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.

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...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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...

Agreed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

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?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Yes, because to compare Israel to the Nazis is always classy....

And yet, in the case of Syria and Lebanon, that comparison can be made (regardless of how classy it is).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Well you either put the dog down, or if its biting you, leave it alone.

Point of fact, if you're being bitten by a diseased feral dog, you should probably kill it and then visit a hospital.

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.

Send Turkey some turkey?

I thought we put in Patriot batteries there.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but we could keep smacking known AQ meetings in the country. Make it clear they are not welcome.

We can do that without getting involved in someone else's civil war too

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

S

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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

 Ketara wrote:

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!

Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

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.

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!

 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.