# U.S.:  "No Troops to Syria"



## Marauder06 (Apr 20, 2012)

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-leader-us-will-not-send-troops-to-syria?lite

All I can say to that is, "good."


----------



## Grey (Apr 20, 2012)

I just did my persuasive speech in my Public Speaking class on U.S. Intervention in Syria lol. I guess it didn't reach any higher ups like I had hoped.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 20, 2012)

I remember doing speeches for English at school, they sucked. I did one on "money creates greed" so I held up photos of the Cambridge Five claiming money corrupted them. Didn't realise 'till later they were all ideologicals, ha.

Oh and the teacher was an actual paid up member of the CPNZ back in the 70s I found out later.

Anyway, back on topic, Syria. I don't see a solution coming any time soon but I am reasonably impressed it's kept going this long.


----------



## surgicalcric (Apr 20, 2012)

Unfortunately Russia doesnt feel the same way...


----------



## Crusader74 (Apr 20, 2012)

Lebanon happened in a similar way... eventually when so many thousands of innocent civilians are killed, they might just ask for the UN to go in with a Chapter. VII  peace support mission...


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Apr 20, 2012)

UN peacekeepers....yea cause that always works so well. Lots of countries don't even want em if asked cause UN peacekeeping operations have gotten a bad rap not just on actually doing anything productive but on multiple counts of rape and spreading of STD's to the local population by the peacekeepers. Oh, and wouldn't you know it, the largest contributor of soldiers to UN peacekeeping operations is Pakistan....surprised anyone?


----------



## Crusader74 (Apr 20, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> UN peacekeepers....yea cause that always works so well. Lots of countries don't even want em if asked cause UN peacekeeping operations have gotten a bad rap not just on actually doing anything productive but on multiple counts of rape and spreading of STD's to the local population by the peacekeepers. Oh, and wouldn't you know it, the largest contributor of soldiers to UN peacekeeping operations is Pakistan....surprised anyone?


 

Most of the problems you mentioned have come from 3rd world country contributing countries...Ever since they beefed up Lebanon with a new mandate and more EU countries got involved, it has stabilized..For now... Any of you MI dudes who have an interest in ME policy will be aware that the Hezbollah are looking to go toe to toe again with Israel...


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Apr 20, 2012)

Irish said:


> Most of the problems you mentioned have come from 3rd world country contributing countries...Ever since they beefed up Lebanon with a new mandate and more EU countries got involved, it has stabilized..For now... Any of you MI dudes who have an interest in ME policy will be aware that the Hezbollah are looking to go toe to toe again with Israel...


 
No surprise there. Hezbollah is a proxy arm of the Iranian quds force for all intents and purposes, and with Israel using the tough talk regarding Iran and their possible development of nukes, it makes sense. Just what that area needs right now.


----------



## Brill (Apr 20, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-leader-us-will-not-send-troops-to-syria?lite
> 
> All I can say to that is, "good."


 


How so?  Elaborate please Sir.

The Bosians wanted external assistance...we blew them off so they turned to Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Chechens wanted external assistance but we shunned them so they turned to Saudi Arabia and the jihadists.

The Syrians wanted external assistance but...


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 20, 2012)

Sure thing.

Please cite your sources for the points you make above, I'm not sure I buy it.  Yes, *the Bosnians were grateful for Iranian support*.  *But how did that work out for *the Iranians?  And are you really saying that the *US did not intervene to help out in Bosnia*?  I wasn't able to find anything that said Chechnya asked for US involvement.  Even if they did, why would it be in our interest to help them out?  It would only be another crappy, corrupt, extremist pain-in-the-ass country if it obtained independence from Russia.  Not worth us getting involved, IMO.

So, even if we assume that your two statements are true, who are the Syrians going to "turn to" that they're not already in bed with?  They're already *firmly allied with the Iranians*; they are state *sponsors of terrorism*,  they prop up Hezbollah and regularly attack our regional ally, Israel (I'm not even going to cite sources for those two facts).  *They supported the insurgency in Iraq*  and are trying to* proliferate weapons of mass destruction*.  My point is, there are no worse outcomes for the US if the status quo continues.

