Syrian opposition told to expect strikes 'within days'
74 replies, posted
[QUOTE=evilweazel;41985931]Still wouldn't justify spending american lives on a conflict that there isn't any reason for us to be in.
Either way it's mostly irrelevant if I value my soldiers lives over someone in Syria. I very much doubt that we'd use anything that would put people in any high risk situations. Missile strikes against wherever whatever side is storing chemical weapons are fine with me, getting our guys killed in a conflict that we shouldn't even be in is a huge waste of lives.[/QUOTE]
Conflict is always a waste of lives. You just gotta weigh up the short term with the long term to figure if the waste is more wasteful to waste now, or slowly waste later. Lives matter the same no matter where they're from (except if it's Sweden), and at least U.S. servicefolk signed up for getting theirs thrown into the line of fire. The Syrians just live there.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;41985896]They have signed up during a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, conflicts more than half a world a away. I'm damn sure every service member from the infantryman to the pilot are aware that their tour of duty is going to be placed in the Mid-East.[/QUOTE]
They probably signed up because most of those areas are, arguably of course, relevant to the US's security. A Civil War in Syria with bad people on both sides isn't something they should even be considering putting our guys into.
Targeting chemical weapons sites with missiles is fine, like I said, just saying I don't think it's worth the time, money, or lives for our servicemen to fight a war completely irrelevant to us. Either way, our boots on the ground isn't going to happen unless Washington wants literally no one to like them for the next decade.
[QUOTE=Widgeon;41985131]Or B1...
[thumb] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/B-1B_over_the_pacific_ocean.jpg [/thumb]
Either way I don't think the US should get involved in this shit...[/QUOTE]
"Get involved" That's a light way of putting it. The western military/banking/oil machine (Saudi-arabia, Isreal, USA, allies) is trying everything in their power to "Get Involved".
[QUOTE=Wreckles;41985999]"Get involved" That's a light way of putting it. The western military/banking/oil machine (Saudi-arabia, Isreal, USA, allies) is trying everything in their power to "Get Involved".[/QUOTE]
Not this again
[QUOTE=Saxon;41986074]Not this again[/QUOTE]Is it just me, or have a whole bunch of them registered recently?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;41986099]Is it just me, or have a whole bunch of them registered recently?[/QUOTE]
Maybe some conspiracy website is referring them to us.
[QUOTE=Tureis;41986117]Maybe some conspiracy website is referring them to us.[/QUOTE]
Maybe the global banking elite sent them here to make bad posts and discredit conspiracy theorists
So lets see here, judging from the previous statements of various countries, it could go down something like this;
US/NATO strikes Syria
Syria retaliates and Strikes Israel
Israel Strikes Syria Again
Iran and Lebanon Strike Israel
After this all hell breaks loose
Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Russia, China and Israel are all sucked up into the conflict along with various western countries.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41986187]So lets see here, judging from the previous statements of various countries, it could go down something like this;
US/NATO strikes Syria
Syria retaliates and Strikes Israel
Israel Strikes Syria Again
Iran and Lebanon Strike Israel
After this all hell breaks loose
Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Russia, China and Israel are all sucked up into the conflict along with various western countries.[/QUOTE]
Wow dude you're the next Tom Clancy
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41986187]So lets see here, judging from the previous statements of various countries, it could go down something like this;
US/NATO strikes Syria
Syria retaliates and strikes Israel
Israel works their jew-fu and wipes the floor with the entire middle-east at once, still manages to keep Sabbath sacret[/QUOTE]
Fixed. You clearly don't know about Israel's military history.
I think something like this is more likely
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE[/media]
[QUOTE=Riller;41986217]Fixed. You clearly don't know about Israel's military history.[/QUOTE]
From what I gather, they have the same problem as France: Very competent with a great record, but they slipped and fell on their faces [I]one time[/I], and now no one will ever let them live it down.
