Syria: US Involvement

ren wrote: Many people your age join.

when I went thru basic many years ago, we had at least 3 dudes over 30 get medicaled out of my company (b co, 2-47 infantry at ft benning. 3 platoons, about 50 soldiers each) Intersting note: forrest gump was in a co of the same unit in the movie.) I remember thinking at the time, 'well, what the hell did those guys think was going to happen? They were bound to break a hip or something.' And that was just basic. At that same time, I met an israeli major going through ranger school there, presumably at a 'older foreign officer ' level. He said their regular PT regimen was about to kill him. He was probably the same age then as I am now.

So they may join the french foreign legion at my age, sure. But I seriously doubt they go the full 9 of the PT regimen.

Khaire, Frater. Thank you for your kind words.

Lykeios wrote: For one thing, the Syrians don't WANT us to intervene anyway.

Well, "Syrians" aren't one faceless mass of humanity. I'm sure the Syrian government, and the people who support them, don't want us intervening. But last I had heard, there were actually YouTube videos available of Syrians crying out for U.S. intervention. As far as what the exact mixture is, of for vs. against, I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Still, at least based on how it's being made to look, this is more a matter of the fact that enforcing international law is in America's best interests. Completely aside from whether the Syrian people want help or not, a violation of international law has occurred, and no one else appears willing or able to do anything about it. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure America would probably stand back and let whomever else handle it.

Lykeios wrote: Other than that fact, and the need to avoid another war where our boys get killed

We should definitely do whatever possible to avoid another war.

Lykeios wrote: I don't usually pray to the Force.

I don't either, per se. I would call what I do more akin to praying into the Force, like making ripples of change by communing with the Force while focusing on a desirous intention with the confidence that it will manifest. I'm guessing that is probably very much like what you do, without calling it a prayer. I admit, that the word "prayer" is almost as connotationally sticky as the word "God". We hear "prayer" and visualize someone making a request to some bearded man up in the sky, who will only grant your prayer if He can tell you believe in Him strongly enough. Which is obviously not what you or I do. But I agree, any more specific discussion of that should probably take place in a different thread.

FraterDavid wrote: Khaire, Frater. Thank you for your kind words.

Lykeios wrote: For one thing, the Syrians don't WANT us to intervene anyway.

Well, "Syrians" aren't one faceless mass of humanity. I'm sure the Syrian government, and the people who support them, don't want us intervening. But last I had heard, there were actually YouTube videos available of Syrians crying out for U.S. intervention. As far as what the exact mixture is, of for vs. against, I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Still, at least based on how it's being made to look, this is more a matter of the fact that enforcing international law is in America's best interests. Completely aside from whether the Syrian people want help or not, a violation of international law has occurred, and no one else appears willing or able to do anything about it. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure America would probably stand back and let whomever else handle it.

Well, I heard something about picket lines and protesting, but I could be wrong. It could also be that those protesting were Assad supporters.

FraterDavid wrote:

Lykeios wrote: I don't usually pray to the Force.

I don't either, per se. I would call what I do more akin to praying into the Force, like making ripples of change by communing with the Force while focusing on a desirous intention with the confidence that it will manifest. I'm guessing that is probably very much like what you do, without calling it a prayer. I admit, that the word "prayer" is almost as connotationally sticky as the word "God". We hear "prayer" and visualize someone making a request to some bearded man up in the sky, who will only grant your prayer if He can tell you believe in Him strongly enough. Which is obviously not what you or I do. But I agree, any more specific discussion of that should probably take place in a different thread.

Well, I do know of the varieties of prayer, but when I pray it is generally to Zeus, Apollon, Dionysos, or Hermes and yes, some of them DO wear robes with large beards Or at least in human conception they do.

I still don't really request things from the Force though. Perhaps its just the way I was raised, but I tend to be a little over-confident about myself. When I commune with the Force or try to work with it I generally rely on myself and my faith in the Force. Though, I suppose any communion with the Force could be considered a form of prayer.

We have teddy roosevelt to thank for our role as a "global police force"....

If we choose to ignore trouble how long before it's at our front door?
If we choose to prevent trouble how long before we become tyrants?

We have the unfortunate position of power...the world looks to us for leadership, whether we want to lead or not...isolationism lead to the tragedy of pearl harbor...we ignored the troubles of the world and paid for it...

And as the saying goes: with great power comes great responsibility...

It seems is a bit harsh to blame Washington without also at least equally blaming Moscow for the result of the Cold War foreign policies. I'd blame the USSR more since they seemed to actually invade, conquer and absorb many nations to which the USA had to rally against. It's not like the US invaded Russia when the USSR collapsed. Perhaps many Russians still believe its because they would not have been able too.... but 1989 was not 1944.

Negotiation and compromise is the only solution, the question is how many have to die before the solution is found. Unfortunately, radiological and nerve agent material exist in both of Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran, so if leaders are willing to use it on their own people, especially non-combatants... its worrying sign for other countries own security globally - but if someone can do something to stop it then places like the USA start to consider what they can do.

If they can prove the attack was deliberate, and by whom, and not battle damage release of stored agent.

WMD's are a different kettle of fish. That is what Obama's red line is all about. While its taken years to kill over 100,000 in Syria using conventional weapons, the use of WMD's represents a serious escalation as they are so much more powerful that I'd bet anyone willing to use them basically becomes considered a threat globally by world leaders. Sorry to state the obvious, but it's what the M stands for in weapons of mass destruction. In an intelligent world there would be no use for WMD short of hostile invasion by advanced aliens in superior numbers.

The problem with Syria is the USA had UN weapon inspectors in Iraq for about a decade gathering intelligence, and had their own air assets patrolling overhead gathering intelligence before taking action there. While action against Syria will not be anything like Iraq, you do not want to be sending in strikes if you do not know where the WMD are located. Someone once told me that if Iraq had any WMD it was buried under so much concrete rubble that they will never find it, and other people have said it was moved to Syria before the invasion!! Of course the official line now is none existed. I think the world needs to see some hard evidence before anyone runs the risk of interference.

The administration has no business planning any military interventions in Syria. There is no solid evidence that Bassar Asad ordered the deployment of chemical weapons against his own people. In fact the evidence points directly at the rebel forces launching said weapons to frame Asad, and propel the U.S headlong into this conflict. Let's look at some facts and let logic judge their validity.

1. Asad invited the UN inspection team to inspect his arsenal. This being the case, why then would he order a chemical attack on the very day the UN team arrived in Syria? How could he possibly stand to benefit from such an act? Who stands to benefit from the attack? Why instead of launching chemical strikes against his own people would he not launch them against the rebels who are destroying his country?

2. What tactical advantage would chemical weapons give an army that is defeating their enemy? Answer: none whatsoever.

3. Why does the administration desire so strongly to invade Syria? I'll let you do your own research on this topic.

4. How many armies in the history of the earth have ever won a sustained conflict without a moral high ground from which to justify the attack? Answer: No army has ever been victorious who has waged war immorally.


Food for thought.