View Poll Results: If Syria uses WMD's on it's own people

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • the USofA should get involved militarily. Immediately.

    7 14.89%
  • the USofA should continue to stay out of it completely.

    16 34.04%
  • it's proof the USofA should have gotten involved militarily sooner.

    2 4.26%
  • it would be the UN's problem, not ours.

    11 23.40%
  • let some other coalition of countries deal with it. The US should stay out.

    6 12.77%
  • other - please explain

    5 10.64%
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Tx
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    439

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    I can honestly say I can give two rips about the middle east! I would rather watch Jersey Shore, Big and Rich in Texas with Sarah Palin. I say leave them alone. We do not need to send our troops over there for anything much less money. I know that sounds harsh but I simply have gotten tired of hearing about it. Simply put they can leave the country!

  2. #72
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    I think NK is much crazier than Iran. Iran has a civilization, they make cars, they have universities et. NK has nothing except for its few top owners. IMHO the NK people would be better off dead than the existence they have now.
    But North Korea has a regime that wants to live and stay in power. That makes them fairly predictable and predictable people are not crazy. Those religious extremists who have no problem sacrificing children to get what they want? That ain't predictable.

    Why do you think we can remove these regimes? We've tried and lost before.
    The US and its allies have the more advanced military the world has ever seen with the capacity to conventionally turn every city in Iran and North Korea to rubble given enough time. We can replace their regimes if we REALLY want to. Now, that would cost a huge amount of money and occupations would be expensive in lives and cash, but in terms of merely capacity, we can do it. Politically we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling it out, but in theory, we could do it.

    NK is bunkered and Iran is a pretty big place. Short of using nuclear weapons, a decision that would have zero support, neither country is easily defeated and can cause incalculable harm if they feel threatened.
    On this ain't easy. North Korea has nukes that it will use in the event of the regime's fall and Iran has been plastering over every major facility with the type of concrete that has crazy strength so much so that bunker busters are questionable as to their usefulness. But a conventional invasion and occupation in a form of an Iraqi invasion would work. It has absolutely zero political support, but we could do it.

    My mental capacity is just fine and I can tell you that oil is not the only or primary reason for Iraq. It certainly is no reason for Afghanistan.
    Yes, but you don't think oil is completely irrelevant to the invasion at all. Unlike some people here. Afghanistan's another story, largely because the actual organization that pulled 9/11 off did it from there.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #73
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Shhhh! Don't tell anybody I told you.

    It's all coming down to Dec 21st.

  4. #74
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    But North Korea has a regime that wants to live and stay in power. That makes them fairly predictable and predictable people are not crazy. Those religious extremists who have no problem sacrificing children to get what they want? That ain't predictable.

    •••Yes, I suppose you are right and I also suppose that religious fanatics also have a calculating side and the ones who rule through the fist of religion have a lot to lose also. So, hopefully, nobody will misbehave.

    The US and its allies have the more advanced military the world has ever seen with the capacity to conventionally turn every city in Iran and North Korea to rubble given enough time. We can replace their regimes if we REALLY want to. Now, that would cost a huge amount of money and occupations would be expensive in lives and cash, but in terms of merely capacity, we can do it. Politically we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling it out, but in theory, we could do it.

    ••• Correct. We can't use nuclear weapons not for lack of them, but because it is the way things are. The same goes for an all out assault UNLESS they demonstrably attacked us in so blatant a manner that we could even attempt to justify it to ourselves, let alone the rest of the world.

    Yes, but you don't think oil is completely irrelevant to the invasion at all. Unlike some people here. Afghanistan's another story, largely because the actual organization that pulled 9/11 off did it from there

    •••Oil was of lesser relevance in Iraq than was creating a war for profit. We import very little Iraqi oil now even less than the past. But it provided a great opportunity for looting the spoils of war (some through the US treasury) and the issuance of poorly contained contracts and of course, sales of weaponry, an American staple. For oil, we need to protect Canada, eh?





    ((my usual "I could be wrong disclaimer applies))



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But North Korea has a regime that wants to live and stay in power. That makes them fairly predictable and predictable people are not crazy. Those religious extremists who have no problem sacrificing children to get what they want? That ain't predictable.



    The US and its allies have the more advanced military the world has ever seen with the capacity to conventionally turn every city in Iran and North Korea to rubble given enough time. We can replace their regimes if we REALLY want to. Now, that would cost a huge amount of money and occupations would be expensive in lives and cash, but in terms of merely capacity, we can do it. Politically we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling it out, but in theory, we could do it.



    On this ain't easy. North Korea has nukes that it will use in the event of the regime's fall and Iran has been plastering over every major facility with the type of concrete that has crazy strength so much so that bunker busters are questionable as to their usefulness. But a conventional invasion and occupation in a form of an Iraqi invasion would work. It has absolutely zero political support, but we could do it.



    Yes, but you don't think oil is completely irrelevant to the invasion at all. Unlike some people here. Afghanistan's another story, largely because the actual organization that pulled 9/11 off did it from there.

  5. #75
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Last Seen
    10-30-15 @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    922

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    I don't think ceding the dominant position of america results from telling the Europeans or the Russians to fix the mess in Syria. But if it does, so be it. No more american deaths in these worthless countries.

    Maybe Canada would be willing to take the lead.
    Of course its ceding the dominant position.

    How about a NATO coalition with the US "leading from the rear"? The hard right surely loved that. then there's the epithets they threw at him, like "appeaser", "spineless", "enemy sympathizer", and accusations of him being a traitor. Or the flip/flop of the right about Iraqi withdrawal and the Afghanistan timetable and how obama was mismanageing "his wars".

    How he was showing a weak hand to the rest of the world and that they would take advantage of this weakness. Why all those fox analysts were having hissy fits on air about his wishy washy foreign policy and percieved reluctance to simply bomb the crap outta iran.

    Fact of the matter is, America worked hard for this position. It is why they are the dominant power, because their belligerance was tied to economic benefit for the most part. Without it, why would those that america have done wrong in the past want anything to do with them in the future?

    Oh sorry, of course, those big piles of steaming crap america has left all over the world don't stink, I forgot.

    I for one am glad that America is the world's superpower, but I am at least a realist. You don't get to the top and you don't stay on the top by not imposing your will on others to serve your best interests. that's how realpolitik works.

    Canada is'nt a superpower. We'll do our share when we think its the right thing to do, but it would be ridiculous for anyone to think we could mount any kind of major military operation half way around the world with what we have.
    My Karma ran over your Dogma.

  6. #76
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Because he's taking a calculated risk that the West won't actually do anything. Remember that Libya showed that European militaries are essentially paper tigers. Without US removal of air defense systems, the Europeans were basically helpless. Furthermore, Libya's campaign showed that European supply and resupply are incredibly shallow with European stockpiles running desperately thin early into the campaign, so faced with a defense net way more advanced then Libya and an America who frankly can't afford another round of regime change, he essentially has cover. And when faced with rebels moving into the main cities of Aleppo and Damascus, it's a risk he might just take. Make no mistake, we will likely suffer losses in the destruction of the Syrian air defense system. This isn't Serbia. Or Libya.

    Actually it seems that the US and Europe have a lot of firepower to spare. (U.S. Ships, Troops Off Syria's Coast Amid Warnings Over Chemical Weapons)

    And has been in the past (Iran propping up Syria's dwindling cash reserves – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs)
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  7. #77
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    The US does. Europe not so much. Remember, merely because you have the deliver systems on paper does not mean you can readily use them quickly or replenish munitions quickly. Japan has dozens of strike aircraft. Doesn't mean Japan is a threat to China largely because Japan has few refuelers. This is logistics. Libya showed that the Europeans were curtailing sorties simply because they ran out of munitions. And that was early on in the Libyan Adventure. European capacity to sustain even a medium term engagement is questionable. And without the US, they couldn't have done what they did in Libya. They needed us to destroy Libyan air defenses. Syria is far more defended. And the US is in the middle of a financial mess. There's a good chance that Assad could get away with it for a while. Europe's heading back into a recession and they already spend well below their NATO requirements on defense. The Europeans couldn't even do this by themselves prior to Libya. And Assad knows this.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #78
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: If Syria Uses WMD's - Should USA get involved militarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Yes, I suppose you are right and I also suppose that religious fanatics also have a calculating side and the ones who rule through the fist of religion have a lot to lose also. So, hopefully, nobody will misbehave.
    Those who want power themselves can be predicted. Those who are willing to die in the cause...that's another story.

    Correct. We can't use nuclear weapons not for lack of them, but because it is the way things are. The same goes for an all out assault UNLESS they demonstrably attacked us in so blatant a manner that we could even attempt to justify it to ourselves, let alone the rest of the world.
    They'd need to be the source of a nuclear attack to justify that. But Iran and North Korea know that on paper, the West has the capacity to end their regimes.

    Oil was of lesser relevance in Iraq than was creating a war for profit. We import very little Iraqi oil now even less than the past. But it provided a great opportunity for looting the spoils of war (some through the US treasury) and the issuance of poorly contained contracts and of course, sales of weaponry, an American staple. For oil, we need to protect Canada, eh?
    I think it was more of an attempt to break OPEC. I remember some of the Iraqi adventure people backing this. It's not a bad theory in general, but it requires that whoever ends up in charge goes against their own interests by breaking out of a system that benefits them. Like most Republican predictions on Iraq, it was wrong too.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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