Syrian Kurds are close to declaring Independence

#701
#701
Septic said:
Were we occupying Syria and Afghanistan actively rooting out the Taliban and destroying the Al Qaeda network prior to 9/11?

I think 9/11 happened because of our relationship with Israel along with our "crimes" against muslims, it was a holy war... A 'fatwa' as OBL called it in his letter to America.
Click to expand...

Funny, this was posted earlier today by somebody I follow. What is special about Syrian occupation that makes it different from other interventions that have inspired blowback?

1570824127166.png
 
#702
#702
n_huffhines said:
Funny, this was posted earlier today by somebody I follow. What is special about Syrian occupation that makes it different from other interventions that have inspired blowback?

View attachment 230650
Click to expand...

Yep it was one of the reasons. What you're describing as policing, OBL saw as occupation of their 'holy' lands. Take that occupation of Saudi Arabia out of the equation and there's probably a dozen more reasons the outcome would have been the same. I think the argument that 9/11 was as much or more about sticking it to the 'West' for radical religious 'reasons' as it was about anything else.
 
#703
#703
n_huffhines said:
What is special about Syrian occupation that makes it different from other interventions that have inspired blowback?
Click to expand...

To answer your question with a question, what is the definition of an "occupation?" Are we occupying Syria? Is any American/Infidel presence considered an occupation?
 
#704
#704
Septic said:
No argument there. The cost of the military is staggering - what's the cliche' "freedom isn't free"?

Let's not conflate the cost of the troops in Syria with the entirety of the U.S. defense budget.

There are only a few things I think the government should spend taxpayer money on and they don't go far past infrastructure and the military.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I dont think we separate the cost of the troops in Syria from the the general defense budget. Defense spending should be confined to defending our physical borders, imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#705
#705
Pepe_Silvia said:
Unfortunately, I dont think we separate the cost of the troops in Syria from the the general defense budget. Defense spending should be confined to defending our physical borders, imo.
Click to expand...

Terrorism on U.S. interests is a global issue, ISIS and the terries don't recognize borders.
 
#706
#706
carlos86 said:
I explained it in detail 2 pages ago.
Click to expand...

What? This?

carlos86 said:
Foreign policy most of the time a matter of just playing the game, not getting bent over, and forcing your opponent to show up so you can look him in the eye. In this you prevent one man from running the table (Russia)

Also need continue to fight ISIS, to deny Hezbollah freedom of movement and supply and access to oil fields, to keep the Israeli security concerns at bay (because if they feel that Iran is in any way a threat it won’t look good and they will flex their muscles) and most of all to prevent Russia from having a complete foothold in In the Middle East and prevent certain nations from drifting into Russian influence.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is affecting "national security." News flash, nothing we did in regards to the Kurds is going to change our stature with Saudi, Jordan or the remainder of the Gulf States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#708
#708
VolStrom said:
Yeah, you might be correct about that, but is the answer to occupy every freaking unstable country in the world?
Click to expand...

Obviously we don't occupy all unstable countries, since we aren't occupying Mexico and countries in Africa and Central and South America.
 
#710
#710
Septic said:
Terrorism on U.S. interests is a global issue, ISIS and the terries don't recognize borders.
Click to expand...

This is what has allowed the military- industrial complex to prosper. If any relatively minor international event can be interpreted as a national security emergency, then there is exponential opportunity for profit by somebody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#711
#711
VolStrom said:
Yeah, you might be correct about that, but is the answer to occupy every freaking unstable country in the world?
Click to expand...

Nope, but providing small bits of assistance to the natives who have our interests in fighting the terries is an easy call.

This is the new normal, sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring it because it's inconvenient and expensive is a fool's errand. They aren't going away.
 
#713
#713
Septic said:
Nope, but providing small bits of assistance to the natives who have our interests in fighting the terries is an easy call.

This is the new normal, sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring it because it's inconvenient and expensive is a fool's errand. They aren't going away.
Click to expand...
They might not be going away, but they're a few thousand miles away from our shores. I'm fed up with spending money and resources on far away lands. Screw China and Europe, let's just spend our money on the America's. We can make South America prosperous along with Mexico and Central America and not have to deal with communists.
 
#715
#715
VolStrom said:
They might not be going away, but they're a few thousand miles away from our shores. I'm fed up with spending money and resources on far away lands. Screw China and Europe, let's just spend our money on the America's. We can make South America prosperous along with Mexico and Central America and not have to deal with communists.
Click to expand...

There are many Communists and Socialists in Latin America, too. So does this disqualify them from getting our help?
 
#716
#716
VolStrom said:
They might not be going away, but they're a few thousand miles away from our shores. I'm fed up with spending money and resources on far away lands. Screw China and Europe, let's just spend our money on the America's. We can make South America prosperous along with Mexico and Central America and not have to deal with communists.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong and I hate seeing money squandered as well. The entirety of my initial point was that it is naive to believe that defending the "borders" is an as effective solution as doing that and carrying the fight to the opponent and keeping it there for sixty minutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#717
#717
Grand Vol said:
Why the strike through?

I've always said we don't need to necessarily cut the military budget, but rather be smarter with the money they have. Then they can look at cuts.
Click to expand...

You're use of the word "though" implied that I somehow disagreed, I didn't then nor do i now.
 
#718
#718
Septic said:
Nope.

Pretty sure the GOP and Trump blamed the rise of isis on Obama for leaving the ME too soon, I wonder if Trump will get the same blame?

Hopefully super-ISIS doesn't fill the void like every other antibiotic resistant infection that pops up.
Click to expand...
Well, you're chomping at the bit to blame Trump for leaving too soon right now. So how long would be too long in your book?
 
#720
#720
Septic said:
Nope, but providing small bits of assistance to the natives who have our interests in fighting the terries is an easy call.

This is the new normal, sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring it because it's inconvenient and expensive is a fool's errand. They aren't going away.
Click to expand...

A small bit here, a little bit there. A few advisors here, a few weapons there... at all starts to add up over time.

Like I said before and you just ignored it when you made your "zero sum game" comment... but we only have a finite number of military assets and wealth to throw at any of these issues.

You either don't understand that concept or don't care.
 
#722
#722
Grand, you were USAF like my whole family, right? This word alone should stop all the warmonger idiots on the left(ha!!!) ...the irony there is just too much...

Incirlik.

That's it.

I am sure you cant get to specifics, but Grand do you know what fighter and bomber wings are stationed there? You know, just south of Russia and all of its former republics...of extreme strategic importance to us to have a forward stationed major AFB right on Russias door, and within striking distance of every country in both Europe and the sandbox. That Incirlik. Yeah...

So all the morons here hollering that we were supposed to put US troops on the ground directly in between 2 hostile forces that have been at war for centuries...and take the side AGAINST our NATO ally right next door which has 10,000 troops massed at the border and conducts airstrikes with F16s that we sold them...we are supposed to take up positions against them and what? Take off from our AFB, incirlik, inside THEIR COUNTRY and try to establish a no fly zone next door in syria to keep them from attacking? Is that what we are supposed to do? Nevermind our 70 year old treaty with them...what would happen to all of the men and women stationed at INCIRLIK when we start backing their enemies next door? You think all of those people would be safe? You think that we should put them in danger to help the kurds? You think we should have kept boots on the ground right there in the thick of it losing American lives? What about the 12k ISIL fighters currently in camps there? Are we supposed to take them, too?

Yall calling for us to do anything besides get out of the way and let them fight are stupid. We are lucky that nobody is making a big deal out of the fact that WE ARMED the turks to fight against our ally, a NATO member, who let's us keep a forward AFB in their country to help keep Russia in check.

Incirlik is of GREAT strategic value. Far more than anything that will ever go down in syria. Or iraq for that matter. If and when we have to go to war with Iran, or in former soviet republics, Incirlik will be a vital part of those efforts.

Edit...BY the way...we have approximately 50 NUCLEAR WEAPONS at incirlik...strategically placed to be used in the areas I listed above. But yeah, let's start a war with Turkey.....MORONS
 
#723
#723
Grand Vol said:
I was initially taken aback over "dumping" an ally, even a conditional one, to allow another nation to go after them with overwhelming force. And truth be told, I'd likely pick the side of the Kurds anyway since I despise the Turks. So, yeah, I was bothered over the way it went down.

However, taking a step back and looking over it objectively, I tried to see what other options there were. There really aren't any good avenues we could have taken as a nation. We tried negotiating, that didn't work and the Turks were going to go in after they walked away. Of course, the news is reporting we gave the "green light" for Turkey to intercede, but that's not entirely accurate. Don't expect anything less from the Ministry of Truth these days anyway.

Regardless, we were faced with either continuing to support the Syrian Kurds and opposing Turkey, a NATO ally, and putting our forces in harm's way or stepping back. Neither choice was good. But I'll err on the side of keeping our troops safe for the moment and see how this unfolds.

Again, past failures to actually set up a legitimate and recognized Kurdish homeland with a democratically elected government are coming back to haunt us. And that's on Trump. And Obama. And Bush 43. And Bush 41. This problem transcends political parties and Presidencies. There's more to it overall, but I won't bore you with the complicated details since, in the words of one of your lawyer buddies, it's "simple."
Click to expand...

This is kinda why you stay out of other countries business.

Cause eventually you get this and there is no right answer. Just blood.
 
#724
#724
Rasputin_Vol said:
A small bit here, a little bit there. A few advisors here, a few weapons there... at all starts to add up over time.

Like I said before and you just ignored it when you made your "zero sum game" comment... but we only have a finite number of military assets and wealth to throw at any of these issues.

You either don't understand that concept or don't care.
Click to expand...

As I stated before, that's not accurate. You're conflating border security (which the U.S. military isn't involved in) and military and advisory deployments to theaters of active conflicts. They are oranges and apples in scope and mission, one does not diminish from the other, thus it's not a zero sum situation.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top