Should America deploy troops to Syria?

MarineTpartier said:

Let em kill each other. Nukes can't reach us.

Click to expand...

As long as we need their oil to burn in our cars we'll be stuck with them.

MarineTpartier said:

Let em kill each other. Nukes can't reach us.

Click to expand...

No. They can just wipe out millions of lives and destroy the global economy, along with our own.

Oh, and the theory that there will be no spill-over? That no one will attempt to show to everyone else in the Region that they are the Big Dog by walking up to the biggest kid on the global block (us) and punching us square in the jaw?

Yeah. That theory is going to be disappointed.

Boo Radley said:

As DHN points out, Europe largely did sort it out.

Click to expand...

After centuries of attempts to wipe each other out. Not "beat" each other - but cause the other populace to cease to exist. You may want to research the history of the religious wars in Europe before you consign another people to that fate.

:roll: amazing how many people are "anti war" when the US does it because of the "suffering" it will produce, yet are so willing to condemn entire populaces of millions of innocent people to whirling chaos, horror, and genocide so long as they think they can save a buck or two.

what kind of moral idiot thinks that the US efforts in Iraq were cruel, but the Syrian government's actions at current are "just them working it out" and therefore internationally acceptable?

MoSurveyor said:

As long as we need their oil to burn in our cars we'll be stuck with them.

Click to expand...

Oil is below ground. Won't be affected by the nuclear fallout. We can tap into our oil reserves until the area is decon'd and then go in and take the oil. I mean, seriously, who is going to want that land after it gets nuked? And who would have the money and technology besides us and China to go in and take it in a post-nuclear blast environment? Or, to be diplomatic, we can offer humanitarian aid in exchange for premium oil rates.

Dittohead not! said:

If we were to just allow the people of the Middle East to sort out their own political boundaries and governments the way Europe did over hundreds of years, would it ever become peaceful? Would it take hundreds of years there, too? Would there have to be the equivalent of WWI and WWII to sort things out?

I wonder.

Click to expand...

I believe it is inevitable. "Stabilty," as we knew it during the Cold War, was an illusion. People who criticized taking out Saddam Hussein pointed out the instability it would cause, which is why we prescribed starvation and maintained his throne since the Gulf War. But as this Arab Spring has proven, the people are going to eventually erupt against their oppressions no matter what. Ancient frictions between tribes are very much alive today as they were since the Shia split from the Sunni. The only thing that kept this friction hidden was the dictator who favored either side. But this also created a region that bred religious terror as an option to express political thought and change.

I believe that the longer the Middle East took to jump on the right path (the same path we all took), the worse it was going to be. I say this because we can look at the events and turmoil that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall and led up to 9/11. It is very argueable that our retaliation upon Afghanistan and later execution of the Iraq experiment shoved this region in the right direction until Arabs everywhere finally did for themselves. Perhaps we caught this mess in time and Arabs have been able to alter the course their civilization was on. But one thing is sure, if we were to re-draw these borders in accordance to tribe (like it is everywhere in Europe and Asia - given that Korea is still cut in half), nobody would recognize the Middle East.

There's also the idea that nationalism (introduced by Nasser) may help to persuade most Arabs against changing borders. The strongest nations when it comes to identity are Egypt, Iran, and Turkey. This is because they are the only countries with a real history prior to Islam. There's plenty of pride within the populations that built pyramids and belonged to the Ottoman and Persian Empire. It's the rest of the region that doesn't have an identity other than a colonized version of the Sunni Tribe from the Arabian desert.

Dittohead not! said:

The difference is that Europeans were fighting with swords and muskets, not with nuclear missiles and automatic weapons. The other difference is that they were left alone to sort it out on their own.

Click to expand...

Yes. Big difference. Modernization and globalism has attached all regions and nations together. We are tethered. A crisis in Sudan that forces refugees into neighboring Chad will cause a burden on a trading partner who is now spendng more energy on borders than the business. A flu in China will cause vaccinations to be dispensed in Europe and America. And if there actually was huge break out that crossed borders, this would affect economies and trades. Nuclear weapons will not just harm a single territory in a single nation. The fall out will affect others. For all these knds of threats, we are engaged all over the world whether we talk of diplomacy, corporation, or conflict.

The Middle East is sorting itself out whether we want them to or not. The entire Cold War in the Middle East was about maintaining our idea of stability. This will no longer due. We simply can't get away with the simple temporary fixes anymore. How much stability did Napoleon or Hitler bring to Europe? Perhaps what the Middle East has going for it is a very powerful U.S. that can guide it down this path as painlessly as possible. And given the current era and the example of Saddam Hussein in 1991, no winner of any Muslim election is going to seek to cross borders and cause global reaction. Most of this change is going to be internal and since the people's leaders are going to have to provide for their people, they will have to play by our rules. We, after all, are the economic power and the string pullers. If they want UN legitimacy and global trades with the West and safe passage through internatinal waterways, they will shake our hands. The whole "Great Satan" excuse for their civilization's failures will begin to go away as soon as the people are taking responsibility for their own desitines through ballots. Even the Muslim Brotherhood has learned that real power comes from being loved and wanted by the people.

cpwill said:

No. They can just wipe out millions of lives and destroy the global economy, along with our own.

Oh, and the theory that there will be no spill-over? That no one will attempt to show to everyone else in the Region that they are the Big Dog by walking up to the biggest kid on the global block (us) and punching us square in the jaw?

Yeah. That theory is going to be disappointed.

Click to expand...

Unlike RINO lemmings, I have an idea of why we never tap the oil we have in Alaska and off of our coasts. One day, the Middle East is going to implode. No matter what we do. We can intervene all we want, we can try to patch it up, we can place sanctions on nations, it won't matter. Eventually, we aren't going to be able to control the level of fanaticism and zealotry that is organic to that region. When that happens, we will have enough oil on our soil in in strategic reserves to fuel our country. Yes, it will suck for us. It will require all of us to cut back on usage, car pool, and maybe even ration gas. Also, the entire region will not go into a tailspin if Iran, for instance, decides to nuke someone. They are just as dependant on us and we are on them.
I don't believe anyone over there is going to be punching us in the jaw. Name a nation that is even capable of it? None of them can reach us with a nuke, none of them has anywhere close to the military power required to leave their borders and execute any kind of assault against us, so who's it going to be? We're talking Middle East here. Not China.

Boo Radley said:

I also see no political correctness involved in calling people what they were. We were not always just in our actions, even in WWII. We kidnaped Japanese peoples from other countries, not soldiers, but civilians, for example, and kept them prisoner, using them as barganing chips. Held them in Iowa.

But I digress. The point was they were not, factually, the people we were fighting.

Click to expand...

Of course it's political correctness. We don't want Germans to feel bad so we separate them from what must have simply been non-German Nazis. We talk about Nazis as if they weren't Germans nor supported by the mass German population. We can't even state that our enemies are Muslims because people seem to want them to be separated from the Muslim civilization. Everything seems to have to come with a disclaimer so as not to offend. Perhaps this is part of the reason we haven't had an enemy unconditionally surrender since the end of World War II. Our quest to civilize war by "winning hearts and minds" and separating the nails from the hammers allows much of the guilty to escape. Hence the carved in half Korea, lost Vietnam, fractured Iraqi population, Croation/Bosnian/Serbian pause, etc.

Boo Radley said:

You are correct that some nations were not invited, and that they don't exactly see our law as theirs. That's a little problem. Us not following the laws we agreed to? That's a larger problem.

Click to expand...

It's only a big problem if we decide to point it out. Nobody really seemed to care when Clinton became the first President to defy the UN and send troops to sort out Bosnia. In regards to Kosovo, the UN called it an illegal act conducted by the French and the U.S. It was't until we focused on the belligerent thorn in the Middle East that people seemed to really care. It's true that most of the world complained largely because the U.S. has proven to be able to do whatever it wants without permission. Considering history, it is understandable because the rest of the world has proven to not be ablt o handle its power. But we are the first of any empire to actually prove that can be responsible with our power. After all, we didn't seek to colonize the world, start World Wars or Cold Wars. Being the only nation to drop atomic bombs, we have proven to even be responsible with this power by refusing to use them again and to monitor the rest of the world. But another truth is that while people were chanting "No War For Oil," they should have also been chanting "Continued Starvation For Oil." Under their chants, they still wanted their gasoline. They just didn't want to have to hear about it.

