• U.S. preps for possible cruise missile attack on Syrian gov't forces
    54 replies, posted
Russia is gonna be pissed.
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;41946985]INB4 U.S. intervenes and puts the wrong people into power like they did during the Iranian revolution. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Meme reply" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] good job knowing nothing about iranian history. there's a difference between the 1953 coup - orchestrated by the cia - and the 1979 revolution.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41947091]The way they call it a 'cruise missile attack' makes me think they'll fire one of them and call it a day[/QUOTE] They're pretty damn accurate, and make quite a splash in the swimming pool. A few well placed cruise missiles would really undermine the regime/make it harder for Assad to communicate with his forces.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;41947130]What absolute horseshit. Yeah great okay everyone sat by too long and now there isn't one clear side to throw our unlimited support behind and create democracy and happiness and Jesus, on the other hand thousands of people continue to die at the hands of both sides. At the very least use some of those peacekeepers we hear so much about and try to stop the fighting and the massacres while we attempt to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict, rather than standing around and going "Oh wow that's too bad but we shouldn't help because of ~~~extremists~~~"[/QUOTE] The problem is that if we actually wanted to stabilize the region we would have to support Syrian Government. If we let the rebels win then in all likelihood it would end up with Syria under control of a weak government with various parties vying for power (the Syrian rebels are not united at all). It could potentially turn into a bunch of former rebel groups fighting to establish a new government and prolonging the conflict.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41947597]Do we have any cruise missiles left after shooting them all at Libya?[/QUOTE] The ones they used in Libya are the old declassified type tomahawks everyone knows about, trust me they have thousands in stockpiles all costing a very pretty penny. The ones that are way more advanced and deadly. The ones they use for these types of missions are just the ones they would use for training to purge the supply in the long run. They are still accurate and deadly as hell, with the rebel forces on the ground wouldn't take much to destroy the govt power base and infrastructure just enough to shift things in their favor.
no usa stop
Stop, no, [B]FUCKING STOP.[/B]
Is it fair that Syria would launch missiles at Israel's WMD's in response since they would probably help enable such a strike?
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;41947777]Why don't we [I]take[/I] Syria, and [B]push[/B] it somewhere else[/QUOTE] that could be said about a lot of places/people
I fucking love the U.S.A., for every good and bad thing that you consist of.
Usa if you don't stop being annoying you will be downgraded back to a colony
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa5k1fga7ew[/media]
[QUOTE='[sluggo];41947383']Every time we have a conflict the US is 75% of it. Peacekeepers don't do anything either. If someone is nerve gassing his own people do you think a couple UN guys saying no will do anything to deter him?[/QUOTE] you literally know nothing about the history of UN peacekeeping do you and incidentally, don't talk shit about peacekeepers when the US provides less manpower to the UN peacekeeping forces than fucking [B]belgium[/B]
[QUOTE=laserguided;41949211]Is it fair that Syria would launch missiles at Israel's WMD's in response since they would probably help enable such a strike?[/QUOTE] I'm sure a big, slow, inaccurate Scud is no match for Iron Dome. [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;41951916]you literally know nothing about the history of UN peacekeeping do you and incidentally, don't talk shit about peacekeepers when the US provides less manpower to the UN peacekeeping forces than fucking [B]belgium[/B][/QUOTE] Peacekeeping never works during a genocide unless the peacekeepers have aggressive ROE. A UN peacekeeping operation in Syria would probably be a repeat of Rwanda. To do anything effective there would need to be an invasion to topple Assad and install the secular opposition, but that would lead to another ten year counter insurgency war against Islamists.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;41951987]I'm sure a big, slow, inaccurate Scud is no match for Iron Dome. [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] Peacekeeping never works during a genocide unless the peacekeepers have aggressive ROE. A UN peacekeeping operation in Syria would probably be a repeat of Rwanda. To do anything effective there would need to be an invasion to topple Assad and install the secular opposition, but that would lead to another ten year counter insurgency war against Islamists.[/QUOTE] UNAMIR saved the lives of thousands/tens of thousands in the end, it was a failure, but they undeniably saved thousands of people Dallaire himself is credited with saving 32,000 people peacekeeping doesn't work when the member states that form the UN can't pull the rod out of their arses basically don't talk shit about UN peacekeepers, fuck the few that abuse their position to commit atrocities without liability, but they give their lives to protect people and maintain stability in countries far away from home
Fucking [B]don't.[/B] Not only is it fucking bad to do,the USA'll probably piss off Russia too.
[QUOTE=Zotobom;41952491]Fucking [B]don't.[/B] Not only is it fucking bad to do,the USA'll probably piss off Russia too.[/QUOTE] If Assad is behind these attacks than Russia will probably drop support too. I'm sure not even they want to be associated with that.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41947597]Do we have any cruise missiles [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41947597]Do we have any missiles [/QUOTE] It's the US, they probably have more missiles than people. This situation was never going to turn out well, If the US intervened earlier they would have been called too war mongering. If they get involved too late they are blamed for the result. If they don't get involved they are called apathetic and if they do they are called "World police". If they are just targeting WMD depot's with cruise missiles then I don't see how one would look at this as a bad thing.
[QUOTE=Thlis;41952618]It's the US, they probably have more missiles than people. This situation was never going to turn out well, If the US intervened earlier they would have been called too war mongering. If they get involved too late they are blamed for the result. If they don't get involved they are called apathetic and if they do they are called "World police". If they are just targeting WMD depot's with cruise missiles then I don't see how one would look at this as a bad thing.[/QUOTE] If Assad is behind all this, the US is going to look very weak if they don't do anything. Especially after all this red line talk, a line that has grown to be very thick indeed. Next time the US threatens Iran or North Korea, they'll probably just chortle and carry on with whatever they're doing.
The problem with this is that America can't do anything right in the eyes of the world We held off doing anything up until now and all we get is "wtf America why aren't you doing anything about this, I thought you were about helping the little people????" But if we had gone in earlier or if we go in now and stay until the end, it will just turn into "omg America stop meddling in everyone's business, you aren't helping at all" I personally think that as long as we don't have boots on the ground it will be better off, though I wish we didn't have to be the frontrunner in the situation
[QUOTE='[sluggo];41947397']Are we going in to stop thousands dying in African tribal infighting, Mexican drug wars, Egyptian protests, and everything else wrong is the world? [B]The west isn't the worlds police force[/B].[/QUOTE] you know the US is essentially a hegemonic empire right and "the west" are is closets allies? and the only way it keeps itself there(and the west) is by good PR, essentially preventing things such as these from happening. being a "police force" is kinda part of it, especially when part of the fault lies with said empire. you think the west in general isn't partially guilty of the drug wars, the fact africa is fucked up due to european colonialism mostly, the billions the US gave to mubarak? i mean come on. [QUOTE=Potus;41954114]The problem with this is that America can't do anything right in the eyes of the world We held off doing anything up until now and all we get is "wtf America why aren't you doing anything about this, I thought you were about helping the little people????" But if we had gone in earlier or if we go in now and stay until the end, it will just turn into "omg America stop meddling in everyone's business, you aren't helping at all" I personally think that as long as we don't have boots on the ground it will be better off, though I wish we didn't have to be the frontrunner in the situation[/QUOTE] the reason people point fingers at the US is BECAUSE the US has fucked shit up quite a bit in the middle east and pretty much everywhere else, thats the bad part about being the top guy in the global stage(and pretty much everywhere else), people expect more of you.
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;41950197]Usa if you don't stop being annoying you will be downgraded back to a colony[/QUOTE] watch your mouth Serbia else the air force will start their engines again [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;41952636] Next time the US threatens Iran or North Korea, they'll probably just chortle and carry on with whatever they're doing.[/QUOTE] they already do that though. [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Wizards Court;41954363]you know the US is essentially a hegemonic empire right and "the west" are is closest allies?[/QUOTE] it sounds weird when you read it but this is correct. The US is a modern day empire and they have rule over practically half of the world if not more in one way or another. If the US [I]really[/I] wants something done its gonna get done and people are gonna bow.
[QUOTE=Aman;41954620]watch your mouth Serbia else the air force will start their engines again [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] they already do that though. [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] it sounds weird when you read it but this is correct. The US is a modern day empire and they have rule over practically half of the world if not more in one way or another. If the US [I]really[/I] wants something done its gonna get done and people are gonna bow.[/QUOTE] The US hinges only on it's value of currency and it's military. US protects OPEC countries militarily as long as they exclusively sell their oil in dollars. If OPEC didn't sell it's oil for dollars, then there would be no use for the dollar and it would lead to hyper-inflation. If OPEC stopped selling for dollars, then the US would "nationalize" the whole region, which they've already tried when they invaded Iraq to stop them for only selling their oil in euros. You all know what you call a country that is dependent on military intervention in other countries to survive: A facist state. [quote=wiki] The petrodollar system originated in the early 1970s in the wake of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system"]Bretton Woods[/URL] collapse. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Richard_M._Nixon"]President Richard M. Nixon[/URL] and his Secretary of State, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger"]Henry Kissinger[/URL], knew that their destruction of the international gold standard under the Bretton Woods arrangement would cause a decline in the artificial global demand of the U.S. dollar. Maintaining this "artificial dollar demand" was vital if the United States were to continue expanding its "welfare and warfare"spending. In a series of meetings, the United States — represented by then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger — and the Saudi royal family made an agreement. According to the agreement, the United States would offer military protection for Saudi Arabia’s oil fields. The U.S. also agreed to provide the Saudis with weapons, and protection from Israel. The agreement included: 1) The Saudis must agree to price all of their oil sales in U.S. dollars only. (In other words, the Saudis were to refuse all other currencies, except the U.S. dollar, as payment for their oil exports.) 2) The Saudis would be open to investing their surplus oil proceeds in U.S. debt securities. By 1975, all of the oil-producing nations of OPEC had agreed to price their oil in dollars and to hold their surplus oil proceeds in U.S. government debt securities in exchange for the generous offers by the U.S.[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar#cite_note-3"][3][/URL][/SUP] [/quote]
Fucking Indigo's up in the motherfucker! (Indigo is the proword a THAWK launcher order)
We should do what they did on that film Doomsday. Isolate them from society, wall them off. Prevent it becoming an international crisis spreading into other countries. When the conflict is resolved, analyze the situation and determine whether we can integrate survivors into society but if they are radicals who fire on people, leave em be.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.