately evacuate.
Let them rebuild themselves but use precision strikes to make sure AQ and other radicals don't get power.
Monster Rain wrote: It all seems rather similar to what happened in Iraq. All I'm saying is if it can be proven that Chemical weapons are being used the world has an obligation to step in.
The world can step in. Just leave us out of it. Maybe Europe can support Turkey in this, after all they were looking to join the EU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Let them rebuild themselves but use precision strikes to make sure AQ and other radicals don't get power.
The problem with that is that the most effective FSA groups are AQ affiliated. So unless you want to occupy Syria after Assad is gone and oversee the installation of democracy while AQ and other militant groups take shots at you like they did in Iraq then you aren't going to get your wish.
I'm not saying we need to have a stake in who wins the civil war. I just think we need to enforce, as a species, that certain things won't be tolerated. WMDs are a reasonable starting point. Sort of like Dune, I suppose.
Monster Rain wrote: Certainly as sad as tinfoil Israeli conspiracies. I hope people will talk to the UN "police" about the nerve gas.
I'm very much okay with a little bit of world policing.
I'm sure they will. But I'm also sure that Assad's ally Russia will have their veto power ready as one of the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council
It all seems rather similar to what happened in Iraq. All I'm saying is if it can be proven that Chemical weapons are being used the world has an obligation to step in.
The world should care, but it doesn't. If it really cared it would do more then sit back and tell the US to do something about it. There are plenty of regional players that could enforce no fly zones if they wanted to. Let the countries that might actually be impacted do something about it. Supposedly a Muslim killing a Muslim is a giant crime. Let the rest of the Arabs and Muslims deal with it then. The least we could do is wait for some of the actual regional players to ask us for intervention. If their own neighbors can't be bothered to do something about it, well I don't know how it's really any of our business.
Monster Rain wrote: It all seems rather similar to what happened in Iraq. All I'm saying is if it can be proven that Chemical weapons are being used the world has an obligation to step in.
The world can step in. Just leave us out of it. Maybe Europe can support Turkey in this, after all they were looking to join the EU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Let them rebuild themselves but use precision strikes to make sure AQ and other radicals don't get power.
The problem with that is that the most effective FSA groups are AQ affiliated. So unless you want to occupy Syria after Assad is gone and oversee the installation of democracy while AQ and other militant groups take shots at you like they did in Iraq then you aren't going to get your wish.
Yeah, but we could keep smacking known AQ meetings in the country. Make it clear they are not welcome.
You haven't considered the long term effects of intervention on Syria, on the region, on the United States, on the men and women we'll send into harms way, on Russia, on AQ, on the geo-political landscape. Nothing. You're living in a world where we need to solve everyone's problems and you have no problem having others sacrifice their lives to do so
That's nice of you to say, but let me ask you what the ramifications of not doing anything are?
So your solution is to set the organisation designed to counter the USSR up against Russian interests in the region? Do you honestly think that Russia will tolerate that, or that there won't be long term repercussions when Russian help is needed on Iran or North Korea? Will the US abandon NATO, unlikely. But will it rush in to conduct an ill advised war that no one wants and back a country that's been butting heads with a long standing ally (Israel)?
I'm not setting anything against anyone. I'm stating that it's a near certainty that Turkey, a NATO member, will be attacked as a result of this war. The result of that would be the US going to war with Syria, assuming they were the party responsible.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No. Your question ignores the fundamental point that intervention will not be small and it is instead likely to escalate matters in the region and further afield when Russia and Iran decide to get more hands on because they have too much to lose from your ill thought out intervention. You keep ignoring everything that I say and just repeat your own argument again. You aren't having a discussion. You're trying to lecture me instead of addressing any of the points that I raise. You're trying to win a discussion by attrition instead of reason.
Much as you try to win it by provocation without actually responding to my points. Do you think that if a NATO member is attacked, the US is going to sit on it's thumbs just because we don't like losing men? Do you think that waiting for things to reach that point will not result in higher death tolls and more casualties than doing it now? Because regardless of how large the deployment would be right now, it will be much larger if a NATO member is attacked.
No. The choice is between;
- Getting involved in a civil war were there is no viable group to back. So we send in service members to fight and die in a conflict that does not benefit us, but instead makes us weaker
- Doing nothing and not deploying. Instead we let our intelligence agencies deal with any threat that may emerge, as they have been doing for decades. That's part of the reason for their existence."
If you want to maximise lives saved then stay as far away from it as you can. It is not our problem and I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why we need to make it our problem.
No,that's a false choice, because it becomes our problem the moment someone starts a cross boarder fight in Turkey.
Article Five of the Washington Treaty:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary including the use of armed force..."
Turkey is a member of NATO and subject to Article 5.
Grey Templar wrote: But maybe it would be worth just using airpower and limited ground force activity. Don't send in troops and occupy the area, just bomb whatever targets you can. And send in strike teams that accomplish and objective and immediately evacuate.
Let them rebuild themselves but use precision strikes to make sure AQ and other radicals don't get power.
But aren't we doing that in Pakistan and getting massive static about it?
I mean come on, we put in troops to stop Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia and all of a sudden Al Qaeda is murderizing us. We were in Somalia feeding starving people and AQ was training militias on how to use RPGs to bring down our helicopters. You can't get more do goody than that, and it still turned out with dead Americans in the street.
We get flak no matter what we do. Those people hate us with no logical reason for it. its like treating a sick feral dog, it doesn't know whats best for it.
Grey Templar wrote: We get flak no matter what we do. Those people hate us with no logical reason for it. its like treating a sick feral dog, it doesn't know whats best for it.
Well you either put the dog down, or if its biting you, leave it alone.
No,that's a false choice, because it becomes our problem the moment someone starts a cross boarder fight in Turkey.
Article Five of the Washington Treaty:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary including the use of armed force..."
Turkey is a member of NATO and subject to Article 5.
Sure, but it doesn't actually dictate what we need to provide. "Here are your Blankets, and some Arvn rifles, never been shot and only dropped once. Now go ask your EU buddies for some more help!"
Dogs a good analogy, if the locals are afraid of it they handle it using local authorities, they don't call the CIA form 10,000 miles away to send a kill team.
None of the local players want to be part of this because A. They don't care B. They know what a nightmare it will be.
Sure, but it doesn't actually dictate what we need to provide. "Here are your Blankets, and some Arvn rifles, never been shot and only dropped once. Now go ask your EU buddies for some more help!"
Considering the NATO response to the US invoking Article 5, I highly doubt that.
BaronIveagh wrote: That's nice of you to say, but let me ask you what the ramifications of not doing anything are?
The ramifications are that the fire burns itself out and no dead US Servicemen
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm not setting anything against anyone. I'm stating that it's a near certainty that Turkey, a NATO member, will be attacked as a result of this war. The result of that would be the US going to war with Syria, assuming they were the party responsible.
You honestly think that Turkey will wade into someone else's civil war because someone is obviously baiting them? You don't have a lot of faith in your NATO allies, do you.
Yes you are setting things up. You just said that you wanted NATO involved because the Russians would veto UN action ignoring, yet again, that Russia has a lot at stake here and that things in the region may quickly escalate beyond what you intend. You keep omitting Iran too.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: No. Your question ignores the fundamental point that intervention will not be small and it is instead likely to escalate matters in the region and further afield when Russia and Iran decide to get more hands on because they have too much to lose from your ill thought out intervention. You keep ignoring everything that I say and just repeat your own argument again. You aren't having a discussion. You're trying to lecture me instead of addressing any of the points that I raise. You're trying to win a discussion by attrition instead of reason.
BaronIveagh wrote: Much as you try to win it by provocation without actually responding to my points. Do you think that if a NATO member is attacked, the US is going to sit on it's thumbs just because we don't like losing men? Do you think that waiting for things to reach that point will not result in higher death tolls and more casualties than doing it now? Because regardless of how large the deployment would be right now, it will be much larger if a NATO member is attacked.
There is no provocation on my part, unless you count me asking you to address points that you conveniently ignore because it doesn't suit your gut feeling on this. Higher death tolls for whom, and you keep assuming that Turkey or anyone else is going to get involved when they don't want to.
BaronIveagh wrote: No,that's a false choice, because it becomes our problem the moment someone starts a cross boarder fight in Turkey.
Maybe you should read what you just posted - " such action as it deems necessary" That doesn't mean we roll into Turkey guns a-blazing, assuming that they want our help in what would likely be a small border skirmish against a country wracked by civil war, it means that we can give them intelligence, material and logistical support.
So no, its not a false choice. Especially when you are convinced that a civil war which has been raging for months is going to suddenly become a war between Syria and Turkey despite evidence to the contrary. Assad's forces have been fighting for months with no resolution in sight. Yet somehow you think that he's suddenly going to open up a brand new front against a well rested and capable foe. Turkey doesn't want this fight (and after their fighter was shot down they had just cause to attack) and Assad cannot afford it.
So still you have not provided a compelling reason as to why the US has to intervene in an ongoing civil war when it clearly does not benefit them
First of all, if we could just simply change allocations like that we would be better off just cancelling them and keeping the money to ourselves, but it doesn't work that way.
Actually, it kind of does. Our government decides its budgets. They regularly swap funding between different areas of government.
Second you are forgetting about blood and political capitol.
They should "pray" for a bus to get them out of the warzone or use those "shoes" to start walking. This is not a new conflict, get the hell out!
They do. There are refugee camps all over the Syrian border, where there's no medical care, barely enough food, and barely any shelter.
There is injustice all over the world, I just don't see why it is always the US's problem when there are capable countries that should have much more interest in what is going on in their regions.
I never said it was the US's problem. Rather, it should be acknowledged as one for the entire West, and moreover implicitly is (by the existence of aid budgets).
There is injustice right here in the US, I see hungry people in the streets, some of them are vets. I would rather see the money going to help our people where it is needed, before we go off on some crusade to help people that to be honest will never appreciate what we do for them and will probably be shooting at us as we try to hand them a sandwich. There are people right here in the states that are more deserving of help and might actually contribute if they are given the opportunity.
