Can only hope our actions do not go beyond cruise missile and air strikes as that shit hole is not worth one American life.
Because we know it's gonna happen. I'm mixed. I don't know why we're picking and choosing here. We're either all in on the Arab uprising or we're not. This is gonna suck.
Can only hope our actions do not go beyond cruise missile and air strikes as that shit hole is not worth one American life.
Wag The Dog 2 : Lets Draw The Focus Away From The NSA Scandal
I can't imagine it will be air strikes. What it will be is a less-covert funding of local military groups which still exist, are still relatively effective, and are still willing to fight assad. I'm talking out of my ass without specific knowledge, but I have to see this as a token to increase our stake in what has become a proxy war.
We aren't going to fight anyone directly. We're gonna arm some rebels! WOOOOOOOOO. Yep, it's that time again.
Edit: Well, maybe we'd invade. Who knows. I guess that depends on exactly how much Obama personally hates Hillary, and how much he'd rather see President Christie.
Last edited by Iannis; 08-26-2013 at 09:34 AM.
The fucking irony of the people who started this thread being full bore Iraq War supporters to the extent that one of them literally served there is blowing my mind.
It's a game of bluff. Obama said a year ago using chemical weapons is a red line that must not be crossed. Red line has been crossed. So you need to at least pretend you might do something about it, but it's all empty threats as long as Russia maintains customer service. On the up side, what Russia wants is a politically stable Syria that buys their stuff. They have no particular affection for the Assad family, which might leave some wiggle room to find some semblance of a solution.
Served in Iraq...love that these countries are in fucking shambles. Nice to see them turning all these weapons on each other instead of what they were doing before...bringing them across the boarder (into Iraq) to fucking shoot at us and blow us up. Let 'em burn.
Eonan that type of mindset is kind of fucking retarded. I salute you for your service, sir, but to act like the Syrian people didnt peacefully protest at the ignition of the Arab Spring is naive. They only turned to violence once Assad decided to start using live fire on civilians. Shit has just degraded because of the length of the conflict( Al Nusra Front, Al qeada etc), 2 and a half years running. Aleppo is a battlefield, Homs is a battlefield, and now the outskirts of Damascus is a battlefield. Arab jihadis fight their holy war wherever it is convenient, and right now thats Syria.
Believe it or nor, but radical Muslims will fight eachother just as well as Americans or any other non Arab/Muslim faction. As long as there are ideological differences (in this case Assad being of the Alawite sect) and a cause (oppression of their people) then there is a breeding ground for jihad. Think about it, if you are a young Jihadi who wants to do something important in his life (to them anyway) you would probably rather link up with other like-minded Muslim fighters who are up against a Syrian government who is using Soviet era weaponry, and not the high-tech United States who is increasingly turning to asymmetrical warfare (drones, special forces, spies) and have an unliimited budget.
And if the United States does strike Syria, this will turn into a proxy war in a hurry. Russia will start to strike opposition targets covertly soon after, and kick up its support for the Assad government exponentially.
Last edited by Jozu; 08-26-2013 at 12:04 PM.
Go for it.
Can we send JDAMs and Cruise Missiles instead of Marines this time?
I thought a good portion of the rebels were Al-Qaeda? Why the fuck are we choosing sides in this? They're both terrible.
Last edited by fanaskin; 08-26-2013 at 02:40 PM.
Let's take it, give it to the palestinians.
I dont know how many F-22s have been delivered and are operational right now. The original order was for 187 planes but I doubt all 187 have been delivered. As far as F-35 goes, the whole fleet has been grounded all year for abysmal performance issues.
The point being is that MiG-29 is a perfectly viable plane these days considering that 2,000 active fighter jets in USAF inventory have been entered into service before or at the same time as MiG-29. Syrian pilot skill is another story altogether.
Also, their AA defences aren't some .50AA guns on racks, as someone pointed out earlier, Russia has been selling them a lot of SAM units.
No, looks like it was Fanaskin.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
He thought your comma highlight (As someone pointed out earlier) was pointing out the the preceding phrase (50 cal air defense), not the subsequent one.
So back to the original point. Stealth Drones.
F-22 is second runner up in the "biggest boondoggle and absolute waste of tax payer money" category. First place is the F-35.
need the knowledge and technology to stay ahead of everyone else even if you don't use it.
f22 is more like a proof of concept than a mass production fighter.
airforce has to move onto drones though, f22 reaches the limits a human pilot can endure.
this is "mass produced"
Messerschmitt Bf 109: --- 34,852
Focke-Wulf Fw 190: --- 20,051
Ilyushin Il-2: ----- 36,183
F-16: ----- >4,500
f-22: ----- 195
see the difference? the f22 is way too expensive to be mass produced, the f-35 was supposed to be the low cost variant but the insistence of adding v-tol to the craft so nato partners could use it probably ruined all that.
Last edited by fanaskin; 08-26-2013 at 03:27 PM.
*edit* From Wiki:
JSF development is being principally funded by the United States with additional funding from partners. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. The United Kingdom, Italy, Israel, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Turkey are part of the development program; Japan has ordered the F-35, while Singapore may also equip their air force with the F-35.
I'd like to see some evidence that Assad's forces even used the chem weapons before we go all gung-ho and start spending millions to blow shit up. As it stands, it seems like it could easily have been the rebels (or someone else...?) that caused the sarin attack recently.
As for the military intervention point: http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/...ia_no_fly_zone
Text minus hyperlinks.
As a result of their advanced design, however, Seawolf submarines were much more expensive. The projected cost for twelve submarines of this class was $33.6 billion, but after the Cold War, construction was stopped at three boats.
Lifetime cost of the F-35 program has been estimated at $1.5+ TRILLION
At least they where smart enough to cancel after only 3.Dunno. The Seawolf Class submarines were pretty expensive after being touted to being supposedly cheaper than the 688i's.
The DoD has seriously fucked up its procurement of new hardware the past two decades. You go back to the 60s and 70s and you have 5 years or so from the DoD saying we want xyz hardware to it being able to used in combat. The F-35? Its been in development for almost 20 fucking years and is still 3-4 years from being operational.O_o
Last edited by Big Phoenix; 08-26-2013 at 03:59 PM.
I'm with Brikker here. Let's take a looksee here. Assad, with support from Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and China have all but won the "Syrian" (read: imported Libyan, Saudi, Afghani, etc) "rebels." All that was left was to retake Aleppo and they would be done for, and that battle is either in progress or imminent, depending on what news sites you read. The rebels have quite a sordid history, from persecuting religious minorities (burning Christian churches and killing Alawites) to staging mass killings and eating victim's lungs and stuff.
Assad is no erratic madman, he is a keen politician, and so is his main financial backer, Putin. Seeing as he has all but won he/they have absolutely no reason to resort to chemical weapons, especially seeing as doing so would mean a sure fire reaction from the West. So who profits from this? Assad? Who is now staring down the barrel of a full blown NATO war which will not end until he is either dead or exciled? Or the rebels and their Western/Gulf backers who now have a casus belli to bomb Syria back to the stoneage?
Considering the West's history at false flag operations (and there is no need to go into spooky stuff like 9/11, just stick to what is known like the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq's WMDs and the newly declassified CIA docs showing how they engineered Mossadegh's overthrow) who are we to trust here? Personally I am sceptical.
Also, very, very little has been mentioned of the dangers of going to war with Syria. Namely, that they have the full military backing of both Hezbollah and Iran, who are almost 100% sure to retaliate in some way. Both Russia and China have also said that they will not allow a repeat of what happened to Libya to happen to Syria. The Southern Russian military command and the Black Sea fleet have been put on war alert. Just how far Russia and China are willing to go is anybody's guess.
And for what? If anyone here thinks the west and it's gulf state allies give a rats ass about human rights in Syria that they are ready to go and bomb them back to the stoneage (Gadaffi was supposed to have killed some 5k people, while the "no fly zone" killed at least 50k civilians according to NGOs) has their head so far up their arse they can lick their tonsils. This is about gas pipelines, notably the proposed Quatari-Turkey pipeline that would go through Syria, that Assad has blocked (since it would put a dent in GazProm's monopoly of pipeline gas sales to Europe, hence Putin's interest in all this).
And if anyone doubts that people would go to war over a fucking pipeline think about this. The not-so-often mentioned cause for WWI was Germany's proposed Berlin-Bagdad railway, that was to lie through the Ottoman Empire, up through Serbia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and onwards. This pipeline would have meant that the emerging German Empire would be able to ship oil home and goods out via a land line, thereby negating the UK's dominance of the seas. The British were scared shitless of this and found the weakest link in this proposed line: Serbia. Gavrilo Princip, who killed Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was a member of the Black Hand, a group that had strong ties, and financial backing from the British military authorities. He acted on their behalf to cause a rift in railway plans, only the UK did not expect things to escalate as much as they did.
We could well be staring down the barrel of WWIII here and for what? Sweet fuck all!
I would agree with that gentleman. I don't see why Assad would use chem weapons
But what does Syria have to do with the pipeline? Why not just run it from the gulf through Iraq and then over to turkey
that was kind of my point, we didn't pay for the f22 to use it as a "backbone of the air force type plane" so much as research the technology. it's to expensive to use it in mass numbers.
Last edited by fanaskin; 08-26-2013 at 04:23 PM.
If we go to war with Assad because the people he's fighting used chemical weapons I'll be very disappointed. I hope we do nothing with Syria. It's a shit tornado that we have no way to help.
The UN weapons inspectors that were on their way to investigate the site where the alleged chemical attack happened were shot up by snipers
BBC News - Syria crisis: UN inspectors' convoy hit by sniper fire
'Unidentified' snipers. Yeah, right...
Someone is gonna get fucked up over this
its also rather interesting that we respond to the syrian gvmnt mass killing their own people by us lobbing a bunch of bombs into their country and mass killing their own people. either way its the civilians who are losing. we arent going to change shit by tossing bombs.
And then there is what tad10 says, all you pro-war folks, whether you have served in your nation's military or not, remember this. Those Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Al-Whatever guys who kept shooting and killing your friends over in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in Iraq? They will be your brothers in arms if you go to war in Syria. But hey, you already gave them Libya and it's oil wealth with which to fuel (both literally and financially) their ongoing campaign to kill infidels and turn secular Arab regimes into Sharia-law religious states.
I can understand why certain people in the very top levels of powerpolitics and business would like to see that happen, as they can both use the time tested divide and conquer strategy to keep the Middle-East fragmented, but then they can also make a fuck ton of money by selling them (inferior) Western weapons, and then using that as a perfect excuse to then use more powerful Western weapons to bomb them back again should they not do their master's bidding (while sending the bill to the US/EU's taxpayer. However, I have a hard time understanding how the average Joe can cheer this on, at least if they ever bother to get their news from some other places than Fox/CNN/Sky.
At the end of the day it's not just Ahmed regular back in whereveristan who gets to see his family slaughtered and his country destroyed, it's also Joe regular back in the West who gets to see his friends killed while serving for another pointless war and see his tax dollars get poured into this shit instead of being used to do something constructive, like educate people, or repair your country's crumbling infrastructure.
One day us regular folks are going to wake up in a ruined, bankrupted world wondering what happened to the prosperity that our fathers enjoyed but by then it will be too late. But don't worry, nothing to see here, just watch the warporn on Fox while you munch on your Hot Pockets and everything will be fine. Just let the good guys in government take your rights and your freedoms away all to keep you safe from those evil terrorists who want to kill you (because their country and family were destroyed by yours).
I hope we don't go in but if we do, I'm going to laugh my ass off when we find no WMD in Syria just like we found none in Iraq. Especially if its sold by Obama.
How stupid are we going to be to let them keep telling us because someone, somewhere, might have a weapon of so called "mass destruction" that its our responsibility to save the planet from it? Didn't we just go through this with Bush last decade? Now we're going to go through it again this decade? I thought we just got out of Iraq not that long ago, now we're going to go into their neighbor's? Why didn't we just do it while we were there the first time? Fuck if we're going to do this just institute a draft, get Europe on board, and topple everything in the Middle East at once, instead of this drip drip drip bullshit.
We have more WMDs than anyone lol. Our government is such a fucking joke.
Maybe someone figured out that the last depression was cured by WW2 and want to do that, nukes just means more reconstruction money!
If you just watched the John Kerry press conference, I think it's pretty obvious that we will be taking action sooner rather than later.
I think they'll go the route of pressuring NATO/Europe to do something rather than actually get involved. You know, beyond drones or whatever.
He also said it's "undeniable" that Syria used chemical weapons... so...
After Colin Powell's testimony before Congress regarding Iraq's WMDs I can't take Kerry's word about Syria's use of chemical weapons.
I would hope none of us take his word after what happened last time.
If that man told me it was undeniably raining outside I'd still look out the window to check.
The time to worry is if talking heads start spouting stories about how well Libya went.
We didn't get involved and it isn't an islamist state yet, so I'd say that Libya went fine.
We did get involved tho and through some trick of fate or Jesus taking pity on us we managed to not irrevocably fuck it up unto the fifth generation.
That's why it would be concerning if there's a sudden focus on our involvement in Libya. Libya panned out ok for us.
These are some amazingly stealthy WMDs, downright magical if US can't keep track of them, find them or locate them.
I suspect "Saddam's WMDs" will be used as an excuse to invade anyone for the next 25 years
well we know they existed at some point because we made them, then sold them to Iraq.
Most of that shit if it isn't stored correctly degrades pretty rapidly. Years of sanctions pretty well lead to conditions where that shit wasn't able to be stored correctly. Hussein abandoned or used up most of his viable chemical stock on his own citizens and the rest went to rot, effectively. The dumb ass probably buried them in a desert in the mid 90s to hide them from the UN and Clinton and forgot where they were buried.
That or he sold them to someone else like China a decade and a half ago or more.
I think any military action taken by the U.S. without a clear indication from the U.N. that the Syrian government actually used chemical weapons would be a huge misstep. Russia is already leaving not so vague indications that U.S. involvement, without UN approval, is not going to work in anyone's interest.
I mean I understand why there is pressure to get involved in Syria. The defense contract gravy train from the last decade has almost made it's last stop. So we need a new theater like, yesterday.
However, simply making a red line statement about the use of chemical weapons, is essentially telling anyone out there that wants international intervention, "hey use some chemical weapons and we'll be sure to show up." I mean this gives the rebels a clear motive for using the weapons. The Syrian government would have to be batshit insane (which I think they are) to use them. So actually it's still a possibility either side could have employed them. Or even more out there, a third party that wishes for international involvement orchestrated the attack using local agents.
Anyways, the fact that the UN inspectors came under fire recently on their way to the site by unknown snipers indicates maybe someone is worried about what they might find. Although, they were being escorted by Syrian government forces while traveling in rebel controlled territory, so it could have just been another Monday.
Last edited by Pancreas; 08-26-2013 at 08:21 PM.
Why do you think the Syrian government is batshit insane?
I haven't followed this closely but it seems like chem weapons have been used two times. Both times were when the rebels were looking defeated.
Because this did not start as an armed uprising. This started as a series of protests. The Syrian government's response? Start killing civilians. It took quite a while before a unified armed resistance evolved out of that. Slaughtering your own people is not something a sane administration engages in.
I think the rebels have a more obvious motive for using chemical weapons given the clear cut instructions about what would result if such weapons were utilized. However, the Syrian government has proven that they are not a rational entity when it comes to the use of force.
Oh, I don't know. I can see plenty of sane reasons to slaughter your own people. Especially if they're protesting against you.
Despotic, Oppressive, Sadistic, Cruel, Draconian, Authoritarian... lots of rational words to describe that action. In retrospect, not the best plan... but when they shot the students in tianamen we didn't say those red leaders were insane or irrational. It is rational after a fashion. It's just wrong.
Life is cheap, the life of your enemy is even cheaper I guess.
For those who are interested/care, unlike Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria does actually have a large stockpile of chemical (and possibly biological) WMDs. So the media/politicians aren't lying about that. But I would be willing to bet a good deal of money that Assad has not used them, and the weapons that have been used are rebel weapons for the reason I posted earlier. However, Assad has clearly stated that if his country is attacked from the outside he will retaliate with all that he has, and while I am strongly against WMDs in any shape and form, I do fear that he may use them, especially against Israel - if he is about to lose. In doing so Israel will most certainly retaliate with their own WMDs - i.e. nukes. So just with this in mind this could all go very badly for a large group of innocent civilians.
What is more worrying are the latest reports that it's not just the West who are sending ships and planes and godknowswhat to the Eastern Med, but the Russians too. Now, maybe this will be like the Cuba crisis where the two sides just show their muscles but nothing happens (hopefully), but what if Putin is serious about Syria being his "red line in the sand" and actively engages Western targets flying into Syria? How will the West respond to that? This potential war is far, FAR different than past wars such as Libya, Iraq, hell even Vietnam. We're talking about a hot war with Russia, and from all I have read, China is in on this too (you may laugh at China's military power but what happens if they dump their trillions of US Treasury toilet paper all at the same time, eh?).
The chances are very good that this coming war is not going to be a News at 6 Shock and Awe comfy TV war.
Fuck do I hope I'm wrong, but of late I've been right too often
Eh, same shit happened in late 90s in the Balkans. Matter of fact, Russians and NATO almost got into a firefight in Pristina.
There will be some dick waving, but in the end Assad will probably be replaced for US/NATO to save face and replaced with another puppet that is agreeable to Putin for Russia to save face.
Peter King just said on CNN that we are about to hit Syria. We'll see.
edit: meh, he hedged and said "we could strike tonight if the president orders". fgt.
Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark explains that the middle east destabilization was planned years ago and that the US will attack 7 countries in 5 years. Syria and Iran are the 2 major ones next up on the list.
I dunno i'm starting to hear this phrase more when I watch political shows across the spectrum of viewpoints some variant of "and even though obama has carried out most of the same foreign policy decisions as bush."
I honestly think obama is sometimes partly a bystander to events around him, he is one person, history often debates whether individuals change history or if they are a consequence of the trends and forces around them. Alexander could never conquer the Persians if Phillip of Macedon did not construct a large war machine and draw up the plans shortly before being assassinated, there is a chain of events that leads up to you and what choices you can make in life.
Last edited by fanaskin; 08-26-2013 at 11:29 PM.
It is really disgusting to see how eager the warmongers in the US are to stomp on yet another sovereign nation that poses NO THREAT to the homeland.
Yeah fuck that 'following bush' thinking. Bush was out of office for this entire Arab spring. It's a unique circumstance and Pres. Obama is fully responsible for the choices he makes. He can choose to push to go to Syria or he can choose to hang back. If he chooses to go into Syria and things end up significantly worse than Libya it'd be the biggest mistake he's made. If he chooses to stay out of it it'd be a good choice and would set a precedent for non-involvement of shitty situations we shouldn't be involved in.
If he chooses to stay out and it degenerates into world war 3 it would be a bad choice, or if he chooses to go in and it's all rainbows and sunshine then it is good. Speculation like that really doesn't make sense in these situations.
Whoever is president of the US, or prime minister of the UK, or president of France at any given time has become largely irrelevant. Obama came in on a wave of "change", yet he kept most of the same financial "advisers" (read: bank lobbyists) that Bush had. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has also kept up the meddling in the Middle East, though the flavour (read: Muslim Brotherhood) may have changed, even if the method hasn't. Same can be said for the UK, doesn't matter if it is Labour Party Tony Blair and Iraq or Conservative David Cameron and Libya/Syria, or right wing Sarkozy or left wing Hollande. "Change" was the name of the campaign, but as is said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
We here in the West have long since given up on democracy. Sure, our democratically elected leaders can change small stuff, focus on this that or the other, but when it comes to big things, in all these countries we've seen supposedly majour shifts in policy. But have the powers of the bankers been curtailed? Have any been arrested? Have they stopped their warmongering? Or their assaults on our liberties, both in real life and on-line? The spying?
Back when the USSR fell, and with it the "Evil empire" that worked as a benchmark in tyranny that the West could focus on then I started to wonder. If we lose that yardstick with which to compare our nations to "evil" ones, how will we know if we start to slide towards such tyranny ourselves? For a long time now I have feared that we have gone far, far down a road that would have been impossible had we still had such a benchmark with which to compare ourselves. And honestly, I do not see a way to backtrack anymore.
Braveheart already told us the answer to the whole 'boots on the ground' thing, imho:
-Beg your pardon sir, but won't we hit our own troops?
-Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. Arrows cost money. The dead cost nothing. Attack.
Can we please stop giving a fuck about other nations and fix our problems first. I MEAN, FUCK!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)