- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "America's new war in Syria is a total disaster"
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:42 am to BobBoucher
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:42 am to BobBoucher
quote:Said like a President who makes decision based on opinion polls and not based on true leadership.
The one thing youre overlooking is the war-fatigue this country
0
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:44 am to jamboybarry
quote:
No, but yours conflicts with even the administration's military advisors.
thats becuase Obama is an idiot. He should know if its his intent to destroy them, it would require US troops. What the real strategy is, is to degrade them enough that local armies can defeat them or eliminate the risk they pose. The problem with this strategy is we have ZERO control over whether or not they succeed.
IMO, knocking them down a few notches so they are more consumed with dealing with local factions for their survival keeps them a local/regional threat, not an international one.
Thats why i support only air support.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:45 am to BobBoucher
quote:
In Ukraine, i would prefer we arm them.
Two or three years ago we could have armed the Ukraine so they could defend themselves better. Maybe Putin would think long and hard if the Ukraine had a better defense.
Maybe Europe would feel better about their options if Obama hadn't gutted the missile defense deal.
Syria has been a royal mess, but no way should we have let Isis get so strong and screw up Iraq. We already had boots on the ground there yet we advertised our timetable for leaving and let Isis build up waiting for their day.
Sure I'm Monday morning QBing, but Obama or any president should be heavily involved in world affairs and trying to orchestrate world events to keep America secure. You can't wait for a threat before acting.
We made a mistake with AQ. We let them train, plan and get stronger. The result was 9/11. Is this going to repeat itself with ISIS? That is my concern.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:53 am to jamboybarry
So we've got two enemies in Syria, and one of the enemies has said it's OK to fly over him and humanely bomb the other enemy if we don't kill any of his civilians that he exposed to chemical weapons that everyone in the world except Obama drew a red line over, and the 60s peace protester hippies in the NYT editorial officers are covering their "Bush Lied. People Died" bumper stickers on their eco-friendly Volvo hybrids with ones saying "Peace Through Superior Firepower."
Got it.
Got it.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 9:54 am to DeltaDoc
quote:
(1) Is ISIS actually a clear and present danger to the United States homeland or to critical allies abroad?;
Agree. I'm not entirely satisfied with the explanation however this came out yesterday:
Plot to 'blow up airliners with toothpaste bombs' was being planned by unknown 'Khorosan' terror group that was hit alongside ISIS in US strikes on Syria
...so if true, props to the Obama admin.
quote:
(2) If there is a clear and present danger to the homeland, then would it not be more prudent to expend resources securing access to the country (borders, international flights, ports, etc.);
I don't think so. What does "securing the border" even mean? Build a fence?
quote:
(3) What are we trying to accomplish and can we accomplish this without US soldiers on the ground in the area;
(4) What are the long term consequences of us doing this relative to OUR interests?
People often ask "what does winning look like" and I agree it's a huge concern and an important question to answer. But I think what winning actually looks like in this scenario is simply fighting over there and not here. If they're focused on American soldiers in their backyard it's much harder to strike America. That's not a very inspiring goal, but it is what it is.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:00 am to doubleb
quote:
Two or three years ago we could have armed the Ukraine so they could defend themselves better. Maybe Putin would think long and hard if the Ukraine had a better defense.
That is pretty funny. Two or three years ago Yanukovych was in power, most of Ukraine's defense policy was producing a good bit of their own military equipment and selling it to China, Sudan, Iraq and Burma. I wonder where the 400 or so BTR-4s that Iraq ordered ended up. They would have taken our stuff and sold it to the Chinese.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:02 am to OleWar
i find the juxtaposition here interesting. previously liberals were anti engagement on FP topics, now conservatives are.
it really showcases how we take our talking points from the current establishment.
FTR, i protest iraq 1 and 2, plus protesting kosovo. I don't plan on doing any protesting around intervention with ISIS but I do not think its a good idea.
it really showcases how we take our talking points from the current establishment.
