Thread: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

Originally Posted by Crossroads

Well, then why do you think Russia and China would be against such an action?

because they are our geopolitical opponents, and they know that Iran keeps us tied down and busy over here so that they have a freer hand over there. In addition, neither government has any interest in setting a precedent for foreign intervention due to the nature of a regime.

Maybe a solution would be to let Israeli do most of the heavy lifting. If we could get a real commitment from other major nations, then maybe, but more so than were in Iraq.

we'll have to see.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

I am on the fence about wars and cost versus the reality of the situation. Reality trumps though...

It has an unfortunate habit of doing so.

I'll look into that... though we undeniably spend more on defense than any other nation.

that is because we are the only nation that has to be more powerful than China in the Taiwan straight, more powerful than North Korea in South Korea, more powerful than Iran in the Persian Gulf, and able to hunt down Pirates off of East Africa. We are the nation whose military secures global trade. Cut out the one, watch the other collapse.

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

Oh, no, since they showed such remarkable restraint, they would surely have stopped their quest for world domination as soon as they had Poland, oh, and maybe France.

I would like to see this evidence you sarcastically seem to be implying exists that Germany (who wanted Eastern Europe down through Africa - you may want to look into Haushofer) ever planned or intended an invasion of the Americas. Japan wanted to be hegemon in the Pacific, Germany wanted to be hegemon in the Heartland. neither of them cared to try to control the north American continent.

Originally Posted by cpwill

I would like to see this evidence you sarcastically seem to be implying exists that Germany (who wanted Eastern Europe down through Africa - you may want to look into Haushofer) ever planned or intended an invasion of the Americas. Japan wanted to be hegemon in the Pacific, Germany wanted to be hegemon in the Heartland. neither of them cared to try to control the north American continent.

OK, you know this how?

man, I spent months with Haushofer and Heartland theory.

Originally Posted by cpwill

man, I spent months with Haushofer and Heartland theory.

I had no idea you were actually there!

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

I had no idea you were actually there!

academically, man. Hashofer took Macklands' Heartland Theory and fused it with organic nation theory. Powerfull stuff, at the time.

Romney's Plan Could Put 75,000 Troops in Syria

"Wednesday night's GOP debate saw a lot of tough talk when it came to intervening in Syria, but a new report by the U.S. Central Command gives an ominous view of what destabilizing the Assad regime could mean for U.S. troop deployments. During the debate, Mitt Romney publicly backed arming the Syrian rebels in a deal brokered by the U.S. with its Middle East allies. "We need to work with Saudi Arabia and with Turkey to say, 'You guys provide the kind of weaponry that's needed to help the rebels inside Syria,'" the former Massachusetts governor said. But destabilizing President Bashar al-Assad's regime risks a different kind of threat that could embroil thousands of U.S. troops: The securing of Syria's chemical warfare facilities.

According to a new report by CNN, the U.S. military has calculated that more than 75,000 grounds troops would be required to secure Syria's chemical sites if they were left unguarded or looted. The estimate was calculated by U.S. Central Command as it's tasked with considering different military responses to an escalation in Syria. Currently, the Assad regime maintains control of its chemical facilities but that could change as rebels jockey for power. And securing the country's chemical stockpile would be particularly important given its size and the risk of it falling into the hands of extremists.

"Syria probably has one of largest programs in the world," Leonard Specter of the Monterey Institute of International Studies tells CNN. "It has multiple types of chemical agents." He ticked off a number of dangerous gases including nerve gas and World War I-era gases such as chlorine and phosgene."

Romney's Plan Could Put 75,000 Troops in Syria - Global - The Atlantic Wire

this is how you know they are desperate.



remember in 2004 when they were running fear-mongering about how there was going to be a draft?

Originally Posted by cpwill

this is how you know they are desperate.



remember in 2004 when they were running fear-mongering about how there was going to be a draft?

"At a speech at the Citadel Military College in South Carolina on October 7, Mitt Romney outlined some of his goals for American foreign policy if he wins the presidential election in 2012. He made two large promises: first, he pledged to reverse cuts in defense spending, and second, he vowed to deploy missiles and ships.

He also assured the audience that he would rebuild the US economy, reverse President Obama’s “massive defense cuts,” and increase the number of soldiers in the military by 100,000."

Election 2012 : Mitt Romney’s Promise to Reverse Military Spending Cuts | The Toonari Post - Breaking News, U.S., World, Entertainment