Should America deploy troops to Syria?

Land Destroyer: CNN, Al Jazeera Caught Red-Handed Staging War Propaganda

Paschendale said:

It seems like the criteria for invading a country is becoming twofold.

1. Has weapons vaguely comparable to ours, though still no possible chance of standing up to us in a fight.

2. Is predominantly a religion that isn't the predominant one here whose God demands they use those weapons on us.

I wonder how we'd feel about North Korea if they were a primarily Christian country...

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you

Dittohead not! said:

It is because every time we go to war sort of instead of really going to war, it turns out badly

Click to expand...

really? every time? I must have missed the Libya quagmire. My history book must have censored out the years we spent losing men in Panama. Apparently Google is in on the conspiracy as well, because I can't find a single thing about the long, ugly, failed occupation of Grenada. In Bosnia, where we found ourselves outnumbered, and surrounded. I still remember the shame I felt when we were forced to retreat from that fierce land.

However, the 1991 campaign was a pretty rocking success, so clearly we Officially Declare War there, right?


We've been pretty successfully putting into place this precise strategy in Pakistan for years. You are reacting emotionally rather than rationally.

MarineTpartier said:

I am so tired of the "facilitating terrorism" reason that is used as justification to invade these countries. If this was the case, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and numerous other countries should be invaded first. When is our government going to stop squeezing the water balloon and just leave these people alone? The more we meddle in the middle east, the worse it gets for us. I'm not saying a POTUS should apologize for anything we have done in the past. But one thing our next POTUS should do is admit our policies of meddling in every skirmish we can, providing money to rulers we "like", buying weapons for rebel groups, were wrong and will not be carried out anymore. There isn't one example of us funding a rebel group that has been a lasting success. It provides short term gains at the expense of long term integrity.

Click to expand...

We are in agreement. :thumbs:

Crossroads said:

Its fairly well established that Iran would not use nuclear weapons against anybody, because they know they would be utterly destroyed in the retaliation strike.

Click to expand...

that is incorrect. Iran is immune to counterstrike because Allah requires that the Holy City of Qom be held pristine for the upcoming return of the 13th Imam, whom He hid centuries ago and who He will bring out to lead the Shia into their Glorious Future as soon as Israel is destroyed. So, you see, the Ayatollah's have a trump card.

And what, exactly, makes you think that the government of Iran has control over all of it's people? The IRGC doesn't play well with the Ayatollahs, who doesn't play well with the President, who doesn't play well with the Majles, who doesn't play well with themselves. Figuring out Iranian foreign policy is a nightmare not least because Iran does not have a single entity making foreign - policy decisions.

Their want to survive will override any religious bull****.

Click to expand...

What a cute assumption. I'm glad you are willing to bet millions of other people's lives and families on it. You do realize that their particular brand of Islam (and in fact, them) are the ones who were the genesis of the modern suicide bomber? Al-Qaeda learned that crap from them.

The only threat that is possible would be a Iran shifting off one of its nukes to a rouge unit that could use it, without it coming back to bite Iran in the ass.

Click to expand...

Gosh. I wonder if any such unit is housed inside of the IRGC, which controls the Iranian Nuclear program? I wonder if that force has a established history of enabling murderous psychos and terror networks who commit suicide attacks on the Americans.

But, like I said, you have numerous anti Israeli and anti American countries, who are in possession of nuclear weapons, and we have yet to see a nuclear attack on either us or Israel.

Click to expand...

We have Pakistan, whose leadership is secular, and whose nuclear facilities are constantly under threat from seizure, and which would go to the Taliban if that rickety government were to fall.

Once a technology is out there like that, it is virtually impossible to shut everybody else out from it, if they want it bad enough, by stopping Iran today form attaining nuclear weapons, you would only be slowing down the inevitable.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The current Iranian regime is going to have a tough time retaining it's nature and power in the coming decades as the Revolutionary generation fades, and the Green generation rises. Regardless, the fact that I will certainly die in the next 80 years is no reason for me to fail to step out of the way of a speeding car today.

Thats the reality of the situation. If we wanted to use economic sanctions, computer hacking, or even small special forces to slow this process down, I'm all for it, but if Iran wants to get nuclear weapons, the only way to really stop them, is to utterly destroy them.

Click to expand...

meh, not really. Precise targeting of key infrastructure can set them back for years, and you can significantly harm their economy as well, making it exceedingly difficult for them to make up the lost ground. all those physicists and bunkers cost money.

and if thats your plan, then you'd better get ready to go after every other nuclear holding country that is a heavy islamist state as well as anti Israeli. an option, which is not an option at all.

Click to expand...

