Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 90

Thread: Today in Starting WWIII: Syria

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Yes. Though the idea that this would trigger a military confrontation with any of those 3 is, I think, ludicrous.
    So you believe the U.S. needs to stand up to it's threats and defend it's allies (Israel).

    But Russia, China and Iran will NOT stand up to it's threats and will NOT defend it's allies (Syria/Assad).

    And you'd like us to intervene on the side of the same Isalamic Extremists behind AQ and 9/11, to defend them is the Jihad/Civil War from their own Government.

    When it may have been those same Islamic Extremists, and not the Governemnt, who used the WMD's?

    Ok.

    Without spending much time attacking your framing, absolutely not. Frankly, internationalizing the Syrian war is probably the worst possible thing for Israel's security. See Saddam lobbing scuds at Israel during Gulf War I and Syrian/Iranian threats to attack Israel if Syria is attacked as examples of the "hit Israel to get street cred/popular support" among Arab rulers. I think I pointed this out months ago - Israel has no real interest in the Syrian war because neither victor is likely to be particularly friendly to it.
    So your desire to be involved in another War in the Middle East is purely humanitarian then? And Israel doesn't care about it, eh?

    Forgive me my doubts, good sir, on both counts.

    Bull. A world where America has no credibility when it threatens the use of force is a much less safe world. As George Friedman put it today in Stratfor:
    A World where the United States, as it is today, uses force anywhere in the world outside the direct defense of the U.S., is a primary CAUSE for why the world is so damn unsafe these days. We create far more problems than we solve, and we solve almost nothing.

    Put down your silver star pard'ner, you're not the Worlds policeman, and this may come as a suprise, but most of the rest of the world doesn't want us to be their policeman.
    Last edited by Churchill; 08-27-2013 at 03:56 PM.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So you believe the U.S. needs to stand up to it's threats and defend it's allies (Israel).
    Not sure why you keep bringing Israel up - this really has nothing to do with Israel.

    But Russia, China and Iran will NOT stand up to it's threats and will NOT defend it's allies (Syria/Assad).
    Russia and China won't do very much at all - they haven't been stupid enough to threaten anything. China in particular has no dog in this fight beyond generally opposing external intervention in internal dynamics for fear it will create bad precedent.

    Iran . . . well, Iran is already essentially at covert war with the US, deploying the Republican Guard to attack Americans in Iraq. I doubt that they do much to ratchet that up beyond instructing Hezbollah to target Americans (which would be a fairly massive mistake, IMO). But Iran also has nothing remotely close to the ability to threaten the US that Russia and China have - and in the long run, wiping out a US red line will make open war with Russia, Iran and China far more likely than would attacking regime targets in an Iranian client state for violating one.

    And you'd like us to intervene on the side of the same Isalamic Extremists behind AQ and 9/11, to defend them is the Jihad/Civil War from their own Government.
    Um, no.

    When it may have been those same Islamic Extremists, and not the Governemnt, who used the WMD's?

    Beyond unlikely.


    So your desire to be involved in another War in the Middle East is purely humanitarian then? And Israel doesn't care about it, eh?

    Forgive me my doubts, good sir, on both counts.
    It's neither humanitarian nor long-term involvement. And no, it has nothing to do with Israel. Seriously, explain to me the benefit to Israel of striking Syria, exacerbating further instability on a northern border that was all-quiet for years prior to this civil war and opening the possibility of an al Qaeda run statelet there.

    Also . . . maybe take a step back? Not sure what's going on with you today but your responses are more testy than usual.


    A World where the United States, as it is today, uses force anywhere in the world outside the direct defense of the U.S., is a primary CAUSE for why the world is so damn unsafe these days. We create far more problems than we solve, and we solve almost nothing.

    Put down your silver star pard'ner, you're not the Worlds policeman, and this may come as a suprise, but most of the rest of the world doesn't want us to be their policeman.
    Bull. This may come as a surprise, but most of the world does want us to be their policeman. Which is a major problem.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Is anyone else wondering where Syria got these chemical weapons... aka, Weapons of Mass Destruction?

    I seem to remember a popular theory beaten down by flip-flopping leftists that Sadam shipped his chemical weapons into Syria before the useless UN inspectors could get to them.

    Exactly...

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    I think the use of chemical weapons could have made US conflicts a hell of a lot more deadly for our soldiers over the past half-century, yes. I also think you're being a bit narrow-focused when you are asking about the use of chemical weapons in conflicts the US has been involved in; their use in conflicts the US isn't currently involved in would make the world, on the whole, a significantly more dangerous place for America and Americans long term.
    I think you'll find my position makes more sense if you realize i want to narrow the focus of our military in the same way. If our military would only become involved in situations where our national security were directly threatened, it wouldn't matter that other situations could become more dangerous.

    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Part of that is the simple fact that since chemical weapons use is a sucker's bet, chemical weapons production is pretty much limited to countries already more or less on the **** list.
    No... chemical weapon production we know about is limited to countries on the *** list because we watch them closely, and work to discredit them in the eyes on the international community. I believe the US. eventually admitted to the chemical and biological weapons research it was doing for many years on plum island. If you think we're not still doing it somewhere i think you're being naive. I also have no doubt China, Russia, and all the usual WWIII boogeymen have their own stockpiles. I'd prefer not have a treaty prohibiting such research and production at all, as i believe it's easier for a country like China to do it secretly than it is for the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Sure. But that was at a point where their use was expected and therefore prepared for. And the prep itself impedes the functioning of the military. You don't think the chemical weapons prep in advance of the Baghdad invasion impacted the speed with which US forces were able to carry out their missions?
    I don't think it had a major impact no.



    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Understood. Of course, the point of the threat was to prevent the weapons from being used; the calculus was that Assad would have to be crazy to risk US intervention and therefore he would toe the line. But he floated a trial balloon in June with a "small" bit of chemical weapons use and when the US didn't really respond, he figured we were all talk and that Obama would do whatever was necessary to avoid intervening in any way - and hence that the road was clear for broader use. Confirming that assessment by not responding now, either, is probably the single worst thing that could happen to US security and diplomatic interests, long term, out of the array of possible options.
    It would seriously undermine our credibility i agree. But then if we'd stop getting involved in conflicts where we had no clear and immediate interest, we wouldn't need as much credibility. See my first point.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    I think you'll find my position makes more sense if you realize i want to narrow the focus of our military in the same way. If our military would only become involved in situations where our national security were directly threatened, it wouldn't matter that other situations could become more dangerous.
    Let's play that doctrine out. Cold War. The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. Is our national security directly threatened?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Let's play that doctrine out. Cold War. The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. Is our national security directly threatened?
    no.

  7. #27
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,476
    I would not be shocked to discover the rebels used the chemical weapons in hopes of drawing the US / UN. There is very likely no shortage of barbaric Al Qaeda types with the warped logic that gassing some of their own people was for the greater good of their cause. The Obama Administration is adamant that the Syrian government is responsible- I'd like to see a convincing measure of proof. We rightfully called out Bush after the WMD debacle in Iraq so Obama should put up the proof.

    I have no desire to insert US lives and taxpayer millions into their civil war. Also even if Asaad is toppled it doesn't guarantee anything toward US interests- Iraq's leader was elected after spilled US blood and taxpayer trillions. He is a pro Iranian leader who promptly signed billion dollar oil supply contracts with China.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    17,381
    Nuke the hole region, we could use some sand for our beaches in the tri-state.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache 51 View Post
    Nuke the hole region, we could use some sand for our beaches in the tri-state.
    Just make sure you get the sand before you set off the nukes....

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    One hour. from MetLife
    Posts
    22,288
    We haven't learned our lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will bankcrupt the county financially. The war guys are calling the shots.

  11. #31
    Why must this country insist on playing world police in this region?

    Why should any American risk their lives for this coup?

    History has repeatedly shown us that nothing good ever happens from helping these animals.

    let them kill each other for humanities sake.
    Last edited by nyctomjetsfan; 08-27-2013 at 09:58 PM.

  12. #32
    Let Islam purge itself, they have been doing it since Mohammed and long before him. Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians,Babalonians.
    Countries changed names but still the same loonies.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    no.
    Right. East Germany, backed by the Soviet Union, rolls into West Germany. Does that directly threaten our national security?

