U.S War Ready Yet Again.....

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
Siсiliаn Ноundd
level5
level5
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:32 am

U.S War Ready Yet Again.....

Postby Siсiliаn Ноundd » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:42 pm

So I watch the news from BBC and "Propaganda Controlled" U.S News. The Syrian Government used chemical weapons on its people... From what I know the US is ready to strike Syria, and Syrian response would be to strike Israel. Then Israel response would be to in quote "Attack Back With Strength" Another war? Whats your input?
-SH
User avatar
Ghost Division
level2
level2
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:53 pm
Location: La la land.

Postby Ghost Division » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:58 pm

I think its correct for U.S to go on this one. But maybe the best option would be an U.N deployment, since crimes against civilians are going on there.
User avatar
Siсiliаn Ноundd
level5
level5
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:32 am

Postby Siсiliаn Ноundd » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:29 am

Ghost Division wrote:I think its correct for U.S to go on this one. But maybe the best option would be an U.N deployment, since crimes against civilians are going on there.


Yes I think something should be done if the government is killings its citizens with Chemical Weapons and, Yes one would think the UN would, but we all know the U.N is supplied and ran by the USA. So instead of admitting US troops and weaponry into the UN and such, the US will just simply do it them self.
-SH
History Freak
level1
level1
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Postby History Freak » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:57 am

http://rense.com/general80/pike.htm Ill let everyone decide themselves what they make of this.
User avatar
Siсiliаn Ноundd
level5
level5
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:32 am

Postby Siсiliаn Ноundd » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:09 am

I don't click on links that I don't know, even more from a "new user" Nothing against you.
-SH
History Freak
level1
level1
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Postby History Freak » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:10 am

Sicilian Hound wrote:I don't click on links that I don't know, even more from a "new user" Nothing against you.

Alright. Then google Albert Pikes letter.
User avatar
(MOR)
level5
level5
Posts: 2799
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:00 pm
Location: Morocco
Contact:

Postby (MOR) » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:01 am

Ghost Division wrote:...crimes against civilians are going on there.



U.S have no interest to save those poors but only to support its colonial plans in the Middle East and secure Israel for long time as it can..


Since when a colonial power looks for the others freedom ?!
User avatar
Siсiliаn Ноundd
level5
level5
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:32 am

Postby Siсiliаn Ноundd » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:23 am

Well there main reason for being there is because there is a "straight" that most of the worlds oil gos through that Syrian Government can really put a "damper" on. That is there main concern, not the people.
-SH
User avatar
kudayta
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 945
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:25 pm

Postby kudayta » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:24 am

The US has over-extended its military operations around the globe. Introducing a new front in Syria would be disastrous for our economy and standing in the world's eyes.

Air strikes and cruise missiles are about all the US can really afford to do in Syria right now. And only 9 percent of Americans support US intervention in Syria. I don't think the Obama administration can afford to spend the political capital on this.
Noryb
level2
level2
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:55 am
Location: (UTC -8)

Postby Noryb » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:11 am

kudayta wrote:The US has over-extended its military operations around the globe. Introducing a new front in Syria would be disastrous for our economy and standing in the world's eyes.

Air strikes and cruise missiles are about all the US can really afford to do in Syria right now. And only 9 percent of Americans support US intervention in Syria. I don't think the Obama administration can afford to spend the political capital on this.


If they can restrain it to a light slap on the wrist over the course of a day or two, most Americans will yawn and go along with it. However it is fairly likely that this will turn into something more involved though. The pre-Libya definition of a "no fly zone" typically didn't include providing an effective air force for one side. It makes one wonder what a "proportioned response" to a "moral obscenity" could turn into. There is also the issue of Syria having a fair deal more anti-air and anti-ship capability than Iraq or Libya had. Especially if they have their S-300s from Russia yet. American/British casualties are not unthinkable. That could make even this 9% figure drop quickly. The flip side of this is that after all of the talk about "red lines" it might cost too much political capital to back down.

As far as the repercussions for Israel go, I don't think it will be too serious. I don't think Assad has the ability or the desire to launch a direct assault. Given the rabid support Israel has from American evangelical Christians, attacking it likely isn't in Syria's overall best interests. There might be some proxy attacks, but the threat is much less serious now than it was at the start of the civil war. Hamas has been steadily distancing itself from the Iran-Syria bloc and aligning itself with the (pro-uprising) Gulf Sunni powers. The related elements in Egypt, the Sinai specifically, look to be gearing up for their own insurgency against the military government. Finally, Hezbollah might be about to get involved in its own civil war in Lebanon. They might try and replicate their 2006 bump in popularity with an attack on Israel, but it would be a huge gamble.

One possible impact of Western intervention in the Syrian war is an escalation of violence in Iraq. In recent weeks there has been significant fighting between the Al Nusra Front, who are being aided by the Islamic State of Iraq, and Syrian Kurds. The Iraqi Kurds or some of the recently arrived refugees might begin retaliating against Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Then there is the ongoing Shia-Sunni violence in the centre of the country. Western airstrikes aren't likely to have a calming influence on that. On a national level it might push Iraq even further into the Iranian camp. If one takes US foreign policy at face value, the toppling of the anti-Iran, anti-Al Qaeda regime in 2003 looks like a worse decision every day.

What a mess. It's going to take a long time for there to be a resolution to this.
Byron
User avatar
The_Doctor
level3
level3
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:05 am

Postby The_Doctor » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:25 am

I for one am moving my subs into position.
Some say he drinks his tea with 2 dashes of noob tears.
And that he got 12 cv for his birthday.
All we know is, he's called TheDoctor.
User avatar
Colytic
level4
level4
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:24 pm
Location: Somewhere outside London

Postby Colytic » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:26 am

History Freak wrote:http://rense.com/general80/pike.htm Ill let everyone decide themselves what they make of this.


You say that smugly as though that passage carries any weight. All I see is bullshit in its purest form.

Colytic
User avatar
Kangaraptor
level2
level2
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:22 am
Location: The other place.

Postby Kangaraptor » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:44 am

Colytic wrote:
History Freak wrote:http://rense.com/general80/pike.htm Ill let everyone decide themselves what they make of this.


You say that smugly as though that passage carries any weight. All I see is bullshit in its purest form.

Colytic


I never understood why people felt the need to repost their username after every post they make.

Seems a bit like having a wank, to me.
Maybe one day.
When we're all cats...
... on Mars.
User avatar
Colytic
level4
level4
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:24 pm
Location: Somewhere outside London

Postby Colytic » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:49 am

Kangaraptor wrote:I never understood why people felt the need to repost their username after every post they make.


It 'signs off' what you're saying and underlines it, in my opinion.

Kangaraptor wrote:Seems a bit like having a wank, to me.


Right...

Colytic
History Freak
level1
level1
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Postby History Freak » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:19 am

Colytic wrote:
History Freak wrote:http://rense.com/general80/pike.htm Ill let everyone decide themselves what they make of this.


You say that smugly as though that passage carries any weight. All I see is bullshit in its purest form.

Colytic


It could be bullshit in its purest form, but its also not too smart to say its bullshit until you do not know.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests