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.

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

edit
Would laugh my arse off though if half the chemical weapons were from Iraq.

There's no way we would know if that were true...right?

UPS tracking >_>

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

edit
Would laugh my arse off though if half the chemical weapons were from Iraq.

There's no way we would know if that were true...right?

Great, now I have a mental image of a Syrian soldier frantically peeling off "Made in Iraq" stickers off of all the missiles...

Easy.....we buy them after...maybe...if the rebels win the civil war. They be strapped for cash. Then like somene said awhile back when I mention that. Bush would get a couple apoligies and hold a BBQ on the USS Enterprise or whatever carrier is available..which should be big list to choose from with the sequester going on

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

edit
Would laugh my arse off though if half the chemical weapons were from Iraq.

There's no way we would know if that were true...right?

Depends if they were documented by the Iraqis, things like date and place of manufacture, batch no. etc. and if these match up with what intelligence agencies can confirm/corroborate

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

edit
Would laugh my arse off though if half the chemical weapons were from Iraq.

There's no way we would know if that were true...right?

Depends if they were documented by the Iraqis, things like date and place of manufacture, batch no. etc. and if these match up with what intelligence agencies can confirm/corroborate

Well... here's the thing.

The UN arm inspectors has documented existing stockpiles that were planned to be destroyed.

They were supposed to validate/confirm that they were in fact destroyed.

They never did confirm that and still hasn't found them in Iraq.

Good point about the UN Weapons Inspectors too

I remember talk that a lot of imagery showed trucks and stuff hauling ass towards Syria in the run up. There was a line of thinking that Saddam had all his gak shipped next door.

 djones520 wrote:
I remember talk that a lot of imagery showed trucks and stuff hauling ass towards Syria in the run up. There was a line of thinking that Saddam had all his gak shipped next door.

Yep, there certainly was.

I'm betting that if they had samples, or even record of chemical analysis, of Saddam's old stockpile somewhere it wouldn't be tough to figure out whether or not the Syrians were using some of it.

Even Saddam Generls confirmed the shipments.......Still though. Use of WMD agents in Syria IMO is not strong solid reason to deploy US troops there. AQ fighters are fighting along side the rebels so we're really stuck in the middle of a train wreak if we go.......Saddam did have non persistant and persistant agent in his inventory.....

Honestly the more I study the wars of the last 50 or so years I really begin to question if any were really necessary or worth the trillions of dollars and blood. When I think what we could have done with all that money, and for what? Iraq and Afghanistan, probably not, Vietnam and Korea, maybe just to show the soviets we would not go quietly. Really the only one that really may have been worth it was the cold war, and even I'm not sure about that.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Honestly the more I study the wars of the last 50 or so years I really begin to question if any were really necessary or worth the trillions of dollars and blood. When I think what we could have done with all that money, and for what? Iraq and Afghanistan, probably not, Vietnam and Korea, maybe just to show the soviets we would not go quietly. Really the only one that really may have been worth it was the cold war, and even I'm not sure about that.

Advocating an Isolationist Policy?

Why didn't we elect Paul then?

 whembly wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Honestly the more I study the wars of the last 50 or so years I really begin to question if any were really necessary or worth the trillions of dollars and blood. When I think what we could have done with all that money, and for what? Iraq and Afghanistan, probably not, Vietnam and Korea, maybe just to show the soviets we would not go quietly. Really the only one that really may have been worth it was the cold war, and even I'm not sure about that.

Advocating an Isolationist Policy?

Why didn't we elect Paul then?

Not so much isolationist, just lets fight the ones that actually matter and change something or mean something. I know its hard to tell before hand though. What have we actually accomplished with the wars we fight? Korea is a mess, Vietnam is better! Iraq and Afghanistan are the same really, or are one election away from being the same. All we have done is stockpile ill will. I fully believe we should help defend our allies and protect global resources and assets. But we don't need to meddle in conflicts that don't really affect and are not really relevant to our security, especially as lopsided as our contributions always are.

Ron Paul? Because to the mass public he is unelectable.

Here is the sound track for this thread; (NSFW)

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Honestly the more I study the wars of the last 50 or so years I really begin to question if any were really necessary or worth the trillions of dollars and blood. When I think what we could have done with all that money, and for what? Iraq and Afghanistan, probably not, Vietnam and Korea, maybe just to show the soviets we would not go quietly. Really the only one that really may have been worth it was the cold war, and even I'm not sure about that.

After World War 2 the United States filled the void as great power number 1 left by Britain. Its not that they chose to its that it was thrust upon them by a number of factors, particularly the need to meet the Soviets to ensure they didn't expand their territory by means of T-34 and AK-47. Now would they have done that? We still don't know, but actually the cold war was a stabilizing influence on the whole world, and while a number of small and unpleasant wars did break out in the long run it prevented World War 3 form breaking out, either nuclear or conventional.

My point is that the United States can't just circle the wagons anymore and go isolationist. In absence of a strong power that doesn't want war ensuring war doesn't break out we will get a strong power that does want war and will go the lengths to get it.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Honestly the more I study the wars of the last 50 or so years I really begin to question if any were really necessary or worth the trillions of dollars and blood. When I think what we could have done with all that money, and for what? Iraq and Afghanistan, probably not, Vietnam and Korea, maybe just to show the soviets we would not go quietly. Really the only one that really may have been worth it was the cold war, and even I'm not sure about that.

After World War 2 the United States filled the void as great power number 1 left by Britain. Its not that they chose to its that it was thrust upon them by a number of factors, particularly the need to meet the Soviets to ensure they didn't expand their territory by means of T-34 and AK-47. Now would they have done that? We still don't know, but actually the cold war was a stabilizing influence on the whole world, and while a number of small and unpleasant wars did break out in the long run it prevented World War 3 form breaking out, either nuclear or conventional.

My point is that the United States can't just circle the wagons anymore and go isolationist. In absence of a strong power that doesn't want war ensuring war doesn't break out we will get a strong power that does want war and will go the lengths to get it.

No, sure I get that. Like I said the cold war, Korea and Vietnam may have been necessary. At the same time, wars like the gulf war, gulf war 2, and Afghanistan? Were we really stopping a growing power or were we creating an environment of resentment that led to the rise of AQ? Obviously we don't want to let a Hitler grow like we did pre WWII obviously, but most of these conflicts just don't really stand the test. I see North Korea and Iran as bigger threats to us than what is happening in Syria.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Honestly the more I study the wars of the last 50 or so years I really begin to question if any were really necessary or worth the trillions of dollars and blood. When I think what we could have done with all that money, and for what? Iraq and Afghanistan, probably not, Vietnam and Korea, maybe just to show the soviets we would not go quietly. Really the only one that really may have been worth it was the cold war, and even I'm not sure about that.

After World War 2 the United States filled the void as great power number 1 left by Britain. Its not that they chose to its that it was thrust upon them by a number of factors, particularly the need to meet the Soviets to ensure they didn't expand their territory by means of T-34 and AK-47. Now would they have done that? We still don't know, but actually the cold war was a stabilizing influence on the whole world, and while a number of small and unpleasant wars did break out in the long run it prevented World War 3 form breaking out, either nuclear or conventional.

My point is that the United States can't just circle the wagons anymore and go isolationist. In absence of a strong power that doesn't want war ensuring war doesn't break out we will get a strong power that does want war and will go the lengths to get it.

No, sure I get that. Like I said the cold war, Korea and Vietnam may have been necessary. At the same time, wars like the gulf war, gulf war 2, and Afghanistan? Were we really stopping a growing power or were we creating an environment of resentment that led to the rise of AQ? Obviously we don't want to let a Hitler grow like we did pre WWII obviously, but most of these conflicts just don't really stand the test. I see North Korea and Iran as bigger threats to us than what is happening in Syria.

True, I wasn't particularly going after you, just happened that your post was nearer than others. I was going after the general isolationist sentiment in this thread, that "its not our fight". Well if the USA does want to continue being a superpower then unfortunately we have to make a lot of these fights our fight. Maybe not this one but there will be others.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Honestly the more I study the wars of the last 50 or so years I really begin to question if any were really necessary or worth the trillions of dollars and blood. When I think what we could have done with all that money, and for what? Iraq and Afghanistan, probably not, Vietnam and Korea, maybe just to show the soviets we would not go quietly. Really the only one that really may have been worth it was the cold war, and even I'm not sure about that.

After World War 2 the United States filled the void as great power number 1 left by Britain. Its not that they chose to its that it was thrust upon them by a number of factors, particularly the need to meet the Soviets to ensure they didn't expand their territory by means of T-34 and AK-47. Now would they have done that? We still don't know, but actually the cold war was a stabilizing influence on the whole world, and while a number of small and unpleasant wars did break out in the long run it prevented World War 3 form breaking out, either nuclear or conventional.

