You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Is Syria next?
..., I will never sit by and watch a country kill their own population. It is simply not right. And I won't hear that "leave their problems to themselves" because that is exactly what we have done before and look were that got us in the end.
You in the military mate?
Re: Is Syria next?
Yeah, listen to what Russia has to say. LOL
Considering they're the second most powerful country on the planet and their intelligence is nothing to laugh at, yeah I listen to what they have to say. They currently straddle the fence when it comes to their stance on the US. In one breath they agree with us on a certain issue, the next breath Putin refers to the United States as a "parasite".
They're the only country on the planet besides us that can rain a massive shit storm on the world's parade in three shakes of a lamb's tail. Ignoring Russia isn't a very smart move and definitely isn't smart from a European standpoint.
There will be no Syria as of yet.
The dominoes are already falling. I doubt we go in there tomorrow but you can pretty much guarantee that the plans are already on the president's desk.
My feeling is, NATO won't go to Syria unless something drastic happens
Of course NATO wont go to Syria. The US will be the country that goes in(IF it happens), even if it's just limited air strikes. We may use the NATO umbrella when taking action(as Russia seems to think), but more than likely it will be the US and Britain that take action. After the US handed over major operations in the Libyan conflict to NATO, it became a virtual stalemate, reaching the point where some NATO members(hello Norway) pulled out of the ongoing conflict. Same with Italy. Isn't France next on the "get the fuck out of Dodge" list? They were the biggest supporter of intervention in Libya. Such a strong, united, unbreakable alliance. 
edit: Not trying to minimize or deny the contributions of allied forces. They certainly contributed a lot, especially during the opening weeks of the conflict, my issue is with the alliance itself and the leaders of certain countries as the nanosecond the US hands things over to a group of countries that are supposedly capable of dealing with one country such as Libya, the world immediately sees the vacuum left in place where the US had just resided. While we are technically still involved, even someone who doesn't follow such matters and/or ignores or is oblivious to world events could see that the US is no longer the "head honcho" of this particular operation.
Cant gamble like that if military action is "on the table" for Syria. A US/NATO- Syria conflict could draw Russia into the fight due to their naval base there and I highly doubt Russia is just gonna walk away and give that up because of a desire for "regime change" or the dominoes falling in this so called Arab Spring. We're not gonna let France, Italy,etc. call the shots in such a scenario.
I disagree with Russia in the sense that we don't need to occupy Syria as a springboard for an Iran invasion, and I'm sure Flagg or other guys/gals in the military would agree. Is Syria a strategic spot in the region and the removal of its government on the world's "wish list"? Sure, but it isn't a requirement before dealing with Iran. Syria is a close ally of Iran and in the event of a US-Iran war would probably be very pissed and might even attempt to get involved, but when you take into account Syria is surrounded by a US occupied Iraq, Turkey, and Israel, and they'd have to plow through Iraq to help Iran, I don't see how they can even factor into that situation. Maybe Flagg can go into more detail on such a scenario.
And if the UN decides that we need to interact in Syria to avoid them slaughtering their own population, then I will support that, but I see no reason to why they should do that right now.
WHAT? So not only do you wish for the UN to dictate when and where military action is appropriate, you wont support action without a UN rubber stamp? Wow. I realize the UN does serve a purpose to a small degree but that position is too far out on the fringe for me. If your stance is the status qou on that side of the pond, it adds a huge piece to the puzzle regarding Europe's stance on war, defense, and its insatiable need for the US to dominate every facet of its being.
How can Europeans(or anyone) put that much stock into an organization that grants automatic veto power to China and Russia? I'm not necessarily against their veto power as they are both major factors on the world stage and in Russia's case #2 on the global totem pole, but to possibly not take action in your nation's interest because China says no is absurd.
Amazing that anyone(no offense) would grant the UN such power and influence. Reagan was right in regards to the UN......fuck em.
Our military resources are as spread out as they can be for the moment. Syria will be political suicide as well, so I don't think anyone wants to take lead there, even if the United Nations asks us to.
Yes we are spread fairly thin, but political suicide for who? As far as "taking the lead" goes, don't kid yourself on speculation. We know who would take the lead, regardless of which way the wind happens to blow at UN headquarters.
I will never sit by and watch a country kill their own population. It is simply not right. And I won't hear that "leave their problems to themselves" because that is exactly what we have done before and look were that got us in the end.
Really? Right now you're sitting by watching it happen in Syria and other countries while you wait for UN approval to condemn it and/or intervene.
I hope Britain stays the fuck out of it, our country is so broke and military so reduced and overrun we have no business wasting any more of our resources on these thankless and fruitless conflicts.
Same could be said about all the countries in the West but what's going on in that region seems to have a mind of its own and has the potential to create even more instability. Considering the fact we are in Iraq, Afghanistan, and have a group of countries in the region that are essentially vassal states, Syria will not be ignored for long, UN or no UN. I'm not advocating military action at the moment either as I think its possible Syria could have an outcome similar to Egypt instead of the need to go the Libya route. I just think it's crazy to believe the possibility of it happening is not on the table. The Middle East is changing before our eyes and will continue to do so for the next 5-10 years(maybe longer). The role of the United States in the region whether militarily or diplomatically is going to be long term, even if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars come to an end.
Whats to say all these isolated skirmishes across the globe, recessions, racial and cultural tensions, even climate change are not all going to come together and culminate in a 3rd world war?
I dont need a history lesson, I just wonder where we are all headed, cause personally I believe all the global problems are closer to coming to a rather unpleasant head, rather than just ticking along like recent decades.
We definitely live in interesting times. Hard to predict the final chapter to all this chaos but in my opinion we're witnessing a global change in regards to the approach to alliances, governments, monetary policies, and even the world map itself. On top of everything, the world has a lone superpower that is broke, on the hunt for resources, hoping for a rain check on a dollar collapse, and attempting to keep its number one status for as long as possible and looks to be willing to do whatever it takes to do so. When the EU came together the world dreamed of sunshine and lollipops but that dream quickly turned into a nightmare for those living in it and the EU is in a downward spiral with Russia on standby with open arms and licking its chops. On the other hand we have China which is an economic powerhouse building up its military so it can create a stronger presence in Asia and also be considered a top dog on the world stage. Also take into account variables such as a major terror attack, assassinations, etc.
All this current chaos culminating in WWIII? I doubt it but there will certainly be conflicts and tension in key areas of the globe for years to come, with or without US participation.
You in the military mate?
I smell a Flagg rant coming. Only question is will it be directed at me or DCK. 
I know that's part of your MO but considering your line of work and where you are stationed, don't you have more to contribute to this discussion than a question? Don't remember if he's been in the military or not but he's very intelligent and offers an interesting viewpoint on issues, even though I disagree with him most of the time.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Is Syria next?
no rant incoming. It was a legitimate question. When someone says "we" need to do this, or makes the comment "I won't sit by and let this thing occur" I have to ask that question. It's a common error and everyone is guilty of it. I'm from Pittsburgh, so when talking about the Steelers, I often say "we're going to the superbowl" even though I've never played a day of professional football in my life. The only distinction between when someone refers to their sports team as "we" is that no one is going to die or have their lives ruined by their supporters advocating they go all they way in professional sports.
When someone says we need to goto this country because I don't like what they're doing there and will sleep better at night because I cheered on the team, well I do make a point to correct it. Deploying sucks. It's lonely, no one really has a clue what it's like besides those over there with you, so when you come home, you can't really explain what it's like. And i personally value my life more than that of some Syrian in this context. Those fuckers were some of the first to enter Iraq in 2003 to get shots off at Americans. So excuse me if I'm hesitant to inquire as to whether someone is volunteering their own misery for some moral cause, or whether they want to subject me to 12 months of shit to dodge bullets from people who mean nothing to me and don't care for me either.
Fuck it, I'll rant. 
I get tired of people claiming their part of the defense process because they pay taxes. That is fucking stupid. 50% of this country pays no federal tax because of all the perks and breaks they get. When 50% of the country pays 1% of the tax revenue, they don't fucking count. If you had 100 people over at your house and bought a shit load of really cheap pizza for $100, and 50 people combined only payed 1$, would you argue they have an equal say in what toppings to add, where to order from and best of all, equal access to the pizza? Hell no you wouldn't. So excuse me if I don't really give a damn what public opinion says about what I should be doing and where I should be doing it. Cause most of the people that are polled in these topics don't contribute to my paycheck annually what I pay in federal taxes a month.
TL;DR I don't want to deploy to make someone else feel good from the comfort of their home. There is no "we" when you come home to your family at 5pm everyday and I look out a a mound of sand.
Re: Is Syria next?
Oh I don't think I want to continue this one at all. Sorry. I appreciate the long reply though, James. I read it all.
However, the post asking if I was in the military because I indirectly pointed to Nazi-Germany and our former "lets not meddle in other countries affairs" strategy which got us into a big mess in the 20's and 30's I found a bit odd. The memories of WW1 still very much in everyones minds, no one really wanted to involve themselves, but simply retracted and hoped for the best. Yay. I feel people put that opinion very much forward again these days, and it's a bit scary. There were lessons learned from Libua which basically means theres no point in a repeat-show unless a better outcome can be made.
I am not in the military, never been in the military either. I have however been reading a bit of WW2 history, especially WW2 historic aviation and written a 215-page book on the subject, as well as a self-designed and researched 36-page booklet in 50 copies. I also got published in the UKs biggest aviation magazine last year, which I think is my best claim to fame so far! 
We're not going into Syria as far as I can see. We're not going into Iran either, unless Iran is minutes away from bombing Israel with nukes or is on the verge of changing the entire political stability of the region. Which may or may not happen within the next ten years.
Re: Is Syria next?
I get tired of people claiming their part of the defense process because they pay taxes. That is fucking stupid. 50% of this country pays no federal tax because of all the perks and breaks they get. When 50% of the country pays 1% of the tax revenue, they don't fucking count. If you had 100 people over at your house and bought a shit load of really cheap pizza for $100, and 50 people combined only payed 1$, would you argue they have an equal say in what toppings to add, where to order from and best of all, equal access to the pizza? Hell no you wouldn't. So excuse me if I don't really give a damn what public opinion says about what I should be doing and where I should be doing it. Cause most of the people that are polled in these topics don't contribute to my paycheck annually what I pay in federal taxes a month.
TL;DR I don't want to deploy to make someone else feel good from the comfort of their home. There is no "we" when you come home to your family at 5pm everyday and I look out a a mound of sand.
All fucking time
Give this man like +200 karma points instantly.
Re: Is Syria next?
Oh I don't think I want to continue this one at all. Sorry. I appreciate the long reply though, James. I read it all.
However, the post asking if I was in the military because I indirectly pointed to Nazi-Germany and our former "lets not meddle in other countries affairs" strategy which got us into a big mess in the 20's and 30's I found a bit odd. The memories of WW1 still very much in everyones minds, no one really wanted to involve themselves, but simply retracted and hoped for the best. Yay. I feel people put that opinion very much forward again these days, and it's a bit scary. There were lessons learned from Libua which basically means theres no point in a repeat-show unless a better outcome can be made.
I am not in the military, never been in the military either. I have however been reading a bit of WW2 history, especially WW2 historic aviation and written a 215-page book on the subject, as well as a self-designed and researched 36-page booklet in 50 copies. I also got published in the UKs biggest aviation magazine last year, which I think is my best claim to fame so far!
We're not going into Syria as far as I can see. We're not going into Iran either, unless Iran is minutes away from bombing Israel with nukes or is on the verge of changing the entire political stability of the region. Which may or may not happen within the next ten years.
We only look back at the holocaust that way, because *cringe* (forgive me when I say this, because I mean it in the most factual way possible), pro-Jewish bias in the media has beat it into the ground how many atrocities were committed, and how much America needed to get involved.
Yet people fail to remember that the same European countries America had to bail out, were right there up Hitler's ass and having fucking dinner parties for the Nazi party. They all kissed his ass, and everyone knew it, yet they forget that part.
Had I been around then, i'd of said "sit and spin". But the reality is the U.S. still didn't really get involved because of "human atrocity". They got involved, because even then the U.S. was a super power that DID NOT want Hitler gaining anymore power. He was getting too big, and we checked him. That's what it really boiled down to. He became a threat.
None of these countries today, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and even dating back to "old red" during Vietnam - were ever really any sort of threat to the U.S.
Plus enormous debt, and continuing economic decline in this country - call the U.S. when the next holocaust in the horizon. Until then, handle your own shit.
We can't risk these soldiers lives anymore to be the 'lawman of the wild west' known as the world. Some people, and some atrocities are gonna have to happen, and people are gonna have to die, and it's gonna have to be really bad, for the U.S. to 'consider' involvement in the future.
We just can't do it anymore. We need to worry about us FIRST, and everyone else SECOND. It's just where we're at right now. Sorry...
Re: Is Syria next?
Oh I don't think I want to continue this one at all. Sorry. I appreciate the long reply though, James. I read it all.
Oh come on. Flagg was just being Flagg. He jumps my ass like that from time to time and he agrees with me on a lot of issues. You have to look at it from his perspective. He's spent years in Iraq and his point of view comes from actually being in one of these wars and dealing with it firsthand. He's not a big fan of armchair quarterbacks even though the administration he voted for twice was a bunch of nerdy draft dodgers neck deep in Project for a New American Century, had wet dreams of war and global domination, and got to blow their load for eight years. Not even gonna open up a 9/11 can of worms in this thread, BUT it's interesting how PNAC said we needed a Pearl Harbor type attack on US soil to usher in this new century quicker. They had incredible luck because 9 months later, their wish was granted. Not saying they caused it, just pointing out how the past decade was shaped by armchair quarterbacks.
While I have had family members serve in the military, I haven't served but I'm not gonna let that stop me from stating my opinion on world affairs.
We only look back at the holocaust that way, because *cringe* (forgive me when I say this, because I mean it in the most factual way possible), pro-Jewish bias in the media has beat it into the ground how many atrocities were committed, and how much America needed to get involved.
While I agree that when looking back on WWII the holocaust always seems to be the dominating factor. However, I don't know if it can be beat into the ground enough. If there was ever a point in this planet's history where it was literally hell on earth or to take a quote from my grandma, "the devil is on the loose", that was it. Nothing comes remotely close to the magnitude of that horror and yeah I realize there have been mass atrocities throughout human history. The implementation, design,etc. of that was just pure evil. Many intricacies in WWII but the holocaust was like a sideshow to the "main feature".
Yet people fail to remember that the same European countries America had to bail out, were right there up Hitler's ass and having fucking dinner parties for the Nazi party. They all kissed his ass, and everyone knew it, yet they forget that part.
I've read a lot of books in my life about WWII and this has always boggled my mind as well. Europe's appeasement of Hitler up until the nanosecond of occupation is almost impossible to comprehend. Europe has always had appeasement/pacifism flowing through its veins but they went off the rails on a crazy train in the 30s-40s. Allow Germany with an imploded economy and Italy with an obsolete military to steamroll the entire continent and northern Africa? To take a quote from In Living Color, "Homey don't play that".
Had I been around then, i'd of said "sit and spin". But the reality is the U.S. still didn't really get involved because of "human atrocity". They got involved, because even then the U.S. was a super power that DID NOT want Hitler gaining anymore power. He was getting too big, and we checked him. That's what it really boiled down to. He became a threat.
Had I been president, this chicken hawk armchair quarterback would have entered the war even earlier. You're right though. Our declaration of war on Germany had nothing to do with the holocaust. Liberating the death camps was merely a byproduct of the overall invasion of Europe.
As Hitler was about to eat a bullet, you can bet your ass he wished he hadn't declared war on the US. It was the "game changer" and the history books(and the planet itself) would be vastly different had he not made that mistake. I read his declaration on the US years ago. Pure gibberish. Amazing he wasn't shot in the middle of the speech.
None of these countries today, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and even dating back to "old red" during Vietnam - were ever really any sort of threat to the U.S.
Our post WWII conflicts have more to do with occupying strategic areas and keeping them in line than they do extinguishing imminent threats to us or our allies. We also don't enter conflicts anymore that has more to do with ridding humanity of an evil presence than protecting vital US interests. There are a few exceptions of course.
Its why Sudanese prez Omar al Bashir can slaughter half a million people in Darfur without even a slap on the wrist yet we'll do drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan,etc. He is easily monitored as he only visits specific African countries. This guy's plane could have been taken out in one shot YEARS ago yet it's never been attempted. Russia and China would condemn the strike, but who gives a fuck?
Plus enormous debt, and continuing economic decline in this country - call the U.S. when the next holocaust in the horizon. Until then, handle your own shit.
As far as Europe goes, I completely agree. I am a huge advocate of a US withdrawal from NATO. Europe, you wanted an EU? Well "man up" and own it. The EU has its own defense force yet many countries in Europe either don't want to be involved or wish to withdraw from it. Why? Because its easy for them to trivialize their own defense when NATO(the United States) is there to save the day if/when trouble comes knocking. It's time to pull out. They have their own military and two EU countries have nuclear arsenals large enough to be a legitimate deterrent. If 500+ nukes cant defend that continent, then fuck it. Launch em or bury em.
A withdrawal from NATO would save money and allow the US to reposition its military in areas more vital.
Re: Is Syria next?
While I agree that when looking back on WWII the holocaust always seems to be the dominating factor. However, I don't know if it can be beat into the ground enough. If there was ever a point in this planet's history where it was literally hell on earth or to take a quote from my grandma, "the devil is on the loose", that was it. Nothing comes remotely close to the magnitude of that horror and yeah I realize there have been mass atrocities throughout human history. The implementation, design,etc. of that was just pure evil. Many intricacies in WWII but the holocaust was like a sideshow to the "main feature".
Yeah, i'm not denying that it was THE WORST time for Europe , but can't you agree that the image and memory of the holocaust has been corrupted to a point, where it's used and held over the head as an arguing point for getting involved in every human rights issue since, so much to the point that we've OVER-intervened throughout the world because of it.
Our post WWII conflicts have more to do with occupying strategic areas and keeping them in line than they do extinguishing imminent threats to us or our allies. We also don't enter conflicts anymore that has more to do with ridding humanity of an evil presence than protecting vital US interests. There are a few exceptions of course.
Its why Sudanese prez Omar al Bashir can slaughter half a million people in Darfur without even a slap on the wrist yet we'll do drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan,etc. He is easily monitored as he only visits specific African countries. This guy's plane could have been taken out in one shot YEARS ago yet it's never been attempted. Russia and China would condemn the strike, but who gives a fuck?
Agreed, which is why I think the whole "we're the good guys, we're ridding the world of evil, Stargate SG-1 garbage" is just that - garbage.
The only thing that matters is American interests, and anything that's countered to them.
As far as Europe goes, I completely agree. I am a huge advocate of a US withdrawal from NATO. Europe, you wanted an EU? Well "man up" and own it. The EU has its own defense force yet many countries in Europe either don't want to be involved or wish to withdraw from it. Why? Because its easy for them to trivialize their own defense when NATO(the United States) is there to save the day if/when trouble comes knocking. It's time to pull out. They have their own military and two EU countries have nuclear arsenals large enough to be a legitimate deterrent. If 500+ nukes cant defend that continent, then fuck it. Launch em or bury em.
A withdrawal from NATO would save money and allow the US to reposition its military in areas more vital.
Because we'll do it for them, and they know it.
Why waste their money, their time, and their precious bleeding heart image over there.
America is already seen as a big bag gun nut bully. We're all so violent, and primitive, yet when their ass gets in a sling... guess which gunslingers they call? Randall Flagg and the Earp Brothers.
Re: Is Syria next?
Yeah, i'm not denying that it was THE WORST time for Europe , but can't you agree that the image and memory of the holocaust has been corrupted to a point, where it's used and held over the head as an arguing point for getting involved in every human rights issue since, so much to the point that we've OVER-intervened throughout the world because of it.
While images of the holocaust and specific viewpoints of it have been used for propaganda purposes since it occurred, the world is teetering on insanity if it ever wishes to forget or simply sidestep the horror because the casualty numbers may be fudged, don't like its use in pushing an agenda,etc.
I disagree that we over-intervene in these types of situations. A good example is the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. When footage hit the TV of those camps, immediate comparisons were made to the holocaust and WWII footage was shown alongside the atrocities there. There were cries of "never again" and everyone and their grandma wanting intervention.
Even with the outrage and comparisons to the holocaust, it took the US and Europe several years to take action, and that action was sporadic until finally bringing an end to it in 1999. While nowhere near the scale of the holocaust, the devil was once again on the loose and was allowed to run rampant through Europe's backyard for years. If the world is willing to look the other way even for a second when it occurs in that region, is it a surprise that similar incidents(Rwanda, Darfur,etc.) are ignored in other areas?
Obviously the US cannot step in every time a murder happens somewhere. While Clinton says one of his biggest regrets is not taking action in Rwanda, I doubt ANY US president would authorize action in each conflict where atrocities occur on a mass scale. To use the words of Bush I, "wouldn't be prudent". While something should have been done in those situations, you have to choose your battles, weigh the risks, and those in power have to decide if its worth losing American lives over. The honest answer to that is no although in some situations it might be yes.
Bush and Clinton gave us a small taste of this in 1992-93 when we decided to rescue Somalia from starvation and tribal warfare. This was one of those UN missions that DCK seems fond of. The US and a shitload of other countries went in there under a UN mandate to save everybody. What happened? Troops started getting killed left and right, couldn't track down any of those warlords we were after, the starving people didn't want us or our food within a light year of them, and last but certainly not least was the infamous "Blackhawk Down" incident where Army Rangers were killed, desecrated, and their bodies dragged through the streets.
This caused EVERYONE to pull out of that no mans land.
Take into account that was basically just a humanitarian mission with a limited US presence and NOTHING was achieved by intervening. Imagine the force needed to occupy Rwanda or Darfur going hut to hut disarming people and not even being able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. If the leadership happened to mingle into the general population, you'd have better luck tracking down the second gunman on the grassy knoll. Also take into account these countries use child soldiers which would cause our troops to have to murder little kids. That's just a few steps away from taking a scorched earth policy and killing everything that moves, which ironically isn't much different than what the enemy you are there to defeat is doing. Only thing different would be its implementation.
I'm not even sure what point I'm trying to make. I just know that the "Never Again" mantra that took shape after the holocaust turned into "Ok, we'll allow it under certain conditions and even when we oppose it, don't expect a quick response".
By the way, I highly recommend this documentary about Darfur.
Re: Is Syria next?
Bush and Clinton gave us a small taste of this in 1992-93 when we decided to rescue Somalia from starvation and tribal warfare. This was one of those UN missions that DCK seems fond of.
Not really.
Yet people fail to remember that the same European countries America had to bail out, were right there up Hitler's ass and having fucking dinner parties for the Nazi party. They all kissed his ass, and everyone knew it, yet they forget that part.
Well, not really there either. We never had any Nazi parties in my country. We had a leader in close ties with the Nazis after 9th of April, but not really the same. It is too easy to put it like that.
