Thread: Syria

Page 66 of 87 FirstFirst ...
16
56
64
65
66
67
68
76
... LastLast
  1. #1301
    So 2 years on the general consensus is still "fuck em, it's not my business"?
    Last edited by Netherspark; 2013-03-02 at 08:37 PM.

  2. #1302
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,392
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    Doesn't mean we have to commit any Military forces. I am getting fed up with being told that we are trying to police the world, fine, let the world police itself for a while. NATO should look after its own and let the African and middle eastern countries beat the living shit out of each other, as they have always done throughout history.
    Oh I don't want to commit ground forces any more than you do. I don't care *that* much about these people. I'm just saying lob a few missiles and artillery shells in from one of our gulf fleets. It's not like Assad is going to retaliate. If he did, he'd be out a couple of boats and jets, and we'd be out some ammunition.

    But to be frank, I'm not gonna lose sleep either way.

  3. #1303
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    Let me correct you. Are strangers lives worth the lives of me or my men? No.
    The higher-ups don't see it that way, sadly. At least I am never sent abroad when it comes to protecting my land, but I can completely relate to your feelings, of being sent somewhere far off, losing good people on the way, to protect people who would gladly burn your flag a day later, out of mindless hatred.

  4. #1304
    We need to make sure it goes on as long and as dramatically as possible.

    The Civil War is ironically, very, very good for US security objectives in the reason. It's acting as a attractor for regional militants to go fight the good fight, which they are doing there, and not Iraq, which not coincidentally, has completely stabilized the odd bombing aside. The more Iraqi men fighting in Syria and not Iraq, the longer time Iraq has to secure its foundation.

    But more importantly the Syrian Civil was has been a strategic catastrophe for Iran. They're losing their proxy, and are having to work very, very hard to keep him from collapsing quickly. And in the process they are losing high respected, highly experienced military leaders... leader who are having unfortunate accidents. The longer this goes, the more Iran is going to sink resources into it.

    And then of course, there is Syria itself. It's kind of ironic really. They spent years allowing and encouraging the flow of arms and men into Iraq, just to fuck with the US. And now they are surprised that men who learned how to suicide bomb a check-point in Iraq, came home and years later decided to apply those battlefield lessons against the Alawite regime they loathe? Syria traded its future on its involvement in Iraq, and now the future has demanded its due. They're going to have, even post-civil war, Iraq-level problems for decades, because the insurgency they encouraged in Iraq came home, and its going to be very hard to get those behaviors out of people.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-02 at 09:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Valort View Post
    The higher-ups don't see it that way, sadly. At least I am never sent abroad when it comes to protecting my land, but I can completely relate to your feelings, of being sent somewhere far off, losing good people on the way, to protect people who would gladly burn your flag a day later, out of mindless hatred.
    Flag burning is silly symbolism. As always we intervene or modulate our involvement because it suits our strategic goals. We will swallow hard, do crappy things and eat shit, if it means over the longer terms the benefits are substantial. Mobs of Angry lawyers in Pakistan have been burning our flag for the better part of 15 years over one reason or another, going back the the 1998/1999 India-Pakistan nuclear crisis. Are we supposed to not keep our thumb firmly on top of Pakistan and let them do what they want with their barely secured nuclear weapons because of that? Are we supposed to shun them because of their excesses? Of course not.


    That said we may put CIA and Special Forces in Syria, but not a large army. Obama is a smart man. He knows that the Middle East was yesterdays battlefield. For two years he and both his prior Secretary's of defense and Hilary Clinton have been working hard to redeploy US forces to East Asia. From moving 60% of the US Navy there to allowing US Warships to dock in New Zealand to permanent detachments of thousands of marines to Australia to the still-in-progress reopening of Clark Air Base (once the largest US Installation outside of North America)... our energy now is on building up forces in China for superpower warfare, to keep the Chinese in their cage. It isn't Dubai that is basing our B-2 Spirits, but Guam.

    To put it bluntly, we're in the business of dragonslaying now. Urban warfare in desert countries is totally for the 'aughts'. We got bigger fish to fry, and investing hundreds of billions of dollars in the Middle East security which provides 1/18th world GDP and 1/8th its population pales in comparison to investing in East Asian security, where we have partners worth a damn, and is a region with over half the world's population and over half the world's GDP.

  5. #1305
    Titan Tierbook's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    13,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Netherspark View Post
    So 2 years on the general consensus is still "fuck em, it's not my business"?
    pretty much, im of the opinion myself, i mean they are doing relatively well they just captured a provincial captiol after all
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    I'd never compare him to Hitler, Hitler was actually well educated, and by all accounts pretty intelligent.

  6. #1306
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Silk Road
    Posts
    9,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Oh I don't want to commit ground forces any more than you do. I don't care *that* much about these people. I'm just saying lob a few missiles and artillery shells in from one of our gulf fleets. It's not like Assad is going to retaliate. If he did, he'd be out a couple of boats and jets, and we'd be out some ammunition.

    But to be frank, I'm not gonna lose sleep either way.
    If Assad was going to retaliate for direct U.S. strikes on 'his' forces, I doubt he's stupid enough to send 2nd-line Soviet/Russian-equipped forces against a Carrier Battle Group. Instead, he'd just transfer some weaponry, maybe from the WMD programs Israel insists he has, to an anti-US terror group (the U.S. government assures me there are tons of those out there, just waiting to attack America).

  7. #1307
    Pit Lord Kivimetsan's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A fascistic nightmare...
    Posts
    2,448
    OP uses no real sources and just expects us to believe him.

  8. #1308
    Quote Originally Posted by Tierbook View Post
    pretty much, im of the opinion myself, i mean they are doing relatively well they just captured a provincial captiol after all
    I find it disgusting to preach this kind of mentality. Honestly, it's the epitome of "us" vs "them" tribal mentality, as if they're some subspecies. Ironically liberals and conservatives seem to agree on this point of isolationism and laissez-faire.

  9. #1309
    Quote Originally Posted by Netherspark View Post
    So 2 years on the general consensus is still "fuck em, it's not my business"?
    It isn't.

    If we intervene, they'll say "get out of our homeland you Christian heathens" and up the attacks on our civilian populations.

    If we don't intervene, they'll say "why aren't you helping us?"

    Much better for us (i.e. NATO countries) to just stay the heck out of Syria. I personally, as a civilian in a European country, wouldn't mind a bit less of the whole "in the name of anti-terrorism, you shall now be checked a second time at the airport". Although they have been reducing it over the last two years. Would be nice to watch the News without a section about a soldier that had his head blown off by an IED in Iraq/Afghanistan too.
    Last edited by Butler to Baby Sloths; 2013-03-05 at 02:27 AM.

  10. #1310
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler Log View Post
    If we intervene, they'll say "get out of our homeland you Christian heathens" and up the attacks on our civilian populations.
    Oddly enough, if we do intervene, the Syrian Christians would be fucked as they support Assad.

  11. #1311
    Scarab Lord DEATHETERNAL's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA, more fascist every day
    Posts
    4,406
    This is a fight with no side in the right. The regime is evil and the rebels are terrorists. This is not like some of the other Middle Eastern conflicts where one side was a clear lesser evil or a good to some degree, and the question was whether to support the lesser evil or marginal good, or to let both sides fight it out. The first question that must be asked for Syria is whether either side is worth intervening on behalf of. The current answer as far as I can tell is "no".

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalis View Post
    Oddly enough, if we do intervene, the Syrian Christians would be fucked as they support Assad.
    Sadly, better the devil they know than the potenial radical Islamist horde taking over and wiping them all out.
    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
    Revelation 6:8

  12. #1312
    Yeah, we would have the choice between:

    Supporting Asaad, who has committed several crimes against his people in the name of halting the "unrest"

    and

    Supporting Al'Qaeda operatives who are fighting with the same guns that shot against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who seek to depose Asaad.

  13. #1313
    Titan Tierbook's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    13,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    I find it disgusting to preach this kind of mentality. Honestly, it's the epitome of "us" vs "them" tribal mentality, as if they're some subspecies. Ironically liberals and conservatives seem to agree on this point of isolationism and laissez-faire.
    how so America fought its civil war alone... well mostly alone Great Britain kind of supported the south
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    I'd never compare him to Hitler, Hitler was actually well educated, and by all accounts pretty intelligent.

  14. #1314
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by DEATHETERNAL View Post
    Sadly, better the devil they know than the potenial radical Islamist horde taking over and wiping them all out.
    Assad has been good for the minorities in Syria, it's how his family have retained control.

  15. #1315
    Quote Originally Posted by Tierbook View Post
    how so America fought its civil war alone... well mostly alone Great Britain kind of supported the south
    We did?

    The South kept slaves, and Britain was against slavery. In fact, Britain made sure that no Slavers could cross the Atlantic. The Southern States hoped that our dependency on Cotton would make Britain support them against the North, but we realized that we could just ask our African and Asian colonies to supply us with cotton instead - thus cutting off a major source of income for the South.

  16. #1316
    Titan Tierbook's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    13,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler Log View Post
    We did?

    The South kept slaves, and Britain was against slavery. In fact, Britain made sure that no Slavers could cross the Atlantic. The Southern States hoped that our dependency on Cotton would make Britain support them against the North, but we realized that we could just ask our African and Asian colonies to supply us with cotton instead - thus cutting off a major source of income for the South.
    to a certain extent i remember of a navy ship britain supplied to the colonists complete with soldiers that way they could ship goods in and out of port with impunity, the north wouldnt attack unless they wanted a fight with Britain over the soldiers deaths.... i believe the ship was the Alabama
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    I'd never compare him to Hitler, Hitler was actually well educated, and by all accounts pretty intelligent.

