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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

More trite statements about things that don't really concern the topic at hand?
Yes we can not get involved. We've done it successfully elsewhere, we can do it here too.

Tell me where you have not been involved? I'm curious.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

We should have stayed out of Syria, we should have kept our mouths shut, we should have just let Russia keep funding Assad, and made sure that it stayed not our problem.

Because silence is always a good idea when dealing with atrocity. It's worked so well throughout history. Should we add a new line about Syrians?

Martin Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

If you wanted to not have US involvement in Syria, you had better travel back to 1949 when the brand spanking new CIA decided it was time to dispose of the elected Syrian government and backed General Husni al-Za'im's coup d'etat. Since that's what kicked off the long chain of coups that have led directly to this.

Mmm just sent off letters to my Congressmen and Senators on this subject. Remember, when you send them things, its occasionally good to remind them of the political contributions you've made in the past.

 CptJake wrote:

And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. That is not close to the only attack. Plenty of other bombings and kidnappings where US citizens were the targets. Some of their ops in South and Central America have targeted our interests too.

And using Hez is not the only way Iran has acted violently against US and other Western nations. Others have pointed out the Iranian provided IEDs used against US troops in Iraq, I'll also point out the Quds force troops captured and in a couple cases killed in Iraq. Of course the taking of the US Embassy in '79 wasn't exactly peaceful. There are lots of examples over the last few decades.

You may be able to argue the 'why' there have been attacks, to deny they ever occurred is willful ignorance.

Thats a bit unfair, afterall you're quoting examples from 30 years back, when Hez was at it's nadir of operations and 'popularity' There's a strong possibility that Cadbren wasn't even born at that point. I think the point that he was making that the overt attacks against western interests have waned and reverted to a more passive/aggresive 'resistance' against influences within their geographical location.

Cheers

Andrew

Well... the Prez is going to address the Nation next Tuesday:

OBAMA SAYS HE WILL ADDRESS NATION TUESDAY ON SYRIA

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) — President Barack Obama says he will address the nation about Syria on Tuesday as he seeks public and congressional authority for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Obama wants to strike against the Syrian regime in response to a chemical attack on civilians last month that the Obama administration says was carried out by Assad's military. Obama says failing to chemical weapons use would , quote, "send a signal to rogue nations."

Obama spoke at a news conference at the conclusion of a Group of 20 summit in Russia where Syria dominated much of the discussion.

Amid tepid support for a strike, lawmakers have called on Obama to build support with the public by making such an address

So... he's having a "speech" about this in front of the nation...

Just seems odd he’ll do it on the day before the anniversary of 9/11 and Benghazi where those questions will likely popup...

Just strange coming from someone who originally campaigning as an anti-interventionist and an internationalist...

He'll also argue that the UN is useless... (o.O)

Pres. Obama says he would prefer to work through the UN in response to Syria, but it's "paralyzed, frozen and doesn't act."

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 6, 2013

Which, let's be honest... it's true.

Funny how the POTUS now has walked the same shoes as his predecessor... and he wants to wage war now... o.O

Well, so the US wan't to send a message to all "rogue nations", and to send that message they are prepared to act outside of a UN mandate... Won't that make the US a rogue nation itself?

Or have you all finally decided to go with the definition of rogue nation = one nation that doesn't do what we wan't?

With everything going on, this has started making the rounds:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/was-mitt-romney-right-about-everything

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. That is not close to the only attack. Plenty of other bombings and kidnappings where US citizens were the targets. Some of their ops in South and Central America have targeted our interests too.

And using Hez is not the only way Iran has acted violently against US and other Western nations. Others have pointed out the Iranian provided IEDs used against US troops in Iraq, I'll also point out the Quds force troops captured and in a couple cases killed in Iraq. Of course the taking of the US Embassy in '79 wasn't exactly peaceful. There are lots of examples over the last few decades.

You may be able to argue the 'why' there have been attacks, to deny they ever occurred is willful ignorance.

Thats a bit unfair, afterall you're quoting examples from 30 years back, when Hez was at it's nadir of operations and 'popularity' There's a strong possibility that Cadbren wasn't even born at that point. I think the point that he was making that the overt attacks against western interests have waned and reverted to a more passive/aggresive 'resistance' against influences within their geographical location.

Cheers

Andrew

Not unfair at all, I don't give a crap when he was born. Plenty of available sources giving the history out there, and Iran and their proxies definitely know the history and embrace it. The attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are not close to 30 years old, neither are many of the activities in Central and South America. Nor is the plot bomb embassies in DC in 2011. Nor is the plot the Thais stopped in Bangkok. Nor the 2012 operations broken up in Azerbaijan. The point is Iran, either directly or through proxies, is very much engaged in aggressive plots against Western interests. And has been for decades.

Let's review options for the Obama administration.

#1: Ignore the problem and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.

#2: Bomb Assad hard enough to get his attention, but not hard enough for him to lose the war. Then allow Syrians to kill each other as much as they want as long as they don't use sarin gas. The main risk is it would look stupid and ineffective to the American people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.

#3: Bomb Assad's military forces to the point that the Al Qaeda backed rebels win the war and gain control over Assad's remaining chemical weapon stockpile and production capabilities. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans, and would turn a bad situation into an absolute clusterfeth.

#4: Invade Syria with boots on the ground so that neither Assad or the Al Qaeda backed rebels have chemical weapons. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans, and would result in an insurgency that would be about as bad as Iraq which would probably cost America as many lives, years, and dollars as the Iraq war.

Looks like a no win situation to me with options 1 and 2 being a less terrible than 3 and 4. Now lets review Obama's political options.

Option A: Kick the decision to congress and allow them to share the blame for the negative outcome of whatever decision is made.

Option B: Kick the decision to congress and allow them to share the blame for the negative outcome of whatever decision is made.

Option C: Kick the decision to congress and allow them to share the blame for the negative outcome of whatever decision is made.

Option D: Kick the decision to congress and allow them to share the blame for the negative outcome of whatever decision is made.

 schadenfreude wrote:

#1: Ignore the problem and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.

I've been out of the news loop for the past couple of days, so this is a genuine question: has there been any proof that it was actually government forces that perpetrated the gas attack in this instance?

Last I heard some reporter was saying that this attack could have been the work of the rebels mishandling their own stockpiles?

PhantomViper wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

#1: Ignore the problem and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.

I've been out of the news loop for the past couple of days, so this is a genuine question: has there been any proof that it was actually government forces that perpetrated the gas attack in this instance?

Last I heard some reporter was saying that this attack could have been the work of the rebels mishandling their own stockpiles?

The Obama Administration claims to have proof that it was the Assad Government forces launching the attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
With everything going on, this has started making the rounds:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/was-mitt-romney-right-about-everything

Yep... read that.

*shrugs*

It's just a "see... I told ya so moment". But, it hasn't been well received since no one liked being wrong..

PhantomViper wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

#1: Ignore the problem and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans.

I've been out of the news loop for the past couple of days, so this is a genuine question: has there been any proof that it was actually government forces that perpetrated the gas attack in this instance?

Last I heard some reporter was saying that this attack could have been the work of the rebels mishandling their own stockpiles?

Both possibilities are possible, but from what I have read the intelligence community is leaning towards Assad's forces using the weapons. Either way it doesn't make much of a difference after we vote no on the use of military force. The net result is the same=Assad will know that he could use sarin on his people if he feels the need. I don't see any way of sugar coating the 4 options I laid out or making any of them better, it's just a matter of choosing the least bad option and accepting it in all it's ugliness.

The net result is the same=Assad will know that he could use sarin on his people if he feels the need.

And?

At this rate, Assad's forces will have won the war! When FDR took office, there was a famous cartoon about the galloping snail of congress getting pushed into action. Well, Obama has given American politics the constipated snail!

Still, the old Obama magic is still there. he was smoothing up to Ms Merkel at the G20! Still waiting for Putin charging in on his white horse!

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I think my "favorite" part of all this is listening to some Republican lawmakers talk about using the International Criminal Court in the Hague to deal with the Assad and his use of Chemical Weapons. That made my day.

Lulz in the direction from which it came aside, why is this a bad idea? Syria is a signatory, even though the US is not.

I don't thinkit is a bad idea at all. It's just funny to hear Conservatives/Republicans say it.

I recall when the Bush Doctrine would have allowed us to invade Syria unilaterally by now. After all they have demonstrated that they have WMD and could provide them to Hezbollah and Hamas. Therefore, we could invoke the Bush Doctrine and attack right?

 Frazzled wrote:

The net result is the same=Assad will know that he could use sarin on his people if he feels the need.

And?

Fraz, I'm shocked that you aren;t concenred about how Iran will see our "Red Line" failure as an instigation to attack Isreal!

DINLT,it's Dr. Merkel if you please. Frau Dr. Merkel :-P

 Easy E wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I think my "favorite" part of all this is listening to some Republican lawmakers talk about using the International Criminal Court in the Hague to deal with the Assad and his use of Chemical Weapons. That made my day.

Lulz in the direction from which it came aside, why is this a bad idea? Syria is a signatory, even though the US is not.

I don;t thinkit is a bad idea at all. It's just funny to hear Conservatives/Republicans say it.

I recall when the Bush Doctrine would have allowed us to invade Syria unilaterally by now. After all they have demonstrated that they have WMD and could provide them to Hezbollah and Hamas. Therefore, we could invoke the Bush Doctrine and attack right?

The Bush Doctrine is law per se... it's a series of policies for Bush's administration.

Having said that... yeah, it would fit. I fact, I'd take it a step further... the Colin Powell Doctrine... “if you break it, you own it”.

"If you break it you own it" is not the Powell doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

[qoute]1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?

Fraz, I'm shocked that you aren;t concenred about how Iran will see our "Red Line" failure as an instigation to attack Isreal!

Its the US restraining Israel. I'm pretty sure Israel with its 200+ nukes can take care of itself.

Now if I were Israel, I'd state that it is now a matter of state policy that attacks launched from Lebanon or Syria will now be considered attacks launched from Iran, and that Israel will react accordingly.

 Da Boss wrote:
DINLT,it's Dr. Merkel if you please. Frau Dr. Merkel :-P

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
"If you break it you own it" is not the Powell doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

[qoute]1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
"If you break it you own it" is not the Powell doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

[qoute]1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?

 Frazzled wrote:

The net result is the same=Assad will know that he could use sarin on his people if he feels the need.

And?

I kind of feel the same. I really don't shed any tears over the thought of Al Quaeda terrorists getting gassed or the thought they might not win and not get their hands on the stuff or it's manufacturing facilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20348901-not-one-of-bad-guys-but-syrian-rebel-group-proclaims-anti-american-bent?lite

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The net result is the same=Assad will know that he could use sarin on his people if he feels the need.

And?

I kind of feel the same. I really don't shed any tears over the thought of Al Quaeda terrorists getting gassed or the thought they might not win and not get their hands on the stuff or it's manufacturing facilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20348901-not-one-of-bad-guys-but-syrian-rebel-group-proclaims-anti-american-bent?lite

It's not as simple as that. The Al Qaeda terrorists are using a helpless population of civilians to hide in and as human shields. The last use of sarin gas ended up taking out hundreds of non combatant civilians in order to kill dozens of terrorists. It also makes the assumption that it's a strait Assad versus Al Qaeda fight and eliminates the possibility the situation is really a complex clusterfrak of sectarian violence where Assad isn't using the war as an excuse to engage in ethnic cleansing.

I stand by my original position that every option we have is a bad option with terrible consequences, but not getting involved is the least bad of our bad options. My opinion is it's better to stand next to a stinking pile of bs than to stand in it, and standing in it is better than falling face first into it. That being said too many people are trying to say a steaming pill of bs smells like roses.

We're on a different continent. We can stand far far away from it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Tell me where you have not been involved? I'm curious.

I'm Irish, we've sorta kept our neutrality this past wee while. But please don't let that stop you trying to find some obscure example to prove your point, whatever that may be.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Because silence is always a good idea when dealing with atrocity. It's worked so well throughout history. Should we add a new line about Syrians?

Martin Niemöller wrote:trite poem removed

So if we don't start military action in Syria the next step will be Assad/Al-Queda/FSA on US soil engaging in genocide because we didn't speak out? Or are you falling back on hyperbole and false comparisons yet again to attempt to illicit a response through emotional blackmail. Actually I think we all know the answer to that.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
If you wanted to not have US involvement in Syria, you had better travel back to 1949 when the brand spanking new CIA decided it was time to dispose of the elected Syrian government and backed General Husni al-Za'im's coup d'etat. Since that's what kicked off the long chain of coups that have led directly to this.

Yes, because clearly we can time travel and undo the past mistakes. Or better yet, lets blunder ahead and make brand new ones. Those events happened 64 years ago, so unless you think that the Syrians are incapable of making their own decisions then we stopped being responsible a long time ago.
Unless of course you want to go back even further and blame the British for losing the War of Independence that created the US. Or how about the Normans after they invaded England? Is that far enough back?


But don't let that stop you advocating for the UN (y'know that body where Russia has veto power) for endorse your alleged mercenary profession just so that you can make a quick buck, while mounted on your moral high horse and pretending that you're doing this for the sake of those suffering.

