• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How long until somebody does something about Syria?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,935
141
106
The US is damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we don't help, we aren't doing enough and are critisized; if we do, we are nation building and putting our troops in harm's way. The best solution would be to declare the Al-Assad regime a terrorist organization and test out our shiny new drones on them like with AQ in Yemen. The main obstacle, as others have said, is that Russia is backing Al-Assad. Take that piece of the puzzle away, and our drones will eat the regime for breakfast. However, easier said than done in dealing with the Russians.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
I sincerely doubt we would be sending any significant amounts of troops to Syria. We would be looking more towards the Libyan model.
You're probably right.

Nonetheless, we get more oil from Mexico than we do from Syria (or Libya). Mexico is our number 2 source after Canada and I'm not sure we get any oil from Syria. We should invade Mexico.

/tongueincheek
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Syrian ambassador to the US is being sent packing.

As also being done by many Western European countries
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Your question assumes that our involvement in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan were all equal in terms of the reasoning and nature for each of those military actions.

One could easily argue and point out that our involvement in Afghanistan occurred mainly due to the fact that we were attacked by forces hosted and sheltered by that nation's previous government and that those forces still remain to some extent and present a danger to the safety of that government's stability along with potential future threat to our nation as well. However I personally would like us to withdraw soon because as it stands the so called elected leaders in Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan have told us now that the welcome rug has been put away so it's time to move on and bring our troops back.

In Iraq we over-stepped to remove a dictator and helped reshape the map of the Middle-east politically by helping to setup a "Democratic" government that Iraqis could have a say over, even if they disagree with each other on how that government is shaped but that is their problem to deal with as a people not ours.

Libya we did the same in terms of helping to over-throw a dictator but it was more for the benefit of Europe and the Arab League who asked for our support and sadly that affair is not looking to great right now in terms of potential future outcome.

Iraq and Libya I'll grant you were instances where we over stepped but we can't put the proverbial tooth paste back into the tube with any of the 3 mentioned cases so opening another one would not be wise IMHO.

Furthermore we have all the right in the world to say "Sorry not this time guys." because this nation has for the last 50+ years been doing all the heavy lifting around the world in terms of shaping and securing the modern world as we know it today and effectively has been the world's policeman. Coincidentally this role has earned us much criticism from these other nations for us daring to step in when they just sat/sit by idly with their hands in their pockets. This time it is my opinion that it is their turn to step up to the proverbial plate and we can sit back nit pick their actions in the Monday morning quarter-back style.
Excellent post. I don't know that Iraq will ever be worth the blood spilled there, but at least it is a functioning democracy - the only Arab one - and since we were legally still at war with them, we had justification. Afghanistan was not an optional war in any sense unless we're prepared to accept constant attacks, to accept that a few thousand dead Americans is an acceptable price for what we would pretend is peace. And Libya was done on the cheap, doing for our NATO allies what they cannot do for themselves. Syria cannot be done on the cheap, although I agree with Chris that if we could get the Russians to topple Assad that would be ideal. However, I don't think the Russians would do so without setting up a puppet regime, so the Syrians would likely be even more unhappy afterward.

People deserve freedom and self-determination even if we just know they'll screw it up and vote themselves back into bondage. That does NOT mean that Americans have a moral duty to provide it for them.
 

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
It's a bit arrogant for the U.S. to not inject itself in another foreign civil war? This is the opposite of what I've read reported about other people’s feelings of our involvement in other foreign civil wars.
What do you consider injecting ourselves into a civil war?
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,186
1,327
126
The US is damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we don't help, we aren't doing enough and are critisized; if we do, we are nation building and putting our troops in harm's way. The best solution would be to declare the Al-Assad regime a terrorist organization and test out our shiny new drones on them like with AQ in Yemen. The main obstacle, as others have said, is that Russia is backing Al-Assad. Take that piece of the puzzle away, and our drones will eat the regime for breakfast. However, easier said than done in dealing with the Russians.
You mean Obama is damned is he does, damned if he don't.
McCain would send in troops, planes, and guns. 3000 dead Americans. 4000? 5000?