  17. #1317
    Quote Originally Posted by Tierbook View Post
    to a certain extent i remember of a navy ship britain supplied to the colonists complete with soldiers that way they could ship goods in and out of port with impunity, the north wouldnt attack unless they wanted a fight with Britain over the soldiers deaths.... i believe the ship was the Alabama
    The British Navy blockaded the South.

  18. #1318
    Titan Tierbook's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    13,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler Log View Post
    The British Navy blockaded the South.
    ill concede that it wasnt a blockade runner but it was a british built ship with a majority british crew that took many prizes for the South
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    I'd never compare him to Hitler, Hitler was actually well educated, and by all accounts pretty intelligent.

  19. #1319
    Pit Lord Wiyld's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Secret Underground Lair
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    We need to make sure it goes on as long and as dramatically as possible.

    The Civil War is ironically, very, very good for US security objectives in the reason. It's acting as a attractor for regional militants to go fight the good fight, which they are doing there, and not Iraq, which not coincidentally, has completely stabilized the odd bombing aside. The more Iraqi men fighting in Syria and not Iraq, the longer time Iraq has to secure its foundation.

    But more importantly the Syrian Civil was has been a strategic catastrophe for Iran. They're losing their proxy, and are having to work very, very hard to keep him from collapsing quickly. And in the process they are losing high respected, highly experienced military leaders... leader who are having unfortunate accidents. The longer this goes, the more Iran is going to sink resources into it.

    And then of course, there is Syria itself. It's kind of ironic really. They spent years allowing and encouraging the flow of arms and men into Iraq, just to fuck with the US. And now they are surprised that men who learned how to suicide bomb a check-point in Iraq, came home and years later decided to apply those battlefield lessons against the Alawite regime they loathe? Syria traded its future on its involvement in Iraq, and now the future has demanded its due. They're going to have, even post-civil war, Iraq-level problems for decades, because the insurgency they encouraged in Iraq came home, and its going to be very hard to get those behaviors out of people.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-02 at 09:54 PM ----------



    Flag burning is silly symbolism. As always we intervene or modulate our involvement because it suits our strategic goals. We will swallow hard, do crappy things and eat shit, if it means over the longer terms the benefits are substantial. Mobs of Angry lawyers in Pakistan have been burning our flag for the better part of 15 years over one reason or another, going back the the 1998/1999 India-Pakistan nuclear crisis. Are we supposed to not keep our thumb firmly on top of Pakistan and let them do what they want with their barely secured nuclear weapons because of that? Are we supposed to shun them because of their excesses? Of course not.


    That said we may put CIA and Special Forces in Syria, but not a large army. Obama is a smart man. He knows that the Middle East was yesterdays battlefield. For two years he and both his prior Secretary's of defense and Hilary Clinton have been working hard to redeploy US forces to East Asia. From moving 60% of the US Navy there to allowing US Warships to dock in New Zealand to permanent detachments of thousands of marines to Australia to the still-in-progress reopening of Clark Air Base (once the largest US Installation outside of North America)... our energy now is on building up forces in China for superpower warfare, to keep the Chinese in their cage. It isn't Dubai that is basing our B-2 Spirits, but Guam.

    To put it bluntly, we're in the business of dragonslaying now. Urban warfare in desert countries is totally for the 'aughts'. We got bigger fish to fry, and investing hundreds of billions of dollars in the Middle East security which provides 1/18th world GDP and 1/8th its population pales in comparison to investing in East Asian security, where we have partners worth a damn, and is a region with over half the world's population and over half the world's GDP.



    This.


    The middle east is cold product at this point.

    Any American president who touches it will get freezer burn. NO ONE is going to risk becoming another GWB, and why would they, our interests have changed. We don't even get all the much oil from the middle east anymore, the years of bullshit out there have forced us to exploit other sources to an extent that they are now producing nicely. Why would we keep pounding our heads against a wall in the middle east when we can move back into the Pacific where the pickings are FAR fatter, and the natives friendlier?




    I just want to note that yes I know Syria is not in the middle east technically, its solidly located in Africa. But, the political connections it retains and the peoples who live there make it kind of 'unofficially' a part of that region.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillern View Post
    "IM LOOKING AT A THING I DONT LIKE, I HAVE THE OPTION TO GO AWAY FROM IT BUT I WILL LOOK MORE AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE THING I DONT LIKE BECAUSE I DONT LIKE IT, NO ONE IS FORCING ME TO SEARCH FOR THIS THING OR LOOK AT THIS THING OR REMAIN LOOKING AT THIS THING BUT I AM ANYWAY, ITS OFFENDS ME! ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!"
    Troof

  20. #1320
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiyld View Post
    I just want to note that yes I know Syria is not in the middle east technically, its solidly located in Africa.
    Your map is broken.

Posting Permissions

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