Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
sandstone conglomerate
climber
sharon conglomerate central
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:30pm PT
|
We've done so much to destabilize the ME that no one wants to step in and clean up our sh#t. Syria will merely be a testing ground for the technology developed in destroying Iraq. Iraq 2.0 in a sense.
|
|
Eric Beck
Sport climber
Bishop, California
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:42pm PT
|
Those who might be puzzled by our pending involvement in Syria may be getting a hint from the Saudis. The Saudis support the military in Egypt. This is no surprise, one autocratic regime supporting another. However, in Syria, they are supporting the rebels. The Saudis want to be top dog in the Persian Gulf and are concerned by the rise of Iran, who, coincidentally, is supporting the Assad regime.
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 02:27pm PT
|
Do we any national security interest in bombing Syria?
Except as a convenient place with a good excuse (nerve gas) to expend
munitions the military industrial complex will then re-order to keep their
pile of bombs at its mandated size?
The assembly line techs who make cruise missiles have nothing to do unless
their are periodic low intensity exchanges.
and it is brilliant business leadership when you create a new market for your
single use
multi-million dollar product.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
|
Do we any national security interest in bombing Syria?
it's a Vangaurd thing
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 03:16pm PT
|
A super sonic sea skimming cruise missile almost sunk an Israeli ship
a few years back off the Syrian coast. (probably Russian made)
Our fleet must have developed a defense against it or we would not be so bold to promenade our forces off that particular shore.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 03:49pm PT
|
Our fleet must have developed a defense against it or we would not be so bold to promenade our forces off that particular shore.
Yes, we have a perfect defense against it: staying out of range. The
Yakhonst only has a range of 300 km. F-18 Super Hornets have a combat
radius three times that, without re-fueling.
I rather doubt that we will send carrier-based planes in to deliver our
'message'. Our supply of cruise missiles is more than ample. Personally,
I don't think we should waste any.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 03:52pm PT
|
All told, after reading all the conspiracy theories, the very valid reasons that only old duffers ever order kids into battle, that there is no way bombing Syria will sway the political process in any way shape or form, that if Assad gets run out even more radical factions will fill possibly fill the power void, that China, France, Russia, Germany, and all the rest will NEVER lead a charge in there, that we are afraid to target Assad himself, but will bomb his stuff and then reorder more bombs from our buddies, that maybe the thing to do is nothing at all. Pass the problem over to the Arab leadership and say we will support whatever action they choose to pursue. What's more, anyone calling Obama "weak" for not intervening will be allowed to parachute in-country the very next day to sort things out.
JL
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 03:59pm PT
|
Intervening is not weak, it is futile and pointless. Kindly lay out one
viable scenario that could even remotely effect positive change over there.
(did you read my post on the last page?)
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 05:59pm PT
|
^^^ Sounds like you have NO trust that your government will do the right thing Dingus.
Keep hope alive bruther.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 06:04pm PT
|
I sure don't trust the government to do anything other than what the defense industry lobbyists tell them to do.
Pretty easy really: (1) don't bomb and nothing happens and the U.S. forgets about Syria in a week; (2) bomb and unleash some shitstorm of unintended consequences, all of which will require increased military spending.
I wonder what will happen??
I'm with DMT, unless you are willing to go there and do it yourself it just isn't worth doing.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 06:08pm PT
|
The Iraq invasion was monumentally stupid.
Absolutely true (although really, you might have understated it). And intervening in Syria would/will be equally stupid.
Let them fight their own wars. The name of our country is the United States of America, not the World's F&*$ing Policeman.
Spend the money we'll waste in a hopeless situation on fixing streets or educating children or something positive within this country.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 06:29pm PT
|
Exclusive: McCain Says Obama Gave ‘Green Light’ to Syria to Use Chemical Weapons.
Sen. John McCain blasts the president and his top military officer for being too soft on previous allegations of chemical attacks.
Why in the holy fuking world do you Americans allow this jackass discusting traitor John McCain to even exist anymore.
He should be arrested that despicable excuse for a human being.
He's a liar and disinfo aszhole working for Israel of the highest order.
Traitor ....
|
|
sandstone conglomerate
climber
sharon conglomerate central
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 06:30pm PT
|
I don't think it has anything to do with policing, but rather increasing US advantage in the ME. Where was the intervention in Rwanda? That's right, no natural resources, except for the key component in the manufacturing of cell phones. Seeing as how those aren't made here, who gives a sh#t? Our priorities are oil, oil, and more fukin oil. Is that pipeline through Afghanistan started yet?
|
|
coastal_climber
Trad climber
north island
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 08:25pm PT
|
Here's an idea; mind your own f*#king business.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 08:40pm PT
|
Coastal climber said: "Here's an idea; mind your own f*#king business."
Here's another idea; this IS minding our own f*#king business. How would it knott be?
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 09:01pm PT
|
I agree - but is there any reason that our country has to do the "ending?" I'm not an isolationist, but I don't see why we have to pay for "policing" the whole damn world.
Roger that. So much time and money being spent to solve (and creating) the world's problems when there is so much to do here in our own country. It is sad to see all the crap going on in the world. But our "noble" efforts to make the world safe don't seem to have had much impact in the big picture. Tough calls to be made. I'm just so tired of it all. It is so sickening to see the sh!t going on, but really, in the end what will be accomplished? I'm not smart enough to know how to solve the world's problems, but don't really think throwing a billion dollars worth of bombs will do any good.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
|
Our priorities are oil, oil, and more fukin oil. Is that pipeline through Afghanistan started yet?
No, now that we got fracking, you libs are going to have to invent some other bogeyman that allegedly drives all foreign policy.
(My unoriginal theory--the good ol' military-industrial complex has a lot to do with it--what fun is it building an insanely large and powerful military if you never get to use it?)
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 09:27pm PT
|
Blah blah BLAH...good point...If the pentagon doesn't use all that hardware it will not be replaced...Killing other nationals stimulates parts of our economy...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:00pm PT
|
My post from the 2008 'Changing how the US goes to war' thread and I still stand by it:
The topic was mentioned in another thread. But there are simple measures which could be instituted relative to put how we go to war on a sane and rational footing:
 Allow the President to dispatch up to 20k troops to any two discontiguous conflicts for six months on their signature alone with a one week notice to Congress.
Within that one week Congress can overide that decision with the same margin required to override a veto.
The day the President wants a third dispatch, a contiguous dispatch, one body more than 20k in any one conflict, or wants one more day past six months in any one conflict, they will need to seek a formal Declaration of War agreed to by Congress by the same margin required to override a veto.
The day a passed Declaration of War is signed by the President the following will occur: a non-exempt military draft lottery for men and women age 18-35, freeze on wholesale prices, 15% national war sales tax, 15% war tax on capital gains.
Those protocols would remain in effect until the day troop levels are below 20k and the Congress rescinds the Declaration of War by the same margin required to override a veto.
Do that, and there will be precious few wars started, corporations and republicans will become anti-war protesters overnight, and what wars do get past those hurtles will be staggeringly brief.
This was more or less a follow-up post to an Iraq Exit Strategy thread post from 2005
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:55pm PT
|
Allow the President to dispatch up to 20k troops to any two discontiguous conflicts for six months on their signature alone with a one week notice to Congress.
Sorry but your plan is already obsolete: as Obama has discovered, in the new world of drone strikes, "troops" are increasingly irrelevant to how we kill them damn foreigners.
I'm sure the military-industrial complex is laughing all the way to the bank--getting rid of U.S. soldiers just eliminates a burdensome cost to their otherwise lovely business model.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!