ADVERTISEMENT

Syria

What should the US do in Syria

  • Get out

    Votes: 17 48.6%
  • Keep a few thousand troops there and keep bombing a little bit

    Votes: 5 14.3%
  • Make the cinders dance

    Votes: 13 37.1%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.

seminole97

Veteran Seminole Insider
Jun 14, 2005
6,554
2,596
853
Maybe we can discuss current events without breaking the rules.

Classical, non-interventionist Washingtonian type myself, so definitely aligned with choice 1.

I’m alarmed, but not surprised, at the drumbeat for moar war, as if we haven’t had enough for the last 27 years.

Does waging war in Syria have much public support? I don’t encounter anyone amped for the prospect, but maybe it’s the circles I travel in.
 
I'm not a policy wonk, but I believe it would be prudent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) a chemical attack actually occurred and 2) Assad was responsible before even considering doing anything to risk WWIII.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnieHolmesNole
Very tough situation and what is likely the best answer still may be wrong. There is value to the US and region in doing something. Unfortunately the time to do something that will have a lasting effect has come and gone. Other than a full fledged invasion, which I am opposed to there is nothing that will change the situation.

There is a concern that they have chemical weapons more so than using him on his own people. As far as what we should do I can roll with missile attacks and I am all for the limited roll SOF has in the region. They are killing bad people who need to die. I also think there is value in having our SOF forces engaged there to keep them on the cutting edge. I know some will find that odd; but nothing replaces actual combat experience and like it or not you want your military to have a certain level of war time experience.
At this point Russia is there and not much we can do about that. We should also insure we support Israel since if something must be done they will do it whether with help or alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jap 1
I guess I'm at the other end from Ranger. I don't think we should go around fighting other peoples' fights for them, when they're not likely to become our fights. I think that's led to a lot of the terrorism: us sticking our noses into everything that happens in the world. We don't have to be the white knight for the whole planet.

But, I know realistically, that peace isn't very profitable for the war-profiteering companies that rely on conflict to make their dollars - and those companies a) employ a LOT of Americans, and b) donate a lot of money to espouse the benefits of blowing things up to those who make the decisions.

But yes, I think we should get out of Syria and other places as quickly as possible and shift our policy to politically supporting the authority of each nation to elect their leaders and forms of government in whatever way works best for them. And if they do it non-peacefully, then it's the role of the United Nations (of which we should be an equal supporting member, not a primary driver) to address the issue.
 
Tough situation, probably no right answer. If the ME had a "you break it, you buy it" policy, we likely would have bought it 20x over in the last 60 years - and our costs, financial and human, make it seem like we've done just that.

That said, walking away from a humanitarian crisis, is not something I can stomach. While admittedly we have flaws, and they are many, I hold sacred our role as the beacon of light in the world. Leaving that soil and the people who call it home to act as pawns in a proxy war between the gulf states, Iran, and Russia is not something I'm comfortable with, nor is abdicating our role in the region.

But I don't have a solution, just that walking away isn't one... I'd like to say that if it's military it can't be a US-only solution, we need to do it under the UN flag.

Long term, we need buy in from the gulf states, we need to bring Iran and Russia to the table. Then tell Russia to leave the table or sanction them into being a modern day North Korea, seize every asset held by an oligarch on US or EU soil or banks. The House of Saud and Iran need to deescalate tensions, we need to do facilitate and engage in the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F4Gary
There is no end game. At least not one most of us would hope for.
Too many conflicting interests and ideologies. Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, Arab, Israeli, the Turks (NATO member to boot) and to gin it up real good add the US and Vlad the dickhead.
Careful it doesn’t get out of hand.
 
That said, walking away from a humanitarian crisis, is not something I can stomach. While admittedly we have flaws, and they are many, I hold sacred our role as the beacon of light in the world.

The shining city on the hill is supposed to be an example of conduct. I'm afraid our beacon isn't perceived as we might hope or imagine.

Leaving that soil and the people who call it home to act as pawns in a proxy war between the gulf states, Iran, and Russia is not something I'm comfortable with, nor is abdicating our role in the region.

