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.

Jihadin wrote:Wait. The 50+ peeps that got trained and went across the border into Syria. Are we forming a new "Front" or training a "Front" that we "like"

Wouldn't be the frist time the CIA has done that.. or subverted an already existing group.

cadbren wrote:
So Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah don't exist huh? I wasn't refering specifically to the anti-Baathists but islamic terrorists around the world and those who back them and Saudi Arabia constantly appears in that regard.

Just have hop in on this, because it's obvious you missed his point. 'Terrorism' really doesn't exist. It's just a word given to people fighting asymmetrical warfare on the side opposed to yours. When they're on your side, they're 'freedom fighters' or 'the resistance'. When they're neutral they're 'indigenous opposition' or 'humint resources' (Or CIA Agents).

I will make one suggestion that will most likely work, and send the right sort of message to everyone what happens when they tell the US to go feth itself and play with WMDs, if you really want to send a message.. Put everyone you don't want dead in Syria in fortified villages on the Turkish boarder and declare the rest of the country a free fire zone, shoot everything that moves, and carpet bomb the entire place with nape and grape till there's no stone standing on another stone, and then offer to rebuild everything for a percentage of the gas line royalties to Europe. Don't play nice, stick to conventional weapons, and just kill until there is absolutely nothing left alive.

Immoral, illegal, and disturbing? Oh, yes. But absolutely no one will fail to get the message, and showing that you have the will to do it will shut guys like Iran and NK up for a long time.

cadbren wrote:

 xole wrote:


Alright let's get starter. There is no "the terrorists". There are a lot of different groups with different goals and different ideologies who have different targets and different reasons for fighting, not to mention different locations. The only thing uniting them is a few books.

So Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Jemaah Islamiyah don't exist huh? I wasn't refering specifically to the anti-Baathists but islamic terrorists around the world and those who back them and Saudi Arabia constantly appears in that regard.

EDIT:Baron said something better than me

What, leaders like Saddam Hussein and Bashir Assad? Or further afield with Mubarak?
How about the forced separation of Kosovo by NATO forces or Ossetia by Russia? Hardly a new concept.

Quite the different concept. Kosovo and Ossetia declared their own independence. You would force independence on people. People who, I might add, will go on hating each other.

Yup, because endless uprisings and attacks across the region are preferable to allowing a distinct ethnic group to have their own country.

When the region that is theirs is currently a part of four different countries? Yes. When a real fight comes up, we'll talk.

Kick all the Israelis out of Arab territory and require Israel to compensate Palestinian families that lost land and other resources when that state was formed.

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Choose one point if there are so many to choose from. That is if you actually know what you're talking about..

Let's start with the point where you are kicking a group of people out of their land and then making them pay for it. The Palestinians are not peaceful, I don't think we can have an intelligent discussion if that's what you think.

Put a global ban on the production of sarin gas and similar products. Sarin was also used in the Tokyo subway attack back in 1995 so it's not like terrorists can't get their hands on it.

That'll work. So we're going to invade everyone who we think is making the gas?

Why do you think that the US military is some kind of international police force that has to invade countries to get anything done? Are you really opposed to stopping the production of sarin gas?

Not really, this is just an unrealistic expectation. And how do you expect to get anything you just said done? By asking nicely? And I don't want the U.S. to be an international police force. I want to let everyone die.

 djones520 wrote:
According to our SecState, Arab countries have offered to fund this.

Brings me back to the recent thread about the US military merc'ing itself out.

I say screw that. We pay our own way, or we don't at all. They have military's. Let them use their own, if they want this done.

I say just pressure the UN to make mercs legal via a licensing system with contracts on file. Sure, it's a lot of paperwork, but it deals with the problem AND keeps it limited to parties who want to be involved. Don't want ot send your own army? Get out your check book.

Syria resolution passes the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote.

