We invaded Iraq for suspecting Saddam was developing them...that didn't seem to prevent Assad from using them to begin with. I'm not really sure a surgical strike (with weeks of advance notice) will really do much.
Definitely Yes
Definitely No
Maybe, with these (named) limitations
Maybe, depending on these (named) scenarios
Not Sure/No opinion to date
I am a US voting citizen
We invaded Iraq for suspecting Saddam was developing them...that didn't seem to prevent Assad from using them to begin with. I'm not really sure a surgical strike (with weeks of advance notice) will really do much.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
A) We invaded Iraq for a lot of reasons.
B) Libya gave up its weapons as a result of the Iraq war.
C) More countries might have followed suit if the outcome of the war wasn't such a disaster.
Hope is the denial of reality
A) Irrelevant to what we are discussing.
B) Yes, but Syria did not, so?????
C) And since it was such a disaster, and Syria has more friends than Iraq, do you really think that Assad is using the same calculus as you?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
There's taking an interest, and then there's bombing. I'm not opposed to bombing on principle, if I thought it would do some good. I just can't see what possible good this could lead to.Originally Posted by Loki
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Raise the cost of future use of chemical weapons.
Hope is the denial of reality
In what way?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
You use them = you get bombed.
Hope is the denial of reality
If limited strikes aren't going to make a real difference, and it's mostly a "ceremonial" thing....then why isn't there consensus among the international community, and a willingness to join a multi-lateral coalition to carry out the strikes?
There are claims the US is the "only nation in a position to intervene", which I find hard to believe. Is it really enough for Saudis (or others in the region) to 'offer' their air space or bases for the cause, but not their own fighter jets or missiles -- or soldiers? Not to mention European nations that signed onto the chemical weapons treaty, and have modern militaries too.
But you said "we" want to influence events, and not leave them to chance. Isn't that different than working with who exists, not who "we" wish existed? Besides, if the US is the only "we" in this....that's a big problem. It feeds the perception that the US bullies its way into other sovereign nations, expanding our power (similar to colonialism in previous eras), trying to re-make them in our image. Isn't that how the Anti-American narrative began, fueling extremists and jihad groups like Al Qaeda?Regarding the Erdogan point, I think it's been obvious for a long time that there are very few "good guys" in the Middle East; you work with who exists, not who you wish existed.
You're right. The US is the only country to get involved in the Middle East.
Hope is the denial of reality
Except when you don't.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I fail to see your logic. Each time we do bomb increases the likelihood that we'd bomb in the future.
Hope is the denial of reality
Don't twist my questions just to avoid answering. The only "limited strikes" being proposed are by the US. France has said they'd join us, but won't go it alone if we back out. That's the extent of countries willing to intervene in Syria to date, even without UN security council or NATO approval. That can be perceived as (a) the UN is broken somehow, or (b) the US and France are making our own rules outside international 'norms'. If nearly all other nations are backing away, why are we jumping in?You're right. The US is the only country to get involved in the Middle East.
If the US proceeds with "limited strikes" unilaterally, without international consensus/support...isn't that just as likely to increase instability in the middle east, escalate the violence, and make matters worse? Not to mention that Anti-American sentiment could go through the roof, resulting in more terrorism.
You do realize that our level of involvement in the Syrian conflict (including militarily) pales in comparison to that of Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, and possibly Iraq, right? These countries are actively sending in weapons and recruits to one of the sides in the conflict. Us lobbing a few missiles at Syria isn't going to change the extent of these other countries' involvement.
Hope is the denial of reality
They've been heavily involved in Syria's civil war, supplying rebel forces with money, arms, manpower. And taking in some 2 million refugees. That is not the same thing as getting involved in the latest Chemical Weapons retaliation, and joining a multi-lateral coalition led by the US. Those nations might condemn the use of chemical weapons -- with/without attributing it to Assad's regime -- but how many have formally "approved" and sanctioned a US military strike?
Are you being serious here? These countries are actively involved in killing thousands of people in one of the sides in the civil war, are wasting quite a few resources to bring about that end, and you think they'd be actively opposed to the US helping them (obviously Russia and Iran wouldn't be pleased, but that's hardly because they're less involved)?
Hope is the denial of reality
Then answer my question -- and name those countries that have officially condoned US military strikes.
How is that relevant?
Hope is the denial of reality
Are you serious?Look, the countries involved in Syria's civil war might welcome US "help", as you say. But US policy has (so far) been loathe to pick sides, arm the rebels, insert ourselves in their civil war, or depose Assad's regime....with valid reasons.
US proposed response to use of chemical weapons is being described as a tangential military intervention, separate and apart from regime change, or their internal fighting. Of course it's relevant if the active participants don't officially and openly sign on to US "limited military strikes". How has this escaped you?
I fail to see your logic there, I'm afraid. Especially considering the lens through which this will be viewed by powers hostile to the US and the West, which is that the chemical weapons attack was an excuse to do something the US has wanted to do from the beginning.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
And yet the didn't do anything to Syria until it did use chemical weapons. Dictators aren't stupid.
Hope is the denial of reality
The poll results seems to align with public opinion polls so far. From what I've read the same reasons are given for No or Don't Know:
1. Lack of international consensus.
2. US shouldn't act unilaterally.
3. Risks escalating violence, making matters worse for civilians.
4. Might create a power vacuum 'bad actors' would fill.
5. Wouldn't necessarily secure the cache of chemical weapons.
6. If chemicals are used again....would we strike again?
Also, wondering if there isn't something between doing nothing, and military strikes.
Yeah, who are we going to bomb if the rebels use chemical weapons?
Congratulations America
And what would we do if/when retaliatory threats are made by 'bad actors' with enough firepower to follow through?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...trending_now_1
Would we empty out all our embassies and consulates in the region, or man them with armed Marines, fearing another Benghazi-type incident? Would there just be warnings about international travel from the State Dept, or airport shut-downs (trapping people inside the "War" zone)?
There are more than 2 million Syrian refugees in border states already, and millions more displaced. Those who fled to Lebanon don't have access to any UN facilities or provisions (no drinking water, food, tents, medicine, toilets). Refugees in Jordan are nearly 20% of their population. The exodus, and human misery continues to grow....
The US -and the international community- seems to have lost sight of that Humanitarian Crisis.
http://beta.syriadeeply.org/
An interesting web site with tons of good information.
I think we should first consider the implications of having open gays and women in the US military before considering a strike on Syria
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That guys retarded.I think we should first consider the implications of having open gays and women in the US military before considering a strike on Syria
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular
As for military strike bring it o;
Yeah, but you're military. Does it seem better to actually do something using your skills, rather than exercises, drills, 'community policing', or training a foreign force?
There's one thing I've always wondered about military commanders being asked about proposed missions --- would they really say something is too risky, or advise against using military force? It seems US military would always say they could find a way to complete a mission, that's what they do. At what level does military strategy consider the geopolitical side of their analysis and opinion...to where they might actually say No, that's a bad idea?
It seems we've reached a turning-point in international relations, diplomacy, and military powers. The UN is hamstrung by Russian and Chinese veto powers. NATO is a vestige of WWII, with no members south of the equator except Turkey. The Arab League has added and suspended memberships, but can't compete with NATO or UN clout. Quite the pickle.
Of the three main global military "Super Powers" (China, Russia, US).....it bothers me that the US is expected to carry heavy weights for other nations. We're the largest funders for UN and NATO. Americans put more money into military than all other nations combined. That's a perverse way of turning the US into a military nation, with 50 states as fund raisers.
Last edited by GGT; 09-08-2013 at 08:19 AM.
Yeah, but you're military. Does it seem better to actually do something using your skills, rather than exercises, drills, 'community policing', or training a foreign force?
There's one thing I've always wondered about military commanders being asked about proposed missions --- would they really say something is too risky, or advise against using military force? It seems US military would always say they could find a way to complete a mission, that's what they do. At what level does military strategy consider the geopolitical side of their analysis and opinion...to where they might actually say No, that's a bad idea?
It seems we've reached a turning-point in international relations, diplomacy, and military powers. The UN is hamstrung by Russian and Chinese veto powers. NATO is a vestige of WWII, with no members south of the equator except Turkey. The Arab League has added and suspended memberships, but can't compete with NATO or UN clout. Quite the pickle.
Of the three main global military "Super Powers" (China, Russia, US).....it bothers me that the US is expected to carry heavy weights for other nations. We're the largest funders for UN and NATO. Americans put more money into military than all other nations combined. That's a perverse way of turning the US into a military nation, with 50 states as fund raisers.
Military strategy doesn't considered the geo political side. by the time it gets to us that's already been considered. And your right I am military and I believe can be accomplished a military strike and very easily at that, but the more we wait debating it the worse its going to get, and a rawanda situation will happen all over again, oh wait it pretty much is...Yeah, but you're military. Does it seem better to actually do something using your skills, rather than exercises, drills, 'community policing', or training a foreign force?
There's one thing I've always wondered about military commanders being asked about proposed missions --- would they really say something is too risky, or advise against using military force? It seems US military would always say they could find a way to complete a mission, that's what they do. At what level does military strategy consider the geopolitical side of their analysis and opinion...to where they might actually say No, that's a bad idea?
It seems we've reached a turning-point in international relations, diplomacy, and military powers. The UN is hamstrung by Russian and Chinese veto powers. NATO is a vestige of WWII, with no members south of the equator except Turkey. The Arab League has added and suspended memberships, but can't compete with NATO or UN clout. Quite the pickle.
Of the three main global military "Super Powers" (China, Russia, US).....it bothers me that the US is expected to carry heavy weights for other nations. We're the largest funders for UN and NATO. Americans put more money into military than all other nations combined. That's a perverse way of turning the US into a military nation, with 50 states as fund raisers.
And Russia is not a military superpower, China could be if it can get world deployment capabilities which is doesnt have yet.
Try again Spenni....only the quote showed up, without your reply.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote