View Poll Results: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

Voters
130. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 0.77%
  • No

    110 84.62%
  • Yes, but only Special Forces troops

    6 4.62%
  • No. Maybe in the future.

    13 10.00%
Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 231

Thread: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

  1. #161
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    and yet, in at least my MOS, apparently this year is going to be another Great SNCO Giveaway. It's almost as if we are trying to get people up into the "retirement secured" ranks before sequestration hits hardest in order to justify the money, rather than the other way round.
    I have never been one of those to talk about the "Old Corps." In fact, I have always thought that today's Corps is the smartest its ever been. And when we consider that Marines have re-enlisted over and over with absolute certainty that they will re-deploy to a combat zone, today's all volunteer force is far more focused than the Vietnam era draftees.

    But over the last year I have seen such a streak of apathy towards Marines from so-called leaders that I will state that our numbers have grown too fast and too many undeserving souls have been promoted because of it. Marines routinely deploy more than any other, but because of the 9/11 era deployments, we have reduced deployments to spread sheets. We get back from deployment and immediately look towards building the next spread sheet for the next one coming up. We have lot our ability to generally care about the individual Marine. We are exhausted. Throw in this extra 30,000 that really doesn't belong and you have an organization that is too big to be as specialized as we used to be. We start losing that theme of proper discipline. Rank becomes a second consideration. Policies become as brittle as concrete.

    For a year I saw this whenever I made a trip to Camp Leatherneck. I had my day pack fall off the back of my MATV somewhere in Gereshk. I actually had to get two full bird Colonel's signatures on a missing gear statement in order to get the Staff Sergeant at Supply to re-issue me (a Master Sergeant) a poncho liner. This is because brittle policies to command the masses have replaced the responsibility of leaders to simply care for their Marines. Here's another one..... I was traveling with my Terp back through Leatherneck from Kabul. I needed to pick up our BAT Systems on my way to Lashkar Gah for my Team. However, I couldn't take my Terp into the building where I needed to pick up the system. That's the policy. However, another policy states that I can't leave my Terp unattended. So...in order to accomplish my mission, I needed to break one policy to follow another! Mission accomplishment and caring for Marines has been supplanted by a never ending pile of contradictory policies made by leaders who find themselves competing with each other for promotion with little regard to how this affects anything outside the comfy "wire." I returned to the States to find that this attitude has infected Lejeune and Pendleton.

    I believe the further the Marine Corps gets from the 9/11 era the better it will get again. So I am all for stripping the Corps back to a more manageble number. But I retire September 30 (Terminal June 30), so this is for your generation to gain control back. Good luck.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #162
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I have never been one of those to talk about the "Old Corps." In fact, I have always thought that today's Corps is the smartest its ever been. And when we consider that Marines have re-enlisted over and over with absolute certainty that they will re-deploy to a combat zone, today's all volunteer force is far more focused than the Vietnam era draftees.

    But over the last year I have seen such a streak of apathy towards Marines from so-called leaders that I will state that our numbers have grown too fast and too many undeserving souls have been promoted because of it. Marines routinely deploy more than any other, but because of the 9/11 era deployments, we have reduced deployments to spread sheets. We get back from deployment and immediately look towards building the next spread sheet for the next one coming up. We have lot our ability to generally care about the individual Marine. We are exhausted. Throw in this extra 30,000 that really doesn't belong and you have an organization that is too big to be as specialized as we used to be. We start losing that theme of proper discipline. Rank becomes a second consideration. Policies become as brittle as concrete.

    For a year I saw this whenever I made a trip to Camp Leatherneck. I had my day pack fall off the back of my MATV somewhere in Gereshk. I actually had to get two full bird Colonel's signatures on a missing gear statement in order to get the Staff Sergeant at Supply to re-issue me (a Master Sergeant) a poncho liner. This is because brittle policies to command the masses have replaced the responsibility of leaders to simply care for their Marines. Here's another one..... I was traveling with my Terp back through Leatherneck from Kabul. I needed to pick up our BAT Systems on my way to Lashkar Gah for my Team. However, I couldn't take my Terp into the building where I needed to pick up the system. That's the policy. However, another policy states that I can't leave my Terp unattended. So...in order to accomplish my mission, I needed to break one policy to follow another! Mission accomplishment and caring for Marines has been supplanted by a never ending pile of contradictory policies made by leaders who find themselves competing with each other for promotion with little regard to how this affects anything outside the comfy "wire." I returned to the States to find that this attitude has infected Lejeune and Pendleton.

    I believe the further the Marine Corps gets from the 9/11 era the better it will get again. So I am all for stripping the Corps back to a more manageble number. But I retire September 30 (Terminal June 30), so this is for your generation to gain control back. Good luck.
    The bottom line to all of this is that the country is not really at war. The military may be at war, but there is no draft, no declaration of war, no expectation that civilians will be involved in the war in any way unless t hey have a family member in the military. It simply is not fair to keep sending the same people back again and again into combat. The current wars have gone on longer than WWII already, and are still going on. There are some signs that they may end soon, but there is no guarantee of that.

    If we have to go to war, if there is no reasonable alternative, then the entire country should be on a war footing. The small, limited wars resemble the ones described by Orwell. War is peace, you know.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  3. #163
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    The bottom line to all of this is that the country is not really at war. The military may be at war, but there is no draft, no declaration of war, no expectation that civilians will be involved in the war in any way unless t hey have a family member in the military. It simply is not fair to keep sending the same people back again and again into combat. The current wars have gone on longer than WWII already, and are still going on. There are some signs that they may end soon, but there is no guarantee of that.

    If we have to go to war, if there is no reasonable alternative, then the entire country should be on a war footing. The small, limited wars resemble the ones described by Orwell. War is peace, you know.
    I believe that we are going to be engaged throughout the Middle East for decades to come. People will do their best to believe that one event has nothing to do with another, but ultimately everything we have done has everything to do with what exists between Cairo and Islamabad. But we aren't a people (Europe and the U.S.) that like to see things for what they are. We want everything to fit into our definitions. We want the international laws we created over the centuries to be upheld by the rest of the world. We want their perspectives to equal our perspectives. This is why when Sunni fighters were entering Iraq from all countries to slaughter Shia, we only see "Iraq." This is why when we learned publicly that Al-Queda is made of the region's citizens, we only see Afghanistan. We want everything to be defined and packaged into neat borders and a uniformed enemy. The problem is that we are wrong.

    We want to protest a "war for oil" and then bitch that gasoline and the price of bread is too much. We want to preach about freedom and liberty and criticize our relationship with Cold War dictators and then criticize a move to rid ourselves of one. We want to declare that we were at war with Nazis...not Germans. That we are at war with terrorists, not Muslims. We put more energy into denying truths and upholding our illusions than we do facing the world for what it is. In the mean time, the rest of the world laughs as they get away with breaking our rules of international organization and codes of war. Perhaps this is because, unlike nations in the modernized West, their borders make no sense and very much rely on oppressive dictators to maintain a sense of stability? Perhaps its because, unlike nations in the West, their populations have not had the chance to sort themselves out behind natural borders?

    I believe that we are in a constant state of war and we fool ourselves into believing otherwise because we can afford to make ourselves stupid and ignorant. And because of this, the country will never be on the same war footing without a Nazi, Soviet, Japanese, North Korean, or North Vietnamese uniform to oppose. And don't let them try to make sense of their inabilities to process the world they live in. Whenever they whine about Afghanistan or Iraq not attacking us, as them to point out the American cities that Germans and Soviets attacked. Or ask them what American city Saddam Hussein attacked when he crossed into Kuwait in 1990. Or what American city Somalis or Bosnians attacked. Protestors are often self deluded and convenient about what they protest...and when they protest it.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-12-12 at 03:07 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #164
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,751