Voting in favor are: Boxer, Cardin, Shaheen, [see forum posting rules], Durbin, Kaine, Corker, Flake, McCain

Voting against are: Udall (D-N.M.), Murphy, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Barrasso, Paul

The senators from Arizona, both Republican, one who said earlier he would note vote yes (McCain), have both kissed their chances at re-election goodbye.

Edit:

Per the President's definition of act of war:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

The senators from Arizona, both Republican, one who said earlier he would note vote yes (McCain), have both kissed their chances at re-election goodbye.

Dollars to rubles says McCain still gets reelected, assuming he seeks another term.

Still, interesting knowledge to have. Thanks for the update. Good to see Durbin doing the right thing.

But Durbin voted for the bill...

You know what really bothers me for all of this bull gak? I didn't hear any of these chicken hawks screaming for blood during the tens of thousands of massacres that have occurred across this globe in the last 30 years. What makes Syria so much more special then Darfur or Ethiopia? At least there was clear sides about who would be happy to see us and who'd try to kill us in our sleep there. Why does the President and his Chickenhawk allies so desperately wish to aid and abet the enemy? That's what we'd be doing in Syria. We'd be helping an enemy we've been fighting for over twenty years gain more power and resources. An enemy we know has chemical weapons and has used them. (Like I said, ask the Turks they have proved the Syrian Rebels, aka AQ have Sarin) what desperate cause engages the military's mandate from the federal government which is to provide for the common defense of OUR COUNTRY. It's not about Obama vs. Bush, like some people have suggested (not here but else where) it's that the population learned not to take a load of horse gak from Bush, and learned to realize when we're being railroaded to something not in the national interest from Bush. We learned as a nation from the build up from Iraq, and we the people have had enough of the bs, enough of the war cycle we have made for ourselves. If any one is to intervene in Syria, let the U.N. send a task force led by the Russians, instead of blundering in bassackwards on our own with no support, an internationally mandated task force led by a traditional Syrian ally with a military presence in Syria already is a fantastic plan. (Russia leases a naval port in Syria). I would happily say we should support that! Perhaps by sending the Russian officer leading the task force a fruit basket and a card or something.

I have a better idea. Get the feth out and stay out. Trade for oil. When the oil runs out, forget the whole region, forever.

Frazz the U.S. is going to be a net exporter of oil by 2016 or so.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
But Durbin voted for the bill...

You know what really bothers me for all of this bull gak? I didn't hear any of these chicken hawks screaming for blood during the tens of thousands of massacres that have occurred across this globe in the last 30 years. What makes Syria so much more special then Darfur or Ethiopia? At least there was clear sides about who would be happy to see us and who'd try to kill us in our sleep there. Why does the President and his Chickenhawk allies so desperately wish to aid and abet the enemy? That's what we'd be doing in Syria. We'd be helping an enemy we've been fighting for over twenty years gain more power and resources. An enemy we know has chemical weapons and has used them. (Like I said, ask the Turks they have proved the Syrian Rebels, aka AQ have Sarin) what desperate cause engages the military's mandate from the federal government which is to provide for the common defense of OUR COUNTRY. It's not about Obama vs. Bush, like some people have suggested (not here but else where) it's that the population learned not to take a load of horse gak from Bush, and learned to realize when we're being railroaded to something not in the national interest from Bush. We learned as a nation from the build up from Iraq, and we the people have had enough of the bs, enough of the war cycle we have made for ourselves. If any one is to intervene in Syria, let the U.N. send a task force led by the Russians, instead of blundering in bassackwards on our own with no support, an internationally mandated task force led by a traditional Syrian ally with a military presence in Syria already is a fantastic plan. (Russia leases a naval port in Syria). I would happily say we should support that! Perhaps by sending the Russian officer leading the task force a fruit basket and a card or something.

The cynic in me is saying that "the reason" why the administration is engaging on this "Syrian issue" is to distract the American public.

Guess what we're not talking about anymore...