Poverty in the US is not a reason to not help people being gassed and shelled to death. It is possible to work on more than one issue at a time.
Sure, but it doesn't actually dictate what we need to provide. "Here are your Blankets, and some Arvn rifles, never been shot and only dropped once. Now go ask your EU buddies for some more help!"
Considering the NATO response to the US invoking Article 5, I highly doubt that.
What, so when the US invokes article 5 all our allies provide the bulk of the fighting forces, logistics and economic resources? If NATO wants to go to war fine. There are 28 members of NATO all of which are closer than the US, so I see an appropriate proportion being we provide 2% of the forces, which we probably already have there with our patriot missile systems.
Actually, it kind of does. Our government decides its budgets. They regularly swap funding between different areas of government.
Yes, you are right, it is so easy to change budgets, that's why the US has not had a balanced budget in how long? That's why we are sequestering right? Please come to DC and wave that magic wand that just lets budgets get moved around and allocated so easily.
hey do. There are refugee camps all over the Syrian border, where there's no medical care, barely enough food, and barely any shelter.
Sounds like something the Red Crescent and some of Syria's Neighbors should be helping with, I'm pretty sure there is some oil money over there controlled by Arabs and Muslims that could help if they wanted.
I never said it was the US's problem. Rather, it should be acknowledged as one for the entire West, and moreover implicitly is (by the existence of aid budgets).
Why, this is not happening in the West, so why is it our problem. Look if Germany and France started gassing each other, I can see that being a problem for the west. Syria is nowhere near the West. The West if you haven't been following is having some financial problems. There are some pretty big pockets much closer to Syria that can afford to be handling these situations.
Poverty in the US is not a reason to not help people being gassed and shelled to death. It is possible to work on more than one issue at a time.
Sure it is. Look if we don't get our financials taken care of, and stop spending our treasure on these "little wars" who is going to be around when the big wars come?
It's also possible for someone else to give a gak! Let regional players that know the rules of the area handle it, we will just throw gasoline on the situation and make it worse.
I'm sure more people die everyday in Mexican cartel violence than died in this attack. You don't see us sending the military in for that, and they are our neighbors. Look I care, but not enough to endanger myself or my people, and certainly will not care more than the people that share any form of culture with these people. If other Arabs and Muslims are perfectly happy to sit on the sidelines, I just don't understand why we should do more.
BaronIveagh wrote: And yet, in the case of Syria and Lebanon, that comparison can be made (regardless of how classy it is).
The Israelis set up massive concentration camps and started the systematic slaughter of those imprisoned based on ideas of racial supremacy? Nope. You're engaging in hyperbole and showing your ignorance again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote: What, so when the US invokes article 5 all our allies provide the bulk of the fighting forces, logistics and economic resources? If NATO wants to go to war fine. There are 28 members of NATO all of which are closer than the US, so I see an appropriate proportion being we provide 2% of the forces, which we probably already have there with our patriot missile systems.
He ignores that Art. 5 includes the phrase " such action as it deems necessary". Which in the event of hostilities between Turkey and an armed aggressor exhausted from fighting a civil war might amount to little if anything being "necessary"
As you rightly point out other NATO allies are closer. If hostilities did break out maybe Turkey and Israel would kiss and make up
I never said it was the US's problem. Rather, it should be acknowledged as one for the entire West, and moreover implicitly is (by the existence of aid budgets).
Why just the "West" Ketara? There are three other continents, two of which are closer than the US. If they are not involved, then clearly we have no compelling state interest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As you rightly point out other NATO allies are closer. If hostilities did break out maybe Turkey and Israel would kiss and make up
An Israel / Turkey military alliance would be so strong as to almost destabilize the region, if not the fact that neither of these countries are generally aggressive.
Kind of kewl.
As a general reminder, Rule Number One around here is Be Polite. Argue against positions rather than against other users. If you find yourself hot under the collar, take a break -- it's just the internet. Thanks everyone!
I never said it was the US's problem. Rather, it should be acknowledged as one for the entire West, and moreover implicitly is (by the existence of aid budgets).
Why just the "West" Ketara? There are three other continents, two of which are closer than the US. If they are not involved, then clearly we have no compelling state interest.
Because you don't get to act like you're the leader of the free world without actually leading.
Manchu wrote: As a general reminder, Rule Number One around here is Be Polite. Argue against positions rather than against other users. If you find yourself hot under the collar, take a break -- it's just the internet. Thanks everyone!
Good words there. I'd send you some turkey jerky but I sent all my turkey to Turkey.
Because you don't get to act like you're the leader of the free world without actually leading.
If thats a title you can have it. Its the one thing I like Obama for, he's not playing that game any more.
Yes you heard it here first, Frazzled supports Obama.
Manchu wrote: I'd have thought you'd send it to Hungary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Yes you heard it here first, Frazzled supports Obama.
I swear I didn't alter his post!
I...I can't resist. I'd love to send the turkey jerky to Hungary because they sure are hungry for some turkey jerky, but when Turkey found out they got jerky for my denial of their turkey jerky. At this point, the whole thing is rather murky.
Why just the "West" Ketara? There are three other continents, two of which are closer than the US. If they are not involved, then clearly we have no compelling state interest.
That's a very good question, actually. What makes it the responsibility of the West to help poorer and more war torn nations? It comes down to a number of factors.
Firstly, we pride ourselves in the West these days on how humane we are. Justice, equality, liberty, freedom of political affiliation and religion, freedom of sexuality, and so on. And if you read any newspaper (at least, here in the UK), things are judged good or bad depending on how well they live up to those ideals.
In China or Russia, such concepts are much more muted. Partially because of the cultural outlook, partially because the Governments in charge have a vested interest in keeping it that way (Mr Putin has nothing to gain by allowing the proliferation of opposition after all, for example). As a result, there is no aid forthcoming from those parts of the world. In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.
That leaves the West. We alone have the cultural background and power to intervene in a positive fashion.
Now we could retreat into isolationism, and let the rest of the world fight it out. That's certainly an option. But where do you draw the line? If China invaded Africa, and started up camps to exterminate all black people, would that cross it? If so, then what about if they set up camps in Tibet to kill every single native? That's on a smaller scale, but no less morally abhorrent from our perspective.
Ultimately, I would say it comes down to the roots of good old Victorian style charity. We are the rich and the powerful of this world. We have liberties many people can only dream of, luxuries many have never even heard of.
I do not believe it comes down to the US, or Britain individually. Ultimately, we have no responsibility towards other nations other than that which we choose to assume. But I think that as human beings with empathy, the average person on the street in the West would like to help out those less fortunate, so long as it does not cripple himself.
In the same way I wouldn't take out a 20K loan to give to a homeless person, I would never advocate that we bankrupt ourselves trying to save the world. We do have a moral responsibility to ours and ourselves, and that must come first.
But if we have that aid money dedicated in that direction anyway, why not use it? If collectively, we could occupy Syria on a smaller scale, and turn it into a country of relative liberty as we did Germany and Japan, why not do it? If it doesn't hurt us excessively to do these things (and if done collectively, it would not), to help raise up a country where innocent people are being brutally murdered for nothing, then how can we justify not doing it? By our own espoused moral values of peace, justice and equality, how can we not?
'To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places – and there are so many – where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory. ' -Howard Zinn-
Because you don't get to act like you're the leader of the free world without actually leading.
I didn't know the police were leaders? If we were leaders we would be telling people what to do. We are not, we are garbageman expected to clean up everyone elses messes and get gak on for it, and pay for the privilege. It's one thing to help out Europe, it's another to have to go to some stone age, god forsaken, US hating gakhole for nothing but warm fuzzies.
Ketara wrote: . In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.
Edit in South America to that statement if you like.
Andrew1975 wrote: I didn't know the police were leaders? If we were leaders we would be telling people what to do. We are not, we are garbageman expected to clean up everyone elses messes and get gak on for it, and pay for the privilege. It's one thing to help out Europe, it's another to have to go to some stone age, god forsaken, US hating gakhole for nothing but warm fuzzies.
My wife also has little tolerance for the US getting the "I-love-you, I-hate-you, come-here, go-away" treatment from the rest of the world.
Frazzled wrote: Where's South America, Asia, and the other Middle East countries in this equation?
Hiding in the corner hoping that they won't have to do anything other than demand that the US do something. Oh, except Iran, they're helping train Assad's forces and may have boots on the ground. So they are doing something
But if we have that aid money dedicated in that direction anyway, why not use it? If collectively, we could occupy Syria on a smaller scale, and turn it into a country of relative liberty as we did Germany and Japan, why not do it? If it doesn't hurt us excessively to do these things (and if done collectively, it would not), to help raise up a country where innocent people are being brutally murdered for nothing, then how can we justify not doing it? By our own espoused moral values of peace, justice and equality, how can we not?
Oh I see, you think we could solve the issue by "Making it rain!"
See, you can't just throw money at the situation. Not that we have money to just throw around. Germany and Japan didn't just cost money by the way, there was a lot of blood.
See, you can't just throw money at the situation. Not that we have money to just throw around. Germany and Japan didn't just cost money by the way, there was a lot of blood.
I don't know, it worked really well in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't it......
See, you can't just throw money at the situation. Not that we have money to just throw around. Germany and Japan didn't just cost money by the way, there was a lot of blood.
I'm starting to get a little tired of repeating myself. I do wish people would remember what I write, so I don't have to reiterate it for the umpteenth time.
I am well aware that you cannot just throw money at a situation, indeed, that's one of the primary failures in Afghanistan. Awarding multi-million dollar contracts to private companies whilst trying to hand power over to a corrupt regime does not work.
But invading a third world country in a civil war with the vaunted resources of NATO? I think we could manage that with a minimum of bloodshed.
Direct occupation and administration, as opposed to trying to do everything at arms length through corrupt officials and profit-making entities? An extended but clearly delineated period of time (twenty years) with checkmarks for withdrawal and gradual handing over of power? Deliberate cultural reprogramming through education to ingrain certain loyalties to what we could consider to be good ideals? The establishment of the framework of a functioning democracy, with the correct separation of powers?
Afganistan and Iraq are perfect examples of what should NOT be done.
It would not be easy, and it would be challenging. But the historical precedent clearly indicates that it can be done.
Ketara wrote: . In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.
Edit in South America to that statement if you like.
The middle east has plenty of cash and plenty of military to deal with the situation. They don't because they know the political fallout that could happen, and the absolute nightmare that intervention would be. Asia has tons of money, but they use it to build themselves up instead of pissing it around the world. We should be taking a notes. If anybody doesn't have money for another crusade into hostile enemy territory I'm pretty sure it the US, we has earned the right to sit this one out. We don't need to tie everyone's shoes for them.
My wife also has little tolerance for the US getting the "I-love-you, I-hate-you, come-here, go-away" treatment from the rest of the world.
If just tired of doing this for nothing but warm fuzzies. If you are good at something, you should not do it for free, and definitely not do it to the point it becomes a real issue financially or politically.
But invading a third world country in a civil war with the vaunted resources of NATO? I think we could manage that with a minimum of bloodshed.
. You have no idea of the can of worms you want to open! You do know where Syria is right? Have you learned nothing from the past 50 years of US foreign intervention.
I'm sure someone said the same thing.
"We just kicked the Worlds ass! How hard could (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) be?"
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
You are trying to compare the largest war in the history of man with Syria? This is not apples to oranges this is Elephants to String theory. The occupation of Germany and Japan were occupations of completely exhausted and isolated counties. There was literally nobody left for the Allies to fight. With Syria you want to put us in the middle of the place where everyone hastes us, surrounded by enemies and where terrorists and "freedom fighters" will fight forever. You seam to not comprehend how Iran and Russia will react, and how much Muslim extremists will play a role, especially when properly backed.
All we would do is throw gasoline on the flames and most likely increase civilian casualties.
The only real comparison that you can put together is that if we do go there with the "full force of NATO" as you describe, we may start WWIII, and then we really will need the full force of NATO, bankrupt the country and destabilize the entire global economic system, just as it seams it might be on the verge of some recovery. Is all that really worth some warm and fuzzies?
It would not be easy, and it would be challenging. But the historical precedent clearly indicates that it can be done.
No it doesn't. Historically what you are talking about almost never happens. And when it did the firepower and access to weapons of your average terrorist/"freedom fighter" was very limited, so was the press. In most of these successful occupations that you speak of, acts that today would be considered War Crimes were commonly used to quell resistance. Today you just don't get away with that anymore, if you think the allies did not do "unsavory" things during the occupation of Germany and Japan, you have another history lesson to look up.
Ketara wrote: . In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.
Edit in South America to that statement if you like.
South America's overall economy is approaching First World status. They could do something.
Japan can't do something?
The rest of the Middle East can't do something?
Only we can?
Nonsense. If we're the only ones who can then I submit we should submit a bill for the UN for 3x the all-in cost including $10mm in insurance for each casualty we receive. Thats our bill. Sorry, no credit, cash only. If you can find cheaper use them instead.
Ketara wrote: . In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.
Edit in South America to that statement if you like.
The middle east has plenty of cash and plenty of military to deal with the situation. They don't because they know the political fallout that could happen, and the absolute nightmare that intervention would be. Asia has tons of money, but they use it to build themselves up instead of pissing it around the world. We should be taking a notes. If anybody doesn't have money for another crusade into hostile enemy territory I'm pretty sure it the US, we has earned the right to sit this one out. We don't need to tie everyone's shoes for them.
However, since now a few of you have raised this bizare point that South America, Asia, or the rest of the Middle East could do it, I'll disprove it it swiftly and succinctly.
First, you need the mindset. As I've already stated earlier, the cultural ethos does not exist to install a democracy abroad when your own country is not a democracy. It is patently absurd to suggest that a country that's busy stamping on the liberties of its own citizens would wish to suddenly install a correct separation of powers and system of civil liberties in the middle of a civil war elsewhere in the world. Most Middle Eastern countries are hardly what you would call shining examples of enlightenment and cultural advancement these days. And in that, they're swiftly followed by Africa, the larger chunk of South America and most of Asia.
Those parts of Asia like Japan and South Korea? I fully agree they could lend a hand, and in such a plan, should in collaboration with the West. You'll note however that those parts of the world are only the stable democracies they are now due to heavy direct investment in infrastructure of the kind I am advocating.
The second part is capability. In order to mount an invasion, you require force projection capacity. The British, French, and Americans have global force projection capacity. Just about every other nation however, does not. They only have the capability to project force and influence locally. Even if Argentina decided tomorrow that they wished to invade Syria and bring peace and democracy (a relatively unlikely scenario), they simply would not have the means to do so. It is beyond their capacity. They simply do not have the military power projection required to do it. Neither do Qatar. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. Turkey would be capable, but they fall down thanks to the first reason (mindset).
To be blunt, this is pretty obvious stuff. I'm coming to expect this of Andrew, but you frazzled? I know you're smart enough to know this.
You have no idea of the can of worms you want to open! You do know where Syria is right? Have you learned nothing from the past 50 years of US foreign intervention.
I'm sure someone said the same thing
I'm probably infinitely better acquainted with the past 50 years of US intervention than you, considering I'm a modern military historian.
Most of the interventions you're referring to are undertaken solely by the US, for reasons that are far from humanitarian (profit, to try and arrest communism, chasing terrorists for revenge, etc). If you genuinely can't tell the difference between those and a dedicated collaborative state-building effort, then I'll cease to keep taxing you intellectually, and withdraw there.
As I've already stated earlier, the cultural ethos does not exist to install a democracy abroad when your own country is not a democracy.
I was unaware that you had to be a democracy to realize that using gas was wrong, and or defend people. That's good to know and very western of you to think.
Most Middle Eastern countries are hardly what you would call shining examples of enlightenment and cultural advancement these days.
Right. So it should be easy for us to go and install a "proper"completely new culture and moral code. People always love when you do that and it always goes so swimmingly?
To be blunt, this is pretty obvious stuff. I'm coming to expect this of Andrew, but you frazzled? I know you're smart enough to know this.
To be blunt this is a bunch of crap excuses for why nobody wants to be part of the nightmare that you are describing. These countries are very capable of recognizing civilian suffering when one of our bombs goes off target. They know right from wrong just as well as we do. Like me, they just don't particularly feel like doing anything about it, because its a pointless gesture and costs way too much.
Its also a very western view that only we are moral and have the desire to do something about it. This superiority complex is kind of what gets us into problems in the first place. It should have gone right out the window with the fall of the "Empire".
I'm probably infinitely better acquainted with the past 50 years of US intervention than you, considering I'm a modern military historian.
Most of the interventions you're referring to are undertaken solely by the US, for reasons that are far from humanitarian (profit, to try and arrest communism, chasing terrorists for revenge, etc). If you genuinely can't tell the difference between those and a dedicated collaborative state-building effort, then I'll cease to keep taxing you intellectually, and withdraw there.
For a military historian you sure seam to be unaware that for most of those the US did not go in alone. In fact in none of those were undertaken solely by the US!
Korea was UN
Vietnam was not Solely a US action
Iraq? Nope
Afghanistan? Nope
Sorry just wrong wrong wrong.
Lots of people think we should use our military for Warm Fuzzies and/or gaks and giggle. It's irresponsible and an insult to those that serve to waste the military on such frivolous adventures. This is clearly a lose/lose situation, you either don't care, or just refuse to see it.
Either way you can't civilize people at the point of a gun.
At least fighting for (profit, to try and arrest communism, chasing terrorists for revenge) usually has an endgame, identifiable goals and something worth fighting for. Fighting for peace is like F%&^ing for virginity, it doesn't make any real sense.
As I've already stated earlier, the cultural ethos does not exist to install a democracy abroad when your own country is not a democracy.
I was unaware that you had to be a democracy to realize that using gas was wrong, and or defend people. That's good to know and very western of you to think.
I beg your pardon? What you just said has absolutely no relation to what I just said.
I mean, are you actually even reading this? Because if you hoenstly think that that was some kind of rebuttal, you're not even playing in the same squash court here.
Most Middle Eastern countries are hardly what you would call shining examples of enlightenment and cultural advancement these days.
Right. So it should be easy for us to go and install a "proper"completely new culture and moral code. People always love when you do that and it always goes so swimmingly?
....what? Sorry, that was a quote referring to why other countries would be less than keen to install democracies, due to not being them themselves. How on earth does that have anything to do with the difficulty or lack thereof in translating Western concepts of government?
Again, different squash court. I mean, if I was going to respond in a similar fashion to you now, I'd have to say something like, 'Well South America has democratic leanings!' (in other words, something completely unrelated to the actual point, but vaguely related to another point made elsewhere).
To be blunt this is a bunch of crap excuses for why nobody wants to be part of the nightmare that you are describing.
Nightmare? I don't know. Japan, Germany, and South Korea seem to be doing alright for themselves.
These countries are very capable of recognizing civilian suffering when one of our bombs goes off target.
They know right from wrong just as well as we do. Like me, they just don't particularly feel like doing anything about it, because its a pointless gesture and costs way too much.
So wait. The reason that autocracies don't install occupy other countries and install democracies is because its pointless and costs too much?
Mate, seriously? I mean, are you actually for real? I'm starting to wonder if this is just someone having a laugh now. No-one could be this daft.
Its also a very western view that only we are moral and have the desire to do something about it. This superiority complex is kind of what gets us into problems in the first place. It should have gone right out the window with the fall of the "Empire".
Actually, there's plenty of psychological evidence relating to how certain traits of empathy and suchlike are more or less spread across the human race. Morality isn't completely subjective to culture, and as a result, certain attitudes (like a desire to do what you want without being dragged away by the police) could easily be installed into a stable political framework.
Perhaps you got the wrong idea here. I'm not talking about transplanting good ol Uncle Sams Apple pie here. The whole point of it being a collaborative international effort is to forestall such a thing. I'm not talking about completely uprooting the culture and turning them in americans or englishmen, or frenchmen, etcetc. Just a loyalty to law and order, and a government not run down by corruption with the potential to revert to autocratic atrocities.
For a military historian you sure seam to be unaware that for most of those the US did not go in alone. In fact in none of those were undertaken solely by the US!
I don't believe I named any specific incursions? You seem to be jumping to misprove words you just placed in my mouth. In essence, you're kind of arguing with yourself for that one.
Either way you can't civilize people at the point of a gun.
That's amusing. Because historical precedent would disagree there, from the Romans on up.
First, you need the mindset. As I've already stated earlier, the cultural ethos does not exist to install a democracy abroad when your own country is not a democracy.
***We’re a republic…
It is patently absurd to suggest that a country that's busy stamping on the liberties of its own citizens would wish to suddenly install a correct separation of powers and system of civil liberties in the middle of a civil war elsewhere in the world.
Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Chile are democracies. The problem of course is that, 1) to be a democracy you have to fight for it. No one can give it to you. 2) we’ve seen this show before it. Its not worked out. A short list (US only): Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosova, Cuba.
Most Middle Eastern countries are hardly what you would call shining examples of enlightenment and cultural advancement these days. And in that, they're swiftly followed by Africa, the larger chunk of South America and most of Asia.
Agreed. But if we’re only after WMDs we just need bodies.
Those parts of Asia like Japan and South Korea? I fully agree they could lend a hand, and in such a plan, should in collaboration with the West. You'll note however that those parts of the world are only the stable democracies they are now due to heavy direct investment in infrastructure of the kind I am advocating.
Get on the freaking speed dial then. Lets get the sons of Ieyasu out there.
The second part is capability. In order to mount an invasion, you require force projection capacity. The British, French, and Americans have global force projection capacity. Just about every other nation however, does not. They only have the capability to project force and influence locally. Even if Argentina decided tomorrow that they wished to invade Syria and bring peace and democracy (a relatively unlikely scenario), they simply would not have the means to do so. It is beyond their capacity. They simply do not have the military power projection required to do it. Neither do Qatar. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. Turkey would be capable, but they fall down thanks to the first reason (mindset).
It’s a land war. Egypt, Turkey, Saudia Arabia could all send troops and other forces. Kuwait could send aircraft. Seriously, these guys have weapons out the yin yang . They don’t have to cross the Pacific, just the border.
Side note, if supposedly no other country besides the US, UK, and France can do this, then what do we have this giant military for. Downsize that puppy. Just have an air force, small defensive navy, national guard, USMC, and of course the new cyber/space fleet. Carriers...gone! army...gone!
It is patently absurd to suggest that a country that's busy stamping on the liberties of its own citizens would wish to suddenly install a correct separation of powers and system of civil liberties in the middle of a civil war elsewhere in the world.
Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Chile are democracies.
The problem of course is that,
1) to be a democracy you have to fight for it. No one can give it to you.
2) we’ve seen this show before it. Its not worked out. A short list (US only): Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosova, Cuba.
I'm not convinced that Vietnam or Cambodia were exactly the result of international humanitarian relief occupations. =p
And like I said several times now, it worked out for Japan and Germany.
Those parts of Asia like Japan and South Korea? I fully agree they could lend a hand, and in such a plan, should in collaboration with the West. You'll note however that those parts of the world are only the stable democracies they are now due to heavy direct investment in infrastructure of the kind I am advocating.
Get on the freaking speed dial then. Lets get the sons of Ieyasu out there.
I saw a funny Eddie Izzard clip along those lines once. About how we should parachute in Germans and Japanese to install peace, as they'd just land and go, 'Guys, we've done this before. Take it from us, not worth it.'
The problem with Japan though, is the whole self-defence conflict only ethos, although they've started to shift that lately.
The second part is capability. In order to mount an invasion, you require force projection capacity. The British, French, and Americans have global force projection capacity. Just about every other nation however, does not. They only have the capability to project force and influence locally. Even if Argentina decided tomorrow that they wished to invade Syria and bring peace and democracy (a relatively unlikely scenario), they simply would not have the means to do so. It is beyond their capacity. They simply do not have the military power projection required to do it. Neither do Qatar. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. Turkey would be capable, but they fall down thanks to the first reason (mindset).
It’s a land war. Egypt, Turkey, Saudia Arabia could all send troops and other forces. Kuwait could send aircraft. Seriously, these guys have weapons out the yin yang . They don’t have to cross the Pacific, just the border.
I'm not convinced they still have the means to do it logistically though. And even if we presume they did, places like Saudi Arabia fall foul of the first criteria, which is the desire to install peace and democracy elsewhere. Which you don't tend to do when you're a bit oppressive yourself.
Although it must be said, I'm not entirely sure why people seem to think, 'Loads of autocratic oppressive regimes have this foreign policy stance with regards to helping out people who need it. Therefore we should emulate them'.
I mean, surely with that type of regime, you should be doing the opposite in a lot of cases?
Might as well throw two US carreir fleet for Air Support while in the Med. Couple tomahawk loaded crusiers...Aegis cruiser? Still be a lose/lose for us...IF a US warplane nail a holding facility or transport carrying whatever agent then we became just as guilty as Assad for releasing it. Even if we use a fuel air bomb the collateral damage is to much
Jihadin wrote: Might as well throw two US carreir fleet for Air Support while in the Med. Couple tomahawk loaded crusiers...Aegis cruiser? Still be a lose/lose for us...IF a US warplane nail a holding facility or transport carrying whatever agent then we became just as guilty as Assad for releasing it. Even if we use a fuel air bomb the collateral damage is to much
That's also assuming that these weapons have centralised storage facilities and in some cases have not been issued to commanders in the field. That makes targeting them even more difficult, and the risk of collateral damage much higher - whether from the airstrike or the potential release of the agent.
Jihadin wrote: Might as well throw two US carreir fleet for Air Support while in the Med. Couple tomahawk loaded crusiers...Aegis cruiser? Still be a lose/lose for us...IF a US warplane nail a holding facility or transport carrying whatever agent then we became just as guilty as Assad for releasing it. Even if we use a fuel air bomb the collateral damage is to much
Is there no way, short of the obvious and unusable one, that we can neutralize such facilities with a minimum of collateral damage?
I beg your pardon? What you just said has absolutely no relation to what I just said.
I mean, are you actually even reading this? Because if you hoenstly think that that was some kind of rebuttal, you're not even playing in the same squash court here.
You basically said only democracies have the ability to help people. Its wrong.
...what? Sorry, that was a quote referring to why other countries would be less than keen to install democracies, due to not being them themselves. How on earth does that have anything to do with the difficulty or lack thereof in translating Western concepts of government?
Again, different squash court. I mean, if I was going to respond in a similar fashion to you now, I'd have to say something like, 'Well South America has democratic leanings!' (in other words, something completely unrelated to the actual point, but vaguely related to another point made elsewhere).
Who is saying we have to install a democracy? We were talking about stopping people from using gas weapons. You cannot translate western governments to places that are resistant to western thoughts, it doesn't really work. You still are using this West is right mentality that others find pretty offensive.
Nightmare? I don't know. Japan, Germany, and South Korea seem to be doing alright for themselves.
Again completely different situations. None of those countries was surrounded by radical islamists that will corrupt the operation. Your closest comparisons should be are Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, where outside influences really played a destabilizing role.
So wait. The reason that autocracies don't install occupy other countries and install democracies is because its pointless and costs too much?
Mate, seriously? I mean, are you actually for real? I'm starting to wonder if this is just someone having a laugh now. No-one could be this daft.
Again with democracies? The reason other countries don't step in to help the situation is because it's pointless and costs to much. Trying to install a Democracy is even more pointless.
I'm not talking about completely uprooting the culture and turning them in americans or englishmen, or frenchmen, etcetc. Just a loyalty to law and order, and a government not run down by corruption with the potential to revert to autocratic atrocities.
That pretty much uproots their culture. You need to study middle eastern society better. Western style Democracy is not going to work with their culture.
I don't believe I named any specific incursions? You seem to be jumping to misprove words you just placed in my mouth. In essence, you're kind of arguing with yourself for that one.
No now you are trying to be daft. You said most of the engagements that I was speaking about were when the US went in Solely and/or for selfish reasons. "Most" is what you said. So what engagements are you talking about then?
That's amusing. Because historical precedent would disagree there, from the Romans on up.
Sure history since before the firearm maybe. There is no precedent for what you are describing. Japan and Germany are not even close to this.
Andrew, I'm going to leave this one there with you. I think I've sunk enough of my life into trying to reason with you. You keep throwing up strawmen, and bending what I've said so far out of context and proportion, that it makes my head hurt just trying to understand what you're telling me I've supposedly said.
And to be frank, if I can't even understand what you're telling me I said, something has gone severely wrong in the communicating process. That's the stage I give it up as a lost cause.
I think it's fair to say there is little appetite in the us or uk for spilling any more blood in the Middle East. The us has lost thousands of soldiers over the last few years, and the uk several hundred. Other NATO countries, very little by comparison.
Can we honestly say that Iraq or afghan has changed so much? Sure, we've offed a couple of tyrant dictators. We're supposedly in the final stages of having troops in the Middle East. Is anyone on the forum genuinely confident that those countries won't have new dictators in another 10 or 20 years?
Europeans have been warring with the Middle East since the Middle Ages, and there's still no sign of reconciling a workable shared world view.
If other countries want to step up to the challenge for a change, I'm sure we'd be happy to rent them some equipment. But I thought the idea of missiles, drones and the like is a better idea, with the bill split equally amongst NATO members. It's the way warfare is heading anyway.
Apart from the us' new ship laser. Mount that puppy up in a mega tank. I want to see that thing in action.
I find it ironic that some people are willing to commit US troops in another ME country. Similiar to the stance with going into Afghanistan and Iraq.....then it went into years and their stance change. Those voicing to go in need to do a deployment first before being motivated to deploy troops. Its not a cake walk when democracy clashes with muslim country.
edit
Would laugh my arse off though if half the chemical weapons were from Iraq.