[QUOTE=TurboSax;41986307]From what I gather, they have the same problem as France: Very competent with a great record, but they slipped and fell on their faces [I]one time[/I], and now no one will ever let them live it down.[/QUOTE]
When did Israel slip and fall on their faces?
[QUOTE=smurfy;41986401]When did Israel slip and fall on their faces?[/QUOTE]
2006 counts I guess.
[QUOTE=smurfy;41986401]When did Israel slip and fall on their faces?[/QUOTE]
1973
Won militarily, lost politically.
[QUOTE=Widgeon;41985131]Or B1...
[thumb] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/B-1B_over_the_pacific_ocean.jpg [/thumb]
[/quote]
[t]http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/B-52-3.jpg[/t]
B52 > all. The B52 can actually use lesser bombers [i]as bombs[/i]. [quote]
Either way I don't think the US should get involved in this shit...[/QUOTE]
I wholeheartedly agree. But if we absolutely must, just launch a few B52s from airbases stateside. No need to deploy even a single footsoldier.
According to NBC it will happen as early as thursday.
[url]http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite[/url]
[QUOTE=Riller;41985791]This fuckin' stance... How are the lives of American service men and women who voulenteer to get into potential danger worth more than Syrian children who just get their asses gassed?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Riller;41985852]They knew damn well that there was no direct threat to the U.S. as a nation when they signed up, and as such, they'd be doing 'world police' tasks like this.[/QUOTE]Riller, I think you're a cool guy and everything, but statements like this really piss me off. Americans have been getting shit about the whole "world police" thing for a long time, and we've been criticized for propping up bad people who seemed like the lesser of two evils [i]all the time.[/i] Then, when we don't want to get involved in another war and just want our military to leave people the fuck alone, and for our country to mind it's own business, we get criticized for it. A massive majority of this criticism comes from people from other first-world countries, such as yours, and we're labeled as either ignorant war mongers or ignorant and arrogant. Not that you're doing this right now, but it happens a lot.
Why are we supposed to be the supreme dictator of the world anyway? Why does the USN have to carry the burden? Like BANNED USER said, there's a whole list of countries who have navies that can launch cruise missiles, why are we "the one" to restore order to the world? I think we've repaid our debt for getting involved when Europe and the world needed us, I think we've actually gone beyond that. We've gotten involved in some [i]really[/i] stupid conflicts, and we've dragged other countries along for the ride. Why again? Why do we have to constantly find our country injected into other people's affairs when we have absolutely no right to be involved?
How exactly will Assad respond to this?
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;41991926]How exactly will Assad respond to this?[/QUOTE]
by probably doing nothing. It's his only chance of survival. If they no fly zone him though he might strike cause a no fly zone will kill his army.
Believe me, Obama does not want to do this either. He just knows that he would never hear the end of it if he went back on his word to intervene if the Syrian government ever used Chemical Weapons.
I bet he is crossing his fingers that the UN inspectors will find nothing. He is not dumb enough to go in with no evidence and not crazy enough to want to except out of a sense of obligation.
So I suppose we can blame Obama for calling Chemical Weapons the red line, but I would put more blame on Assad, who may have potentially used chemical weapons on HIS OWN PEOPLE.
It's good that they are going to intervene now, but hundreds if not thousands have already died from the chemical weapons, so they left it quite late.
As much as some of you like to think that it's 'not our problem', it is our problem. Not ours per se (is that the right term to use?), but it is definitely an international problem. Thousands of Syrians have already fled Syria seeking refuge in other countries. I believe some have fled to Turkey, a member of NATO. The conflict has also become an arena for combatants across the immediate region, such as Hezbollah from Lebanon. It would be unreasonable to expect just the US to involve themselves in this, but I reckon a coalition of nations such as the NATO would be justified in intervening in the conflict.
[QUOTE=person11;41992446]Believe me, Obama does not want to do this either. He just knows that he would never hear the end of it if he went back on his word to intervene if the Syrian government ever used Chemical Weapons.
I bet he is crossing his fingers that the UN inspectors will find nothing. He is not dumb enough to go in with no evidence and not crazy enough to want to except out of a sense of obligation.
So I suppose we can blame Obama for calling Chemical Weapons the red line, but I would put more blame on Assad, who may have potentially used chemical weapons on HIS OWN PEOPLE.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand - he doesn't exactly have to worry about reelection.
I am actually happy about this mobilization of arms: responding to threats quickly lends more legitimacy. People do not want to go because of how much things have devolved in the last few years. If we had gone immediately, the action would have been more legitimate.
If we went to Iraq after Saddam's genocide, we would have been heroes. Instead we did nothing and waited until we had to come up with a shitty and fake excuse to go find oil.
[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;41992476]On the other hand - he doesn't exactly have to worry about reelection.[/QUOTE]
I am sure he is worrying about his diplomatic credibility. Would other nations trust his word as much if he went back on his commitment? Diplomatic credibility is extremely important, and may be beyond reelection worries or local popularity.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;41991771]Riller, I think you're a cool guy and everything, but statements like this really piss me off. Americans have been getting shit about the whole "world police" thing for a long time, and we've been criticized for propping up bad people who seemed like the lesser of two evils [i]all the time.[/i] Then, when we don't want to get involved in another war and just want our military to leave people the fuck alone, and for our country to mind it's own business, we get criticized for it. A massive majority of this criticism comes from people from other first-world countries, such as yours, and we're labeled as either ignorant war mongers or ignorant and arrogant. Not that you're doing this right now, but it happens a lot.
Why are we supposed to be the supreme dictator of the world anyway? Why does the USN have to carry the burden? Like BANNED USER said, there's a whole list of countries who have navies that can launch cruise missiles, why are we "the one" to restore order to the world? I think we've repaid our debt for getting involved when Europe and the world needed us, I think we've actually gone beyond that. We've gotten involved in some [i]really[/i] stupid conflicts, and we've dragged other countries along for the ride. Why again? Why do we have to constantly find our country injected into other people's affairs when we have absolutely no right to be involved?[/QUOTE]
Let the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest load. The US are not the only ones who are going to fight. They weren't in Libya. They weren't in Afghanistan. They weren't in Iraq. They weren't in the Balkans. Both France and the UK are already within striking distance and ready and willing, and several sources say Denmark have prepared our F-16s for moving. The reason I refer to the US is size and firepower. Denmark is mobilizing all we got available, but all we got available is still only 6 light strike aircraft, because Denmark is fuckin' [I]Denmark[/I] and kinda tiny; with no carriers or airbases in the area to operate from, so we have to borrow facilities from; you guessed it; most likely the US. The well-being of the people all over the globe is not the US's responsibility, it's everyone's responsibility. US just happens to have the hard tools to enforce the international laws much more so than anyone else.
I don't think the NATO World Police is a bad thing, either. I think Iraq was a bad thing, and Afghanistan is kinda stuck in the mud; but if you look at stuff like Libya or the Balkans, world policing in the form of precision bombing while you let local forces do the ground fighting has been [I]hugely[/I] effective at stopping genocides and assorted war crimes, and both of those places are on the rise without the need of a heavy, expensive NATO presence for 20 years to come.
Maybe I missed something important, But has it even been confirmed that it was indeed Assad's forces who used the chemical weapons?
[QUOTE=KriegsMar1ne;41993212]Maybe I missed something important, But has it even been confirmed that it was indeed Assad's forces who used the chemical weapons?[/QUOTE]
nope
[QUOTE=laserguided;41993216]nope[/QUOTE]
Great
[QUOTE=laserguided;41993216]nope[/QUOTE]
Snooped phone conversations between Syrian DOD and an aparently rouge unit of the Syrian military indicate that it was, however.
[QUOTE=Riller;41993321]Snooped phone conversations between Syrian DOD and an aparently rouge unit of the Syrian military indicate that it was, however.[/QUOTE]
Reaks of bullshit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.