Discussing abdication leads me to ask, who crowned us with this role, and was that not the original error?

It seems everything afterwards, particularly staying, merely compound it. Strange to say we shouldn't leave these people to be pawns when that's basically been the policy of our presence, and a requirement to our staying.

It is amazing to me how quickly the Saudi Arabian backed jihadist declared they were gassed after the President publicly said we should get out and let SA handle it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
I was always a sucker for maps as a kid. Had them on my walls like posters. Especially enjoyed ancient maps from NG showing old borders and comparing it to now.
Wish I still had those maps from the 80s when it was easier to remember all the east European capitals just to show my kids how much the world has changed since I was that age.

Kli5JyX.png


clearer PDF at this link
 
I was always a sucker for maps as a kid. Had them on my walls like posters. Especially enjoyed ancient maps from NG showing old borders and comparing it to now.
Wish I still had those maps from the 80s when it was easier to remember all the east European capitals just to show my kids how much the world has changed since I was that age.

Kli5JyX.png


clearer PDF at this link

And...
 

Made me realize maps of today are worth saving for the same reason.
I think it would be neat to have a map of the world when I was born compared to today, and especially neat to check out when I'm nearer the other end.
Syria has gone all Humpty, and I'm interested in seeing what it becomes next. YMMV.
 
Yeah. I love older books and maps. The world view of those are sure to change for a multitude of reasons.
It is interesting to see how some viewed the world at a specific time.
It also helps us to see why a certain world view was advanced.
I love to see how modern names evolved from ancient or earlier ones.
We have to remember that early mapmakers produced product to serve those who “subsidized” them. The Brits, French, Spanish, and Portugese were especially active.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I don’t understand the bombing option, but doesn’t it go something like this?: “hey, stop torturing that group of innoncent people.....if you don’t, we will bomb the crap out of your country and kill thousands of innocent people.”

Huh????
 
I am a bit suspect of timing. There have been other attacks since last time we bombed them so bad it took 24 hours to have the airfield back up and running.
 
Russia said the gas attack was staged and nothing happened. So we’ll probably not do anything.
 
I'm not a policy wonk, but I believe it would be prudent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) a chemical attack actually occurred and 2) Assad was responsible before even considering doing anything to risk WWIII.

I agree with this. Seeing how the media exaggerates alot of things, and is not really honest as a whole. Find out exactly who did it.

Also seems to be a big giant coincidence that he stated this week that we are getting out of there, and then a few days later this happens.
 
In.....I've done my fair share of time in the sandbox but as I have become more of an avid reader over the years I have come to more and more realize that we are our own worst enemies when it comes to foreign affairs (Vietnam doesn't happen if we hadn't screwed the pooch beforehand with the batass crazy General we put in power) and alot of the Persian Gulf conflicts we have been involved in don't happen if we hadn't stood the Shah up for so long in Iran. (maybe some of the battles with Iran don't happen, which means we don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build up Iraq's military to offset Iran which we end up having to blow up eventually. And we could talk all day about Afghanistan (funding OBL against the Soviets and our most recent endeavor).
 
In.....I've done my fair share of time in the sandbox but as I have become more of an avid reader over the years I have come to more and more realize that we are our own worst enemies when it comes to foreign affairs (Vietnam doesn't happen if we hadn't screwed the pooch beforehand with the batass crazy General we put in power) and alot of the Persian Gulf conflicts we have been involved in don't happen if we hadn't stood the Shah up for so long in Iran. (maybe some of the battles with Iran don't happen, which means we don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build up Iraq's military to offset Iran which we end up having to blow up eventually. And we could talk all day about Afghanistan (funding OBL against the Soviets and our most recent endeavor).
None of this is by accident. The military/industrial complex and resulting "war economy" must be preserved at all costs. Trump campaigned against this stuff, and that's why many voted for him over HRC/globalists only to find out now he's apparently just another face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDallasRuss
In.....I've done my fair share of time in the sandbox but as I have become more of an avid reader over the years I have come to more and more realize that we are our own worst enemies when it comes to foreign affairs (Vietnam doesn't happen if we hadn't screwed the pooch beforehand with the batass crazy General we put in power) and alot of the Persian Gulf conflicts we have been involved in don't happen if we hadn't stood the Shah up for so long in Iran. (maybe some of the battles with Iran don't happen, which means we don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build up Iraq's military to offset Iran which we end up having to blow up eventually. And we could talk all day about Afghanistan (funding OBL against the Soviets and our most recent endeavor).
You should read about how the English and French imperialism started it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReliableOstrich
Actually, I think this has been a very civil discussion.