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,888
    Quote Originally Posted by MnJetFan View Post
    One and the same!
    I must agree.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    17,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    Just make sure you get the sand before you set off the nukes....
    We don't need sand that badly, Nuke it anyway.

  16. #36
    Itís not surprising that Obama would prefer to steer clear of this mess. But that passivity has already come at a cost. So far the civil war in that country has resulted in 100,000 deaths, dozens of several smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks, Syriaís transformation into a theater of operations for a resurgent al-Qaeda, a regional power grab by Hezbollah (along with Russiaís and Iranís efforts to impose their will on the region while exposing the impotency of U.S. leadership), a military stalemate that promises the conflict will continue indefinitely, spillover fighting into Lebanon and Iraq, and the threat of instability in Jordan and Turkey as a flood of Syrian refugees overwhelm those countries.

    Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...#ixzz2dGkkH0yo
    Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

    I'd argue that all of the above are true. I'd also argue that the 100K deaths, while tragic and typically borne by those in Syria who would be most sympathetic to our interests, aren't a sufficient basis to generate American intervention in a civil war. (And this, 'Fish, is what I mean about the world actually wanting the US to be "the police"; US intervention against Assad would be backed by all of Europe and the Arab league. None of them want to do it themselves, but they'd love to see someone else try to "solve the problem" for them). The evolution of the Syrian conflict as a base of support and training ground for al Qaeda, on the other hand, poses a real (though not direct) threat to our national security - one that wouldn't have existed had the US intervened more forcefully back in the early days, before Jabaat al Nusra became a critical portion of the Syrian opposition forces (of course, in the early days, there wasn't a sufficient national security threat to justify intervention). The same, long-term, goes for the Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah impact, as well as the widening instability in the region.

    Of course, there's no guarantee that earlier intervention would have helped the situation at all - and it would have come at a serious cost to the US, one that the US simply didn't have the wherewithal to take on given its commitments elsewhere. But my opinion is that people who claim that the US would be just fine if it pulled back within its borders and ignored the rest of the world's fights and convulsions are living in a fantasy world. Markets are global, resources are global, and impacts - in the long run - are global. An isolationist US would end up far worse off than an engaged US


  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Not sure why you keep bringing Israel up - this really has nothing to do with Israel.
    I think this is a consciously naive opinion. Every act the United States takes in the Middle East is in some way related to the defense of our one and only Democratic ally in the region. To imply Israel plays no part in United States policy decisions for the region is, IMO, digingenuous at best.

    Russia and China won't do very much at all - they haven't been stupid enough to threaten anything.
    I suggest you pay more attention to the news, as Russia (at least) has done exactly that.

    China in particular has no dog in this fight beyond generally opposing external intervention in internal dynamics for fear it will create bad precedent.
    Great Power geopolitical influence and power rivalries is more than enough "dog". Russia's decades long alliance with Syria (as "their Israel" in the region) is another.

    Iran . . . well, Iran is already essentially at covert war with the US
    Covert War we launched and we do almost all the damage in. Because of WMD fears. WMD fears that center, almost exclusively, around the defense of Israel.

    What were you saying again about how Israel plays no part?

    wiping out a US red line will make open war with Russia, Iran and China far more likely than would attacking regime targets in an Iranian client state for violating one.
    You'd have made an excellent WWI Millitary leader.

    Um, no.
    Um, yes. Intervention of behalf of the "Rebels" is intervention on behalf os Islamic theocratic extremists, terrorists and AQ, who make up the bulk of the fighters for that faction.

    Beyond unlikely.
    Based on what, what the U.S. Govt. tells you? I never pictured you as a sheep old friend. If there is anything we know about the U.S. Governent and conflict, it's that we will lie to our own people as often, and as blatantly, as required to justify our aggression and undeclared war waging.

    It's neither humanitarian nor long-term involvement.
    So then specificly, what are you supporting here? And why are you supporting it?

    And no, it has nothing to do with Israel. Seriously, explain to me the benefit to Israel of striking Syria
    Explain why the U.S. might have interest in WMD use in a Nationstate almost next door to Israel?

    Does that REALLY need explained, from a millitary defense standpoint?

    Also . . . maybe take a step back? Not sure what's going on with you today but your responses are more testy than usual.
    I'm not more testy, you simply don't ever enjoy when I'm critical of your viewpoint, and almost always take it as insult or anger, when it's neither.

    It's rare, but once in a while I think you're completely wrong (or perhaps naive) on an issue. This would be one of those times.

    And in debate terms, I take launching a uncalled for War to be a pretty serious topic, so you'll forgive me if I sound serious about it.

    Bull. This may come as a surprise, but most of the world does want us to be their policeman. Which is a major problem.
    Not in my experience, and I'm willing to bet I engage with more non-Americans on a regular basis that you do mate. We are loathed (and thats not too strong a word), even in our supposed "allies" in Europe, amongst the people, for our interventionism and millitary aggression. We are seen not as a beacon of light and freedom, but as a tyrant who uses the power of our weapons to force other countries to act and do as we determine they should, often unilaterally.

    And this, 'Fish, is what I mean about the world actually wanting the US to be "the police"; US intervention against Assad would be backed by all of Europe and the Arab league. None of them want to do it themselves, but they'd love to see someone else try to "solve the problem" for them
    Reason eneough why we too should stay out of what is, frankly, none of our business, not of material national defense interest to the U.S., and an internal matter for the people of syria to decide on (or die for). I've yet to hear a single reasonable, rational, valid reason why the United States has a right, or a need, to launch a preemptive war on Syria in defense of Islamic radical and AQ "Rebels" against the Tyrant in control.

    Let me know if you come up with one.
    Last edited by Churchill; 08-28-2013 at 10:49 AM.

  18. #38
    I'm sure Obungler will seek Congressional authorization before the Chicken Hawk/Sh*t decides to commit an act of war....

    Senator Joe Biden, 2007: If the President Bombs a Country Without Congressional Authorization, He Must Be Impeached
    by ACE OF SPADES 27 Aug 2013

    via @johnekdahl.
    And note that the 2007 case was much more serious: Iran was working on an atomic bomb, not deploying gas weapons which, while nasty, are not much more deadly than conventional weapons.
    We've lost all Hope, but Obama's delivering lots and lots of Change.
    Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval. Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group.
    The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.
    "The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.
    Do not expect the media to ask Obama and Biden tough questions. Real Reporters do not ask hard questions which are based in an unimpeachable factual record. Only Just a Bloggers would do something like that. Thank God they're not allowed access to the Imperial President.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I think this is a consciously naive opinion. Every act the United States takes in the Middle East is in some way related to the defense of our one and only Democratic ally in the region. To imply Israel plays no part in United States policy decisions for the region is, IMO, digingenuous at best.
    LOL - you think Israel wanted Mubarak gone, and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood? Israel certainly plays a part in US middle east policy - as it should, given its status as a US ally and a functioning, human-rights respecting democracy - but the idea that every act the US takes is somehow related to Israel is, IMO, nonsense at best. By that logic, the US decision not to intervene in Syria to date is in some way related to the defense of Israel, as was US support for Morsi, as was US opposition to the al-Sisi coup, as is US refusal to denominate it a coup and thereby trigger an aid suspension, etc. ad infinitum.

    I suggest you pay more attention to the news, as Russia (at least) has done exactly that.
    Feel free to find me a quote. All I've seen are warnings that intervention would be "catastrophic" for the region.

    Great Power geopolitical influence and power rivalries is more than enough "dog". Russia's decades long alliance with Syria (as "their Israel" in the region) is another.
    Nowhere near close enough to trigger active military intervention, especially with no face-saving requirement involved.


    Covert War we launched and we do almost all the damage in. Because of WMD fears. WMD fears that center, almost exclusively, around the defense of Israel.
    Really? So the IRG's presence in Iraq, supporting insurgent attacks on US soldiers, was a covert war we launched in defense of Israel?


    What were you saying again about how Israel plays no part?
    Absolutely. Clearly, Israel was the motivating force behind the removal of Mossadegh (after all, his Iran had friendly relations with Israel), the Khomeini revolution, the hostage crisis, backing Hussein against Iran in the 80s under enemy-of-my-enemy doctrine.

    But you're right, the problem in Iranian-American relations is Israel . . .

    I'd expect more from a student of history.

    You'd have made an excellent WWI Millitary leader.
    Well, with a stunning riposte like that, what can I say? Seriously, make an argument if you disagree.

    Um, yes. Intervention of behalf of the "Rebels" is intervention on behalf os Islamic theocratic extremists, terrorists and AQ, who make up the bulk of the fighters for that faction.
    What part of "non-balance-tipping strike" is intervention on their behalf? Will it aid them, somewhat? Sure. Will it win the war for them, or dramatically shift the playing field? No. Will they be particularly grateful if they do win? No.

    Based on what, what the U.S. Govt. tells you? I never pictured you as a sheep old friend. If there is anything we know about the U.S. Governent and conflict, it's that we will lie to our own people as often, and as blatantly, as required to justify our aggression and undeclared war waging.
    Based on my own knowledge of the region and its players (which is somewhat more extensive than yours), the consensus of international opinion (including normally anti-war folks like Hollande in France), and the fact that the dead were rebels and the regime's complicity in prior, smaller scale chemical attacks is well established.


    So then specificly, what are you supporting here? And why are you supporting it?
    Again, I'd be supportive of drone or missile strikes at regime targets that extract a palpable cost for crossing an American red line along with an announcement - together with the announcement of the strikes - that we intend to have no further involvement in Syria's civil war and that we will take no further military action unless the Assad regime again violates our clearly articulated red lines - but that any such violations will be met with further, similarly limited responses.

    Explain why the U.S. might have interest in WMD use in a Nationstate almost next door to Israel?

    Does that REALLY need explained, from a millitary defense standpoint?
    No more of an interest than it would have in a nationstate not next door to Israel (Syria, btw, is actually next door - they are on Israel's northern border) and in which America had articulated clear red lines that were then violated.

    Again - Israel has absolutely zero interest in seeing the Assad regime fall to be replaced by a violently Islamist/jihadist regime, which is the likely outcome of any fall of Assad. There's a reason Israel's stayed out of this beyond attacking Syria-Hezb weapons transfers.


    I'm not more testy, you simply don't ever enjoy when I'm critical of your viewpoint, and almost always take it as insult or anger, when it's neither.

    It's rare, but once in a while I think you're completely wrong (or perhaps naive) on an issue. This would be one of those times.
    No - the thing that's getting to me is the insistence that my position has something to do with Israel's best interests (which it absolutely does not)




    Not in my experience, and I'm willing to bet I engage with more non-Americans on a regular basis that you do mate. We are loathed (and thats not too strong a word), even in our supposed "allies" in Europe, amongst the people, for our interventionism and millitary aggression. We are seen not as a beacon of light and freedom, but as a tyrant who uses the power of our weapons to force other countries to act and do as we determine they should, often unilaterally.


    Reason eneough why we too should stay out of what is, frankly, none of our business, not of material national defense interest to the U.S., and an internal matter for the people of syria to decide on (or die for). I've yet to hear a single reasonable, rational, valid reason why the United States has a right, or a need, to launch a preemptive war on Syria in defense of Islamic radical and AQ "Rebels" against the Tyrant in control.

    Let me know if you come up with one.
    1) The two opinions co-exist.

    2) Who is talking about war (defined as a long military campaign). This is more on the order of a one-off military assault. It would be an act of war but not an actual war.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    2) Who is talking about war (defined as a long military campaign). This is more on the order of a one-off military assault. It would be an act of war but not an actual war.
    Rather than kock the forum offline with quote-by-quotes, I think my viewpoint can be distilled to this:

    1. The World, IMO, is better off WITHOUT the current United States acting as unilateral World Policeman.
    2. The United States, IMO, lacks the moral superiority to BE the World's Policeman.
    3. I object to, and stand against, a policy of undeclared warfare for non-defense reasons, be it a series of missile strikes (which IS an act of War) or a "Long Prolonged Campaign", my semantic friend.
    4. I see no cause for U.S. involvement in Syria. No reason that I would find supportable.

    I beleive the great unspoken (here in the U.S.) is that much of the worlds current problems stem from the U.S.'s actions-in-the-moment, curing a short-term minor issue and creating long-term massive issues. We (or more specificly our war lov'in leaders) are our own worst enemy, and we (the people) are just sheeple enough to let it happen.

    We are not an Empire. We are not God. We should stop acting like we're both.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us