Such as..... Pakistan? I am ready to bomb them as well, if it seems likely that those facilities are about to fall into the nutjob hands.

cpwill said:

that is incorrect. Iran is immune to counterstrike because Allah requires that the Holy City of Qom be held pristine for the upcoming return of the 13th Imam, whom He hid centuries ago and who He will bring out to lead the Shia into their Glorious Future as soon as Israel is destroyed. So, you see, the Ayatollah's have a trump card.

And what, exactly, makes you think that the government of Iran has control over all of it's people? The IRGC doesn't play well with the Ayatollahs, who doesn't play well with the President, who doesn't play well with the Majles, who doesn't play well with themselves. Figuring out Iranian foreign policy is a nightmare not least because Iran does not have a single entity making foreign - policy decisions.



What a cute assumption. I'm glad you are willing to bet millions of other people's lives and families on it. You do realize that their particular brand of Islam (and in fact, them) are the ones who were the genesis of the modern suicide bomber? Al-Qaeda learned that crap from them.



Gosh. I wonder if any such unit is housed inside of the IRGC, which controls the Iranian Nuclear program? I wonder if that force has a established history of enabling murderous psychos and terror networks who commit suicide attacks on the Americans.



We have Pakistan, whose leadership is secular, and whose nuclear facilities are constantly under threat from seizure, and which would go to the Taliban if that rickety government were to fall.



Not at all. The current Iranian regime is going to have a tough time retaining it's nature and power in the coming decades as the Revolutionary generation fades, and the Green generation rises. Regardless, the fact that I will certainly die in the next 80 years is no reason for me to fail to step out of the way of a speeding car today.



meh, not really. Precise targeting of key infrastructure can set them back for years, and you can significantly harm their economy as well, making it exceedingly difficult for them to make up the lost ground. all those physicists and bunkers cost money.



Such as..... Pakistan? I am ready to bomb them as well, if it seems likely that those facilities are about to fall into the nutjob hands.

Click to expand...

Ok, I see your points, I'm not going to continue arguing just for the sake of arguing. So we have numerous unstable situations regarding the possession of nuclear weapons, (Include N.K. in there as well) where the outcome is not certain, except it will probably be less than what would be desirable. There are some in this area of expertise who classify Iran as a rational actor, but even if that was true, their government is still on rocky ground, at best and their leadership is as unstable as it gets. Creating nuclear weapons can't be an easy task, it would seem like a possibility to rely on special ops, and more covert means to keep them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. If not that, then if negotiations fail, and Iran refuses inspections by the UN, then the UN and its most powerful members, should get together, and deal with it with a strong, concentrated military force. And if the Pakistan problem is as bad as you say, it seems something similar would need to happen there as well.

I'm fine with everything you say, up until the point about the UN. Given that Russia and China both have veto power, and are backing Iran, what makes you think that the UN would be able to accomplish anything?

cpwill said:

really? every time? I must have missed the Libya quagmire. My history book must have censored out the years we spent losing men in Panama. Apparently Google is in on the conspiracy as well, because I can't find a single thing about the long, ugly, failed occupation of Grenada. In Bosnia, where we found ourselves outnumbered, and surrounded. I still remember the shame I felt when we were forced to retreat from that fierce land.

However, the 1991 campaign was a pretty rocking success, so clearly we Officially Declare War there, right?


We've been pretty successfully putting into place this precise strategy in Pakistan for years. You are reacting emotionally rather than rationally.

Click to expand...

We sent some planes in to Libya, and then got out. We destroyed a part of a city in Panama, and then got out. We attacked Granada and then got out. We sent Saddam packing in '91, and then got out. Is that what you're suggesting in Syria, or do you see another protracted nation building and winning hearts and minds fiasco?

and what, exactly, did we gain in Panama and Granada?

cpwill said:

I'm fine with everything you say, up until the point about the UN. Given that Russia and China both have veto power, and are backing Iran, what makes you think that the UN would be able to accomplish anything?

Click to expand...

Thats more of a "what should be happening". I would think both China and Russia wouldn't like an Iranian nuclear strike anymore than we would. If we had the Chinese and Russians behind us, I think wiping out Iran and Pakistan would be fairly simple, or at least, a hell of a lot more simple than if it was just mainly the US, like it always is.

Also, although I am fully aware (or at least partially aware) of the UN's failings and problems, I still support the premise of the UN. We should have an international group like that, to deal with world wide situations, but i guess its like taking all of the corruptions and bickering of all of those nations, and putting it all into one place.

I really would want to avoid the US gunning it alone, we can't deal with 2 more wars as it is.

