The Little War in Syria

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:03 pm

yoop wrote:It goes back even further then this with the ousting of the shah of Iran,


Actually, the Shah was the guy that we put in power. We (US and UK) overthrew the DEMOCRACTICALLY ELECTED and SECULAR Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossedegh. We overthrew the democratic government of Iran and replaced it with a repressive monarchy (the Shah), complete with "the most hated institution in Iran", the SAVAK, a CIA-and US Military run secret police agency that "had the power to censor the media, screen applicants for government jobs, and use all means necessary, including torture, to hunt down dissidents". General Schwartzkopf's dad ran this nasty organization.

That sheds a little light on how much the USG really cares about democratic values, human rights, sovereignty, self determination, etc. This, along with tons of other overt and covert interventions in the Middle East, is why Iran calls the US "The Great Satan." Because of the things that we do, not because of our freedoms or even our majority religion. Because we have a documented history of being evil to them. Because they see us as morally unrestrained, untrustworthy, militant imperialists who will stop at nothing to regain control of their natural resources.

The current Iranian regime, including the Ayatola Komeini, came to power in the generally peaceful Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US controlled Shah. They would probably be a relatively well-developed, wealthy, secular, democratic country today if not for US/UK imperialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran ... 7%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby Beagle » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:37 pm

yoop wrote:I buy what Clark says because Cheney and Rumsfeld both wanted to build a Military base in Iraq as soon as we took it over, there plan was to never leave Iraq, but to set up Military command to monitor the whole region, this has always been about oil, and protecting our ability to control who gets how much, the USG will convince us it has to do with humanitarian aid, or stopping aggression, but you don't see us sending troops to protect anyone from a country without OIL.

I don't buy Clark's explanation at all, especially his claims about the US wanting to invade Syria and Iran back in 1991. It just is not true and Clark is pushing an agenda. This is why I hate a lot of these stupid little videos that get posted.

We went into the Middle east in 1991 to protect our Arab allies from Iraq continuing his push South and to restore the government in Kuwait. Troops landed in Saudi Arabia at the request of that government and a coalition was formed. That Coalition of nations asked Saddam to leave Kuwait or the Coalition would forcibly remove him. Once he was removed, restrictions were put in place to keep Saddam from invading another country or causing more trouble. Saddam repeatedly disregarded UN mandates which most likely led to his ousting in 2003.

If we really wanted to take Iraq in 1991 and push into Syria or anywhere else, it could have easily have been accomplished. Our military was first rate and nothing in the region could stand up to it. Besides, we had a healthy amount of allies who probably would have come along for the ride anyway and would have gladly taken part in reshaping the Middle East. Especially troublesome countries like Syria and Libya and Iran.

Notice something strange about the people who claim we want to take over the region? We are in the region and we have not taken over one country. If we wanted Iraq, it would be ours right now. Instead, we removed the dictator and his ruling body and let Iraq decide who would lead the country through election. We never invaded Syria. We never kept Kuwait even though it could have easily been done.

Clark is stating things that are just plain false. He has an agenda.

Waldo wrote:Go get yourself a Leaf or a Tesla or a Volt if you want the US to stop giving a crap about the mideast. Its all about the oil. We couldn't care less about this sort of thing when it happens in Africa or SE Asia.

When oil supply ceases to be a strategic defense issue for the US, the mideast in general will cease to be a strategic defense issue for the US.

I disagree with this for a lot of reasons. But the biggest examples of countries without oil that we have defended are Korea and Vietnam. We (It was a UN mandate to stop the spread of Communism) restored the Korean government for a lot of reasons that had nothing to do with oil. We are Japan's defense force and that has nothing to do with oil. Two come to mind right away:

1) Economic trading partner - We can sell them Coke and other American products. They are now a player on the world scene. (In regards to why Korea was worth fighting for)
2) We can sell them weapons - Arms industry is big business.

We will always keep some presence in the Middle east to sell countries our weapons (and other American products) and to lend assistance to Israel. Some of our allies get oil from the Middle East and keeping the sea lanes open is a major concern. It is not just about oil since we can get our oil from our own country or from South America. There are other factors in play.

