• U.S Draws up plans for fucking up Syria if diplomacy fails
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36162841]Why should I care? It isn't my country, it isn't my problem, it shouldn't be my concern. Of ALL the countries currently that shouldn't be wasting money on humanitarian interventions the US is at the top.[/QUOTE] What dictator was taking power the last time the US tried that excuse. And before you say, Syria isn't invading other countries, I ask would you have been fine with Germany committing genocide upon only it's own citizens?
[QUOTE=SatansSin;36162504]Doesn't anyone else in that Middle East area help? Or are they just looking out for themselves?[/QUOTE] Syria's army is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Army]actually pretty massive[/url], larger than any of its neighbours, albeit weakened to an indeterminate amount by defections and deaths. Middle Eastern countries don't have the kind of steamrolling power that NATO can muster, and Qatar and the UAE, probably the biggest regional proponents of intervention, have really tiny armies
[QUOTE=Thlis;36162831]Bullshit there is nothing the US can do, people are getting massacred and your response is We don't need another war, it's too great a burden on my wallet.[/QUOTE] "too great a burden on my wallet" Wow great way to say something that I didn't, good job. We don't know who the real enemies are, aside from the Asad regime. How do we go about fighting an enemy who would gladly kill children just to make a point? Attacking them will provoke them to continue their assaults on civilian targets. I'm all for helping out Syria, but a full fledged, guns blazing, air-strike flying war, is [I]not[/I] what we need right now, especially with how our economy is going and our relations with the middle east. As ES stated, we aren't the only country who is capable of helping.
[QUOTE=Thlis;36162883]And before you say, Syria isn't invading other countries, I ask would you have been fine with Germany committing genocide upon only it's own citizens?[/QUOTE] But we didn't declare war on Germany because of their genocide, we declared war on them because they were a major ally of Japan, a country who launched a military strike on a US military facility. They're not really comparable.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;36162954]But we didn't declare war on Germany because of their genocide, we declared war on them because they were a major ally of Japan, a country who launched a military strike on a US military facility. They're not really comparable.[/QUOTE] Actually, we declared war on them because Germany declared war on us immediately after Pear Harbor. We really had no choice in going to war with Germany. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36162879]I think the smartest way to handle this is to trade off attacks on Syria and Iran with the relevant powers in the region. Something like: Russia gets to attack some country that they've been dying to kick ass on and we(NATO) don't say anything. Meanwhile, NATO kicks ass on Syrian and/or Iran and the Russians back off their alliances with at least Syria. What could go wrong?[/QUOTE] Yeah, who gives a fuck about the tiny, defenseless peoples surrounding the Russian Bear.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36163296]Actually, we declared war on them because Germany declared war on us immediately after Pear Harbor. We really had no choice in going to war with Germany.[/QUOTE] That is indeed what I meant, but regardless, the US had no real choice there.
Now we get to enjoy oil costing more then gold.
Sure okay lets let a country collapse because a country that wants to end the shit in Syria is just a police state. At least the US is doing something besides letting Syria collapse. I haven't seen anyone else try to do shit there.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36162854]People die daily, it's a fact of life. So what? As I said before you can't just go around trying to save everyone especially when it's generally none of your business in the first place.[/QUOTE] Eventually there will come a time in our history where bloody wars like this will simply not suffice and the world will need to be united in some way without wars if we are to progress. That entails helping poorer countries and revolts that cannot aid themselves. Also, if your really that un-empathetic or sympathetic that you cannot even lift a finger to help these people, who are dying [B]en masse[/B], then your hardly any better then the people doing the killing. Your one of those fucks who would sit by and watch someone beat up a nerd at school and not try to stop it simply because it's non of your business." That isn't an excuse to sit back and allow suffering to happen. It's every persons duty to try and make sure that their fellow, less fortunate human beings are still living good lives, as long as those people deserve good lives, which is the case. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36162879]I think the smartest way to handle this is to trade off attacks on Syria and Iran with the relevant powers in the region. Something like: Russia gets to attack some country that they've been dying to kick ass on and we(NATO) don't say anything. Meanwhile, NATO kicks ass on Syrian and/or Iran and the Russians back off their alliances with at least Syria. What could go wrong?[/QUOTE] Uh, last time I checked, the Cold War ended in 1991. Seriously, stop fucking fantasizing about us fighting Russia already. The Soviet Union is gone and war is extremely unlikely as Russia is a pretty sizable trade partner right now.
Although I don't support the U.S. entering another war, this is one cause that I actually support. Problem is, the U.S. doesn't have the greatest track record about dealing with civilians in a war zone (And don't give me that PTSD bullshit, my sister didn't go off and murder innocent people when diagnosed with it).
[QUOTE=D-Roy;36163520]Although I don't support the U.S. entering another war, this is one cause that I actually support. Problem is, the U.S. doesn't have the greatest track record about dealing with civilians in a war zone (And don't give me that PTSD bullshit, my sister didn't go off and murder innocent people when diagnosed with it).[/QUOTE] it is ENTIRELY different to fight an opressive government force as opposed to an insurgency
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36163421]Eventually there will come a time in our history where bloody wars like this will simply not suffice and the world will need to be united in some way without wars if we are to progress. That entails helping poorer countries and revolts that cannot aid themselves. Also, if your really that un-empathetic or sympathetic that you cannot even lift a finger to help these people, who are dying [B]en masse[/B], then your hardly any better then the people doing the killing. Your one of those fucks who would sit by and watch someone beat up a nerd at school and not try to stop it simply because it's non of your business." That isn't an excuse to sit back and allow suffering to happen. It's every persons duty to try and make sure that their fellow, less fortunate human beings are still living good lives, as long as those people deserve good lives, which is the case. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] Uh, last time I checked, the Cold War ended in 1991. Seriously, stop fucking fantasizing about us fighting Russia already. The Soviet Union is gone and war is extremely unlikely as Russia is a pretty sizable trade partner right now.[/QUOTE] Nice utopian idea but it will [I]never[/I] happen. It simply goes against human nature. Also that doesn't even make sense, why would we have to magically unite the world to continue technological and human progress? Who says it's my duty to help the world? I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to global issues that don't effect my country. Maybe I'm just a heartless asshole but the whole "lets hold hands around the world, help everyone" mentality just seems childish and unrealistic to me.
[QUOTE=D-Roy;36163520]Although I don't support the U.S. entering another war, this is one cause that I actually support. Problem is, the U.S. doesn't have the greatest track record about dealing with civilians in a war zone (And don't give me that PTSD bullshit, my sister didn't go off and murder innocent people when diagnosed with it).[/QUOTE] I don't think you know how PTSD works. PTSD effects everyone differently, and it depends on how they came to attract it as well.
[QUOTE=Moose;36163565]it is ENTIRELY different to fight an opressive government force as opposed to an insurgency[/QUOTE] This is completely true, conventional and guerrilla war are fought in entirely different ways and require very different strategies.
[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;36162296]Perfect. We really need another war.[/QUOTE] Actually, in a way we do. You know what has historically gotten the US on its feet during hard times? Wars. More specifically, the traditional army vs. army style of war. Things go south when we end up fighting against enemies like Al Qaeda and the Viet Cong because of their tactics. Now I'm not saying we should just go around starting wars for the heck of it, but honestly actually winning a war could do this country some good. Not to mention what kind of a despicable person we'd be bringing down in the process. I don't like the idea either but it's true.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36163572] Maybe I'm just a heartless asshole but the whole "lets hold hands around the world, help everyone" mentality just seems childish and unrealistic to me.[/QUOTE] I would also add entitled and greedy. Watch the video in regards to the recent massacre and tell us why intervention should not occur.
[QUOTE=Thlis;36163616]No, your just entitled and greedy. Watch the video in regards to the recent massacre and tell us why intervention should not occur.[/QUOTE] Because it's none of my business and I (my country) have nothing to gain from it? Why am I a bad person if I don't want to concern myself with every conflict throughout the world and try to pry my way in and pick a side to fight for? Especially in these economic storms that are brewing I'm even more weary of these humanitarian "wars" that drain vast amounts of money and resources.
the US probably has plans to invade every single country, including Canada. Doesn't mean they're going to do it, just means if for whatever reason they had to, there's a plan.
[QUOTE=Moose;36163565]it is ENTIRELY different to fight an opressive government force as opposed to an insurgency[/QUOTE] Exactly. The US can easily kick a government's ass, as we have seen with the whole Saddam Hussein episode.
I'm sorry to say it, but I'm in the boat of the US shouldn't get involved. There's plenty of other countries with the ability to go in there, it's not the US's job to the be the world police and there's enough internal problems the US needs to deal with first. If the US does go in, I hope they just do airstrikes.
So? We draft plans for all kinds of crazy shit, and so does every other country on this planet.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;36162504]Yeah, totally need another Iraq kind of war. More sons and daughters, moms and dads, ripped from their families. Really what our countries need. Why doesn't anyone over there help them? Why must the US, Europe, or Canada have to be world police? Doesn't anyone else in that Middle East area help? Or are they just looking out for themselves?[/QUOTE] Because they are wholly incapable of doing so. They simply lack the boats. Even in Libya, where US involvement was kept to a minimum, we still provided significantly more forces than any other single nation. We didn't even bat an eye at deploying eleven warships to the region. Of which at least four would be as large, if not larger, than the flagships of most navies, and that is ignoring the submarines and the super carrier. With the French it might have been possible without US forces, as they possess a proper aircraft carrier, but at the very least it would have been a significantly more difficult project. US drones and operatives on the ground were the ones feeding everyone the intelligence needed. This is a different ball game too. Syria actually has a decent air defense network that will take some work to dismantle and a fairly significant risk. The US is far better equipped to handle destruction of anti aircraft facilities than any other nation in NATO. F-18's with the Growler electronic warfare packages are apparently pretty nasty when coupled with standard super hornets against ground AA targets. That is ignoring the influence of drones and the flying death machines that are the B-2's.
[QUOTE=Conscript;36162025]That's not a fundamental flaw, a fundamental flaw would be not preventing the US or other major powers from doing whatever the fuck they wanted. The UN is supposed to represent and consider the interests of all the world's countries, not just the west's. The security council needs to have a one-vote veto because it is intended to be a collaboration of the world's most powerful states, which is concentrated in so few they could be counted on your hand, resolving world issues in a way that satisfies all interests. This kind of attitude will be the UN's undoing.[/QUOTE] I disagree entirely. Saying that the abolition of the single-nation veto system would benefit the west may be true to a degree, but at the same time, keeping it only benefits nations like Russia and China, who only hope to impede any sort of plan or idea formulated by the United States. It's blatant politics. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;36163949]Because they are wholly incapable of doing so. They simply lack the boats. Even in Libya, where US involvement was kept to a minimum, we still provided significantly more forces than any other single nation. We didn't even bat an eye at deploying eleven warships to the region. Of which at least four would be as large, if not larger, than the flagships of most navies, and that is ignoring the submarines and the super carrier. With the French it might have been possible without US forces, as they possess a proper aircraft carrier, but at the very least it would have been a significantly more difficult project. US drones and operatives on the ground were the ones feeding everyone the intelligence needed. This is a different ball game too. Syria actually has a decent air defense network that will take some work to dismantle and a fairly significant risk. The US is far better equipped to handle destruction of anti aircraft facilities than any other nation in NATO. F-18's with the Growler electronic warfare packages are apparently pretty nasty when coupled with standard super hornets against ground AA targets. That is ignoring the influence of drones and the flying death machines that are the B-2's.[/QUOTE] I agree completely. Think about it this way: would you rather have the United States military acting as a ground force, or in a supporting role? [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] I am personally of the opinion that we're far more suited as a nation to serve in a position where we can support our allies (and potential allies) in any situation with our naval and air forces far better than if we had boots on the ground.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36163572] It simply goes against human nature. [/QUOTE] large-scale armed conflicts are human nature?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36162781]No. We shouldn't intervene. There's nothing the US, let alone a joint group, can do. All we can do is close our eyes and hope. We don't need another war.[/QUOTE] Yeah, just twiddle our thumbs and think everything is just fucking dandy. Great attitude to have.
Enough, stop letting my friends die for someone else's country.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;36165441]Enough, stop letting my friends die for someone else's country.[/QUOTE] What about the people that are getting slaughtered that can't defend themselves?
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;36161650]Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/world/meast/syria-military-option/index.html?c=middleeast&page=0[/url][/QUOTE] Guys, Guys ... I have leaked plans... The US will just launch a fuckton of cruise missles at the place, decimating everything. After that come the drones to blow up the "terrorists" although don't worry about the accidents, I'm sure little abduhl playing in the garden was actually bin ladin's evil apprentice.
I like how at the end of WW2 America said they have no interest in the middle east but in the last 20 years they've been fighting alot of conflicts there. Anyway I hope no british troops deploy there it's the last thing we need.
[QUOTE=Thlis;36165692]What about the people that are getting slaughtered that can't defend themselves?[/QUOTE] Instead of a few Syrians getting slaughtered, we'll get thousands of Syrians getting slaughtered - and this time, by foreign soldiers as much as their own. The sad and sorry fact of life is: Humans go toward their self interests. Maybe not always, but enough time to make it a rule of thumb. And it's not in the interest of Americans to go to anther war in Asia, especially when it's against a regime that's not even threatening us.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.