FTR, i protest iraq 1 and 2, plus protesting kosovo. I don't plan on doing any protesting around intervention with ISIS but I do not think its a good idea.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:10 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
i find the juxtaposition here interesting. previously liberals were anti engagement on FP topics, now conservatives are. it really showcases how we take our talking points from the current establishment.
Yeah, but this current "whatever-it-is" is still in flux. I'm all for air strikes and drones. I'm for having a broad coalition to go in and take out ISIS, but will the coalition hold? Will everybody else get tired and leave us holding the bag? (my guess is probably so)
One of the reasons the UN is such a worthless entity now, is because we clean up everybody's mess. ISIS, Russia and Al Quadea are probably more of a threat to our allies in Europe (b/c of geography) than the U.S. Yet we require nothing from them. We protect everyone.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:14 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
don't plan on doing any protesting around intervention with ISIS but I do not think its a good idea.
Why not?
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:15 am to LSURussian
quote:Excellent distraction piece. This writer will go far in the MSM.
LINK
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:15 am to a want
quote:
One of the reasons the UN is such a worthless entity now, is because we clean up everybody's mess. ISIS, Russia and Al Quadea are probably more of a threat to our allies in Europe (b/c of geography) than the U.S. Yet we require nothing from them. We protect everyone.
Yes, it is very annoying, especially the russia bit. Russia is of little threat to our strategic interests but boy could they clobber germany.
At the same time, we get in effect to tax them through our currency, bonds and interest rates. In a way they are paying for our endless wars by sucking up our bonds. And dealing with global ZIRP.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:15 am to LSURussian
I long for the days of Sadaam keeping shite in order over there.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:16 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Why not?
too busy.
my mother was in town last weekend. I have lots of plans this weekend, and then i head to New orleans for 10 days.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:17 am to Hawkeye95
A Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim walk into a war
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:20 am to BobBoucher
quote:
All options suck. Gotta pick the least risky/sucky, and i think weve done that.
Great policy when waging war. And by great I mean stupid.
Edit to add: Wasn't calling you stupid Bob, just the idea that we wage war based on that criteria.
This post was edited on 9/24/14 at 10:24 am
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:28 am to jamboybarry
quote:Defining "U.S. interests" is the key here.
If they are not a direct threat to U.S. interests, we should pursue covert opportunities
Syria is a direct threat to the Petro Dollar and the international banking cabal. Therefore, they are a direct threat to "U.S. interests" as long as the American people continue to allow those things to be of "interest."
ISIS was created as an excuse to get into Syria. I suspect "covert opportunities" have already been attempted (I suggest reading the book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman").
But those bastards in Syria just won't submit to fascism.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:30 am to TX Tiger
quote:
Defining "U.S. interests" is the key here.
Agreed
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:33 am to son of arlo
Bashar Assad never used chemical weapons. US associated rebels did and the media reported the wrong army used it. There is absolutely ZERO evidence Bashar Assad used the chemicals.
Bashar Assad doesn't want the US involved, why on earth would he use chemicals when he knows the USA and others would lose their mind in indignation if he did use them?
It doesn't even make sense. Bashar Assad is being set up as a villain so that Obama can 'save the day' by spending billions of taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary war.
Bashar Assad doesn't want the US involved, why on earth would he use chemicals when he knows the USA and others would lose their mind in indignation if he did use them?
It doesn't even make sense. Bashar Assad is being set up as a villain so that Obama can 'save the day' by spending billions of taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary war.
This post was edited on 9/24/14 at 10:34 am
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:35 am to BobBoucher
quote:FIFY
All options suck. Gotta listen to the political spin and pick the option least risky to the DNCs political goals, and i think weve done that.
Posted on 9/24/14 at 10:37 am to fontell
quote:The bartender asks, "What is this, an Obama presidency?"
A Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim walk into a war
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News