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I will submit my personal opinion later in the thread. Simple question, complicated issue.
    No; I think we're kind of 'trooped out' right now. I think that handling it like we did Libya is the right move.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  5. #165
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I believe that we are going to be engaged throughout the Middle East for decades to come. People will do their best to believe that one event has nothing to do with another, but ultimately everything we have done has everything to do with what exists between Cairo and Islamabad. But we aren't a people (Europe and the U.S.) that like to see things for what they are. We want everything to fit into our definitions. We want the international laws we created over the centuries to be upheld by the rest of the world. We want their perspectives to equal our perspectives. This is why when Sunni fighters were entering Iraq from all countries to slaughter Shia, we only see "Iraq." This is why when we learned publicly that Al-Queda is made of the region's citizens, we only see Afghanistan. We want everything to be defined and packaged into neat borders and a uniformed enemy. The problem is that we are wrong.

    We want to protest a "war for oil" and then bitch that gasoline and the price of bread is too much. We want to preach about freedom and liberty and criticize our relationship with Cold War dictators and then criticize a move to rid ourselves of one. We want to declare that we were at war with Nazis...not Germans. That we are at war with terrorists, not Muslims. We put more energy into denying truths and upholding our illusions than we do facing the world for what it is. In the mean time, the rest of the world laughs as they get away with breaking our rules of international organization and codes of war. Perhaps this is because, unlike nations in the modernized West, their borders make no sense and very much rely on oppressive dictators to maintain a sense of stability? Perhaps its because, unlike nations in the West, their populations have not had the chance to sort themselves out behind natural borders?

    I believe that we are in a constant state of war and we fool ourselves into believing otherwise because we can afford to make ourselves stupid and ignorant.
    Not sure the same people are doing the same bitching, but it's possible. The point is, if the world is to be at war constantly, we're a sad species. Yes, we make distinctions between Nazis and germans. But it was easier for us to see not all Germans as Nazis than it is for many to see that all Muslims aren't terrorist, or all Japnases weren't resposnible for Pearl Habor. We can dehumanize with the best of them, and the more different, the easier.

    But, rule of law is suppose to be above this. The rules set the bar, and is intented to temper our habit of being selective and wildly inconsistent. Those who believe in law, I think, understand this. I'm reluctant to go down a path that ignores rule of law.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not sure the same people are doing the same bitching, but it's possible. The point is, if the world is to be at war constantly, we're a sad species. Yes, we make distinctions between Nazis and germans. But it was easier for us to see not all Germans as Nazis than it is for many to see that all Muslims aren't terrorist, or all Japnases weren't resposnible for Pearl Habor. We can dehumanize with the best of them, and the more different, the easier.

    But, rule of law is suppose to be above this. The rules set the bar, and is intented to temper our habit of being selective and wildly inconsistent. Those who believe in law, I think, understand this. I'm reluctant to go down a path that ignores rule of law.
    Actually, there's not that great a distinction to be made between the Nazis and the Germans of that era. The Germans supported the nazis and made their crimes possible - indeed, the German Army itself took part in some of those crimes. Hitler was incredibly popular with the average German until the war started going badly.

    The average Muslim has a far looser connection to terrorists than the average German had to the Nazis, although I will admit that after the war it was really difficult to find any German who admitted to being a nazi.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  7. #167
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not sure the same people are doing the same bitching, but it's possible. The point is, if the world is to be at war constantly, we're a sad species. Yes, we make distinctions between Nazis and germans. But it was easier for us to see not all Germans as Nazis than it is for many to see that all Muslims aren't terrorist, or all Japnases weren't resposnible for Pearl Habor. We can dehumanize with the best of them, and the more different, the easier.

    But, rule of law is suppose to be above this. The rules set the bar, and is intented to temper our habit of being selective and wildly inconsistent. Those who believe in law, I think, understand this. I'm reluctant to go down a path that ignores rule of law.
    But we are at war constantly. We place sanctions on countries, withold goods and resources, deny accesses, encourage good behavior in accordance to our values, etc. We just have this idea in our heads that "peace" exists if somebody's not firing a weapon. In the mean time we kill through sanctions. With or without the gun we motivate to protect our economic securities and progress. What did Clausewitz express? "War is the continuation of Politik by other means?" I think he had it wrong. "Armed conflict is merely a continuation of war."