My point is that the United States can't just circle the wagons anymore and go isolationist. In absence of a strong power that doesn't want war ensuring war doesn't break out we will get a strong power that does want war and will go the lengths to get it.

No, sure I get that. Like I said the cold war, Korea and Vietnam may have been necessary. At the same time, wars like the gulf war, gulf war 2, and Afghanistan? Were we really stopping a growing power or were we creating an environment of resentment that led to the rise of AQ? Obviously we don't want to let a Hitler grow like we did pre WWII obviously, but most of these conflicts just don't really stand the test. I see North Korea and Iran as bigger threats to us than what is happening in Syria.

-Gulf War I really was about oil, don't kid yourself. The fear was Hussein would keep going and take over Saudi Arabia, thus monopolizing the majority of oil reserves at that time.
Try it today and there would be much less impetus to do anything about it.

-Korea was the first post WWII action when we thought the world had actually changed and another ism had to be stopped.

-Vietnam, not relevant.
-Iraq II, not relevant.
-Afghanistan, only relevant in rocking back AQ, will revert to Taliban control within 24 months of our leaving.
-Kosova, not relevant
-Bosnia, not relevant

 EmilCrane wrote:
After World War 2 the United States filled the void as great power number 1 left by Britain. Its not that they chose to its that it was thrust upon them by a number of factors, particularly the need to meet the Soviets to ensure they didn't expand their territory by means of T-34 and AK-47. Now would they have done that? We still don't know, but actually the cold war was a stabilizing influence on the whole world, and while a number of small and unpleasant wars did break out in the long run it prevented World War 3 form breaking out, either nuclear or conventional.

People seem to forget that the last time we had multiple nations competing for resources and prestige on the world stage it ended in the trenches of Europe. Maybe the world was lucky that the worst weapons available at that time were machine guns and mustard gas. With today's arsenals it could be very different.

 EmilCrane wrote:
My point is that the United States can't just circle the wagons anymore and go isolationist. In absence of a strong power that doesn't want war ensuring war doesn't break out we will get a strong power that does want war and will go the lengths to get it.

Maybe that's what the US needs to do. Everyone is happy to take shots at it, but when things hit the fan the same ones shouting "Yankee go home!!" the loudest are the very first to cry for help.

Card on the table, I'm glad that the US is the foremost power on the global stage. I'd rather the most powerful nation in the world be one with a culture, political landscape, legal system etc. that is familiar to me and that I can relate to.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

People seem to forget that the last time we had multiple nations competing for resources and prestige on the world stage it ended in the trenches of Europe. Maybe the world was lucky that the worst weapons available at that time were machine guns and mustard gas. With today's arsenals it could be very different.

Maybe that's what the US needs to do. Everyone is happy to take shots at it, but when things hit the fan the same ones shouting "Yankee go home!!" the loudest are the very first to cry for help.

Card on the table, I'm glad that the US is the foremost power on the global stage. I'd rather the most powerful nation in the world be one with a culture, political landscape, legal system etc. that is familiar to me and that I can relate to.

With today's arsenals major war will never happen again, no one is stupid enough to do it because the deterrent is too strong. Look at India and Pakistan, 3 major wars between 1947-75, then once nukes arrive they just skirmish a bit and that's it. Nukes, believe it or not, are a stabilizing agent.

If the US wants to go isolationist then they will surrender their position as the leader of the free world, who's going to fill that gap? We don't know, my money's on china. Do we want to see china calling the shots on a world stage? Unfortunately small unpleasant wars are just a fact of life for number 1.

 EmilCrane wrote:
With today's arsenals major war will never happen again, no one is stupid enough to do it because the deterrent is too strong. Look at India and Pakistan, 3 major wars between 1947-75, then once nukes arrive they just skirmish a bit and that's it. Nukes, believe it or not, are a stabilizing agent.

Yeah, and World War 1 was the war to end all wars. Sadly that was not the case. Nukes may be a stabilising agent, but that does not mean that violence still cannot be used by countries

 EmilCrane wrote:
If the US wants to go isolationist then they will surrender their position as the leader of the free world, who's going to fill that gap? We don't know, my money's on china. Do we want to see china calling the shots on a world stage? Unfortunately small unpleasant wars are just a fact of life for number 1.