There is no need for military action in Syria. Syria, which is piece of the basket case of the Middle East, is doing for itself. This is exactly what Muslims in this region need to be doing. The only way forward with this region is for the people to assume responsibility for themselves and create their own prosperous futures away from their dictator proned societies. Success means an eventual "Peace in the Middle East" that joins the modernized world. Failure means that the West (and Israel), as their scapegoat, can no longer hold water.

MSgt said:

There is no need for military action in Syria. Syria, which is piece of the basket case of the Middle East, is doing for itself. This is exactly what Muslims in this region need to be doing. The only way forward with this region is for the people to assume responsibility for themselves and create their own prosperous futures away from their dictator proned societies. Success means an eventual "Peace in the Middle East" that joins the modernized world. Failure means that the West (and Israel), as their scapegoat, can no longer hold water.

Click to expand...

Hey, welcome back friend.

Dittohead not! said:

We sent some planes in to Libya, and then got out. We destroyed a part of a city in Panama, and then got out. We attacked Granada and then got out. We sent Saddam packing in '91, and then got out. Is that what you're suggesting in Syria, or do you see another protracted nation building and winning hearts and minds fiasco?

and what, exactly, did we gain in Panama and Granada?

Click to expand...

What exactly have you gained from any venture beyond the Revolutionary War? Fighting for American freedom (unless we count our Civil War) ended when the Brits left town. Everything from ridding the Mediterranean of Barbary Pirates, to repairing our trade deals with Europe by chasing Hitler down to a basement, to securing oil fields in the Middle East has been about maintaining a way of life. Let's face it, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were followed up with acts of revenge. Did we really have to defend our nation either time from some mass attack? Were we really in danger of falling to an enemy? The Cold War summed up our military roles ever snice we gained independence. Our way of live depends on the health of foriegn regions and our trade deals across our oceans. Our influence across the globe is vital. If kicking somebody's ass keeps the oil flowing or a Wal-Mart shelf stocked then so be it.

MSgt said:

What exactly have you gained from any venture beyond the Revolutionary War? Fighting for American freedom (unless we count our Civil War) ended when the Brits left town. Everything from ridding the Mediterranean of Barbary Pirates, to repairing our trade deals with Europe by chasing Hitler down to a basement, to securing oil fields in the Middle East has been about maintaining a way of life. Let's face it, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were followed up with acts of revenge. Did we really have to defend our nation either time from some mass attack? Were we really in danger of falling to an enemy? The Cold War summed up our military roles ever snice we gained independence. Our way of live depends on the health of foriegn regions and our trade deals across our oceans. Our influence across the globe is vital. If kicking somebody's ass keeps the oil flowing or a Wal-Mart shelf stocked then so be it.

Click to expand...

Did we have to defend our nation from Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany? Yes. Did we have to defend our nation from Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Granada, panama? No.

StillBallin75 said:

Hey, welcome back friend.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It's been a long year.

Dittohead not! said:

Did we have to defend our nation from Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany? Yes.

Click to expand...

No....we did not. The Japanese nor the Germans were ever going to invade continental North America. In fact, most Americans were dead set against going to war in Europe because it was Japan that attacked Hawaii. Roosevelt had to convince Americans that the real war was in Europe, which is one of the chief reasons while it took until 1944 to get locally involved. The truth is that the war in Europe was hurting our economic trades with greater Europe.

Dittohead not! said:

Did we have to defend our nation from Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Granada, panama? No.

Click to expand...

In much the same fashion, the Societ Union's mass influence all over the world is precisely why we had to secure our influences in order to protect trade deals with foriegn regions. And like it or not, the world runs on oil. Virtually every military adventure since the Revolutionary War has been about protecting our economic way of life. And we continue to do the same today. Oil flowing ot of the Middle East depends on a region that can't seem to behave without dictators oppressing them and fueling radical religious rebellion, which in the end threatens us. Therefore, how do we keep the oil flowing without the handy dandy dictator? Without an opposing superpower for the world to fear behind our shield, we have come to a point in history where we are going to actually have to stand by our high moral preach.

Dittohead not! said:

Did we have to defend our nation from Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany? Yes. Did we have to defend our nation from Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Granada, panama? No.

Click to expand...

Germany was going to invade the US?

Crossroads said:

Thats more of a "what should be happening". I would think both China and Russia wouldn't like an Iranian nuclear strike anymore than we would. If we had the Chinese and Russians behind us, I think wiping out Iran and Pakistan would be fairly simple, or at least, a hell of a lot more simple than if it was just mainly the US, like it always is.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't significantly increase or decrease the ease or complexity of the action itself. It just so happens that your "let's let the UN handle it" idea doesn't work so long as China and Russia maintain a seat on the Security Council.

As you say, it's a "should be happening". But US Policymakers have a duty to view the world as it is rather than as it would be nice if it was.

