Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 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.

Bunker busters don't ensure destruction of chem stock piles without risking release.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:




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?

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.

Next time read what I write.

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

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.

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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. Wait... we have space borne nukes???

2. Yep... wondering what's holding up Isreal.

3. Yep... stll confused about #2.

 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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Two I've explained my position and my reasoning.

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You go.

Gladly.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


When do you leave? Have you gotten tickets to Turkey yet?

No idea. The people that make that decision haven't yet.

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.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

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.

What an absolute crock of gak. You want to go, you go.

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.

True enough, if we are going to be the world's policeman maybe they should pay us.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Hiding behind your kit bag now I see. Excellent.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Hiding behind your kit bag now I see. Excellent.

Don't mistake idiocy for bravery or common sense for cowardice.