I could see China and Russia struggling for dominance in Eastern Europe, ME, Asia and Africa, with Brazil taking a lead in South America. So I doubt that we'll see one very dominant power. Maybe having someone else take the lead will make people be nostalgic for the US and realise that you don't know what you've got until its gone. The US can take the money that it gives as aid and spend it in house, improving their own country and the lives of its citizens.

The US has now confirmed it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/hagel-says-evidence-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/

 djones520 wrote:
The US has now confirmed it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/hagel-says-evidence-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/

feth.

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The US has now confirmed it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/hagel-says-evidence-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/

feth.

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

You'll have to do something?

I think it's much more likely that I'll end up doing something before you will.

As an aside, I'll be living less then 100 miles from Syria by the end of the year.

 whembly wrote:
Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

More sanctions, and send Turkey a Good Luck card

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The US has now confirmed it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/hagel-says-evidence-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/

feth.

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

You'll have to do something?

I think it's much more likely that I'll end up doing something before you will.

Touche...

If anything, I'd have to open up my de-wallet some more...

*shrugs*

Hey... maybe the administration will try to ignore and deflect the whole "red line" statement... hey... it worked for Benghazi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


As an aside, I'll be living less then 100 miles from Syria by the end of the year.

feth...

Man... don't be weirded out by me saying this...

But feth... thank you for your service!

-Gulf War I really was about oil, don't kid yourself. The fear was Hussein would keep going and take over Saudi Arabia, thus monopolizing the majority of oil reserves at that time.
Try it today and there would be much less impetus to do anything about it.

Gulf War war a really strange situation that I will never really be able to wrap my head around. Basically Saddam was our guy. Iraq was the front line stopping Iran from taking the whole peninsula. In order to finance that, Iraq borrowed tons of money from its neighbors, basically to defend them. After the war his "Allies" started calling in the loans while slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields and underselling Iraqi oil, basically making it impossible for Saddam to repay the loans he took to defend them. Pretty gakky treatment. Kuwait had basically declared economic war on Iraq.

Being our guy, Saddam then basically asks permission from the US to invade Kuwait. Our response is "We don't get involved in Arab on Arab conflict." The rest is history.

The whole thing was pretty avoidable and started a disastrous chain of events.

Not saying Saddam was a good guy, but he is not this crazy power hungry conqueror he is portrayed as, well no more then the other regional dictators anyway that we now call our allies. Was he gakky to some of his people and the Kurds, absolutely, but who in that region isn't?

feth.

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

I still don't know why the US has to do anything major. Let some of our allies closer to this handle it.

Saddam tried to invade Iran, succesfully invaded Kuwait, and was primed to invade Saudi Arabia until we stepped in.

He routinely used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

He fed people to lions for his and his sons personal amusement.

Name one other "dictator" in the middle east whose done similar.

 djones520 wrote:
Saddam tried to invade Iran, succesfully invaded Kuwait, and was primed to invade Saudi Arabia until we stepped in.

I think you could make the case that with the battle of Khafji (29 Jan -1 Feb '91) his troops did invade Saudi.

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Saddam tried to invade Iran, succesfully invaded Kuwait, and was primed to invade Saudi Arabia until we stepped in.

I think you could make the case that with the battle of Khafji (29 Jan -1 Feb '91) his troops did invade Saudi.

It could probably be argued. I like to look at it as the last impotent flailings of a foe we've effectively destroyed at that point.

 djones520 wrote:
Saddam tried to invade Iran, succesfully invaded Kuwait, and was primed to invade Saudi Arabia until we stepped in.

He routinely used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

He fed people to lions for his and his sons personal amusement.

Name one other "dictator" in the middle east whose done similar.

Not saying he was a good guy. Just not all that different. Turkey our NATO ally is known for harsh treatment of the Kurds. In the middle east this seams to be how uprisings are put down, violently.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE both have been found to support terrorist organizations that are anti US.

Iran had a long history of thumbing it's nose at Iraq when Iran had US support, including not paying Iraq for using it's waterways. Iran used it's military on these waterways to enforce free use. Once the revolution came in Iran, the US switched sides and Saddam ran with the ball.

The man asked our permission to invade Kuwait and we basically gave it to him. That's clearly someone who understood he was on a leash, really the kind of guy we needed in the region.