Also, although I am fully aware (or at least partially aware) of the UN's failings and problems, I still support the premise of the UN.

Click to expand...

Sure. It let's us spy on other nations, and gives weak angry nations a place to vent. We just shouldn't take it seriously for things that it is not designed to handle well.

We should have an international group like that, to deal with world wide situations

Click to expand...

Yeah... if only there was some kind of "coalition".... of countries that were "willing" to help deal with international bad actors... some kind of "willing" coalition", or "coalition" of people who are "willing"........

I really would want to avoid the US gunning it alone, we can't deal with 2 more wars as it is.

Click to expand...

I don't know if we'd be gunning it alone; I"m betting that Israel is easily more worried about this than we are.

cpwill said:

Germany was going to invade the US?

Click to expand...

Are there some talking points somewhere that instructs people to play stupid? This has come up a few times, and it has come up with no one saying Germany was going to invade the US. Japan, a nation (not a group of individuals) did attack Pearl Harbor, killing Americans and attacking American military. Germany did declare war on the US. These facts are in no way comparable to any war after WWII.

.

Not a complex poll question. No. We should not.

cpwill said:

Germany was going to invade the US?

Click to expand...

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. In fact, if only Chamberlain had continued to appease them, they would have been happy to merely take a benign control of a few European countries and perhaps won their hearts and minds. Why ever would they have invaded the USA? I mean, it's not like they attacked us, that was the Japanese, who, no doubt were sorry and wouldn't have continued to try to conquer the rest of the world.

Sure.

cpwill said:

It wouldn't significantly increase or decrease the ease or complexity of the action itself. It just so happens that your "let's let the UN handle it" idea doesn't work so long as China and Russia maintain a seat on the Security Council.

As you say, it's a "should be happening". But US Policymakers have a duty to view the world as it is rather than as it would be nice if it was.



Sure. It let's us spy on other nations, and gives weak angry nations a place to vent. We just shouldn't take it seriously for things that it is not designed to handle well.



Yeah... if only there was some kind of "coalition".... of countries that were "willing" to help deal with international bad actors... some kind of "willing" coalition", or "coalition" of people who are "willing"........



I don't know if we'd be gunning it alone; I"m betting that Israel is easily more worried about this than we are.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Beware of "humintarian" causes.

Remember this photo published in Time magazine?

The supposed "concentration camps" in Bosnia to bolster U.S. intervention?

These reports were knowingly falsified so NATO invasion was justified.



The picture that fooled the world

LM vs ITN: The Picture That Fooled The World

Kane said:

Beware of "humintarian" causes.

Remember this photo published in Time magazine?

The supposed "concentration camps" in Bosnia to bolster U.S. intervention?

These reports were knowingly falsified so NATO invasion was justified.

The picture that fooled the world

LM vs ITN: The Picture That Fooled The World

Click to expand...

whatreallyhappened.com???

seriously?

they're about as trustworthy as Rense.com or Prisonplanet.com.

cpwill said:

Incorrect. Keeping the 5th in the Gulf keeps our economy from collapsing. Let me know if you want the full story on that.

that being said: they are already there. Picking them up and bringing them home would cost much more than than having them bomb select targets in Syria.

Click to expand...

I can see that I guess. I didn't think that through.

Despite the horrible cost of thousands of dollars worth of bombs?

meh, yes and no. You are worried about cost - those things are expensive.

Click to expand...

I am more worried about the cost to the US Soldier...

:shrug: you conduct a Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses which wrecks the Syrian Integrated Air Defense System Centers of Gravity, and not only have you made the airspace permissive for ops, but you have effectively degraded Iran's strategic defenses against airstrikes that you already approved - those two are allies, and Syria would warn Iran about any attack it saw first through it's early warning radar.

Click to expand...

I know we can do it... the not so simple part is in should we do it and unintended consequences of yet another war...

which is why your responses in this thread surprised me. You seemed to be allowing emotional distaste to trump rational analysis.

Click to expand...

In all honesty I think that I was... though I am still not convinced. Then I think about it and I say... **** it. We can and should. I am on the fence about wars and cost versus the reality of the situation. Reality trumps though...

Defense isn't what's draining us - Defense is approaching historical lows. What's draining us are the entitlements.

Click to expand...

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

Boo Radley said:

Are there some talking points somewhere that instructs people to play stupid? This has come up a few times, and it has come up with no one saying Germany was going to invade the US. Japan, a nation (not a group of individuals) did attack Pearl Harbor, killing Americans and attacking American military.

Click to expand...

only in her foriegn pacific bases, where she had set up an imperialist colony. Neither Japan nor Germany was a threat to the United States of America. we fought them because it was right that we kick their a--, not because we were defending ourselves from any kind of invasion.