Waiter... I'm ready for the check.
....WTF !!!!!!
WAITER......! WAITER....!
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,229
25
91
You sign up first, e-general.

Our blood and treasure needs to stay home for a while.
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,718
9
81
What do you consider injecting ourselves into a civil war?
These missions sometimes take a generation to quell a re-erruption of civil war. Bosnia and then Kosovo began during the Gulf War in 1991. We still have troops in Kosovo.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and various wars in Africa have had U.S. troop involvement, as well. Less than 0.45% of U.S. population have served in uniform in these countries since 11-Sep-2001. The U.S. military is facing a massive drawdown that will affect every branch and then sequestration reducing troop levels to a dangerously low level. A much larger cut than the 'Peace Dividend' during the Clinton era drawdown. We are facing a staggering reduction in manning that any previous reductions since post WWII will pale in comparisson to.

With what will remain of U.S. forces in the next 5 years, the last decade of war in multiple theaters, the debt, the inability for foreign investors to buy that debt to fund another war, and the fact that the U.S. public can identify Justin Beiber on sight but can't even name a Medal of Honor recipient, what makes you think we're ready to inject our blood and treasure[y notes] to involve ourselves in a civil war in Syria?

To what purpose? To end the unjust killing? To just reduce the unjust killing? To change the regime? To stabilize the Middle East with another invasion to a 3rd country that borders Iran?
Do you just post your thoughts and feelings everytime you see unjust massacres? Take a drive to Mexico and become a correspondent. :biggrin:
 

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
These missions sometimes take a generation to quell a re-erruption of civil war. Bosnia and then Kosovo began during the Gulf War in 1991. We still have troops in Kosovo.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and various wars in Africa have had U.S. troop involvement, as well. Less than 0.45% of U.S. population have served in uniform in these countries since 11-Sep-2001. The U.S. military is facing a massive drawdown that will affect every branch and then sequestration reducing troop levels to a dangerously low level. A much larger cut than the 'Peace Dividend' during the Clinton era drawdown. We are facing a staggering reduction in manning that any previous reductions since post WWII will pale in comparisson to.

With what will remain of U.S. forces in the next 5 years, the last decade of war in multiple theaters, the debt, the inability for foreign investors to buy that debt to fund another war, and the fact that the U.S. public can identify Justin Beiber on sight but can't even name a Medal of Honor recipient, what makes you think we're ready to inject our blood and treasure[y notes] to involve ourselves in a civil war in Syria?

To what purpose? To end the unjust killing? To just reduce the unjust killing? To change the regime? To stabilize the Middle East with another invasion to a 3rd country that borders Iran? Do you just post your thoughts and feelings everytime you see unjust massacres? Take a drive to Mexico and become a correspondent. :biggrin:
Yea no shit, I know you're being facetious, but what has the US been doing to reduce the now third world nation of Mexico. Take a 20 minute drive south from San Diego, one of the richest cities in the world, and you're in the war zone city of Tijuana. Pretty scary.

I don't know what you're reference to Justin Beiber is supposed to point to. You immediately went to boots on the ground, but I never suggested this... Are peace talks with Russia costing "treasure[y notes]"? Bosnia and Kosovo were fought before the internet, which is a massive game changer. Are you not supposed to post your thoughts and feelings during unjust massacres? :shrug:
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,690
133
106
We are not at a point in time where we should be going into wars like this. There are plenty of other countries that can help and do something effective. We can prove a small support roll where needed, but I would much rather see other countries step up.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,186
1,327
126
I hear Romney's sons are just itching for old dad to get elected and to send them off to fight.
Oh... Never mind....
That old Mormon religion draft deferment from the Vietman war era is still in effect.
I guess Mitt's sons will instead have to go France and knock on doors using the Mormon religion draft deferment. Just like old daddy did during the Vietnam war era.
Look it up. It happened...
Im just waiting for the media to bring this up when questioning old Mitt.
Oh.. I guess they already have. Mitt's reply? "I kinda wish I'd went to Vietnam".
Kinda wish isn't quite th same as knocking on doors in France to fulfill requirments of the Mormon religion draft deferment law.
Mitt... Just another Vietnam draft dogger more than willing to send YOUR kids off to die in some foreign country. Just not his. Or himself.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,054
4,423
126
I hear Romney's sons are just itching for old dad to get elected and to send them off to fight.
Oh... Never mind....
That old Mormon religion draft deferment from the Vietman war era is still in effect.
I guess Mitt's sons will instead have to go France and knock on doors using the Mormon religion draft deferment. Just like old daddy did during the Vietnam war era.
Look it up. It happened...
Im just waiting for the media to bring this up when questioning old Mitt.
Oh.. I guess they already have. Mitt's reply? "I kinda wish I'd went to Vietnam".
Kinda wish isn't quite th same as knocking on doors in France to fulfill requirments of the Mormon religion draft deferment law.
Mitt... Just another Vietnam draft dogger more than willing to send YOUR kids off to die in some foreign country. Just not his. Or himself.
Sadly, that description includes a large percentage of the Republican "Chickenhawk Brigade"

http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks/

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
We are not at a point in time where we should be going into wars like this. There are plenty of other countries that can help and do something effective. We can prove a small support roll where needed, but I would much rather see other countries step up.
Too bad. The US has more carrier fleets than the rest of the world combined and is the sole superpower, and a permanent member of the UN security council. It would be part of any vanguard of nations engaged in such an interdiction.

UN Sec General has finally admitted that his worthless plan is having no effect and we watched another massacre a day or two ago. Clinton says Assad has doubled down. He's playing the same game Gadhafi did: go full psycho and quash the rebellion even sooner before the international community gets off its hands and fuels the jets. He knows that once that happens he's done for, so he needs to get this all stopped before the UN finally moves again him. And they will eventually. Even if China and Russia continually veto and support his murdering and the UN can do nothing, other nations will (UK, USA, for example). I think he's running short on time and if he cannot complete his campaign quite soon he'll be running from safe house to safe house as Gadhafi did while cruise missiles target him.
You sign up first, e-general.

Our blood and treasure needs to stay home for a while.
What does this even mean? Sign up for what? Is there a form I can fill out to get control of a destroyer?
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Too bad. The US has more carrier fleets than the rest of the world combined and is the sole superpower, and a permanent member of the UN security council. It would be part of any vanguard of nations engaged in such an interdiction. UN Sec General has finally admitted that his worthless plan is having no effect and we watched another massacre a day or two ago. Clinton says Assad has doubled down. He's playing the same game Gadhafi did: go full psycho and quash the rebellion even sooner before the international community gets off its hands and fuels the jets. He knows that once that happens he's done for, so he needs to get this all stopped before the UN finally moves again him. And they will eventually. Even if China and Russia continually veto and support his murdering and the UN can do nothing, other nations will (UK, USA, for example). I think he's running short on time and if he cannot complete his campaign quite soon he'll be running from safe house to safe house as Gadhafi did while cruise missiles target him.
The Rebels have been tying up British people and then blaming it on Assad to get support for themselves.

Looks like you fell for all the propaganda.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,054
4,423
126
Whenever someone finds some profitable mineral under their soil.
Absent a good profitable reason for putting boots on the ground in Syria, the US Military Corporation will remain uninvolved other than some noise making for show.

We should NOT get involved in Syria's internal problems...nor those of ANY other country.

We have enough fucking problems right here at home that we can't agree on how to fix.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
How long until somebody does something about Syria?
Russia is doing something about Syria.

They are sending attack helicopters to kill off any opposition to the Regime faster.

We are not the World's cop.

Get used to watching what has transpired over humanity since it began, carnage amongst itself.

It's only human nature.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
I'd like to see another nation "do something" about the civil war in Syria. I think the USA should sit this one out and let another country do the work. How about Germany? France? The UK? Australia? Japan? Would some other nation like to step up?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY