Syria

[haoward]

How can we fight a War if the "people" want to cut Funding for the military.....
As a Prior Service Airborne Infantry Sergeant with a tour to Afghanistan.
I hate how some people in the United State don't support the military but when something like "syria" Happen they wan't to go to war..


If it was me I would just leave it alone, but I KNOW FOR a FACT that Almost 70% of infantry guys including myself Would "GO TO WAR" if needed. We TRAIN AND LIVE FOR war.

[CajunSteelsetter]

Originally Posted by haoward

How can we fight a War if the "people" want to cut Funding for the military.....
As a Prior Service Airborne Infantry Sergeant with a tour to Afghanistan.
I hate how some people in the United State don't support the military but when something like "syria" Happen they wan't to go to war..


If it was me I would just leave it alone, but I KNOW FOR a FACT that Almost 70% of infantry guys including myself Would "GO TO WAR" if needed. We TRAIN AND LIVE FOR war.

x10! Like I said, I don't particularly want to go to a hot sandy place and kill people I don't have any beef with, but if they say "go", I sure as H3!! know what to do.
"Bred to fight, trained to kill. Infantry."

[Purple Back]

Originally Posted by haoward

How can we fight a War if the "people" want to cut Funding for the military.....
As a Prior Service Airborne Infantry Sergeant with a tour to Afghanistan.
I hate how some people in the United State don't support the military but when something like "syria" Happen they wan't to go to war..


If it was me I would just leave it alone, but I KNOW FOR a FACT that Almost 70% of infantry guys including myself Would "GO TO WAR" if needed. We TRAIN AND LIVE FOR war.

I am an ex 11B myself, airborne qualified, did a tour in Iraq from 02 to 03. That being said, I wish to never spend another minute in any of those God foresaken countrys. But unforntunately if we don't bring the war to them they will bring it to us. There is a lot of strategy put into these things.......

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Purple Back

I am an ex 11B myself, airborne qualified, did a tour in Iraq from 02 to 03. That being said, I wish to never spend another minute in any of those God foresaken countrys. But unforntunately if we don't bring the war to them they will bring it to us. There is a lot of strategy put into these things.......

Let me clarify a couple thing before i ask you to clarify the above.

1) I am not saying that we cannot go toe to toe with anyone, we most certainly can.

2) I am saying that to dismiss a potential enemy as "not being worth a pimple on our azz" is pretty foolish thinking, and quite frankly every enemy post WWII who we not taken seriously has handed us our azzes.

After 60+ years of post WWII conflicts, and 20+ years post cold war. Our military has just now really begun transforming itself to it's current mission of anti/terrorist / insurgency fighting. It remains to be seen if giving up our large scale conflict preparedness is the right thing to do.

You say above that we need to wage war on them or they will come and wage war on us.

Without a strong coalition of foreign nations (think Soviets, China, + middle east) coming together there will be no battles fought on american land (this assumes euro neutrality (if they choose to side with us, the battles will occur on their land first)

If instead of traditional war your referring to terrorism, Then that is actually a facet of the methods in which countries choose to enforce their particular brand of -ism. Terror tactics were created to fight / wage war upon an opponent whom you cannot hope to best in a traditional manner. The problem / downfall of this is that in fighting terrorists you have to adopt unconventional tactics and you thereby create more terrorists every time you kill them.

Thus, our policy should be one of "Live and Let Die" mind our own damned business, stop investing in goat herder futures, and start investing in our own nations infrastructure. Whether it be through exploitation of our own energy fields, or its getting going with proven hydrogen fuel tech, we certainly have the ability NOW to be energy independant.

We should support our Strong Allies in the case of aggressions against their borders. But short of that we should mind our own business.

What's holding these things up is not just the world politics it's the money. Do you think the OIL lobby wants to create a situation where america will become less oil dependant? Do you think the Military Industrial Lobby wants peace?

Alternatively we can keep sending our 18 & 19 year old's to the mideast, who will undoubtably shoot a couple mullahs, with a few civilian casualty's on the side, and thereby help to grow the next generation of terrorists. I guess if it gets to be to much to handle we can just nuke the whole lot of em..... that should work well?

[bmac]

This seems like a pretty good synopsis of the situation in Syria, broken down "knucklehead" style. ELI5 "Explain It Like I'm 5"

http://en.reddit.com/r/explainlikeim...ia_and/cbwb1ld

Copy and pasted from Similar thread. This is all from Memory. None of it will be properly referenced. This may be more detailed that you need, but other may find it useful, and also, some of the issues mentioned earlier on become important later on.
INTRODUCTION Syria is 'run' by the Al-Assad family. It has been for many years. The Assad's are member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam.
Long story short, pretty soon after Islam was founded, Shia and Sunnis split. And they hate each other in the way that only former friends can.
REGIONAL BALANCE OF POWER Up until 2003, Iran was the only majority Shia country on the planet. Every other muslim country was EITHER 1) A sunni Majority, or 2) Had a Sunni ruler in place. This was the cause of the civil war in Iraq, Saddam had been Sunni, but the country was majority Shia.
Syria is a majority Sunni country, BUT, the ruling group (Asad's) are Shia. There is also a sizeable Christain minority. Iran and Syria are close, as they are both Shia governed countries. But Syria, as mentioned, is different to Iran in that Shia are the minority.
The other major country to note here is Saudia Arabia. Sunni Islam, and really dislike Shia muslims.
ARAB SPRING In Early 2011, a fruit vendor in Tunisia, protesting against corruption and the difficulty in eeking out a subsistence, set himself on fire, and with him, went the whole region. Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Eygpt, Yemen and Syria all saw significant protests against the ruling Parties (Countries where living was not as difficult/the ruling party was popular/ countries were better governed saw some protests, but generally, concessions were made and agreements were reached). They all ended differently.
Morrocco and Alegeria saw the Monarchs make promises/ reprimand the government, promise increased freedoms. This combined with the better local living conditions saw the protests peeter out. Bahrain put down their protests with no aversion to violence. The west kept relatively quiet about this. Tunisia, Yemen and Eygpt saw their governments overthrown.
Only in Libya and Syria did it go to an all out civil war. In Libya, Gaddaffi was already unpopular with the west for his state-sponsorship of terrorism. Assad had generally flown under the radar, but people didn't like him as he was close to Iran (for reasons mentioned earlier).
WHAT RUSSIA AND SYRIA LEARNT FROM LIBYA. Gaddaffi, already a cartoon villian in the west, went out 'guns blazing' against the protester-come-rebels. Uprisings in various cities (Bengahzi etc) were being put down. Libya's limited airforce was proving a decisive factor both militarially and psychologically. Before long, it was clear to the rebels that victory, without air assets would be costly and expensive. To drive this point home, Gaddaffis air assets were hitting civilian and military targets as if to suggest that there was nothing they could do to resist him. No-where to hide.
The UN Secuirty Counsel, as a result of air assets being used in civilians, passed a resolution enforcing a no-fly-zone over Libya. (Note about the UNSC. It is 15 members, but the 5 that count are the 5 victorious powers from WWII, Russia, China, USA, UK and France. They all have a 'Veto' ie, if something is proposed for the UNSC to do, any 1 of these 5 can veto it, and it is dead, no matter the opinion of the other 14 members. In practice this means convincing Russia and China to let the resolutions that US/Uk/'the west' want to go through, to be allowed to pass.)
The idea being that Libyan air planes would no longer be free to bomb civilians. However, at the risk of using imflamatory terminology, China and Russia were upset at how 'Protection of Civilians' turned into 'UK/US providing air support to Rebels to oust Gaddaffi'. The Wests air support sung the tide of battle and Tripoli fell to the Rebels weeks later. Gaddaffi was found in a ditch and shot. Government of 40+ years over. Democracy? We'll see.
RUSSIA: 'FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU'. This left just one country in a state of flux. Syria. Already unpopular with the west due to it's 'closeness' to Iran, Syria's unpopularity deepened when the Government refused to make deomcratic reform (objectionable to 'Western Countries') and started cracking down on/ torturing pro-democracy supporters (really objectionable to 'Western Countries').
Russia was much more attached to Syria. It's closer geographically, culturally, economically. Russia liked the Government in Syria, and frankly, Russia isn't too fussed if you are heavy-handed with protestors. But most importantly. Russia only Port in the Mediterrainian Sea is in Syria. If it loses that, no russian warships could be in the Mediterrainian except as Turkey or UK/Spain permit.
So, for economic, cultural and religious reasons. SYRIA IS NOT SO MUCH IMPORTANT TO THE WEST, AS IT IS IMPORTANT TO RUSSIA AND IRAN. AND THE LOSS OF THE ASSAD GOVERNMENT IN SYRIA WOULD REPRESENT A BLOW TO RUSSIA AND IRAN. ALSO, ALL THE TORTURE AND REPRESSION BY ASSAD MAKES THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT VERY UNPOPULAR IN THE WEST.
So when Western Governments came to the UNSC and said 'We must do for Syria what we did for Libya', the Russians and Chinese shut that down. No way. Not going to happen. Without a UNSC mandate to intervene, any action would be in breach of international law. Which brings us too...
'WESTERN' DEMOCRATIC VALUES The West likes to support people who will be democratic and follow international laws. To this end, Obama has stated that the use of Chemical weapons in Syria would represent a 'red line' which would trigger NATO intervention, regardless of UNSC approval. Fact is, if you are going to break with international law and invade a country, you need a damn good excuse. Chemcial weapons are such an excuse.
Fair or not, Western Countries are seen as protectors world-wide. When the Genocide in Rwanda happened, it was condemned as a War Crime. But who was responsible for sitting back and doing nothing? US, Canada, UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Holland, Spain 'Western Countries'. No-one blamed the Chinese or Russians for their failure to act.
Casting themselves in this role, it is these countries that people look to for support against dictators.
CHANGING NATURE OF THE REBELLIION The rebels, when originally formed, were seen in a almost universally positive light, defectors from a corrupt regieme, and brave freedom fighters looking to overthrow a dictator.
As time went on, and as more and more focus was placed on the rebels, Western Governments grew suspicious that these were not/were no longer brave freedom fighters, but Al Qieda/ Taliban/ Anti-West fighters, who were interesting in using the fluid state of Syria to win the rebellion and set up a hardline muslim country.
WHERE DOES THAT ALL LEAVE US? Time and again the West calls for democratic reform. And will support rebels with this goal. The West finds the repression of protests, along with the torture of protesters and the use of chemical weapons particularly objectionable. This, and Syria's relationship to Iran, and Russia, particularly the projection of Russian sea power, has meant that the west sees Syria as a Government, which if it were to fall, would not be missed. Knowing that UNSC approval for military intervention would be impossible, President Obama stated that UNSC approval or no, we'd go and take out the Syrians if Chemical weapons were used.
Chemcials weapons have been used, but we can not confirm by whom.
So we watch, and we wait. Russia has made it obvious that it will stand by Syria. Whether that means actual military actions against US and other western nations should they try to intervene in Syria, it's not clear. Also the problem of after-math rears its ugly head. Since the 'Red line' comment, there are more and more indicators, that the Rebels might not just be freedom fights, but islamists and others, who would establish a Islamic state. It is important to note, that this would be a Sunnni islamic state, as most of these fighters come from Sunni countries. And if there was a Sunni Islamic state, you can be fairly sure that teh Shia minority would have a torrid time, after the events of the past few weeks. A genocide could be possible. And stopping that sort of **** is why the West wanted to go in to Syria in the first place. Annoyingly, it could be that Assad would be the least brutal ruler of Syria.
CONCLUSIONS The Fact is, who is running Syria and why we should be involved is not as important to us as it is to other Countries. Russia and Iran both, for different reasons, like the Syrian Government and want it to stay in Power. Saudia Arabia, USA's close ally, dislike Syria, for mainly religious reasons, and want them gone. And finally, Western Governments find their approach to the pro-democracy protests as well as the use of chemical weapons an unacceptable way for a government to behave.
The West doesn't like them, the West regional allies don't like them. And they support the West Geo-political opponents. Thats the reason.
EDIT: For Spelling EDIT 2: Bashir changed to Assad. I shouldn't really write as though i'm on first name terms with the President of Syria.
EDIT 3: I confused the government response in Yemen with Bahrain. And forgot that the Egypt controlled an entrance to the Mediterranean. Fixed mow.

[Purple Back]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

Let me clarify a couple thing before i ask you to clarify the above.

1) I am not saying that we cannot go toe to toe with anyone, we most certainly can.

2) I am saying that to dismiss a potential enemy as "not being worth a pimple on our azz" is pretty foolish thinking, and quite frankly every enemy post WWII who we not taken seriously has handed us our azzes.

After 60+ years of post WWII conflicts, and 20+ years post cold war. Our military has just now really begun transforming itself to it's current mission of anti/terrorist / insurgency fighting. It remains to be seen if giving up our large scale conflict preparedness is the right thing to do.

You say above that we need to wage war on them or they will come and wage war on us.

Without a strong coalition of foreign nations (think Soviets, China, + middle east) coming together there will be no battles fought on american land (this assumes euro neutrality (if they choose to side with us, the battles will occur on their land first)

If instead of traditional war your referring to terrorism, Then that is actually a facet of the methods in which countries choose to enforce their particular brand of -ism. Terror tactics were created to fight / wage war upon an opponent whom you cannot hope to best in a traditional manner. The problem / downfall of this is that in fighting terrorists you have to adopt unconventional tactics and you thereby create more terrorists every time you kill them.

Thus, our policy should be one of "Live and Let Die" mind our own damned business, stop investing in goat herder futures, and start investing in our own nations infrastructure. Whether it be through exploitation of our own energy fields, or its getting going with proven hydrogen fuel tech, we certainly have the ability NOW to be energy independant.

We should support our Strong Allies in the case of aggressions against their borders. But short of that we should mind our own business.

What's holding these things up is not just the world politics it's the money. Do you think the OIL lobby wants to create a situation where america will become less oil dependant? Do you think the Military Industrial Lobby wants peace?

Alternatively we can keep sending our 18 & 19 year old's to the mideast, who will undoubtably shoot a couple mullahs, with a few civilian casualty's on the side, and thereby help to grow the next generation of terrorists. I guess if it gets to be to much to handle we can just nuke the whole lot of em..... that should work well?

All good valid points, but I did not dismiss a potential enemy as "not being worth a pimple on our azz". That was someone else.

And I did not say that we need to wage war on them, I said unfortunately that if we do nothing, it will eventually spill over into the US.

I believe you take me for an individual that believes we should engage in the same tactics as our previous engagements. My belief is exact opposite, we should engage first, yes, but do it with muscle and make an example that the US is no longer a bunch of p u s sies. We should go in and slaughter all who are associated with terrosists organizations. It would take roughly a month. Then pull our troops back to the US. Then dare any terrosist group to organize and make the same mistake. If it were done in this manner, it would not cost the US but a fraction of the normal cost associated.

[Msucowpoke51]

Originally Posted by Purple Back

I believe you take me for an individual that believes we should engage in the same tactics as our previous engagements. My belief is exact opposite, we should engage first, yes, but do it with muscle and make an example that the US is no longer a bunch of p u s sies. We should go in and slaughter all who are associated with terrosists organizations. It would take roughly a month. Then pull our troops back to the US. Then dare any terrosist group to organize and make the same mistake. If it were done in this manner, it would not cost the US but a fraction of the normal cost associated.

I agree with this 100%, if it were possible, but unfortunately our country is run by a bunch of p u s sies, and that will never change

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by Msucowpoke51

I agree with this 100%, if it were possible, but unfortunately our country is run by a bunch of p u s sies, and that will never change

Are you considering folks who say we stay out of it a bunch of p u s s I e s?

Also, can you tell me how the person you quoted came up with "roughly a month" for a valid timeline to his plan? Is that how long it would take to slaughter Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Russia, South Korea, Iran, CHINA, etc...??? Then just plant a flag and call it our right?

Maybe I misunderstood something, or maybe neither of you have a clue what the implications are.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Purple Back

All good valid points, but I did not dismiss a potential enemy as "not being worth a pimple on our azz". That was someone else.

And I did not say that we need to wage war on them, I said unfortunately that if we do nothing, it will eventually spill over into the US.

I believe you take me for an individual that believes we should engage in the same tactics as our previous engagements. My belief is exact opposite, we should engage first, yes, but do it with muscle and make an example that the US is no longer a bunch of p u s sies. We should go in and slaughter all who are associated with terrosists organizations. It would take roughly a month. Then pull our troops back to the US. Then dare any terrosist group to organize and make the same mistake. If it were done in this manner, it would not cost the US but a fraction of the normal cost associated.

Jeez man i was giving you a ration of Shizz because you were advocating us starting another world war. Based on what your saying above you sound halfway reasonable. Can you make up your mind... lol

I think i do get what your saying though, basically it seems to me like your saying that we should stop with these BS political wars, yet if there is ever call for a real conflict we should get it on like donkey kong. (or however you want to put it)