However, there are worse outcomes if the current government is overthrown.  Our intervention in Syria, IMO, would only serve to facilitate the formation of a government that is even more sectarian and anti-Western and more out of control than the one currently in place.  A revolution in Syria will not result in a democratic, pro-Western government.  It will result in a Sunni-dominated, extremist, anti-Western government.   The current secular(ish) government will be replaced by a Sunni one, and purges of Christians, Jews, and other minorities will follow.  Such a government will create ungoverned space in which terrorist networks can thrive.  Syria could turn into a kind of "not as crappy" Afghanistan, with a much more strategic geopolitical position and a much higher GDP.

A US-led intervention in Syria would cost us a lot of money (which we don't have) and probably manpower (which we shouldn't be willing to invest).  If the UN or the Arab League want to throw money and manpower at the problem of removing Assad from power... fine.  I just don't think it's something we need to be involved in, I don't see national interests at stake and I don't see a better outcome for our country if we support the insurgency.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 21, 2012)

I say feed both sides ammo and see who wins, then hope that it reduces their population by 90 to 100%. Then offer some help to Iran...:-"


----------



## Tyrant (Apr 22, 2012)

Damn, still waiting on that third arrowhead device. Theres still hope for Iran!!


----------



## Brill (Apr 22, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> Please cite your sources for the points you make above, I'm not sure I buy it. Yes, *the Bosnians were grateful for Iranian support*. *But how did that work out for *the Iranians? And are you really saying that the *US did not intervene to help out in Bosnia*? I wasn't able to find anything that said Chechnya asked for US involvement. Even if they did, why would it be in our interest to help them out? It would only be another crappy, corrupt, extremist pain-in-the-ass country if it obtained independence from Russia. Not worth us getting involved, IMO.
> 
> ...


 
I should have been more precise as I was referring to the early stages of regional conflicts where Muslims have appealed for Western intervention, like Syria.

The jihadists that stayed in Bosnia have caused significant problems for the Balkans (and elsewhere) and Albanian seperatists.  A Google search of "Bosnian terrorist groups" yeilds some interesting hit.  The Iranian special services enjoy any disruption in the Western World.   "According to Christopher Deliso, author of the seminal *The Coming Balkan Caliphate: The Threat of Radical Islam to Europe and the West*,  ‘By the mid 2005, Bosnia’s strategic value to major international terrorist groups was no longer merely as a logistical base and terrorist transfer zone. Bosnia had instead become both a staging post for terrorist attacks in Europe and a target for attacks itself.’"
http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/...icalization-in-bosnia-and-beyond-part-i-.html

Regarding Chechnya, my information is from people who were close to the issue.  I suppose your assumption of the outcome of US support to Chechen seperatist would be possible but I would add that it may be useful to have a group of Muslim people whose survival was directly linked to American intervention.  Especially a group that looks just like Americans.  Any chance we get to mess with Putin-stan, we should jump on the chance.

I would argue that a new anti-Assad government may be Sunni and it may be anti-minority but it could be up to the people.  Syria and Iraq are not Afghanistan.  Hell, even African countries are more developed than Afghanistan!  The Assad government is pro-Iran however I do not believe that is the case with the Free Syrian Army.

An interventionist investment in Syria would buy us time plus it could create another focal point for jihadists: let them fight there vice coming here.  I would advocate sending SF guys in and let them do some old school UW, without the imbeded CNN journalist (Lara Logan would be the exception of course). The proliferation of freedom and liberty is in our national interests...or it used to be anyway.


----------



## pardus (Apr 22, 2012)

lindy said:


> The proliferation of freedom and liberty is in our national interests...or it used to be anyway.


 
When?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 22, 2012)

lindy said:


> ///
> 
> An interventionist investment in Syria would buy us time plus it could create another focal point for jihadists: let them fight there vice coming here. I would advocate sending SF guys in and let them do some old school UW, without the imbeded CNN journalist (Lara Logan would be the exception of course). The proliferation of freedom and liberty is in our national interests...or it used to be anyway.


 
Of course Lara would be your exception ;)

I'm all about tearing up someone else's backyard to keep them from having to fight in ours.  But under what scenario do you see a major threat to the homeland developing: 1) the status quo with a brutal but secular(ish) leader who is a pain in the ass but with whom we can negotiate, or 2) an ulta-conservative, undergoverned,  militant Islamist country with major internal issues that they need to channel externally?  I'm leaning towards #2 as a greater threat.