As much as we worry about Iran getting a nuke, the thought being that they'd actually use it, what would be the endgame?

What is the endgame for Iran using a nuke? Destruction of Israel. They have come out and said it. The scenario developing right now is that Iran, Syria, Iraq and Russia are starting to form a defense network in which they will all work together. Once Iran gets Nuclear weapons and they feel safe with a backing from Putin, who knows what they will do.

I personally don't think Iran cares what the world thinks, especially if they can "muddle" the circumstances with lies and deceit. Don't forget, they are a radical Islamist government and "in the name of Allah" is the only excuse they might need.
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1745
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:27 pm

Here is Republican Senator Dick Black, one week ago, interviewed about the US approach to Syria.

Apparently, if you disagree with the Obama Admin's foreign policy, even if you are a current member of the US Senate, and a retired Marine Corps Colonel with a Purple Heart, a former JAG prosecutor, and the former head of the Army Criminal Law Division, the only one who will give you the time of day when you talk about our current military endeavors is RT (Russia Today).

You would think someone with that kind of resume making claims like he makes in this interview might be of interest to SOMEONE in the western mainstream media, but no. No CNN, no FOX, no MSNBC. Tell me that nice story again about how there is no media control in the US. :(

User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby yoop » Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:24 am

I disagree with this for a lot of reasons. But the biggest examples of countries without oil that we have defended are Korea and Vietnam. We (It was a UN mandate to stop the spread of Communism) restored the Korean government for a lot of reasons that had nothing to do with oil. We are Japan's defense force and that has nothing to do with oil. Two come to mind right away: Beagle

It's hard to compare these two wars, first off Russia broke a armistice and helped NK invade SK, if you remember Russia controled NK after the end of WW2, US controlled SK, then both sides pulled there troops hoping the N and S would reunify, when that wasn't working Russia pushed the N to invade the S, basically it was a act of war against us.

Vet Nam was a policing action right from the start, we had advisors there since 55, in 63 Kennedy wanted to pull all the troops, and that pissed off a bunch of powerful people, so they killed Kennedy, which allowed a bought and paid for Lyndon Bains Johnson to escalate the war, I was there in 66 and I never got the impression the civilians wanted us there, when I left in Jan 67 I was convinced they didn't, and they sure as hell didn't care if the north took over, the only ones who did was the brain washed S viet nam military, who we coaxed into that 14 year envolvement, everyone got rich off of that deal, minus me and 700,000 other unfortunate souls that actually had boots on that ground.

we where not invaded as we where in Korea, IN Nam we where actually the invader, we went there on our own accord, the only people that wanted us there are the ones we helped put into positions of power.

after WW2 we had a surplus of private CO.s maned up to rebuild country's, same with armaments, and the people running those CO's liked the money coming in, well the purses where getting empty, time for another war, 15 years in south east asia should help, and imho thats the only reason we where there.

I bought into that crap of stopping communism to, then I was there and bought back out promptly, and I was wise to do so.

and it's the same with the middle east, obviously we've helped over there, but we allowed ourselves far to much envolvement, we had no business taking over Irag, we had no business messing with Iran 25 years prior, every where we go we leave with more enemy's, so who are we helping anyway, mostly those that make the money fixing what we destroy, the war profiteers, it's circulatory too, we fight wars, so that people can profit, then we ship off Billions to these countrys to help pay for the rebuild.

enough ranting for now :horse
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 19304
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby Beagle » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:55 am

yoop wrote:It's hard to compare these two wars, first off Russia broke a armistice and helped NK invade SK, if you remember Russia controled NK after the end of WW2, US controlled SK, then both sides pulled there troops hoping the N and S would reunify, when that wasn't working Russia pushed the N to invade the S, basically it was a act of war against us.

But neither of these two military actions had anything to do with oil, which was my point in bringing up US action into other regions of the world. Whatever the case, oil was not among the reasons why.

we where not invaded as we where in Korea, IN Nam we where actually the invader, we went there on our own accord, the only people that wanted us there are the ones we helped put into positions of power.

You should check your history on Vietnam, in particular, the French involvement prior to ours and their defeat in a battle called Dien Bien Phu. Basically, it separated the North from the South and the North decided it wanted the South (sounds pretty familiar) so it started an insurgency. The North started with invasions of Laos (1959) and Cambodia(1961), then direct involvement of NVA troops (100K) into South Vietnam by 1965.

It was attacks on US Air Force bases that prompted ground troops into Vietnam as well as the (fictitious) attacks on the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin. It wasn't really an invasion, per say. We just wanted the North to leave the South alone so we could support whatever fledging fragile government was in power at the time. The North wanted the South and continued to attack until they got the whole thing. Americans and lawmakers would have much rather just have been home and not even involved. Once it escalated, it became a cornerstone of stopping all of Southeast Asia from being invaded.

Believe it or not, but the thinking was rational after what happened in Korea and other smaller countries. Also, it wasn't just the US involved either.

and it's the same with the middle east, obviously we've helped over there, but we allowed ourselves far to much envolvement, we had no business taking over Irag, we had no business messing with Iran 25 years prior, every where we go we leave with more enemy's, so who are we helping anyway, mostly those that make the money fixing what we destroy, the war profiteers, it's circulatory too, we fight wars, so that people can profit, then we ship off Billions to these countrys to help pay for the rebuild.

Well, the Middle East is a much bigger issue with a lot more moving parts than either Korea or Vietnam and I don't really see any comparison at all between them. I disagree completely that we are profiting as a nation over the conflicts going on there. If we wanted to profit, we would just seize the oil fields and start pumping cheap gas to America, Canada and Europe. Europeans especially would love to get a liter of fuel for reduced prices for a change. Then we could use the big green machine to defend the fields away from the populations and give the host country a cut. That is the way to make all this pay for itself.

That sounds familiar. Check the Iran - British deal prior to the Coup and why it happened.
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1745
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby Beagle » Sun Oct 04, 2015 6:54 pm

Russian air strikes in Syria started on Wednesday and continue through today. The Russians are claiming they have attacked targets in the Idlib province as well as the terror group's de facto capital in Raqqa. They claim at least 9 targets have been hit and the group as been severely hindered in the raids.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/middleeas ... irstrikes/

Most news outlets are not giving out exact targets because they cannot be independently verified and strikes are being launched with such frequency, information is still being gathered.

Russia seems to be firmly entrenched on the side of Assad along with Iraq and Iran who have formed a coalition against the rebel forces in Syria and ISIL across Iraq and Syria.

Meanwhile, US forces are still conducting strikes against ISIL in Syria and in Iraq. "The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community."

Highlights have the strikes in the region can be viewed here:

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-Vie ... ainst-isil
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1745
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby get louder at lambeau » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:15 pm

Beagle wrote:If we really wanted to take Iraq in 1991 and push into Syria or anywhere else, it could have easily have been accomplished. Our military was first rate and nothing in the region could stand up to it. Besides, we had a healthy amount of allies who probably would have come along for the ride anyway and would have gladly taken part in reshaping the Middle East. Especially troublesome countries like Syria and Libya and Iran.


Dick Cheney explains -

User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby GJPackerBacker » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:29 am

BF004 wrote:Aside from the fact we don't like Assad, he isn't a threat, we dislike ISIS a lot more, at least is the public perception we want. So why would we possibly be upset that Russia is doing our role of intervening and bombing ISIS?

Seems like everyone hates ISIS, we like the 'moderate rebels' which seem somewhat indistinguishable from ISIS or Al Qaeda.

Just really hope we stay the hell out of all this all together.


Some of the news media claim that Russia is targeting the US supported rebels who are trying to oust Assad not ISIS. It does make sense but we cannot know for sure because all of this info is second hand.

Putin cannot be trusted, he is an arrogant, power-hungry, con man. He is building a coalition that would love to stomp Israel our of existence.

On another note, I agree that we should strive towards energy independence and we aren't too far from it if we could:
1) Progress battery technology for electric cars.
2) Increase nuclear power to fuel the electric cars.
3) Stop with all the whining about fracking.
4) Open the Keystone Pipeline.
5) ...and stop wasting so much R&D money on solar power that will unlikely ever be practical on a large scale in the US.


In the end we stop sending US$ to the Middle East that end up supporting all the nonsense that is going on there.
GO PACK GO!!!
User avatar
GJPackerBacker
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:12 pm
Location: Somewhere West of South Park

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby Waldo » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:22 pm

GJPackerBacker wrote:5) ...and stop wasting so much R&D money on solar power that will unlikely ever be practical on a large scale in the US.


Are you kidding me? First of all, there is near zero publicly funded R&D. There was a little bit back when Obama was first elected, but that is now far in the rearview mirror.

Solar prices have been changing largely at the same rate as Moores law (the law about processing speed doubling). Another rule that has been applicable is the economy of scale rule that applies to every new thing, prices (inflaiton adjusted) can be expected to half for every factor of 10 unit production; a rise from 1,000 to 10,000 units will cause a price halving (this applied to cars, steel, cellphones, etc..., all new emerging technologies).

Solar is already competitive price-wise in areas, even unsubsidized. Within 10 years that will be the case in much of the country (when the gov't starts rethinking fossil fuel subsidies, that is when fossil fuel power generation is in serious trouble).

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/busin ... .html?_r=0

Utility scale solar is already a thing, even in red states. In 2014 in four states (Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Vermont) added 100% of new capacity via solar. 3 of the top 5 in installed capacity are red states (#2 North Carolina, #3 Nevada, #5 Arizona).

Where I live in Georgia (state gov't is deep red), after a slow start, things are really heating up, but its not gov't intervention, rather the power company is the driver.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060019158

Power companies can only win via regulation for so long, eventually people (including R's, who oppose the regs that crowd out competition) figure out that their lobbying efforts are absurd and force them to compete head on with Solar City. And Solar City is building a HUGE arms factory for this little war. Power utilites are under the same threat as cable companies.

One thing to remember about solar tech, costs right now are artificially high due to retrofitting costs, as it is integrated into new construction, installation costs are lower. Its becoming a feature homebuilders offer. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... mebuilders

I know in my industry (aviation), airports are getting very serious about using all the unused open land they own outside of critical areas, that they must own and must keep open, to make $$$ harvesting the sun; they already have the power system (and maintenance personnel to maintain it) and have to maintain the open areas anyway.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby get louder at lambeau » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:37 pm

The US strategy in Syria in a nutshell -

Image
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby GeMatt » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:50 am

The Prez said when first elected he does not want U.S. troops at war. He wants to bring them back home. The vast majority of Americans do not want any more war, so he is doing what the public wants. He also believes the people in those Middle East countries, including Syria, must do the heavy lifting when it comes to fighting terrorists. I am one who agrees 100%.
GeMatt
 
Posts: 5763
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:58 am

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby wallyuwl » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:56 am

GeMatt wrote:The Prez said when first elected he does not want U.S. troops at war. He wants to bring them back home. The vast majority of Americans do not want any more war, so he is doing what the public wants. He also believes the people in those Middle East countries, including Syria, must do the heavy lifting when it comes to fighting terrorists. I am one who agrees 100%.


His and his party's timeline to get out of Iraq, based on artificial dates on the calendar instead of the status of things on the ground, grasped defeat from the hands of victory. That had and is having consequences.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12090
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby yoop » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:54 pm

wallyuwl wrote:
GeMatt wrote:The Prez said when first elected he does not want U.S. troops at war. He wants to bring them back home. The vast majority of Americans do not want any more war, so he is doing what the public wants. He also believes the people in those Middle East countries, including Syria, must do the heavy lifting when it comes to fighting terrorists. I am one who agrees 100%.


His and his party's timeline to get out of Iraq, based on artificial dates on the calendar instead of the status of things on the ground, grasped defeat from the hands of victory. That had and is having consequences.


OB's timeline for getting troops out of Iraq was forced on him prior to even getting elected, you, me, and just about every other American was sick over us being there as long as we where and wanted him to pull out the troops, pretty hard to bitch at him for doing what the voters wanted him to do Wally, and we've been in Afganistan for 14 years, and he wasn't that envolved with putting troops there either, OB was tasked with getting troops out of places we shouldn't have been into in the first place.

Iraq was a cluster F when the Bush administration refused to allow Sadams under Generals a part in the stabalization project after we took over and everyone of them turned on us when OB pulled our troops, they where willing to help us and Bush shunned them off, thats a mistake Bush Caused and OB has had to deal with for the last 7 years.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 19304
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby wallyuwl » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:45 am

yoop wrote:OB's timeline for getting troops out of Iraq was forced on him prior to even getting elected, you, me, and just about every other American was sick over us being there as long as we where and wanted him to pull out the troops, pretty hard to bitch at him for doing what the voters wanted him to do Wally, and we've been in Afganistan for 14 years, and he wasn't that envolved with putting troops there either, OB was tasked with getting troops out of places we shouldn't have been into in the first place.


You don't remember things very well do you? In the primaries and general election BO ran on the platform that he would get out of Iraq ASAP, regardless of conditions on the ground. He backed off of that slightly once elected, but still got out way too soon. It was HIS mistake, mostly because of the pressure put on him from the leftist wing of the Democratic party (though, lets be real, there is no other part of the Democratic party nowadays). But he chose to ride the wave of "get out of Iraq no matter what", no one made him do it. That isn't what a responsible leader does. The surge worked to stabilize things on the ground and he, the commander in chief, pretty much made it so all of those soldiers that died or were maimed in 2007-2009 did so in vain.

Iraq was a cluster F when the Bush administration refused to allow Sadams under Generals a part in the stabalization project after we took over and everyone of them turned on us when OB pulled our troops, they where willing to help us and Bush shunned them off, thats a mistake Bush Caused and OB has had to deal with for the last 7 years.


From 2004-first half 2007, sure. Then the surge worked. Until BO was elected and pulled them all out.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12090
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: The Little War in Syria

Postby Trudge » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:40 am

wallyuwl wrote:
yoop wrote:OB's timeline for getting troops out of Iraq was forced on him prior to even getting elected, you, me, and just about every other American was sick over us being there as long as we where and wanted him to pull out the troops, pretty hard to bitch at him for doing what the voters wanted him to do Wally, and we've been in Afganistan for 14 years, and he wasn't that envolved with putting troops there either, OB was tasked with getting troops out of places we shouldn't have been into in the first place.


You don't remember things very well do you? In the primaries and general election BO ran on the platform that he would get out of Iraq ASAP, regardless of conditions on the ground. He backed off of that slightly once elected, but still got out way too soon. It was HIS mistake, mostly because of the pressure put on him from the leftist wing of the Democratic party (though, lets be real, there is no other part of the Democratic party nowadays). But he chose to ride the wave of "get out of Iraq no matter what", no one made him do it. That isn't what a responsible leader does. The surge worked to stabilize things on the ground and he, the commander in chief, pretty much made it so all of those soldiers that died or were maimed in 2007-2009 did so in vain.

Iraq was a cluster F when the Bush administration refused to allow Sadams under Generals a part in the stabalization project after we took over and everyone of them turned on us when OB pulled our troops, they where willing to help us and Bush shunned them off, thats a mistake Bush Caused and OB has had to deal with for the last 7 years.


From 2004-first half 2007, sure. Then the surge worked. Until BO was elected and pulled them all out.


The pull out strategy that Bush orchestrated that Obama actually extended? Then pulled out after wanting to leave 10,000 troops in the area with immunity? Think maybe part of the reason he got elected was also that the majority of Americans didn't think we should be in Iraq in the first place and just wanted to get the hell out of the Middle East? Holy $#!!, he delivered on a campaign promise that the majority of voters voted for, what a fraud. Good thing we started an imaginary war in Syria and against ISIS to make up for it.
Image
User avatar
Trudge
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests