Guest Ckatska Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 At first i didnt think we were going to have anything to do with it but then that Nerve gas Happened and i think we will be in that war sooner than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.Capt.RUSHER16=US= Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 You should be aware anything can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.1SG.Maysin=US= Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Tbh, i think there needs to be some major intervention now. Chemical attacks on innocent people is outrageous which weighs heavily into global concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ckatska Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 i Completely agree with Rt.Maysin1337, But the scary thing is they used Chemical's on there own people what do you think they will use on the people trying to comin and take control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sagilevy Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 youll blow something up and blame us lol i realy think you wont get in that war you have no intrest in helping any side you dont risk your own soldiers to fight a war you dont need to fight unless you have some intrest in the fight the rebels are not US/west frendly even if they say they are the syrian army are not a friends of the west (trust me about that ;) ) the only real reason to go to war is if the syrian army attack turky or israel and if that happens well then ill send you a postcard from damascus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sagilevy Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 i Completely agree with Rt.Maysin1337, But the scary thing is they used Chemical's on there own people what do you think they will use on the people trying to comin and take control? befor any invasion they will probbly do some heavy bombing from the sea and air so i dont think the syrian army will shoot anything at anyone by the time you go and take control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.CW5.Ward Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 If anything at all is done, it will be with Air and Naval assets. While the US may not have any major interests in Syria, we as a country in most situations will not stand by and watch the use of CBRN weapons against civilians with out taking action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.TSgt.Warlord=US= Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 If it means my boots hit the Sands of Syria to fix the B.S. situation over there and topple another evil regime, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.1SG.Maysin=US= Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 I think we need more people that think like you do Corporal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GearShot Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Make sure you get your NBC shot's warlord. Dont want you to pass out the instant you touch land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.CW4.ThievingSix=US= Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Whilst the chance of chemical weapons being used is fairly likely, i'd still wait for the UN's official report before any action is taken. The reality is that if chemical weapons were used, we need to know more about them before charging in. I'd also say that the UN needs to send its own peacekeeping forces rather than individual countries so that they all fight under the same banner. The last thing you want is a free for all for control of Syria. The goals of the operation need to be clear too, rather than the mess that was the Iraq war, whose goals were so wide and open to interpretation that it resulted in an operation that could never really be successful. The other suggestion made by the media is bombing parts of Syria, which i think is utter stupidity in most circumstances, if you look at a map of the conflict, the reality is that large parts of Syria are "unknown" or being contested. Even areas under control from either side are bound to have countless civilians who have no political interests. Bombing any city would mean countless civilian deaths, which run directly against what should be the goal of saving civilians. The only places i think should be bombed are military assets. This effectively means that any action taken in Syria needs to be with ground troops, or it will be superfluous because you'd be killing civilians anyway under the banner of "saving civilians". Honestly the best approach in my opinion is to set up a no-fly zone that is internationally maintained and naval blockades as well as destruction of major military assets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.SSgt.Grif=US= Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 ^this is the most logical explanation. You have to look at all of the pieces: -what terrorist organizations that will benefit from the destruction of Assad (al Qaeda)-what terrorist organizations that won't benefit from the destruction of Assad (Hezbollah)-what countries that will benefit from the destruction of Assad (Israel, and the Sunni Muslim governments of the middle east --primarily Saudi Arabia & Qatar)-what countries that won't benefit from the destruction of Assad (Iran) I read from a lot of different sources.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sterling1214 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Tbh, i think there needs to be some major intervention now. Chemical attacks on innocent people is outrageous which weighs heavily into global concern. Who is innocent? The UN has not even indicated it was a Chemical weapon. This is a US funded war, The same kind of war sponsored by the US to train the Taliban to fight the Russians. We (the current administration) support the "Rebels" whom are not even from Syria they are recruited as mercenaries. Anyone can go on youtube and watch the raw footage of the "Rebels". Last time I heard someone screaming "alah akhbar" like that I was kicking in a door and getting shot at with an AK. Furthermore with situations like this everyone is entitled to their own opinion, BUT Must be at the same time responsible for their own opinion because they make ripples. And an ignorant (please look up the definition for this word) statement can make quite a wave. P.S. I don't want to get reactivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest soco Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I don't think intervening in Syria is a good idea unless it directly affects our national security. What do we really expect when a new democracy starts? If you remove an authoritarian government and put into place a democracy suddenly a lot of people can voice their opinions without restriction, and their voices can be very different because they probably have a lot of pent up issues. Conflict is inevitable, wars will happen, people will die. Their government will swing between authoritarian and democratic. What took the US hundreds of years and thousands of lives to master was how to manage that conflict without sacrificing democracy; it's unreasonable to expect it to happen in an election cycle. We don't need to freak out everytime a new democracy has a conflict because if we intervene, instead of developing a sustainable infrastructure for managing conflict (i.e. courts, free speech), we become that infrastructure. Not a good situation. What's the goal here:1) Save lives?: we could save a lot more $ by feeding children in Africa. 2) Stop chemical weapons?: I think sanctions work a lot better. Our armies are made to kill; they are not the Founding Fathers for Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.1SG.Maysin=US= Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Who is innocent? The UN has not even indicated it was a Chemical weapon. This is a US funded war, The same kind of war sponsored by the US to train the Taliban to fight the Russians. We (the current administration) support the "Rebels" whom are not even from Syria they are recruited as mercenaries. Anyone can go on youtube and watch the raw footage of the "Rebels". Last time I heard someone screaming "alah akhbar" like that I was kicking in a door and getting shot at with an AK. Furthermore with situations like this everyone is entitled to their own opinion, BUT Must be at the same time responsible for their own opinion because they make ripples. And an ignorant (please look up the definition for this word) statement can make quite a wave. P.S. I don't want to get reactivated. I guess i should have been more specific on the "major intervention" part. I'm not looking to send American troops over seas, under the American flag. The kind of intervention needed is; as SGM.ThievingSix said, "Honestly the best approach in my opinion is to set up a no-fly zone that is internationally maintained and naval blockades as well as destruction of major military assets." The UN is the one that would be putting these types of sanctions and blockades up. I know that we don't need to be making anymore of these "ripples" or "waves" than we have to, but the quicker the UN indicates whether it was a chemical weapon or not, the better. Furthermore, the people i consider innocent are the men, women and children dying from attacks (chemical or not), who cannot escape a war-torn country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Halabrad Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 this is generally what all of our foreign policies eventually turn into*sorry for the language*http://i.imgur.com/O3bbnz0.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Normonator Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 The US should just mind it's own damn business. Just because you have the power does not mean you should force it on everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avicJ Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I agree with the Sergeant major on how it should be taking care of and I stand with SGT.Sterling im not really into getting reactivated to go over there again either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.GEN.Darmine Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I do not want the U.S. to get involved. We have our own problems of our government violating our Constitution and Bill of Rights and horrible economy (We also have a liberal/Progressive/Communist problem). We eliminate one and we get a whole new evil beast, just a little incite but they both are a terrorist regime. We eliminate one we replace it with another bad one. Let the EU deal with it, if they want to, we do not need to intervene with everyone's problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avicJ Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 You hit the nail on the head there general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.1SG.Maysin=US= Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I'm all for the UN and EU handling this one General, but the US seems more than ready to strike. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23852363 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Normonator Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Just going to put this out there. Seems pretty spot on at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.LT.Padarom=US= Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I'm all for the UN and EU handling this one General, but the US seems more than ready to strike. At least Germany will most likely not be one of the EU states to intervent in Syria, as stated by our minister of defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.1SG.Maysin=US= Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 At least Germany will most likely not be one of the EU states to intervent in Syria, as stated by our minister of defence. France seems pretty adamant about proactive response to Syria, although Germany (arguably the backbone of the EU right now) is; like you said, most likely not going to intervene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.GEN.Darmine Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 We (U.S.) do not need to strike anything. Germany is not getting involved and neither should we. If France wants to strike let them, we got into Vietnam because of France. Ill be damned if I have to go to Syria because of them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.