- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,304
I wrote my Congressman and Senator to vote NO on military action. We as a country must not.
Syria Gas Attack- What Now?
- Thread starter goon175
- Start date
WHAT "allies" in the region is Sec. Kerry talking about?
The Saudis, whose citizens continue to fund and harbor AQ?
The Turks, who are such great allies they wouldn't let us cross into Iraq through their territory?
The Iraqis, who like us so much that they politely asked us to pack up all our toys and go home?
The Egyptians, whose view of "democracy" looks a lot like Islamic extremism?
And even the countries that are more favorably disposed to the US:
The Jordanians, who would probably not want another torrent of refugees flooding into their country?
The Israelis, who know that they will be the recipient of the majority of retaliation for any US attack?
The concept of "alliances" only goes as far as the interests of both countries are concerned. I'm not interested in going to yet another war in the Middle East simply because our erstwhile "allies" in the region might get all butt-hurt if we don't.
Oh, right, this is about the "innocent Syrian people."
Anyone seen much polling on regional attitudes towards the US? Here's a hint:
The Saudis, whose citizens continue to fund and harbor AQ?
The Turks, who are such great allies they wouldn't let us cross into Iraq through their territory?
The Iraqis, who like us so much that they politely asked us to pack up all our toys and go home?
The Egyptians, whose view of "democracy" looks a lot like Islamic extremism?
And even the countries that are more favorably disposed to the US:
The Jordanians, who would probably not want another torrent of refugees flooding into their country?
The Israelis, who know that they will be the recipient of the majority of retaliation for any US attack?
The concept of "alliances" only goes as far as the interests of both countries are concerned. I'm not interested in going to yet another war in the Middle East simply because our erstwhile "allies" in the region might get all butt-hurt if we don't.
Oh, right, this is about the "innocent Syrian people."
l.
Anyone seen much polling on regional attitudes towards the US? Here's a hint:
Last edited:
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,661
And what is the downside of that again? Maybe he'll wipes out all the "rebels"? OK. Again, it's a civil war.
I agree with 75% of that statement, but I do not want to serve with draftees. Period.
Reed
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,304
I second that statement. If I was still in I would not want to serve with draftees. A draft will fuck the country and the military up.
Scotth
Verified Military
Why do you keep telling me about this civil war? Do you not think I understand that point? In my first post that you quoted I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war I said you use it as an EXCUSE to take out there chemical weapons stock piles. In the second post I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war and said basically when the House votes to stop any involvement in Syria it alleviates any future "why doesn't the President do something here" talk and it becomes "why doesn't congress do something" which makes it a brilliant move for Obama. Regardless if we get involved or not this issue isn't going away anytime soon.
If you had read my post earlier in this thread I argued against getting involved in these middle east civil wars because you can't win but that still doesn't mean that civil war is the only issue on the table. There are other considerations and we should look at them as well and see if there is something that we can do to make a positive outcome. Destroying Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles is one of those issues we can deal with and then walk away. It doesn't take boots on the ground, it's relatively inexpensive and causalities will be very limited. It's a good ROI to prevent a case were the rebels win down the road and take control of those stock piles.
You highly over-rate the abilities of airpower.
Reed
Lots of good discussion here. Just a word of caution (because it makes me all poo poo face on a personal level)-
The President's proper term of address is Mr. President. Since this isn't necessarily the White House Press Room, I will meet everyone halfway and go with President Obama, Mr. Obama, or some variant of a respectful term of address.
You cant say you respect the office of the President of the United States of America and at the same time use some other form of address. "Barry", "NoBama", "Probama", "Barackster" are examples.
The President's proper term of address is Mr. President. Since this isn't necessarily the White House Press Room, I will meet everyone halfway and go with President Obama, Mr. Obama, or some variant of a respectful term of address.
You cant say you respect the office of the President of the United States of America and at the same time use some other form of address. "Barry", "NoBama", "Probama", "Barackster" are examples.
Yea, I agree with this here. While air-centric interdiction is the "go to" answer for not getting our hands dirty, it's also an incomplete solution for something we deem important enough.
The United States Army/Marines- when you care enough to send the very best.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,304
I second that statement. Let maintain a level of professional conduct here ladies and gents.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,900
Agreed. If it were as simple as bombing the locations of the chemical munitionsthen by all means, have at it. But I don't think it will be that simple by any stretch, and I can easily see it turning into a "well, as long as we're here" shopping list of objectives with us pursuing an evolving endstate.
Additionally, if we do want to remove chemical munitions, I would argue that it would be more effective to do so when you can fight a single weakened enemy (albeit one who will then be fighting a single-front conflict) than to inject ourselves in the middle of the chaos. Monitor the situation and when the dust settles, go after the winner. It runs the risk of the weapons being used during the conflict (more than already has occurred), but IMO it does much more to protect US interests than putting boots on the ground now.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
You can't have it both ways, if the USA does anything militarily in Syria it has joined the civil war, regardless of the backroom intent.
Assad will rightfully see it as an attack on him and the rebels will rightfully see it as an attack supporting them. Then ad into the mix the reaction from the Russians, Chinese, British, French etc...
Who cares if Assad has chem weapons? Are we bombing North Korea because they have nukes? I guarantee you Assad's stockpiles are not where we think they are now anyway.
Also one little point most people seem to be missing is that this doesn't involve us, therefore under the UN laws etc... It is illegal to attack a foreign country, and because I know some people turn their nose up at the UN and say fuck their rules. The USA is the biggest part of the UN and as long as you are a signatory/member/contributor you ARE the UN, like it or not.
If we as a nation choose to attack foreign countries because we "want to" then we cannot expect to do that without consequences.
If Obama keeps threatening to do this or that and never follows up and this gives the Syrians pleanty of time put their own people out as human shields and those people all die from US bombs(when Obama eventually decides to act) how did that save the Syrian people?
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
Because of his encouragement/support of the Islamists?
Therein lies the problem with this entire debate.
This reminds me of a co-worker where we have this problem and the source of the problem is external, but unknown. So, co-worker goes out and looks for the source of the problem. The conversation is usually something like:
"What are doing?"
"I'm going to find the source."
"Then what?"
"Well, I'm finding the source."
"Right, but what's next? What's your end state?"
"Well, I'm going to find the source."
"What do you do after you find the source of the problem?"
"Well, I...I'm going to find the source."
When a leader, regardless of the level, can't define the problem, the solution, or the desired end state then action is futile. If a leader, regardless of the level, speaks without backing his/ her words then action is futile. When a leader, regardless of the level, does nothing BUT talk and rely on his/ her words (see the previous point) then action is futile.
Politicians live on words the way we live off of air and bacon and beer. Saying something and doing whatever is how they arrived at that point in life. Now the president's words and threats are catching up to him. Worse, they threaten to drag us into a war. Like the old Robin Williams skit about unarmed English police:
Stop! Or I'll say "Stop!" again.
This is an issue because it is Syria (location, location, location) and because we've talked ourselves into doing something even when we don't know what actions can or will take. But....we'll do something.
With a line, line here.
And a line, line there.
Here a line,
there a line,
everywhere a line, line.
I really don't think this has been given any adequate thought in the wider sphere. I was going to put it up but Mara beat me to it.
That's part of it.
For those of you who don't know who we're talking about, look up Haj Amin al-Husseini. Historians generally agree that he had a role in the rise of radical Islam today, though how much of a role is debated.
But that's only part of my point.
I think the scope of the horrors visited upon us during WWII have defined our actions since the end of the war. The Holocaust (sorry, Holocaust, but thisn't just about you), the rape of Nanking (for those who know of it), firebombings (Dresden, Tokyo, etc.), buzz bombs, atomic bombs, 20 million dead in the Soviet Union alone...These have all played role in our psyche about war. Honestly, if WWII doesn't happen I don't think the gas debte would matter. When Saddam gassed Iran who batted an eye? The uprising after the Gulf War? Gas was used and the world did what exactly?
But now Syria's a problem?
Anyway, I think the horrors of WWII have caused to be a little weepy-eyed now when bad things happen in other countries. We wring our hands because of the children or whatever, but we're also hypocrites because we pick and choose our fights with no logic or order. We let world opinion and emotion drive our actions.
We're also afriad of the next Hitler. Who is it, who could it be? News flash. You, and you, and you, and me, and you....
We're going to pay for that little art school reject's actions for generations to come. That's Hitler's legacy, he's made us afraid of war but also goads us into action whenever bad things happen to someone.
"For the children!" :wall:
Similar threads