The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the laws we agreed to right after World War II does not reflect the modern globalized world today. The end of World War I saw us create the League of Nations for peace. They failed. The end of world War II saw us create the United Nations. This time we stuck around to enforce the idea of peace through stability. But after the Cold War we saw no reason to recognize the emerged democratic world? Since World War I, the world had seen over 130 democracies created and by the end of the century Democracy won. The Age of Ideaology and all the "isms" that wrecked the world lost. We saw no cause to create an organization that not only catered to stability, but rewarded Democracies? What we did, instead, was fal to recognize the world we created and we continued to adhere to international laws that reward the dictator for his ability to maintain stability. America did lead this. You have got to at least acknowledge that. And today, almost the entire Middle East is seeking exactly what the West and even Israel has been doing for itself. They seek what has proven to work. The world's stubborn reliance on these ancient laws is like the 21st century surgeon demanding to operate with 17th century tools. Whether all Americans agree with Bush or not, they all have to be able to see the very real changing of eras and the very real historical turn we are in right now.

Boo Radley said:

That is us not following the rules we created and agreed to, and hold other nations to (remember Iraq invading Kuwait as an example?). This speaks poorly on on us. First, we should remove the plank fromour eye, and then we can address the rest of the world. They might move further ahead without our interfernece than they have with it. As DHN points out, Europe largely did sort it out.

Click to expand...

But it sucked the world into it. Perhaps our goal should be to help the Middle East sort itself out without needing the European recipe.

MSgt said:

Of course it's political correctness. We don't want Germans to feel bad so we separate them from what must have simply been non-German Nazis. We talk about Nazis as if they weren't Germans nor supported by the mass German population. We can't even state that our enemies are Muslims because people seem to want them to be separated from the Muslim civilization. Everything seems to have to come with a disclaimer so as not to offend. Perhaps this is part of the reason we haven't had an enemy unconditionally surrender since the end of World War II. Our quest to civilize war by "winning hearts and minds" and separating the nails from the hammers allows much of the guilty to escape. Hence the carved in half Korea, lost Vietnam, fractured Iraqi population, Croation/Bosnian/Serbian pause, etc.

Click to expand...

I've never heard anyone present it this way. I think some overuse the temr political correctness. Perhpas it is more an effort to be accurate. Everyday people are both responsible (party to what went wrong) and detacted as they had more worries than what the government was doing. It is not that our enimies are muslims that is what is often disputed. It is that all muslims are our enemy. There is a proper distinction there. MY enemy may use a child, but all children are not my enemy. The trouble with grouping is that they are nto all inclusive.

The disclaimer is to be accurate. Those shouting poitical correctness seem to me to be the ones havig the political correctness issue.

Still, I would look at history from a different vantage point if I were you. You have the facts right, as most do, but misinterpret, as many do. Germany had an army. Was a declared war. Made things simplier and more direct. Since then we've done police actions, had no rationale that would carry us to a conclusion, and fought enemies less defined, and more the entire populas. Hell, today, there isn't even a body that can surrender. The msitake is in us, but not in political correctness. It is in fighting ill defined conflicts against vague enemies. USing the hammer instead of the scalpel. A poor way to do surgery.

It's only a big problem if we decide to point it out. Nobody really seemed to care when Clinton became the first President to defy the UN and send troops to sort out Bosnia. In regards to Kosovo, the UN called it an illegal act conducted by the French and the U.S. It was't until we focused on the belligerent thorn in the Middle East that people seemed to really care. It's true that most of the world complained largely because the U.S. has proven to be able to do whatever it wants without permission. Considering history, it is understandable because the rest of the world has proven to not be ablt o handle its power. But we are the first of any empire to actually prove that can be responsible with our power. After all, we didn't seek to colonize the world, start World Wars or Cold Wars. Being the only nation to drop atomic bombs, we have proven to even be responsible with this power by refusing to use them again and to monitor the rest of the world. But another truth is that while people were chanting "No War For Oil," they should have also been chanting "Continued Starvation For Oil." Under their chants, they still wanted their gasoline. They just didn't want to have to hear about it.

The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the laws we agreed to right after World War II does not reflect the modern globalized world today. The end of World War I saw us create the League of Nations for peace. They failed. The end of world War II saw us create the United Nations. This time we stuck around to enforce the idea of peace through stability. But after the Cold War we saw no reason to recognize the emerged democratic world? Since World War I, the world had seen over 130 democracies created and by the end of the century Democracy won. The Age of Ideaology and all the "isms" that wrecked the world lost. We saw no cause to create an organization that not only catered to stability, but rewarded Democracies? What we did, instead, was fal to recognize the world we created and we continued to adhere to international laws that reward the dictator for his ability to maintain stability. America did lead this. You have got to at least acknowledge that. And today, almost the entire Middle East is seeking exactly what the West and even Israel has been doing for itself. They seek what has proven to work. The world's stubborn reliance on these ancient laws is like the 21st century surgeon demanding to operate with 17th century tools. Whether all Americans agree with Bush or not, they all have to be able to see the very real changing of eras and the very real historical turn we are in right now.

Click to expand...

You make another mistake here. Many of us opposed Bosnia, though the rationale for it was more tolerable. We still opposed it. The ones being consistent are those of us who opposed it and still oppsed this action. Many in the military opposed Bosnia as well, but somehow managed to find justification for Iraq, a far less reasonable course of action.

And if the laws don't apply (convienent), than do what all law abiding people do, work to change the law. Don't break it. Don't ignore it. Make things that are right are sometimes hard to tolerate. Every listen to the reverand Phelps for example? He makes supporting free speech dificult to say the least. But I would not abandon the concept because he absues the right. That road leads us to palces we really don't want to go. And so does ignoring rule of law when it suits us.

But it sucked the world into it. Perhaps our goal should be to help the Middle East sort itself out without needing the European recipe.

Click to expand...

Sucked us? We were there all along. Us being their, interfering, supporting bad actors, that is what cost us.

MarineTpartier said:

Oil is below ground. Won't be affected by the nuclear fallout. We can tap into our oil reserves until the area is decon'd and then go in and take the oil. I mean, seriously, who is going to want that land after it gets nuked? And who would have the money and technology besides us and China to go in and take it in a post-nuclear blast environment? Or, to be diplomatic, we can offer humanitarian aid in exchange for premium oil rates.

Click to expand...

We're not talking about a leak in a containment vessel like in Japan. Considering dust particles from Saharan sand storms regularly make it to the US it wouldn't surprise me if fallout from a Mideast nuclear war made it here, too. If nukes start going off it's not going to be a localized effect and it's not going to be easily "decon'd", either.

MoSurveyor said:

We're not talking about a leak in a containment vessel like in Japan. Considering dust particles from Saharan sand storms regularly make it to the US it wouldn't surprise me if fallout from a Mideast nuclear war made it here, too. If nukes start going off it's not going to be a localized effect and it's not going to be easily "decon'd", either.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the ease with which a nuclear device could be brought to the US by boat or plane and set off in one of our big cities, say, Los Angeles harbor, for example, or up the Hudson in a small boat.

Dittohead not! said:

Not to mention the ease with which a nuclear device could be brought to the US by boat or plane and set off in one of our big cities, say, Los Angeles harbor, for example, or up the Hudson in a small boat.

Click to expand...

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were rebuilt.....some of this contamination hype is overdone...

MoSurveyor said:

We're not talking about a leak in a containment vessel like in Japan. Considering dust particles from Saharan sand storms regularly make it to the US it wouldn't surprise me if fallout from a Mideast nuclear war made it here, too. If nukes start going off it's not going to be a localized effect and it's not going to be easily "decon'd", either.

Click to expand...

The Sahara is a lot closer to us than the Middle East. I've been to both. The difference in flight time is huge.
I believe nukes would be localized for a few reasons. The most likely nations to use them right now would be North Korea and Iran (when they get it). Pakistan would not use their nukes because it's the only thing they can hold over India's head right now. As a matter of fact, all nations realize that possessing nukes brings them power that using them never could. No nation (besides the two mentioned IMO) is going to use a nuke unless it's in response to another nuke.

MarineTpartier said:

...As a matter of fact, all nations realize that possessing nukes brings them power that using them never could. No nation (besides the two mentioned IMO) is going to use a nuke unless it's in response to another nuke.

Click to expand...

M.A.D theory at it's best.

UtahBill said:

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were rebuilt.....some of this contamination hype is overdone...

Click to expand...

Un... sure. and I'm sure we could rebuild New York and Los Angeles as well, eventually.

Dittohead not! said:

Un... sure. and I'm sure we could rebuild New York and Los Angeles as well, eventually.

Click to expand...

How's New Orleans doing after 7 years? And that was just a massive flood that left a lot of things more or less intact.

MSgt said:

The idea that "cutting defense spending" is going to be well thought out is criminal. It will be as it always is. The troop will suffer, while state business continue getting checks cut.

Click to expand...

As I said, if you want to increase spending and the funds to pay for it, Romney is your man.


Romney wants defense spending to be much, much higher. The public doesn’t. - The Washington Post

differentDEM said:

Republicans and Neo Cons... YOU are destroying this country with YOUR wars! The Dollar is almost a garbage currency because of YOUR war debts. Thats right... war debt. Enough already! How many people and cultures do you have to destroy before you are satisfied?!

Click to expand...

Some forget the goals of Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and continue to try to fulfill their prophecy:

"In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said.

In other words, the goal was not to defeat America in battle. The goal was not to bleed American resolve on the battlefield. The entire purpose of Al Qaeda’s attacks on America was to bleed America’s economy dry. By that standard, even in death, Bin Laden has clearly won."

Even in Death, Did Osama Bin Laden Win? - Forbes

Kane said:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper activates ‘Operation Mockingbird’ in Egypt


CNN’s Anderson Cooper activates ‘Operation Mockingbird’ in Egypt « 21st Century Wire

"Smelled any proverbial rats lately? If not, you have not been paying attention. There are plenty about."

"Consider, for instance, this:

“Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now” and “must step aside …” Hilary Clinton (Asia Times, February 9, 2012)


“I strongly condemn the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault … and I offer my deepest sympathy to those who have lost loved ones. Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside …” said President Barack Hussein Obama.

Yet responsibility for US victims, in their hundreds of thousands, spanning Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, are wholly unaccountable — and uncounted.“

Syria: Rogue Elements Rampant | Dissident Voice

Amnesty International Propaganda Targets Russia & Syria - BlackListedNews.com

US Attempting to Trigger Color Revolution in Pakistan - BlackListedNews.com

Click to expand...

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

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...

Thunder said:

whatreallyhappened.com???

seriously?

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

Click to expand...

That story is true. There were no concentration camps in Bosnia or Serbia.

Absolutely not - I think the idea of sending troops to Syria is deplorable. Based on the fantastic work done with bringing democracy and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan (sarcasm), American troops in Syria would be a disaster there and bring about more Islamists because America would be invading a third Muslim nation, and under Islam that is justification for retaliation.

No, let the UN or other nations deal with Syria. We don't need to be spending money on another war that doesn't impact us.

Catawba said:

Some forget the goals of Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and continue to try to fulfill their prophecy:

"In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said.

In other words, the goal was not to defeat America in battle. The goal was not to bleed American resolve on the battlefield. The entire purpose of Al Qaeda’s attacks on America was to bleed America’s economy dry. By that standard, even in death, Bin Laden has clearly won."

Even in Death, Did Osama Bin Laden Win? - Forbes

Click to expand...

The plan to destbilize Syria comes from Clean Break Strategy in Israel circa 1998.

wow, looks like liberals and conservatives and moderates all agree on something see theres hope...

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060418408 said:

And pay handsomely. If another country wants the help of the US military then let their citizens pay for it. I'm tired of ours always having to foot the bill.

Click to expand...

Yes -- let's rent our military out to the highest bidder. :roll:

Further, the benefits we derive from being a global superpower far outweigh the costs -- and the costs associated with military deployment we ultimately get back in some form of economic benefit.

NolaMan said:

Yes -- let's rent our military out to the highest bidder. :roll:

Click to expand...

That's what we did in Iraq. After 35 years of exile, Big oil is now free to return to Iraq thanks to the US military!!!

Catawba said:

That's what we did in Iraq. After 35 years of exile, Big oil is now free to return to Iraq thanks to the US military!!!

Click to expand...

Is that why the Chinese got the first big oil contracts out of Iraq? :roll:

That aside -- we did not invade Iraq because of oil.