Should America deploy troops to Syria?

Crossroads said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

:shrug: we'll have to see.

Bodhisattva said:

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

Click to expand...

It has an unfortunate habit of doing so.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Dittohead not! said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

cpwill said:

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.

Click to expand...

OK, you know this how?

man, I spent months with Haushofer and Heartland theory.

cpwill said:

man, I spent months with Haushofer and Heartland theory.

Click to expand...

I had no idea you were actually there!

Dittohead not! said:

I had no idea you were actually there!

Click to expand...

:lol: 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

:doh


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?

cpwill said:

:doh


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?

Click to expand...

"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

yeah... that sorta reminds me of when Obama said the exact same thing (troop increases) about this time in his campaign.

All told, you have evidence that Romney wants to put 75,000 troops in Syria? Or just that he (wisely) wants to refund missile defense and increase our Navy?

No.

Very much no. Let's not step into that mess.

cpwill said:

yeah... that sorta reminds me of when Obama said the exact same thing (troop increases) about this time in his campaign.

Click to expand...

Obama ended the war in Iraq and has proposed military spending cuts vs Romney's stated plan to increase military spending.

All told, you have evidence that Romney wants to put 75,000 troops in Syria? Or just that he (wisely) wants to refund missile defense and increase our Navy?

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

"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."

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

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

"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

Click to expand...

....................

Dittohead not! said:

OK, you know this how?

Click to expand...

Not much of a counter argument...

Kane said:

Beware of "humantarian" 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...

Thunder said:

whatreallyhappened.com???

seriously?

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

Click to expand...

No bigger sham going than the TV media, after Iraq and Libya that should be obvious.

"Beware of "humantarian" causes," yes ,because there are usually some oil or banking interests there wanting to pillage some new resource or exploit some new market.

And lets not forget - the war machine itself is a giant business.

Catawba said:

Obama ended the war in Iraq and has proposed military spending cuts vs Romney's stated plan to increase military spending.

....................

Click to expand...

ah. so no, in fact, you have no evidence for your utterly idiotic insinuation that Romney would put 75,000 troops in Syria?

cpwill said:

ah. so no, in fact, you have no evidence for your utterly idiotic insinuation that Romney would put 75,000 troops in Syria?

Click to expand...

As noted above:

"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."


"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."

:doh

so no, no more evidence than the similarly baseless Draft claims?

cpwill said:

:doh

so no, no more evidence than the similarly baseless Draft claims?

Click to expand...

Estimates by the US military are good enough for me.

Yup. I think you should throw in that they will be drafted troops, too. Probably say that they will be drafted minorities, that will help you bring out your base.

Romney has also stated that he would take moves against China's currency manipulation. MITT ROMNEY WANTS TO DRAFT 15,000,000 MEN AND WOMEN TO FORCE THEM TO INVADE CHINA.

Catawba said:

"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

Click to expand...

Don't worry. He'll say something different next week. :coffeepap


Seriously. I don't believe he's Bush. I don't believe he'll be too reckless. He tends to be more pragmatic.

Catawba said:

Obama ended the war in Iraq and has proposed military spending cuts vs Romney's stated plan to increase military spending.


....................

Click to expand...

Actually, President Bush had already laid out the timetable to end Iraq. President Obama inherited it. And cutting military spending has little to do with Defense spending. This is why troops went into Afghanistan and Iraq with duct tape on their NBC suits and no body armor while programs like the F/A-22 and such continued to get billions and billions of dollars throughout the 90s. So when I hear about "military spending cuts" I think of how much the troop will do without so that civilians in suits can continue creating toys he can't use.

MSgt said:

Actually, President Bush had already laid out the timetable to end Iraq. President Obama inherited it. And cutting military spending has little to do with Defense spending. This is why troops went into Afghanistan and Iraq with duct tape on their NBC suits and no body armor while programs like the F/A-22 and such continued to get billions and billions of dollars throughout the 90s. So when I hear about "military spending cuts" I think of how much the troop will do without so that civilians in suits can continue creating toys he can't use..

Click to expand...

That is PRECISELY f'ing it! Sexy programs and programs large enough to have a part made in a majority of congressional districts will be just fine - meanwhile, funding for all the "little" things like RCO's or PEQ-15's, the things that actually make us more combat effective thus saving lives will be easy fodder.

MSgt said:

Actually, President Bush had already laid out the timetable to end Iraq. President Obama inherited it. And cutting military spending has little to do with Defense spending. This is why troops went into Afghanistan and Iraq with duct tape on their NBC suits and no body armor while programs like the F/A-22 and such continued to get billions and billions of dollars throughout the 90s. So when I hear about "military spending cuts" I think of how much the troop will do without so that civilians in suits can continue creating toys he can't use.

Click to expand...

Exactly brother. These big corporations that make the high end weapon systems ie BAE, Lockheed Martin, etc have much more pull on Capital Hill than corporations like KDH Defense Systems who make our body armor. Politicians love to talk about COIN ops and the like but don't put our money where their mouth is. We don't need new jets. Even if we went against other nations with the same gear, they still don't know how to combine arms and utilize equipment as good as us. We need to ensure ground troops are properly outfitted. Then again, that doesn't fit into the campaign strategies for most of these guys so it will never happen.
AllGov - News - What do Plastic Bags and Military Contractors Have in Common? One Congressman

MSgt said:

Actually, President Bush had already laid out the timetable to end Iraq. President Obama inherited it.

Click to expand...

Versus -

"It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it’s more than unfortunate, I think it’s tragic." — Mitt Romney

Squashed, It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our...