Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 90

Thread: Today in Starting WWIII: Syria

  1. #41
    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).

    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.



    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.



    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.
    Sorry Fish, you know I'm as pro-israel as it is possible to be. Ruby is another person that is very Pro-Israel and both of us agree that we would not support this idea of intervention in Syria. I'm frankly confused by Doggin's position on this because we agree on most issues. The Civil War in Syria involves 4 groups at the moment. The Shia groups are Hezbolla and the Government itself (assad is Alawite but he bows to the Shia in Iran). On the other side you have two Sunni based groups. The Secularist Rebels and the AQ affiliated Rebels. Essentially this thing is a Shia vs Suni boondoggle. Whats worse, Hezbolla and Iran or Al Qaede? Same garbage if you ask me. Let them kill eachother.

    Doggin,

    As far as red lines go no one believes that these Redlines Obama talks about are real. The Iranians are not scared of our threats. Sanctions work there but imaginary redlines don't. The baseline for US military intervention should be US national security. If Obama wants to bomb Syria by law he needs to go to Congress to get an authorization for use of force. Bush did it in both Iran and Afghanistan. If he does not and simply lobs missiles at Syrian military targets he will be in breach of the law. That is absolutely an impeachable offense. Furthermore Clinton did something like this in Somalia back in 1998 and the result was the 9/11 attacks. I simply don't see a reason for the US to choose between Al Qaeda and Hezbolla. Let them keep attacking each other. The Israelis have no desire or interest in US intervention either. I'd continue helping the secularist rebel group and let the situation play out.

    Another possibility is that one of the terror groups may have set off the chemical weapons in order to draw the US into the conflict with the hopes of escalating this thing to a regional war. Lets not be stupid and fall in that trap.

  2. #42
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    We gave Saddam chemical weapons.

    Saddam gave Syria the weapons when we invaded.

    Cool!! Two wars are gonna be fought over the same weapons.

    Larf!

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    We gave Saddam chemical weapons.

    Saddam gave Syria the weapons when we invaded.

    Cool!! Two wars are gonna be fought over the same weapons.

    Larf!
    we gave Saddam Chemical weapons? Link?

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Sorry Fish, you know I'm as pro-israel as it is possible to be. Ruby is another person that is very Pro-Israel and both of us agree that we would not support this idea of intervention in Syria. I'm frankly confused by Doggin's position on this because we agree on most issues. The Civil War in Syria involves 4 groups at the moment. The Shia groups are Hezbolla and the Government itself (assad is Alawite but he bows to the Shia in Iran). On the other side you have two Sunni based groups. The Secularist Rebels and the AQ affiliated Rebels. Essentially this thing is a Shia vs Suni boondoggle. Whats worse, Hezbolla and Iran or Al Qaede? Same garbage if you ask me. Let them kill eachother.
    If there were a way to ensure that aid would only go to the secularist rebels, and that they would come out on top in the internal war that would swiftly follow success in the civil war, I'd disagree with you (they aren't perfect, but they are a long way better than Assad). But there isn't any way to do that, which is why the US needs to stay the hell out of the civil war.


    Doggin,

    As far as red lines go no one believes that these Redlines Obama talks about are real.
    And there's the problem in a nutshell.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    we gave Saddam Chemical weapons? Link?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_c...eapons_program

    Does not appear to support the claim.

    With that said, would it suprise ANYONE in this forum if the U.S. did?

    Not me.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_c...eapons_program

    Does not appear to support the claim.

    With that said, would it suprise ANYONE in this forum if the U.S. did?

    Not me.
    I'd be very surprised if we gave an Arab country or any country chemical or biological weapons.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    If there were a way to ensure that aid would only go to the secularist rebels, and that they would come out on top in the internal war that would swiftly follow success in the civil war, I'd disagree with you (they aren't perfect, but they are a long way better than Assad). But there isn't any way to do that, which is why the US needs to stay the hell out of the civil war.




    And there's the problem in a nutshell.
    Yes and lobbing some cruise missiles at a few targets isn't going to change a thing. If anything it makes our threats look even weaker. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing that. If we topple Assad and Al Qaeda groups take over the situation goes from bad to worse. If Assad falls and the Alawites are slaughtered in mass we take the blame for genocide. The only possible positive outcome would be for the secularists to grab power and there is literally no evidence based on other Arab Spring situations where that will be the end result. Best course of action is to sit tight and let the situation play out.

  8. #48
    The chemical weapons were the leftovers from the ones he used on Iran. Iran/Iraq war they were used on Irans military. It wouldn't surprise me with if we used Saddam to to slug Iran were it hurt the most.

  9. #49
    ALERTS TO THREATS
    IN 2013 EUROPE
    From JOHN CLEESE
    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

    Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

    The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

    Regards,
    John Cleese ,
    British writer, actor and tall person

    And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.
    Life is too short...

  10. #50
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    ALERTS TO THREATS
    IN 2013 EUROPE
    From JOHN CLEESE
    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

    Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

    The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

    Regards,
    John Cleese ,
    British writer, actor and tall person

    And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.
    Life is too short...
    Funny but not Cleese.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/satir...orismalert.asp

  11. #51
    From the Onion

    Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns


    NEWS IN BRIEF • War • Barack Obama • News • ISSUE 49•35 • Aug 27, 2013


    WASHINGTON—In light of increased pressure on President Obama to order a military strike on Syria, leading historians and military experts on Tuesday simply pointed to the United States’ longstanding and absolutely impeccable record of successful bombing campaigns over the past 60 years. “The record clearly shows that, in every instance since the Second World War in which the U.S. government has launched strategic missile attacks on foreign soil, our military forces easily targeted enemy assailants with total precision, leaving no civilian casualties, collateral damage, or any long-term negative consequences for the affected country or region, American foreign policy, or international relations as a whole,” said Harvard University historian Dr. Michael Carmona, adding that such past U.S. bombing operations have gone particularly well in Middle Eastern countries over the last century. “Just look at the 1954 bombings in Guatemala, the 1965-to-1973 bombings in Laos and Cambodia, the 1982 bombings in Beirut, the 1986 bombings in Libya, the 1987 bombings in Iran, the 1998 bombings in Iraq, the 1998 bombings in Sudan, the 1998 bombings in Afghanistan, routine airstrikes in Pakistan since 2005, the 2007 bombings in Somalia, the 2011 bombings in Somalia, and essentially the entire American military effort in Vietnam from 1960 to 1975. Those were all executed perfectly, and led, in the long run, to the most desirable possible outcome.” All experts on the subject then agreed unanimously that, if you want to create positive and lasting change in a troubled region, change that you will one day look back on with a deep sense of confidence, pride, and assurance that you did the right thing, then bombing campaigns are almost always the way to go.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    ALERTS TO THREATS
    IN 2013 EUROPE
    From JOHN CLEESE
    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

    Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

    The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

    Regards,
    John Cleese ,
    British writer, actor and tall person

    And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.
    Life is too short...

  13. #53
    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
    17,236
    A lil shock and awe never hurt nobody, get on that Israel.

  14. #54
    So, we have a U.S. Govt. loudly proclaiming how like, totally awesome right-on it's Intel is, and now (apparently) planning on going ahead and launching this new War (but no worries, no boots on the ground, so it's not War, it's a Video Game!) without any U.S. support and without any internation backing or support, not even from it's closest allies.

    But Obama is a new kind of PResident, right? He's not Bush.

    Right?

  15. #55
    It seems we still haven't learned anything from Middle East. There is no right side they are both losers. Iraq, Afgnanistan, Egypt, Lybia and now Syria. It just is mind numbing.

  16. #56
    Here's my take on the Syria situation. The question that no one is talking about is why would Syria use chemical weapons? They were winning the war, they have all the military might they need to kill civilians. Why use the chemical on their own. Combine this with stuff that has come out about intercepts where one part of Syria government wasn't aware it was going to be used and was ordering the other to stop. There was simply no possible benefit that would outweigh the risk of passing off the international community and provoke them to step in to a war that the Assad Regime was already winning. I think it's far more likely this is setup by the Islamist Rebels in a desperate attempt to provoke the international community to getting involved in a war they were not winning. At least it seems like a plausible possibility to me. Either way I don't see any reason whatsoever we should get involved and risk escalating a Shia V's Sunning civil war into large scale situation.

  17. #57
    Enough already, no one wants see the innocent suffer, but let the rest of the Islamic world step up.
    We will never be looked upon as liberators in any of these countries, even by the people who are crying now for our help. We will always continue to be infidels and concours to them. The minute there dictator is taken care of, the weapons we supplied them will be turn on us, no thanks, we have done enough in that part of the world.

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,252
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    ALERTS TO THREATS
    IN 2013 EUROPE
    From JOHN CLEESE
    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

    Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

    The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

    Regards,
    John Cleese ,
    British writer, actor and tall person

    And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.
    Life is too short...
    How could he have left out "Minister of Silly Walks"?

  19. #59
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jerseystrong
    Posts
    18,906
    So in today's developments Obama said that he will put the possibility of military strike up to a vote in congress.

    I dont think Obama wants to really get involved in this, but at the same time he doesn't want to look foolish after his "redline" comments. Now by going to a vote, which I think Obama knows won't get approved, he comes off as a democratic guy who tried but didn't get the support needed to act. Pretty much a face saving move in my opinion.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Right. East Germany, backed by the Soviet Union, rolls into West Germany. Does that directly threaten our national security?
    Sorry for leaving you hanging so long.

    I think in this situation we'd probable have to respond if only because American soldiers were on top of the wall East Germany rolled over.

    Of course if I'm playing hypothetical US Foreign policy emperor, i don't put American soldiers on that wall, or support the splitting of Germany in two.

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