Agreed. But it's Friday the 13th... in the Locker Room... so, it's really just a matter of time, tbh.

And I get that I have a very innocent way of looking at it, when we're appointed by the UN to be the world's police force, but that was instituted many decades and regimes ago, not just domestically but globally. Still shocks me that we can see global landscapes changing almost on a daily basis, but treaties and pacts signed so long ago are treated like gospel.
 
Generally if this was just a casual internal battle, I'd agree that we mind or own business or only intervene by exerting non-military pressure. As @helmetnuts mentioned, there aren't a lot of scenarios where we've intervened or provided weapons that have worked out well long term.

However, the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, which all credible parties seem to be pointing towards, is a humanitarian issue that I think warrants a response. Add to that this is hardly a civil war but rather a proxy war being fought by Russia, Iran, and the Gulf States. I still have trouble abdicating our role (or perhaps our role within a UN force) in preventing a bunch of regimes who've shown little to no regard for human life using Syria (and their innocent citizens) as a a pinball.

Every nation involved in worsening the situation there should be hit with severe / crippling sanctions by the UN, have foreign assets/property frozen, etc... some would argue (and probably be right) that we'd be party to that as well. I'd like to think our goal was to deescalate and we could avoid it, but Putin would like say the equivalent "I know you are but what am I."
 
Agreed. But it's Friday the 13th... in the Locker Room... so, it's really just a matter of time, tbh.

And I get that I have a very innocent way of looking at it, when we're appointed by the UN to be the world's police force, but that was instituted many decades and regimes ago, not just domestically but globally. Still shocks me that we can see global landscapes changing almost on a daily basis, but treaties and pacts signed so long ago are treated like gospel.
Good point. For instance, Turkey's a member of NATO...But if it went down today, they'd be aligned with Russia, Syria, and Iran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoNolesTX
However, the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, which all credible parties seem to be pointing towards, is a humanitarian issue that I think warrants a response.

Russians/Syrians have control of the area in question and I understand they're open to inspections.
I don't believe the case is being made that chemicals of some kind were not used, but whether it was a false flag.
It seems like we're not supposed to think about motive:




Add to that this is hardly a civil war but rather a proxy war being fought by Russia, Iran, and the Gulf States. I still have trouble abdicating our role (or perhaps our role within a UN force) in preventing a bunch of regimes who've shown little to no regard for human life using Syria (and their innocent citizens) as a a pinball.
Every nation involved in worsening the situation there should be hit with severe / crippling sanctions by the UN, have foreign assets/property frozen, etc... some would argue (and probably be right) that we'd be party to that as well.

I don't think the 'nations' involved should be sanctioned, that's just punishing the innocents further.
Why can't we 'sanction' the individuals who pushed to make this situation even worse?

I'd like to think our goal was to deescalate and we could avoid it, but Putin would like say the equivalent "I know you are but what am I."

The goal of American involvement was laid out in a 2012 DIA document that became public years ago.
From the text:
“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”

The former head of DIA confirmed it in 2015:
"Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing."
 
President speaking tonight. Reports are he wants a ground assault and DOD trying to push back.
 
Bad news. Wth is wrong with these “leaders” (on ALL sides)?

Kang and Kodos.
Not the interesting part we can get into.

British and French in and Germany out, right.
Fitting.
Also just read that Russia vetoed inspections in the UNSC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT