Quote:


Even if that is so, how exactly will blowing up a few radar installations, or SAM sites ,or whatever, do anything to prevent that from happening.
In fact, Syria's chemical weapons are ALREADY in the wrong hands and we don't even know for sure whose hands those are. It doesn't really matter.There are no good guys in the fight going on over there. And there is no good reason for this country to do anything. Unless you think a president's unfortunate off the cuff remark, and his bruised ego is a good reason for potentially starting a war.

+1

Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 09/01/13 at 09:24:23:


My own considerations, especially considering Italy alone has far more Syrians and Lybians over here than you have or will ever have.
AND
we're much closer to the Middle East than you are,
AND
we've got a good 3000 years experience of dealing with "the East Coast" of the Mediterranean, way back in the days when the Phoenicians were running the Persian Kings' Navies against Greeks and Egyptians...

1. Remember Guernica (if you don't know what Guernica is, it's a city in Spain; google it and read about it)
Whereas during the Spanish Civil War everybody blamed the Loyalists (Fascists) for bombing Guernica, some 60 years later a former Republican (Communist) Leader admitted on his death bed the bombing was actually Republicans on Republicans, done on purpose in order to cause a public outcry hoping to gain international support.
It worked, but what parent would hurt his own children in secret in order to gain support?

2. The Syrian regime started opposing public demonstrations (which were simply asking for new elections), and the "violence" was limited to tear gas and rubber bullets until someone started shooting at policemen... with precision weapons (sniper rifles)
THAT caused an escalation. Incidentally, Assad's claim that the "rebels" were supported by "external terrorists" was proven correct in more than one instance, with prisoners being identified and linked to Iraq, Al Qaeda, and even some US muslim converts (!!!)

3. The Syrian regime lost a number of cities - which means it also lost the local garrisons and armories; the original protesters soon cried out to international media that their protest had been pried away from them by "violent extremists" who fight with heavy machine guns, bazookas and mortars - which is something someone demonstrating for new elections will clearly not do.

4. The "external terrorists" have recruited volunteers from Iraq, Afghanistan and some Central Asian Republics - those same which provided fresh recruits to the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan.
The proof is the languages those guerillas speak (not always Arabic but Urdu or Turkik) and the techniques used to produce IEDs, Improvised Explosive Devices.
As any Bomb Squad can testify, every "bomber" has his own technique and every explosive device carries a "signature" - the IEDs filmed by European Journalists have all been identified as "the same kind used in Afghanistan and in the first years of the Iraqi Occupation" - hence, they were made by those persons or by their trainees.

5. WHO IS THE LOCAL SUPERPOWER ? The USA ? Think again.
The local superpower is TURKEY. If Turkey is sitting pretty then nobody should make so much as a hint of a move.
If military action in Syria causes retaliation or a reaction by Syrian forces or forces of another nation, Israel might well be targeted; and if Israel reacts (it would be entitled to) we are in for yet another full scale war in the Middle East.

NOT IN MY FRONT YARD !!!

PS: given the level of high tech and strategic transportation available to all...
.. as 9/11 already pointed out, the US are NOT as untouchable as they were during WW2.
I am a convinced non-interventionist, and you should be, too.

Just saying, but I bet you'd pick the corn out of Jane Fonda's crap if she asked you to.

I was just about to make a comment that your last 4 or 5 posts have been spot on and then you back pedal like this...

I still think your last 4 or 5 posts were spot on.


--Steve

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/07/13 at 07:07:14:



+1  

WebsterMark wrote on 09/07/13 at 06:34:55:


Guilt pangs should strike you!   It's unfair and inaccurate to slam someone for stating what is obviously true. Obvious even to Dwight Eisenhower, who made "Military Industrial complex" a household term.


"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

Also factual is the continued use of and sale of by the USA military of cluster bombs. A weapon indeed banned by most of the world. Cluster bombs are an extremely effective weapon against humans. Used against enemy soldiers, there is nothing particularly more immoral about killing enemy ground troops with cluster bombs than any other type of bomb. I don't have any particular preference as to how I get blown up. The problem with cluster bombs, like biological and chemical weapons is they tend to result in far more killing and maiming of non combatants. It's well documented that about 5% of the "bomblets" do not initially explode. Shiny little silver things that look like children's toys. And that's exactly what happens with the un-exploded bomblets. They get picked up by children. And then blow up.

You can't be the world's preeminent super power without a big military-industrial complex.  And that is expensive. Allowing US military contractors to sell weapons to other countries - that we consider allies -  reduces the costs for our own military. It's actually a good thing.

So I agree with Eisenhower. America needs a "military industrial complex". The research, development, manufacture and sales of advanced weapons keeps us safe.  But we have to be alert and on guard - or that same complex starts exerting influence on the actual decision making process when to take military action.  

Time to get over Jane Fonda. She has apologized publicly many, many times and privately several times to groups of Vietnam veterans. "he without sin cast the first stone" and all that. If you were actually an adult during the Vietnam war then you'd know is was a pretty terrible time for the USA. It wasn't a war, it was a holding action. Our soldiers were not allowed to win and our army and commanders had never been trained in fighting a "defensive" action.  The result's were ugly for our military, ugly for our society, ugly for our country. It was nothing at all like the revisionist, popular movies of the last couple of decades.

Kennedy had 16.000 Americans soldiers and advisers in Vietnam and had removed 1000 of them after his reelection. A few years later Johnson had that up to 200,000 and at it's height it was what, almost half a million US soldiers? Boardies here seem timid of firing a barrage of cruise missiles at Syrian military targets from ships safely out of harms way.  World's police, all of our cowardly elected leaders need replace, keep our nose out of other people's business. Will turn into an opened ended quagmire.  Yada, yada, mew, mew.  I think you youngsters here have no sense of history and don't know what a real quagmire even is.

Yet you crack on "Hanoi Jane" who was, at the time, representing a view point held by a LOT of Americans that we needed to quit bleeding America dry supporting a corrupt regime on the other side of the world. It seems like that with the prevailing viewpoint on these boards that America has no national interests outside our own borders and needs to stay out of other countries conflicts that Jane Fonda would be a hero to you and you'd have posters of her in your garage.

The military is one of several tools that America has and should use  to ensure  that our vital national interests are met. Leaders of countries the world over need to be concerned - even fearful - of the likely response of getting out the WMD's. If you own such, you had better keep them locked down or you will be held accountable. It's as simple as that.

Quote:


Quote:


I did my stint in this country's military during the Vietnam war,( USN 1969-1972) so I'm not exactly a youngster. And studying history, particularly military history, is one of my major interests so I think I actually have a pretty good sense of perspective.

"Fighting them over there" is certainly appropriate in some circumstances. But this thread is about the situation in Syria. There is NOTHING that either side in that conflict can do to threaten the US,with the possible exception of a small scale terrorist attact on a US facility of some sort somewhere in that part of the world. And as long as they are engaged in fighting one another even that is unlikely.

I am not an isolationist. I understand that there are times and places where you have to fight - either as an individual, or as a nation. This is not one of them.