I suppose it was just a matter of time - U.S. military beginning review of Syria options - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34606961]Hey Europe - Why don't you take this one, for a change? America really has had enough of the 'world police' thing (even if it doesn't realize it).[/QUOTE] You mean like that time the UK and France spearheaded the Libyan Intervention? Yeah, I remember that too.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;34606272]The whole WMD and Saddam thing was just a ruse so we could have a place to draw Al-Qaeda and Mujahadeen and other ridiculous extremists out to fight us. The media may portray the Taliban as still a threat, or us being over there served no purpose, But that's not true. It's basically the only way you can fight an enemy like that, anyway. Make yourself bait, fight when attacked, repeat until satisfied It's why they're finally getting the message and moving their asses to Africa now. Syria legitimately could use some outside help. it's people are openly in a conflict[/QUOTE] There are tons of effective ways to combat an insurgency. None of them involve tanks. Iraq and Afghanistan were childish revenge at best. [editline]8th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Spooter;34607376]I hope that things can be settled with Assad abdicating (which is seriously what that guy needs to do at this point) but I wouldn't mind it one bit if we helped them like we helped Libya. Uh, yeah. We are.[/QUOTE] Had we shown up in Rwanda, we would have been on the opposing side of the UN forces. Even assuming we wanted to help, it would have been a nightmare.

[QUOTE=GunFox;34608087]There are tons of effective ways to combat an insurgency. None of them involve tanks. Iraq and Afghanistan were childish revenge at best.[/QUOTE] I'm a great believer that the honda motorbike has liberated more people globally than the tank or bomb.

[QUOTE=faze;34605194]Ugh...more war for America. [b]Time to move to Canada.[/b][/QUOTE] If people actually moved to Canada every time they said that, Canada would have a bigger population than China. Either move to Canada or stop saying this. It gets annoying. Conservatives win something? [i]"time to move to Canada!"[/i] Corporation fucks someone over? [i]"time to move to Canada!"[/i] U.S threatens someone? [i]"time to move move Canada!"[/i]

[QUOTE=Valdor;34605759]Right... because constant foreign intervention is good for the US :downs:[/QUOTE] Well yes actually. In World War I and World War II, the examples VengfulSoldier cited ([b]not[/b] "constant intervention"), foreign intervention [i]was[/i] good for the United States. In overly-simplified terms (because I really don't want to write a massive wall of informative text right now), Allied victory in the Great War allowed for us to finally establish ourselves as a serious, pro-active military power in the eyes of the rest of the world (following our victory in the Spanish-American War 20 years earlier in 1898) , and World War II allowed for us to recover from what effects of the Great Depression remained and ultimately caused us to emerge as a superpower. All acts of militarized intervention have potential. Potential to be ultimately good, bad, or something in between; ultimately progressive, detrimental, or something in between. That's precisely the reason why we must choose our battles carefully, and exercise a greater degree of carefulness whilst fighting them. Assad needs to go, the opposition groups there desperately need support, and that's how simple it is. The only remaining question is: how do we go about supporting them?

[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;34605876]just when we all thought we were out of the danger zone with the war with Iran media blitz shit, then turns out Syria was a bigger problem in reality and they may actually try to do something fuck this[/QUOTE] When was it not plain that Syria was a bigger problem? There are civilians being mown down en masse, with hospitals being shot up and victims unwilling to show their face on television. Iran is at least a full step back in terms of the cycle of dictatorship.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;34608448]Allied victory in the Great War allowed for us to finally establish ourselves as a serious, pro-active military power in the eyes of the rest of the world (following our victory in the Spanish-American War 20 years earlier in 1898)[/QUOTE] As some one outside of america. This is not true, you only have a minor footnote in Great War European history books. If anything, your involvement actually hurt your reputation. The United States refused to learn from the hard learned mistakes made by the allies in the prior years and needless amounts of your soldiers died for very little gain by using outmoded training and tactics.

[QUOTE=GunFox;34608087] Had we shown up in Rwanda, we would have been on the opposing side of the UN forces. Even assuming we wanted to help, it would have been a nightmare.[/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing, but I am just curious how we would be opposing the UN?

[QUOTE=OvB;34608404]If people actually moved to Canada every time they said that, Canada would have a bigger population than China. Either move to Canada or stop saying this. It gets annoying. Conservatives win something? [i]"time to move to Canada!"[/i] Corporation fucks someone over? [i]"time to move to Canada!"[/i] U.S threatens someone? [i]"time to move move Canada!"[/i][/QUOTE] live in canada? time to move to canada

you can say that the US can't financially support this, and you'd be partially right but that's some of the biggest bullshit i've ever heard so why did we help Libya? why do we still have troops in Afghanistan? there are people dying everyday in increasing amounts, including women and children, being killed by their own government because they want to have the same basic rights that you or i have and what is the entire world doing about it? "oh stop doing that assad" i have a better idea, how about we help the people that we always claim we're trying to help, and while we're overthrowing assad's regime we build relations with those that will take his place and in turn have another country we can trade with

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34608559]As some one outside of america. This is not true, you only have a minor footnote in Great War European history books. If anything, your involvement actually hurt your reputation. The United States refused to learn from the hard learned mistakes made by the allies in the prior years and needless amounts of your soldiers died for very little gain by using outmoded training and tactics.[/QUOTE] Oh wow, thought you meant WWII when you said Great War. Disregard that box :downs: Anyways, yes, I'm completely for US (and eventually, the UN's) involvement in Syria, it's gone on long enough and it needs to be stopped. While the legitimacy of the conflicts in Afghanistan are debatable and my views on them are not shared by the majority of Facepunch, I think I can safely assume that we all agree that military action is necessary in Syria. [editline]8th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JerryK;34609719]you can say that the US can't financially support this, and you'd be partially right but that's some of the biggest bullshit i've ever heard so why did we help Libya? why do we still have troops in Afghanistan? there are people dying everyday in increasing amounts, including women and children, being killed by their own government because they want to have the same basic rights that you or i have and what is the entire world doing about it? "oh stop doing that assad" i have a better idea, how about we help the people that we always claim we're trying to help, and while we're overthrowing assad's regime we build relations with those that will take his place and in turn have another country we can trade with[/QUOTE] Why are you not president right now

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;34605906]Actually for cheap energy and shit like that it is. You guys don't realize this but we can't be isolationist, we don't have the ability to do that.[/QUOTE] Yeah actually we can be, and we were for most of our existance (up until around the 1890s). The only reason we 'can't' is because the media, military supply, etc industries would withdraw their lobbying cash from the politicians who might otherwise oppose pointless conflicts. We can still trade and defend our own interests without being the world police.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34608559]As some one outside of america. This is not true, you only have a minor footnote in Great War European history books.[/quote] Because the significance of the United States' involvement in the war and the ultimate effects of its participation which is sustained are totally determined by what a high school history class textbook says, right? No. [QUOTE=NoDachi;34608559]If anything, your involvement actually hurt your reputation.[/quote] Towards whom, asides the members of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire; you know, the people we were fighting)? Because the Entente graciously accepted our entrance into the war and material contributions (but more significantly our personnel contributions) and accepted it again when we went with them to Russia to fight the Bolsheviks in favor of the White Movement from 1918 to 1920. [QUOTE=NoDachi;34608559]The United States refused to learn from the hard learned mistakes made by the allies in the prior years and needless amounts of your soldiers died for very little gain by using outmoded training and tactics.[/QUOTE] This is totally incorrect. We had military observers in almost every major participating nation in the war prior to our declaration of war in April 1917 that devoted as much time as they could to studying and recording various tactics and strategies employed on the battlefield by both sides as well as their effectiveness. Pretty much everyone was doing this before the war; it wasn't a new practice. Our tactics were not outdated, compared to the British and French anyway (can't say the same about the Germans, though; they had pretty much everybody outclassed). As an example, review the Battle of Chateau-Thierry in July 1918. The 2nd and 3rd Armies, supported by French and Belgian elements, caught the Germans completely by surprise because they didn't use a preparatory bombardment, something the British and French armies widely did as standard practice. They instead advanced just behind a creeping barrage before dawn, which was a tactic learned from the elite French Chasseurs Alpins (the Germans even adopted it and modified for their shock troops). The German positions were overwhelmed in just a few minutes, and the town was taken by noon. By the end of the day, we were skirmishing in the surrounding woods. Soissons was also captured. Or review Le Hamel and Canal du Nord, both of which saw us (and the Australians, in the case of Le Hamel) successfully employing combined arms tactics against the Germans. With all that in mind, I don't think I really need to cover the military's level of training at the time. Or the amount of ground we all gained. Insofar as casualties are concerned, for all our participation (4,355,000 mobilized men, of which around 70% were serving on the Western Front by the time the Armistice was signed in November 1918), though it was brief, we didn't actually take very many: 120,000 in all- of which 62,668 died from sickness related to the influenza pandemic.

[QUOTE=faze;34605282]So we're losers for not helping in Rwanda?[/QUOTE] I would support that position, yes.

A complete guide to U.S involvement based on the world's media view: U.S helps another country in need = U.S invasion of another country, U.S is the bad guy U.S doesn't help another country in need = U.S is a heartless prick that never help's those in need And that's how the world works, thanks for listening.

The US just can't win with the world :v:

I support the US and its allies supporting Syria but I am more concerned with how stable the post-revolution government in Syria will be. As we've seen in Libya and Egypt there is still a ton of in-fighting going on.

Not surprising. I seriously doubt they have any plan of [I]not[/I] engaging in military options, and in short order. Anything to expand our influence in the region after we've stirred up nonsense and probably even planted people to kick off the violence. There is not one drop of legitimacy here. Libya is evidence enough, their government is practically hemhorraging Al-Qaeda people, nobody is rushing to stop them now that we have our puppets in place in North Africa. Their country, despite our little "peace" mission that killed thousands, is still in chaos contrary to what the caballing media people will tell you, and people are obviously being murdered regularly by the new government. So, let's just invade everyone we don't like, we can just turn a blind eye to the new leaderships' behavior as long as they agree with our politics and let our corporations buy up their magically now available oil supply.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;34611825]Not surprising. I seriously doubt they have any plan of [I]not[/I] engaging in military options, and in short order. Anything to expand our influence in the region after we've stirred up nonsense and probably even planted people to kick off the violence. There is not one drop of legitimacy here. Libya is evidence enough, their government is practically hemhorraging Al-Qaeda people, nobody is rushing to stop them now that we have our puppets in place in North Africa. Their country, despite our little "peace" mission that killed thousands, is still in chaos contrary to what the caballing media people will tell you, and people are obviously being murdered regularly by the new government. So, let's just invade everyone we don't like, we can just turn a blind eye to the new leaderships' behavior as long as they agree with our politics and let our corporations buy up their magically now available oil supply.[/QUOTE] Sadly, if a country isn't killing people and can benefit our economy, we really can't complain about them. Just take a look at Saudi Arabia, they're not killing innocent people, they sell oil to us, yet we don't agree with a lot of their practices. Sometimes you have to set aside these minor differences if they don't hurt anyone.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;34611825]Not surprising. I seriously doubt they have any plan of [I]not[/I] engaging in military options, and in short order. Anything to expand our influence in the region after we've stirred up nonsense and probably even planted people to kick off the violence. There is not one drop of legitimacy here. Libya is evidence enough, their government is practically hemhorraging Al-Qaeda people, nobody is rushing to stop them now that we have our puppets in place in North Africa. Their country, despite our little "peace" mission that killed thousands, is still in chaos contrary to what the caballing media people will tell you, and people are obviously being murdered regularly by the new government. So, let's just invade everyone we don't like, we can just turn a blind eye to the new leaderships' behavior as long as they agree with our politics and let our corporations buy up their magically now available oil supply.[/QUOTE] Do you have any evidence to any of what you just said? The Syrian government is killing thousands of civilians each day, it is way beyond what currently goes on in Libya. And Saudi Arabia isnt shelling civilians city's or kidnapping and killing children, theres a big fucking difference between infighting and government orchestrated mass murder.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;34611884]Sadly, if a country isn't killing people and can benefit our economy, we really can't complain about them. Just take a look at Saudi Arabia, they're not killing innocent people, they sell oil to us, yet we don't agree with a lot of their practices. Sometimes you have to set aside these minor differences if they don't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE] Saudi Arabia is friendly with the west. The last five countries we invaded were effectively competitors (Libya was getting up there), and most of them have some kind of major resources they would be a tad reluctant to share with us. We can't have a rival who holds some influence over us, so we just have to wait for (or spark) a revolution, join the pathetic rebel cause, and blow the crap out of the loyalists because it suits us. Then we install someone who will magically not oppose us and give us oil and influence, and everyone pretends we did them a favor. Islam is not synonymous with freedom, so it's pretty well worthless to even bring up the argument that they have reforms. How about some of those "other" countries which actually had decent rights and now don't thanks to our handiwork in the region? [QUOTE=BusterBluth;34611987]Do you have any evidence to any of what you just said? The Syrian government is killing thousands of civilians each day. It is way beyond what currently goes on in Libya. And Saudi Arabia isnt shelling civilians city's or kidnapping and killing children, theres a big fucking difference between infighting and government orchestrated genocide.[/QUOTE] On hand? No, but I'm sure if I did some digging I might be able to get something useful. You're basically asking me to prove possible CIA involvement from the perspective of a citizen who has no connections. Whether I have proof isn't the point, and it's a cop out reply to avoid even acknowledging it's possible this entire thing is a gigantic setup. Again, Saudi Arabia is being buddy-buddy with us, that means they have nothing to worry about. Syria, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, ect. aren't/weren't and are conveniently being taken down one by one. Is it just a coincidence that many of these powers are more or less up-and-coming competitors, scape goats, or footholds, but not even credible threats?

[QUOTE=Jenkem;34612005]Saudi Arabia is friendly with the west. The last five countries we invaded were effectively competitors (Libya was getting up there), and most of them have some kind of major resources they would be a tad reluctant to share with us. We can't have a rival who holds some influence over us, so we just have to wait for (or spark) a revolution, join the pathetic rebel cause, and blow the crap out of the loyalists because it suits us. Then we install someone who will magically not oppose us and give us oil and influence, and everyone pretends we did them a favor. Islam is not synonymous with freedom, so it's pretty well worthless to even bring up the argument that they have reforms. How about some of those "other" countries which actually had decent rights and now don't thanks to our handiwork in the region?[/QUOTE] In what country that has had a revolution recently have we installed a puppet in? Egypt and Libya's oil production is not enough to cause the slightest competition to Saudi Arabia. And if you watch the news at all I doubt you would call Syria's revolution "pathetic" considering the government there has taken to shelling highly populated citys. But do share what other countries in the area no longer have decent rights thanks to the west.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34612181]In what country that has had a revolution recently have we installed a puppet in? Egypt and Libya's oil production is not enough to cause the slightest competition to Saudi Arabia.[/QUOTE] Why do you think I'm suggesting competition for Saudi Arabia? I'm not. [QUOTE]And if you watch the news at all[/QUOTE] Are you serious? You mean the people with an agenda who ignore things at the convenience of themselves and the government? Who would rather keep you informed on Madonna's fashion habits rather than important issues that might cause you to put corrupt things like them out of business? [QUOTE]I doubt you would call Syria's revolution "pathetic" considering the government there has taken to shelling highly populated citys. But do share what other countries in the area no longer have decent rights thanks to the west.[/QUOTE] The latest twist I'm not up to date with, explain why they're now shelling cities? Armed revolt now? Libya is an excellent example. People are regularly being hunted down and murdered, let's not even begin with what fate their last leader met with (which was of course never addressed by anyone). Sharia law is apparently making a re-appearance. I think the whole "Al-Qaeda flag waving over Benghazi court house" thing should've been a dead giveaway that the wrong people are in charge over there, in no small part due to NATO. By "pathetic" I mean relatively small rebel causes that wouldn't have gone anywhere if we hadn't blown up pretty much everything mildly threatening, or (I'm making an educated guess here) engaged our black elements. One of the most basic tentants of the US Army Special Forces is to infiltrate enemy territory and raise/train a resistance movement to fight with you, I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that we might be doing this in places where we otherwise couldn't get away with ousting someone by outright involvement.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;34612326]Why do you think I'm suggesting competition for Saudi Arabia? I'm not. Are you serious? You mean the people with an agenda who ignore things at the convenience of themselves and the government? Who would rather keep you informed on Madonna's fashion habits rather than important issues that might cause you to put corrupt things like them out of business? The latest twist I'm not up to date with, explain why they're now shelling cities? Armed revolt now? Libya is an excellent example. People are regularly being hunted down and murdered, let's not even begin with what fate their last leader met with (which was of course never addressed by anyone). Sharia law is apparently making a re-appearance. I think the whole "Al-Qaeda flag waving over Benghazi court house" thing should've been a dead giveaway that the wrong people are in charge over there, in no small part due to NATO. By "pathetic" I mean relatively small rebel causes that wouldn't have gone anywhere if we hadn't blown up pretty much everything mildly threatening, or (I'm making an educated guess here) engaged our black elements. One of the most basic tentants of the US Army Special Forces is to infiltrate enemy territory and raise/train a resistance movement to fight with you, I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that we might be doing this in places where we otherwise couldn't get away with ousting someone by outright involvement.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ef_1328692063[/url] They are shelling city's because they are trying to repress the mass protest going on. Once again perhaps look at some news source, I assure you they are not all government puppets. And when you make claims that the west has planted people to incite violence you should at least have a shred of evidence for it other than saying its possible.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34608228]I'm a great believer that the honda motorbike has liberated more people globally than the tank or bomb.[/QUOTE] I hear that motorbikes liberate nuclear scientists pretty well. :P [editline]8th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;34608683]I'm not disagreeing, but I am just curious how we would be opposing the UN?[/QUOTE] If memory serves, and it has been a long while since I looked into it, it basically boiled down to this: The US agreed with the uprising and the UN simply wanted order. Best way to restore order is to back the current power, rather than the uprising. The issue is mounds and mounds more complicated than that, but that was how it broke down at the time. In retrospect we all might have been on the same side, but at the time there was a big problem with who was "bad guy" so to speak.

[QUOTE=GunFox;34613239] The issue is mounds and mounds more complicated than that, but that was how it broke down at the time. In retrospect we all might have been on the same side, but at the time there was a big problem with who was "bad guy" so to speak.[/QUOTE] Wow, thanks for that. I had no idea it was sided that way. From what I heard, the reason that we didn't get into Rwanda was that "we had other political interests at the time."

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34608559]As some one outside of america. This is not true, you only have a minor footnote in Great War European history books. If anything, your involvement actually hurt your reputation. The United States refused to learn from the hard learned mistakes made by the allies in the prior years and needless amounts of your soldiers died for very little gain by using outmoded training and tactics.[/QUOTE] The US spearheaded attacks in Africa and France, do not try to underplay US involvement as if they did nothing.

[QUOTE=faze;34613380]Wow, thanks for that. I had no idea it was sided that way. From what I heard, the reason that we didn't get into Rwanda was that "we had other political interests at the time."[/QUOTE] That is also accurate. The truth was that we just didn't care enough. It was Africa and after Somalia we were pretty much done with the entire continent. That said, us getting involved would have been problematic anyhow, for the reasons I was pointing out in the previous post. So we didn't get involved because we were indifferent, but had we gotten involved, it doesn't mean things would have turned out any better.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34613429]The US spearheaded attacks in Africa and France, do not try to underplay US involvement as if they did nothing.[/QUOTE] I never said they didn't do anything. That would be incredibly crass with regards to all those guys who got killed or traumatized helping us. But it's an incredibly american thing to overstate america's involvement in WW1. It's funny how many people over here don't even know you fought at all.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34613429]The US spearheaded attacks in Africa and France, do not try to underplay US involvement as if they did nothing.[/QUOTE] People talk about the US getting involved late, but the truth of the matter was that the US was an unassailable industrial giant that was willing to ship virtually unlimited munitions through u-boat infested waters in order to support the war effort with little assurance that we would ever see payment. The war would have been over before it had even started had the US just totally said "nah, not giving you armaments"