 Frazzled wrote:
We're on a different continent. We can stand far far away from it.

Meh if the Nazis didn't' declare war on us and left us alone the same logic could be applied to the holocaust. I think we're mostly on the same page. It's sad that it's easier to sell war than peace. Let's go over options and selling points of peace.

#1: Don't intervene and allow Assad go kill his own people with impunity. The main risk is Assad may engage in larger scale sarin gas attacks against his own people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans and cause a terrible loss of Syrian life.

#2: Bomb Assad hard enough to get his attention, but not hard enough for him to lose the war. Then allow Syrians to kill each other as much as they want as long as they don't use sarin gas. The main risk is it would look stupid and ineffective to the American people. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans and cause a terrible loss of Syrian life. Also by protracting the war the total loss of Syrian life will probably be greater than option #1.

#3: Bomb Assad's military forces to the point that the Al Qaeda backed rebels win the war and gain control over Assad's remaining chemical weapon stockpile and production capabilities. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans, will cause a terrible loss of Syrian life, and would turn a bad situation into an absolute clusterfeth. The principle concept of Vae Victus still applies to whatever side loses the Syrian civil war, so we can rely on Al Qaeda to be as merciful in victory as Assad's forces. The loss of Syrian life won't be any lessened by option 3, and Al Qaeda controlling a large sarin gas supply will probably provoke another war.

#4: Invade Syria with boots on the ground so that neither Assad or the Al Qaeda backed rebels have chemical weapons. Choosing this option will be unpopular with many Americans, cause a terrible loss of Syrian life, and would result in an insurgency that would be about as bad as Iraq which would probably cost America as many lives, years, and dollars as the Iraq war.

Acting unsympathetic towards a terrible loss of Syrian life isn't a good way to sell peace. It might piss people off, and it invites people to make the argument an emotional one instead of a logical one. There is no way to win an emotional arguement, and engaging in one when the logical argument strongly favors a non interventionist policy isn't a good way to promote us remaining uninvolved.

Mission Accomplished... eh?

It sucks that children are getting gassed, but you know, that conflict has been going on for two years. Get your kids out of the conflict zone!

 schadenfreude wrote:

Meh if the Nazis didn't' declare war on us and left us alone the same logic could be applied to the holocaust.

Your homework for this weekend will be to write the next phrase 1000 times:

"WW2 wasn't fought because of the holocaust."

PhantomViper wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

Meh if the Nazis didn't' declare war on us and left us alone the same logic could be applied to the holocaust.

Your homework for this weekend will be to write the next phrase 1000 times:

"WW2 wasn't fought because of the holocaust."

Which was duly noted when I started off with the fact Germany declared war with us and attacked us first (In the form of the Atlantic turkey shoot)

The point still stands, and there is a good chance the 3rd Reich would still be around today if they didn't declare war on the US and attack Atlantic shipping.

And one of the German assassination plots against Hitler worked.

The point you missed is being indifferent to war crimes committed in a far away location is easily attacked. Why are so many people that are essentially agreeing with me sniping 1 comment out of a long post and attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm Irish, we've sorta kept our neutrality this past wee while. But please don't let that stop you trying to find some obscure example to prove your point, whatever that may be.

Well, officially, yes, Éire is neutral. But brother, does Éire provide troops for everyone else. I don't know if you've noticed this throughout history, but when Irishmen are not killing each other, they're selling out their services to someone else, be it Ole Boney or Uncle Sam. Last I heard, and I got this from someone who may have plucked the number out of the air, so grain of salt, but I was told this: there are still around 10k Irishmen sitting around Iraq as pmcs. Further, both England and the US deployed units that are still largely Irish there. (as none of the following are signatory to the UN Mercenary Convention: USA, UK, and Ireland. or Iraq, for that matter. Further, for real hilarity, the US still reserves the right to issue Letters of Marque [as Ron Paul pointed out])

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Or are you falling back on hyperbole and false comparisons yet again to attempt to illicit a response through emotional blackmail.

It's not hyperbole when it's true. Your position was exactly the average German's view at the time. You can call me out for saying 'Let's stop the bastards and get paid doing it' but let's not pretend you have the moral high ground when your position is basically 'Who cares about murdering women and children horribly? It's not like it's happening to anyone *I* care about." You might think my horse is high, but it's really just a matter of perspective.

I know Republicans like to talk about 'Saint Reagan'. Let me bring you a speaker that the left beatified:

"To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." - John F Kennedy.