(Scandalpolooza. IRS, Fast & Furious, etc)

 xole wrote:

Kosovo and Ossetia declared their own independence. You would force independence on people. People who, I might add, will go on hating each other.

In both instances the nations to whom the regions broke away wanted to retain their land. The only reason they were unable to do so in both instances was outside interference from larger powers. The Kurds do want their own land, it was part of the reason that Saddam gassed them in the 80s, they rebelled. Then they were encouraged to rise up again by coalition forces in the 90s and again in the 2000s. There was talk about an independent region for them but Turkey was against it as it would encourage their own Kurds to break away.
Chechnya attemped to break away from Russia and there was a vicious war which included terrorist attacks against civilian targets in Russia.
The only real differences here are the military capabilities of the actors involved.

Let's start with the point where you are kicking a group of people out of their land and then making them pay for it.

I don't regard Israel iteself as arab land so get that fantasy out of your head. I'm talking about the occupied zones and the settlements in what is referred to as Palestinian territories.
When the original Palestinians left their villages to go into exile, they lost their lands, their houses. They should be compensated for those things.

And I don't want the U.S. to be an international police force. I want to let everyone die.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What makes Syria so much more special then Darfur or Ethiopia?

You answered your own question in the post. Firstly, the UN is involved in Darfur and Ethiopia. The UN cannot become involved in Syria because of one big veto button. The one you addressed in your post. Russia. Syria is a MAJOR arms buyer from Russia, and as you've pointed out, they have a military base there. As such it's in Russia's interests to keep Assad in power. Ethiopia and Sudan, not so much. Not that Ethiopia is really having the issues that the Sudan, or Syria does.

So because of that, we cannot act through the UN channels, which means we have to act more unilaterally.

UN authorizing the status of "Mercs". All we need now is a place called "Outreach"

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Immoral, illegal, and disturbing? Oh, yes. But absolutely no one will fail to get the message, and showing that you have the will to do it will shut guys like Iran and NK up for a long time.

Both of those nations are full of windbags. Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West? Kicking foreign powers out of your country doesn't count. I'd be far more concerned about the ones that immigrate to the West than the whole lot of them back in sandland. I assume you saw the bit recently where Sweden has opened its borders to any Syrian national wanting to "get out"? There are millions of refugees and Sweden is only 7.5 million, not sure what they're trying to do but they've just opened up Sweden and the EU by extension to countless potential jihadists. From a stability point of view, this poses a far greater threat to Western interests and needs to be addressed rather than randomly blowing up people in their own homes.

cadbren wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Immoral, illegal, and disturbing? Oh, yes. But absolutely no one will fail to get the message, and showing that you have the will to do it will shut guys like Iran and NK up for a long time.

Both of those nations are full of windbags. Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West? Kicking foreign powers out of your country doesn't count. I'd be far more concerned about the ones that immigrate to the West than the whole lot of them back in sandland. I assume you saw the bit recently where Sweden has opened its borders to any Syrian national wanting to "get out"? There are millions of refugees and Sweden is only 7.5 million, not sure what they're trying to do but they've just opened up Sweden and the EU by extension to countless potential jihadists. From a stability point of view, this poses a far greater threat to Western interests and needs to be addressed rather than randomly blowing up people in their own homes.

Iran is responsible for hundreds of dead US soldiers in Iraq, directly, and indirectly, with their supplying and training AQIR, and even overt attacks on our forces. That's just one example.

 Jihadin wrote:
UN authorizing the status of "Mercs". All we need now is a place called "Outreach"

Do you think private entities could get to the point where they could challenge national governments? It seems we're headed that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

Iran is responsible for hundreds of dead US soldiers in Iraq, directly, and indirectly, with their supplying and training AQIR, and even overt attacks on our forces. That's just one example.

Thanks. By overt, do you mean Iranian military?

cadbren wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
UN authorizing the status of "Mercs". All we need now is a place called "Outreach"

Do you think private entities could get to the point where they could challenge national governments? It seems we're headed that way.

Nope...

Unless you start seeing "advertisments" in the Whitehouse or on military vehicles... then, we're fethed.

cadbren wrote:

 xole wrote:

Kosovo and Ossetia declared their own independence. You would force independence on people. People who, I might add, will go on hating each other.

In both instances the nations to whom the regions broke away wanted to retain their land. The only reason they were unable to do so in both instances was outside interference from larger powers. The Kurds do want their own land, it was part of the reason that Saddam gassed them in the 80s, they rebelled. Then they were encouraged to rise up again by coalition forces in the 90s and again in the 2000s. There was talk about an independent region for them but Turkey was against it as it would encourage their own Kurds to break away.
Chechnya attemped to break away from Russia and there was a vicious war which included terrorist attacks against civilian targets in Russia.
The only real differences here are the military capabilities of the actors involved.

Now you've merged two arguments and used my argument against one as your focus point to enforce your argument against the other. The problem still remains, the kurds live in four different countries, and no power wants to deal with that mess. Then You want to separate all the ethnic groups in the middle east and divide nations up that way. Guess what. The ones that hate each other will go on hating each other, especially since a lot of them will be pissed off their lands were just stolen.

Let's start with the point where you are kicking a group of people out of their land and then making them pay for it.

I don't regard Israel iteself as arab land so get that fantasy out of your head. I'm talking about the occupied zones and the settlements in what is referred to as Palestinian territories.
When the original Palestinians left their villages to go into exile, they lost their lands, their houses. They should be compensated for those things.

It's not like that didn't happen 60 years ago or anything. And you wouldn't just be kicking the israelis out. You would also need to kick out the christians, since(surprise, surprise) there is violence against christians. And then you need to build a giant wall around the whole place to stop missile fire from entering israeli territory. Otherwise, guess what, the Israelis will just take over the place again because they don't appreciate being bombed.

And I don't want the U.S. to be an international police force. I want to let everyone die.

Hey, death solves all the problems. No one would be around to complain about it if you killed all members of an ethnic group. Sure, it might bite you in the back immediately, but no one will come looking for land later. Like the native americans. Virtually wiped out. They've got little land left and little to no power. And the best part? The few that remain have adapted to american culture.

Now, give me something better than a facepalm and explain how you want to do any of this stuff without U.S. military intervention.

I understand from your evident cynicism that you're going to disagree with me, but I feel it's important to at least mention the reason I support it. The people of Syria have made it clear that they no longer consent to be ruled by a tyrant. I think that it's imperative to help them realize that goal. Any government put into place subsequently wouldn't be perfect, I get that. But it is important to get the process of national evolution started. Perhaps that's naive, but I don't believe it's acceptable to say 'not my problem' and walk away. Asad gassed civilians. He has to be removed. I am glad that my senator voted in the direction that his constituents wanted him to vote, even if he didn't agree with it personally.

Wonder what the reaction going to be if an American pilot got shot down and captured.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder what the reaction going to be if an American pilot got shot down and captured.

Depends on who picks him up.

If its one of the nice rebel factions he'd probably be fairly safe. He'd just need to get to the Israeli border to get to safety.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I understand from your evident cynicism that you're going to disagree with me, but I feel it's important to at least mention the reason I support it. The people of Syria have made it clear that they no longer consent to be ruled by a tyrant.

Have they? What percentage have? With so much foreign intervention there right now we have no idea how strong the local rebel support actually is. It's been financed and supplied by outside entities suggesting that this is not the great uprising it's claimed to be. The fact it's dragged on as long as it has suggests considerable support for the current regime remains. Do their opinions not matter on this?

You know damn well if that individual get shot down deep in Syria and was captured by Assad forces that everyone going to get a front row ticket on the "live" image of a badly beaten American Pilot if he/she wasn't killed out right upon captured. The a majority of everyone on this board who supported action against Syria going to want more then Air Strikes. What would happen if they refuse to turn him/her over to us. Hold a trial. Found guilty and executed for killing "women and children" from the mission. Stick with guided missiles only. I know the ships will be sealed when they attack but when Assad forces respond if they are able they're going to saturate the Air Defense system to a destroyer or since they are using radar or something stupid send something lke a Silkworm missile into a civilian tanker.

 Jihadin wrote:
You know damn well if that individual get shot down deep in Syria and was captured by Assad forces that everyone going to get a front row ticket on the "live" image of a badly beaten American Pilot if he/she wasn't killed out right upon captured. The a majority of everyone on this board who supported action against Syria going to want more then Air Strikes. What would happen if they refuse to turn him/her over to us. Hold a trial. Found guilty and executed for killing "women and children" from the mission. Stick with guided missiles only. I know the ships will be sealed when they attack but when Assad forces respond if they are able they're going to saturate the Air Defense system to a destroyer or since they are using radar or something stupid send something lke a Silkworm missile into a civilian tanker.

Do you think Assad would be that stupid? Right now he's starting down a few cruise missiles, and possibly an handful of air strikes. To do what you describe, in direct violation of the Geneva Convention articles that Syria is a signatory for, would invate a full scale ass whomping from the strongest military machine this world has ever had the grace of seeing.

Assad has the opportunity to survive the first option. He'll be playing cards with Saddam if he took the second.

Hell, even a man who routinely fed people to lions for his own amusement didn't have the cajones to do what you just suggested.

You forgot about the pilots that Saddam forces captured before the ground invasion? They didn't look to healthy to me. Assad I'm willing to bet would probably get away with it. He has Russia on his side. Mind you we be going it alone unless NATO members come in to assist. Your applying western moral against Middle East hatred. Combat makes anything possible and like I said before to someone else who thinks Middle East has the same morals we do. If your an American and captured you are most 110% up the Mississippi River in a full blown out flood without paddle. So if they executed the pilot under their law then we best be ready to start changing laws in other Middle East countries because I for one has a feeling that I be right when and if they do capture a American pilot.

Mind you the Greatest Military that ever walked this Earth and just recently retired from has dealt with a very creative and imaginary enemy. What if Assad forces does not capture the pilot but one of the other Organizations that support Assad. I would not put it past them if they executed the him/her.

 Jihadin wrote:
Mind you the Greatest Military that ever walked this Earth

Are we adjusting for inflation?

 djones520 wrote:
Hell, even a man who routinely fed people to lions for his own amusement....

Holy gak, that myth is still going around?

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder what the reaction going to be if an American pilot got shot down and captured.

C.Norris - your country needs you!

cadbren wrote:
Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?

Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Frazz the U.S. is going to be a net exporter of oil by 2016 or so.

Exactly. Further. Oil and gas flows from the Middle East flow to Europe, not the US. Once again the US is saving Europe's ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I understand from your evident cynicism that you're going to disagree with me, but I feel it's important to at least mention the reason I support it. The people of Syria have made it clear that they no longer consent to be ruled by a tyrant. I think that it's imperative to help them realize that goal. Any government put into place subsequently wouldn't be perfect, I get that. But it is important to get the process of national evolution started. Perhaps that's naive, but I don't believe it's acceptable to say 'not my problem' and walk away. Asad gassed civilians. He has to be removed. I am glad that my senator voted in the direction that his constituents wanted him to vote, even if he didn't agree with it personally.

Yo9u remove Assad and AlQaeda takes over. Thats just awesome.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yo9u remove Assad and AlQaeda takes over. Thats just awesome.

The Al Nusra Front has a fighting strength of about 7,000 people. Mean while, the Free Syrian Army, the fighting arm of the largest "rebel" group, which has set up a provincial government and has received some foreign recognition, has over 80,000 people under arms, mostly defectors from the Syrian Army. They also don't exactly cooperate with Al Nusra. So I think a lot of people are blowing this whole "Al Qaeda" thing out of proportion to push their isolationist stance.