Now, if there was an option 3) a peaceful, stable, Western-leaning democracy, I'd be willing to support that.  But I don't think history is on our side.  In the context in which you're using it, I'm interpreting "freedom and liberty" to mean "the ability to choose one's own system of government," is that fair?  If so, freedom and liberty are indeed in our interests- as long as people use that freedom and liberty to make what we consider the "right" choices.  The problem with freedom and liberty is that people sometimes make what we would consider the wrong choices.  Look what freedom and liberty got us in Iran and in Palestine.  

Although it's hard for us to understand sometimes, some people either do not want or are not ready for our style of government. A better way to frame our national interests is "rule of law."  Countries can adhere to the rule of law and follow international norms without having a government like ours.  In the absence of a better alternative, promoting the rule of law is preferable to promoting freedom and liberty overseas in some cases.


----------



## Brill (Apr 22, 2012)

pardus said:


> When?


 
Always.



Marauder06 said:


> Of course Lara would be your exception ;)
> 
> I'm all about tearing up someone else's backyard to keep them from having to fight in ours. But under what scenario do you see a major threat to the homeland developing: 1) the status quo with a brutal but secular(ish) leader who is a pain in the ass but with whom we can negotiate, or 2) an ulta-conservative, undergoverned, militant Islamist country with major internal issues that they need to channel externally? I'm leaning towards #2 as a greater threat.
> 
> ...


 
There is no negotiation with Assad: he has been a pain "in our assholes" on the diplomatic front.  I don't follow the Iran and "palestine" refs though.  When was Iran free to chose its own form of government?  I guess they did in '79 but it seems some folks wanted a change when the Basij went nuts on the green revoltion.

I completely agree that not all folks want/need/dream about our form of government but they should at least be able to chose...or in case of the wealthy Gulf State, get bought off by their governments. ;)  It's all about life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness and no longer about the 30 weight ball bearings of yesteryear.

The Balkans and the Central Asian states are good examples, in my opinion.  Sure they're not carbon copies of The United States but not bad given their short history of free governments.  How long did it take the US to get its shit together?  I'm not sure past tense here is appropriate though.


----------



## pardus (Apr 22, 2012)

lindy said:


> Always.


 
Hmm, ok. 

I guess it comes down to ones definition of freedom and liberty is.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 22, 2012)

pardus said:


> When?


 
How about where instead:

Phillipines, Grenada, for example.


----------



## pardus (Apr 22, 2012)

SOWT said:


> How about where instead:
> 
> Phillipines, Grenada, for example.


 
Yep, but there are many more that the USA put in power/supported that  a lot of people would say were not exactly flowing with freedom and liberty...

Again I think it comes down to a small/big picture mentality, your perspective will change the view dramatically.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 22, 2012)

Freedom and liberty are nice catchwords to use in place of saying "our man in x country."


----------



## pardus (Apr 22, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Freedom and liberty are nice catchwords to use in place of saying "our man in x country."


 
Yes they can be, but if "our man" is opposed to a philosophy/system/religion that is itself the enemy of freedom and liberty (communism/fascism/radical islam etc...), then big picture, it is better. 
Needs of the many out way the needs of the few.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 23, 2012)

pardus said:


> Yes they can be, but if "our man" is opposed to a philosophy/system/religion that is itself the enemy of freedom and liberty (communism/fascism/radical islam etc...), then big picture, it is better.
> Needs of the many out way the needs of the few.


 
I don't disagree with that but my point really was it's a good excuse for putting bad arseholes in charge under the guise of freedom, democracy, apple pie and driving on the wrong side, when in actuality they can sometimes be tolitarian dictatorships that have a lot in common with the enemy when you take ideology out of the picture.


----------



## pardus (Apr 23, 2012)

I know exactly what you're saying. I think you're missing my point, people aren't put/kept in position unless for a reason. That reason is normally "for the greater good". 

i.e. we keep Sadaam around as a buffer against an evil Iran etc...



SpitfireV said:


> I don't disagree with that but my point really was it's a good excuse for putting bad arseholes in charge under the guise of freedom, democracy, apple pie and driving on the wrong side, when in actuality they can sometimes be tolitarian dictatorships that have a lot in common with the enemy when you take ideology out of the picture.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 23, 2012)

I think we're on the same page then.


----------



## Brill (Apr 23, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17812919

How can we sit by and let this happen?


----------



## Brill (Apr 24, 2012)

An interesting article in the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ave-in-syria/2012/04/23/gIQApLi4cT_story.html

*The luxury we don’t have in Syria*

About a month ago the European Union, showing it will not be trifled with, barred Bashar al-Assad’s wife, Asma, and other women in his immediate family from shopping for luxury goods in Europe. For some reason, going cold turkey on Dior, Armani and Prada failed to bring down the Assad regime or to end its vicious attacks on the civilian population. Now the Europeans, presumably with the staunch support of the Obama administration, have imposed an across-the-board ban on the sale of luxury goods to Syria — and yet, somehow, the killing continues.
The imposition of the luxury goods ban was cited in a New York Times editorial with all the solemnity usually reserved for naval blockades — as good an example of any of how we have gone to dreamland. In the dream, a vicious dictator, fighting for his own and his family’s lives, will somehow come to the bargaining table because he is down to his last Montblanc pen. Of course, more practical measures and boycotts have also been adopted, but it is always good to remember that severe boycotts were imposed on Saddam Hussein’s regime for about 12 years — and it still took an invasion to bring him down. 

There is a lesson here.


----------



## Brill (Apr 27, 2012)

*While Syria burns*



*By Charles Krauthammer, Published: April 26*
Last year President Obama ordered U.S. intervention in Libya under the grand new doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect.” Moammar Gaddafi was threatening a massacre in Benghazi. To stand by and do nothing “would have been a betrayal of who we are,” explained the president.
In the year since, the government of Syria has more than threatened massacres. It has carried them out. Nothing hypothetical about the disappearances, executions, indiscriminate shelling of populated neighborhoods. More than 9,000 are dead.

Obama has said that we cannot stand idly by. And what has he done? Stand idly by.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/while-syria-burns/2012/04/26/gIQAQUC0jT_story.html?hpid=z2


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 27, 2012)

I do once if it's a case of "first in, first served."


----------



## Brill (Apr 28, 2012)

*Syria rebels 'launch sea raid' as Lebanon seizes weapons*

Syrian rebel gunmen in inflatable dinghies have attacked a military unit on the Mediterranean coast, with deaths on both sides, state media report.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17879022


----------



## Loki (May 18, 2012)

Tyrant said:


> Damn, still waiting on that third arrowhead device. Theres still hope for Iran!!


 
At least someone here has his priorities in line... Parabellum!  ;)


----------



## QC (May 18, 2012)

Possibly one sticking point is the sectarian divide there. Not as complex as Iraq, but it still exists. Libya didn't have that type of issue. I'm thinking the US can't really afford it in terms of blood & treasure. The European countries had a certain say in Libya and IMO so they should in this case as Syria is an old French colony/protectorate. ( I hope that's the correct term here).


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (May 18, 2012)

The geopolitics of that area give me a headache. Good ole Murica would be in there kicking ass if it wasn't for lil things like Russia, China, Iran, and that whole quagmire. Why can't killing off scumbags like Assadd be simpler?!?


----------



## Brill (May 26, 2012)

Leader of the Free World, hello!  Here's your chance to LEAD THE WORLD!!! 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18216176

26 May 2012 Last updated at 06:58 ET
*Syria crisis: Houla 'massacre leaves 90 dead'*

At least 90 people, including many children, have been killed in Syria's restive Homs province, opposition activists say, calling it a "massacre".
They said scores were wounded in the violence in Houla, as government forces shelled and attacked the town.
Shocking footage has emerged of the bodies of children killed as part of one the bloodiest attacks in one area since a nominal truce began in April.
The UN said international monitors were heading to the area.
Fighting in Syria has continued despite the deployment of some 250 UN observers monitoring a cease-fire brokered by UN envoy Kofi Annan - a ceasefire which the BBC's Jim Muir in neighbouring Lebanon says now barely exists.
*The UN says at least 10,000 have been killed since an uprising began in March 2011* against President Bashar al-Assad's rule.


----------



## amlove21 (May 29, 2012)

As more and more comes out about this, it begs the question- What the holy fuck are we doing? Lets go. I was getting bored only fighting 2 (errrr, 3?) wars anyway.


----------



## Poccington (May 29, 2012)

I wish they'd deploy the Austro/German Battlegroup.

I wanna go play in Syria.


----------



## Crusader74 (May 29, 2012)

lindy said:


> Leader of the Free World, hello! Here's your chance to LEAD THE WORLD!!!
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18216176
> 
> ...


 


I'd say they have been advised it will turn out like Iraq and they do not want to commit.. All the same there are 14000 UN TROOPS across the boarder in Lebanon scratching their hole's ..


----------



## Loki (May 29, 2012)

Political agendas, public perception not humanity drives response to these type of events. Is everyone waiting for the US do something and lead the way? Well if so I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## QC (May 29, 2012)

Correctumundo, it looks as if some boffins in the UK have formed a committee to monitor the problem


----------



## DA SWO (May 29, 2012)

QC said:


> Correctumundo, it looks as if some boffins in the UK have formed a committee to monitor the problem


That will make it go away.

I don't see a reason for us to commit troops.
Civil Wars are not civil.


----------



## QC (May 29, 2012)

Pass the muffins Cyril, let's get down to business.


----------



## Loki (May 29, 2012)

Once the administration is seated and the election is over in the US then assertive steps will be taken. We will of course once again grab everyone by the hand of those who want to assist and intervene. Of course in the meantime back on the ranch... The EU and the rest of the world will talk, wring their hands, discuss sanctions, talk about all the bad things going on and what should be done. Of course lets not forget there is a world monetary crisis now, were in the middle of a military down sizing world-wide. We just don't need all those guys with guns everywhere you know (_accept Russia and China don't agree_). Just because little kids, women and innocent people are being put to the blade world-wide doesn't mean right now we need to do anything. Let's not forget all the horrible happenings in Africa and Christians being slaughtered everyday by Islam, O I mean "the religion of Peace" sorry. Not to mention the Sudan and the LRA (_those animals need to hunted down and burned alive_). I would love to be the guy that cut Joesph Kony's throat ear to ear.  And the list goes on and on... True compassion, assistance and protective military intervention means making decisions. Sometimes those are unpopular and very expensive. But hey we have important things happening; American Idol, the Kardashin's, TMZ, Little Travon and so many other earth shaking events here.


----------



## QC (May 29, 2012)

The election, I forgot about that. In other news Kim Kardashian lost some luggage on a trip from the UK, she's pretty upset.


----------



## Brill (May 29, 2012)

If we do not act soon in a small way, we will have to later in a much bigger way.


----------



## Loki (May 29, 2012)

lindy said:


> If we do not act soon in a small way, we will have to later in a much bigger way.


Correct you are however no one is listening...


----------



## Scotth (May 29, 2012)

JAB said:


> I say feed both sides ammo and see who wins, then hope that it reduces their population by 90 to 100%. Then offer some help to Iran...:-"


 
If that isn't a Nobel worthy peace plan.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 31, 2012)

Oh yay, now the Syrian rebels have anti-air missiles.  I'm sure this won't end in unintended consequences for anyone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=48429494&#48429494&from=en-us_msnhp&snid=18424776


----------



## Seanman122 (Aug 1, 2012)

Well with Al-Qaeda coming to aid the rebels and Assad having chemicals weapons. Hopefully Israel is able to either destroy or acquire them before Assad or Al-Qaeda use them.


----------



## Red-Dot (Aug 3, 2012)

Hmmm.....getting close:

"President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to get rid of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his government.
Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence 'finding', broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

*Read more: **http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new*s/article-2182427/Obama-authorizes-secret-support-Syrian-rebels.html#ixzz22VRvpYZk​


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 3, 2012)

If we're talking about "findings" what we need to be "finding" is all those 1) ground-to-air missiles; 2) chemical weapons; and 3) AQ militants.  Everything else will sort itself out.


----------



## Crusader74 (Aug 3, 2012)

Red-Dot said:


> Hmmm.....getting close:
> 
> "President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to get rid of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his government.
> Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence 'finding', broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
> ​*Read more: **http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new*s/article-2182427/Obama-authorizes-secret-support-Syrian-rebels.html#ixzz22VRvpYZk​


 

Not so secret I guess.....


----------



## pardus (Aug 3, 2012)

We are seriously going to butt heads with Russia, China and Iran over this?


----------



## Seanman122 (Aug 3, 2012)

If it means leaking information to gain some of the public's favor in an election year, Yes, but my question is with the militants helping the Syrian's are we really going to support them?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 3, 2012)

That's what is brilliant about doing it this way.  "Doing something" to "help" in Syria is a constant drumbeat from the liberal left, and by "leaking" that the CIA is involved, it gives the administration the ability to say "see, we're doing something in Syria" which appeals to their base, but without committing to anything concrete.  Smart move.


----------



## Crusader74 (Aug 3, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> That's what is brilliant about doing it this way. "Doing something" to "help" in Syria is a constant drumbeat from the liberal left, and by "leaking" that the CIA is involved, it gives the administration the ability to say "see, we're doing something in Syria" which appeals to their base, but without committing to anything concrete. Smart move.


 

So the boots on the ground are expendable at the price of a election year? What if there is another countries Int agencies in with the gov't troops?


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 3, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> If we're talking about "findings" what we need to be "finding" is all those 1) ground-to-air missiles; 2) chemical weapons; and 3) AQ militants. Everything else will sort itself out.


 
I'm more worried about the Libyian MANPADs that went missing tbh, there were up to 15k of them missing...


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 3, 2012)

Irish said:


> So the boots on the ground are expendable at the price of a election year? What if there is another countries Int agencies in with the gov't troops?


 
I don't understand what you mean, if there are no boots on the ground then there is nothing to be expendable, right?


----------



## Crusader74 (Aug 3, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't understand what you mean, if there are no boots on the ground then there is nothing to be expendable, right?



I am referring to the Intel agencies who are not there..


----------



## pardus (Aug 3, 2012)

Obama watched Charlie Wilson's war and now he's trying to pull the same shit.




Seanman122 said:


> If it means leaking information to gain some of the public's favor in an election year, Yes, but my question is with the militants helping the Syrian's are we really going to support them?


 

What Militants? What Syrians?


----------



## Seanman122 (Aug 4, 2012)

I apologize for being general. By militants I meant Al-Qaeda and by Syrians I meant rebels. I said militants because I don't think it's just Al-Qaeda trying to take advantage of the revolution there once Assad is Overthrown.





What Militants? What Syrians?[/quote]


----------



## Brill (Aug 4, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> That's what is brilliant about doing it this way. "Doing something" to "help" in Syria is a constant drumbeat from the liberal left, and by "leaking" that the CIA is involved, it gives the administration the ability to say "see, we're doing something in Syria" which appeals to their base, but without committing to anything concrete. Smart move.


 
Very Clinton-esque in the early stages (pre-IFOR) of the Bosnian war.


----------



## Loki (Aug 5, 2012)

Hey Russia is going to help out...The bear to the rescue, NOT!

Hind gunships on the way;
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120718/174661742.html

Russian Marines going to save the day! ;
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...g-warships-with-marines-to-syrian-waters.html

A little money help as well;
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16145758,00.html

Those Marines will provide lessons learned Afghanistan from their time there and instructor the poisoning of wells, more effective ways to target children and combined arms actions that we instructed them on at Camp Pendleton. Putin will call it combating insurgency and anti-terrorist operations against the legitimate sovereign nation in order to sustain a duly elected government. While the UN shits the bed, the EU talks some more and observe... We hold an election and prevent any controversy that may indicate we assisted the Muslim brotherhood / extremest again from taking over or adverse political fall out until after the election. Ahhh human rights are so important, well occasionally now aren't they.

You gotta love Russia; Putin knows he can do whatever he wants and not one weak kneed bedwetting PC nation will say a thing about it much less try to do anything. I'm surprised he doesn't fly to Washington and bitch slap Obama across the face.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 7, 2012)

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19160410
> *Syria crisis: Iran pledges support for 'vital partner'*
> 
> Iran's security chief has told President Bashar al-Assad that Syria is part of a vital regional alliance that Tehran will not allow to be broken. During talks in Damascus, Saeed Jalili said Syria was an essential part of an "axis of resistance". The statement came a day after Syrian Prime Minister Riad Hijab defected to the opposition. Syrian TV showed President Assad greeting Mr Jalili, his first TV appearance in two weeks. President Assad was last seen on state TV on 22 July - four days after a bomb killed four security chiefs in Damascus - leading to speculation about his health and whereabouts.
> ...


 


Fuck Iran. I can't wait until Israel fucks them up.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 10, 2012)

Maybe we can turn Syria into Iran's Afghanistan.  Hmmm...


----------



## Loki (Aug 10, 2012)

*‘Russia is just an alibi,’ says Itamar Rabinovich, who led Israeli peace talks with Syria in the 1990s. ‘Obama doesn’t want another Mideast crisis before US elections’*


http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-to-...onse-on-syria-says-former-israeli-ambassador/

Video for opinion from WSJ; 

http://live.wsj.com/#!D0EED464-800D-4CA6-8926-F9768FD7A38B


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 10, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Maybe we can turn Syria into Iran's Afghanistan. Hmmm...


 
It's a sad state of affairs when we can invoke an image of a capable insurgency with the name of a state we'll all involved in :/


----------



## Grimfury160 (Aug 17, 2012)

I have had this question asked recently in regards to the authorization of clandestine forces to aide rebels in Syria. The fact that the White House released the information publicly means the following:
Clandestine operatives are able to assist Syrian rebels depose Al-Assad, this does not mean open troop deployment as families have feared. This clearly means the operations are being conducted covertly. This happened in 2011 when operatives were utilized in assisting Libya by gathering intel and assisting leaders with coordinating airstrikes. Washington submitted a news release on information letting the public know that the C.I.A. was to be conducting operations. For those always wondering about these press releases, check out the link http://www.whitehouse.gov/ I check it from time to time to see whats going on as good SA.
The key thing here is that things are still getting done.

For the mothers, fathers, families I leave you with this:
 "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" -George Orwell


----------



## Grimfury160 (Aug 17, 2012)

Cited and dually noted.


----------



## Dienekes (Apr 1, 2015)

Didn't want to start a new thread and this seems like an appropriate place.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/30...n-syria-fight-iraq-islamic-state-delta-force/

In case it is pay to play.



> The Special Forces group that ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001 is preparing to deploy to Jordan to train Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State, but many of the U.S. military’s most elite warriors have a gnawing fear that those efforts may be too little, too late.
> 
> Four years after the start of the uprising against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, the Army’s 5th Special Forces Group is getting ready to establish a multinational special operations task force in Jordan to train and equip Syrian rebel forces that the United States deems “moderate” — which means allied with neither the Islamic State nor al Qaeda’s local affiliate, al-Nusra Front.
> 
> ...



Thoughts because I'm baffled? Either SF and the task force is really getting hamstrung in this, somebody is really good at misinformation, or some people need to get fired immediately for providing WAY too much info. The fact that even a significant portion of this is out there in the public domain bothers me.


----------



## AWP (Apr 1, 2015)

jroberts1187 said:


> Thoughts because I'm baffled? Either SF and the task force is really getting hamstrung in this, somebody is really good at misinformation, or some people need to get fired immediately for providing WAY too much info. The fact that even a significant portion of this is out there in the public domain bothers me.


 
Baffled? You wouldn't be if you followed the war in Afghanistan.


----------



## Dienekes (Apr 1, 2015)

I just figured that they would have learned from their mistakes.


----------



## pardus (Apr 1, 2015)

jroberts1187 said:


> I just figured that they would have learned from their mistakes.


----------



## AWP (Apr 1, 2015)

jroberts1187 said:


> I just figured that they would have learned from their mistakes.


 
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Nope! We consider both Iraq and Afghanistan to be victories...why would we do anything different? Like I said, follow the most recent conflicts and current and future will make sense.

"Thought they learned..." That's good stuff.


----------



## Brill (Apr 1, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Baffled? You wouldn't be if you followed the war in Afghanistan.



Obama ended that war.  OEF is no more.

Did I just bust a rhyme?


----------



## pardus (Apr 1, 2015)

lindy said:


> Obama ended that war.  OEF is no more.
> 
> Did I just bust a rhyme?



OEF has become OBOHICA.


----------