    We were at war with "Germans" and "Japs" until the current fad of political correctness allowed us to pretend that Nazis weren't Germans. The further we get away from the event where we have no intimate relationship we believe ourselves to be more civilized than those that faced it. Today, we have the luxury of observing war through a television and pretend that "others" sent our men off to war. That "others" wanted revenge. That "others" are just barabaric. In other words, we fool ourselves in believing that we sit on a high pedestal above the gutters of the world. This is all due to convenience. Nothing more.

    The Rule of Law is important. You are right. Absolutely. The problem is that the international Rule of Law caters to Western perspectives. What Arab or African nation was invited to Geneva to make laws after World War II? What Arab or African nation drew in its own border that Western nations observe with earnest today and demand compliance? Our "Rule of Laws" cater to organizing the world into our idea of functional organization and manners. The problem is that much of the world has not evolved their civilizations beyond the basic order which is family, tribe and religion. We insist that man's law trumps God's law to an entire region that knows only God. And when they do not cater to our idea of global manners we seek to label them uncivilized, incapable of democracizing, and backwards.

    You know what I see when I see Sunni slaughtering Shia or the many other non-Arab tribes across the region? I see Europe's history of cleansing their populaitons and eventually forming natural borders. I think of America's Civil War where national organization and civil conformity had to come to an agreement. I see a region full of people sorting itself out after centuries of colonization and installed dictators forced an illusion of stability. But our "rules" keep them pinned behind these unnaural borders don't they? Our rules insist that since Europeans have already gone through their cleansing that no one else is allowed to. The truth is that our rules are meant to keep production around the world flowing. It doesn't matter who is oppressed or what the result is (terrorists and mass international terrorist organizations). And the most pathetic of our Western Rules is the Rule of soveriegnty. This is perhaps the grandest insult to civilization in history. Kings, Kaisers, and Tsars of the past must be laughing at us.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-12-12 at 03:57 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #168
    Sage
    gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,365

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I believe that we are going to be engaged throughout the Middle East for decades to come. People will do their best to believe that one event has nothing to do with another, but ultimately everything we have done has everything to do with what exists between Cairo and Islamabad. But we aren't a people (Europe and the U.S.) that like to see things for what they are. We want everything to fit into our definitions. We want the international laws we created over the centuries to be upheld by the rest of the world. We want their perspectives to equal our perspectives. This is why when Sunni fighters were entering Iraq from all countries to slaughter Shia, we only see "Iraq." This is why when we learned publicly that Al-Queda is made of the region's citizens, we only see Afghanistan. We want everything to be defined and packaged into neat borders and a uniformed enemy. The problem is that we are wrong.
    I'm not sure what you're basing the assumption "that one event has nothing to do with another" from. It has become the dominant narrative surrounding the ME since the initial Afghanistan invasion, that Al-Qaeda has drawn from across the region. This is a recognized fact by 'Hawks' and 'Doves' who both use the fact for their respective position. International law is unequivocally a 'Western' concept based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under this declaration 'Rights' become codified, and normative. The contention arises from states not following such a declaration (many ME nations). One declaration that glaringly highlights non-compatibility has to be equality between men/Women. Thus, some commentators identify this platform within 'Culture' and cultural specificity and issues become insurmountable without challenging ideology and domestic structures (Tried within Iraq, though to early too comment on the outcomes).

    We want to protest a "war for oil" and then bitch that gasoline and the price of bread is too much. We want to preach about freedom and liberty and criticize our relationship with Cold War dictators and then criticize a move to rid ourselves of one. We want to declare that we were at war with Nazis...not Germans. That we are at war with terrorists, not Muslims. We put more energy into denying truths and upholding our illusions than we do facing the world for what it is. In the mean time, the rest of the world laughs as they get away with breaking our rules of international organization and codes of war. Perhaps this is because, unlike nations in the modernized West, their borders make no sense and very much rely on oppressive dictators to maintain a sense of stability? Perhaps its because, unlike nations in the West, their populations have not had the chance to sort themselves out behind natural borders?


    I believe that we are in a constant state of war and we fool ourselves into believing otherwise because we can afford to make ourselves stupid and ignorant. And because of this, the country will never be on the same war footing without a Nazi, Soviet, Japanese, North Korean, or North Vietnamese uniform to oppose. And don't let them try to make sense of their inabilities to process the world they live in. Whenever they whine about Afghanistan or Iraq not attacking us, as them to point out the American cities that Germans and Soviets attacked. Or ask them what American city Saddam Hussein attacked when he crossed into Kuwait in 1990. Or what American city Somalis or Bosnians attacked. Protestors are often self deluded and convenient about what they protest...and when they protest it.
    You're simply describing the position set out byThomas Hobbes in the 17th century who was the first to offer some clarity on International Order. Hobbes suggested 'the international system is anarchic in nature (dog eat dog) and private citizens look to domestic leaders for protection. So, it is not original thinking looking at international order in this way. Looking more contemporary (although based on Hobbes), Realism comtexulises international order in such a way. Realists avoid looking for a Utopian ideal (this is the main split from the Liberalism thesis) and comment as things are, here and now, and not what one would like things to be. Proponents of such an approach look to Henry Kissinger.
    RIP THE EUROPEAN FORUM 2016

  9. #169
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    deploy troops, no.....cruise missiles, yes.....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  10. #170
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: Should America deploy troops to Syria?

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    You're simply describing the position set out byThomas Hobbes in the 17th century who was the first to offer some clarity on International Order. Hobbes suggested 'the international system is anarchic in nature (dog eat dog) and private citizens look to domestic leaders for protection. So, it is not original thinking looking at international order in this way. Looking more contemporary (although based on Hobbes), Realism comtexulises international order in such a way. Realists avoid looking for a Utopian ideal (this is the main split from the Liberalism thesis) and comment as things are, here and now, and not what one would like things to be. Proponents of such an approach look to Henry Kissinger.

    Again...all through the lens of the West.

    The world is divided in half. International laws absolutely caters to the West. They do so because they originated from Europe and were originally invented by empires that sought a higher idea of protection from neighbors. Borders and trade agreements have created the international order. But these international laws make no sense to the Middle East because they did not draw their borders. They struggle today to sort out their populations to the criticism of the West who did the same thing centuries ago. The difference is that we can't bring ourselves to recognize that our idea of international order has and is wrong.

    Hobbes was very bright. He obviously understood human nature. It should be obvious to all that like minded people attract each other. The basis for all human organization has always gone back to "tribe." We Americans may be from the world's tribes, but we have come together under a certain tribe mentality (call it nationalism, liberal democracy, whatever). For most of the world, "tribe" absolutely goes back ethnic root and/or religious root. The only nation in Europe not to have its borders re-drawn after World War II was Yugoslavia. And what happened to that as soon as the Cold War ended? It dissolved into ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Middle East is full of nations where the same is happening. There's a reason Iraq should probably be three seperate territories. "Tribe" was allowed to sort itself out in Europe and elsewhere. Hell, continental Europe hosted two World Wars over it to cap off centuries of ethnic cleansing from Spain to Russia. But in the Middle East, tribes that historically did not get along were forced together and tribes that historically did get along were separated on either side of a European made border. And the Cold War merely maintained that order while we called it "stability" and "peace." Peace for who? Were it not for the flow of oil, the "Yugoslavias" of the Middle East would have torn itself apart a long time ago. But our international order hinges on half of the world not being privileged enough to appreciate Hobbes.

    Kissinger saw through the lens of the nuclear Cold War. Finding ways to accomodate everythiing we don't believe in was understood. But we don't live in the Cold War anymore. People conveniently forget that when addressing the world they live in today.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-12-12 at 05:31 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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