that was to be expected.
This is the exact nature of what will set off WWIII, perhaps right here and sooner than we think.
US F/A-18 downs Syrian bomber
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
This is the exact nature of what will set off WWIII, perhaps right here and sooner than we think.
Well it is a civil war and the Russkies are supporting one side so, we have to support the other just like Iraq, Vietnam and Korea. SMH, again.
Can someone tell me of what value Syria is to either side? Do the Russians just really need a friend that bad or what? Just cut the dude loose and invest your resources elsewhere.
i can't keep up with who's who over there sometimes, but iran is also involved in syria. they conducted air strikes targeting isil yesterday.
Whether or not we should be there is a separate (and valid) discussion....
If this was done to protect our armed forces......then I'm all for it....good job!
If this was done to protect our armed forces......then I'm all for it....good job!
Meh. None of this matters.
To those against troops there, apparently 53% (I know, "huge" number) wanted us there.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/isis-obama-poll/index.html
To the leftist here:
Obama sent troops there. I'm not even gonna link it. You should know this, and if you don't.....
To the righties:
Which devil do you prefer? The one you know, Assad, responsible for human rights violations going on 8 years, but not as "good at his job" as Saddam was -I mean that 100%- or ISIS, clearly an enemy to us, but the thorn in the side of the Syrian regime a well.
So everyone hates seeing civilians killed because they don't like the govt, but then when the militia joins up with ISIS, what do you do?
Now everyone says, "why are we there" when 2 years ago everyone's screaming, "why aren't we there?"
EDIT:
Let me apologize. I feel this post was a bit too centrist. But the fact remains that Americans generally don't like seeing bad things happen to civilians but, even in ww2 we may well have not gotten involved (other than material contributions) if not directly attacked at Pearl. Our involvement in ww1.....pure strategics. Stop the horde before the horde can't be stopped.
The question remains; do we aid those under thumb in other countries or sit idly by? What do you do when sitting idly by is a recruitment commercial for (imo) the most savvy terrorist group to ever exist?
To those against troops there, apparently 53% (I know, "huge" number) wanted us there.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/isis-obama-poll/index.html
To the leftist here:
Obama sent troops there. I'm not even gonna link it. You should know this, and if you don't.....
To the righties:
Which devil do you prefer? The one you know, Assad, responsible for human rights violations going on 8 years, but not as "good at his job" as Saddam was -I mean that 100%- or ISIS, clearly an enemy to us, but the thorn in the side of the Syrian regime a well.
So everyone hates seeing civilians killed because they don't like the govt, but then when the militia joins up with ISIS, what do you do?
Now everyone says, "why are we there" when 2 years ago everyone's screaming, "why aren't we there?"
EDIT:
Let me apologize. I feel this post was a bit too centrist. But the fact remains that Americans generally don't like seeing bad things happen to civilians but, even in ww2 we may well have not gotten involved (other than material contributions) if not directly attacked at Pearl. Our involvement in ww1.....pure strategics. Stop the horde before the horde can't be stopped.
The question remains; do we aid those under thumb in other countries or sit idly by? What do you do when sitting idly by is a recruitment commercial for (imo) the most savvy terrorist group to ever exist?
Last edited:
Yes, they do.
I believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich wants to party like it 1815 when Russia was a power to be noticed and respected and cossacks were watering their horses in the Seine.
If you look at the nation-states that were Soviet allies/republics in 1989 and who are not Russia's allies now (e.g. East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, with Belarus very much on the fence), the contrast is stark and the Kremlin has noticed. So, if Putin can throw around a little weight in Syria, defend a friend, and threaten potential enemies, he's more than happy to do so. I'm not sure he wants to start WW III over Syria, but if a country is willing to contemplate the de-escalatory power of nuclear weapons, let's just say they like brinksmanship. A little air to air combat would be child's play in comparison.
1. Russia and Iran are supporting Assad and his government against the Syrian rebels.
2. The US and the coalition are supporting the Syrian rebels against Assad and his government.
3. All of the above are waging war against ISIS, ISIL whatever.
If everything above is true then would it not be the best course of action for 1 and 2 to join forces and completely take out ISIS and only then settle the Syrian issue? Am I missing something or is it that simple?
2. The US and the coalition are supporting the Syrian rebels against Assad and his government.
3. All of the above are waging war against ISIS, ISIL whatever.
If everything above is true then would it not be the best course of action for 1 and 2 to join forces and completely take out ISIS and only then settle the Syrian issue? Am I missing something or is it that simple?
My daddy told me to quit reading fiction and read more history. I should have listened.
I've not wanted us there at all.
And if the collective world thinks we should be there, then let the UN handle it. We'll sit back and let them handle it for once.
Here's my point - we don't have a draft right now, but who knows if we ever will again. I'll not ship my kids off to fight some stupid war like this, or VietNam, or any other police action we shouldn't be spending our lives on.
Excellent point regarding the UN. Regarding Vietnam, honestly, I don't look upon that as a failed endeavor. I don't feel that anyone can look at that event and logically say that the flow of communism was slowed/stopped from moving throughout the whole of southeast Asia.
Contrast that to our current "projects" abroad and there's a stark difference.
Last edited:
I've said this numerous times, we don't fight wars of ideology, we fight for control of resources.
We either have to be the biggest baddest dude on the block keeping everyone in line, or we build a moat around our house, drop crocs in the water, build a secure dome on top, and point our deadly lasers at their hearts.
Ultimately we have to be 100% isolationist and save ourselves or 100% interventionist and save the world every 30 years. The in between stuff is going to kill us
Ultimately we have to be 100% isolationist and save ourselves or 100% interventionist and save the world every 30 years. The in between stuff is going to kill us
When I was younger and more naive about this country I detested 'draft dodgers'. Now, as I have kids who might be called on similarly, I'm thankful I have resources available.
I already sacrifice a ridiculous amount of my income via taxation to fund our involvement all over the world - most of which I wish we would cease. I'm not going to sacrifice my kids for some ideology or for resources. Nope.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it really matters if your child comes home in a body bag.
I'm sick and tired of our government wasting US lives on this kind of crap.
Latest threads
-
Chattanooga VW Plant Union Vote
- Started by 92tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Political Meme - Cartoon/Joke Thread...Part XX
- Started by Bazza
- Replies: 9
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry
- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-