♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I'm tired of calling my congressman. All he ever wants to do is have phone sex, super annoying.
Will there be American invasion in Syria?
- Thread starter MVP
- Start date
DutchJazzer
Banned
no oil = no invasion
That's the really nice thing about the Bakken, and a lot of other domestic oil resources we've been sitting on while chanting "peak oil, peak oil". We don't have to dance to the music anymore. . . . we've got all we need.
yep. We can just say no to war.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I think we'll burn their oil for $100 /barrel. We will sell them ours when it is $1,000 /barrel.
Sixth, but you're right. In a formal war, the Syrian military would flatten in a matter of days if the U.S. dedicated as many resources and had the same backing as they did against Iraq in Iraq the first time. It's all of the stuff after that where the problems come up (insurgency, messy guerilla warfare, fallout from Syrian allies, etc).
If Naval and Air power is the key to military victory, than the rest of the world is screwed. The US Navy is a special sort of dominance.
I like all this talk about how the US army has a massive dominance and it is the truth to a degree but what's the point really?
The real source of the real power is always human and the human factor can change and bound to change the balances every once in a while. So the most important thing is not what power you have but what you do with that power, until the changes happen.
The real source of the real power is always human and the human factor can change and bound to change the balances every once in a while. So the most important thing is not what power you have but what you do with that power, until the changes happen.
And I'd place America toward the top of that list as well. Why? Training and education (military). Compared to soldiers from places like the Phillipines, Syria, Egypt, and Mongolia there is no comparison. Now places like China, Germany, Russia and Israel can make a claim on training and education (military). So that evens the playing field there but then the American tech and abilities come into play and it is game over.
Examples:
In 2011 there were 20 aircraft carriers in the world. The US has 10 of them.
In 2011 there were 8,467 attack helicopters in the world. The US had 6,417 of them. That is a 3 : 1 ratio
In 2011 there were 134 nuclear submarines in the world. The US had 71 of them.
In 2011 there were 28 cruisers in the world. The US had 22 of them. That is a 2.75 : 1 ratio
So it is not that the US has an edge in military equipment and tech it is that they are crushingly dominate. It is not even close.
As for what you do with that power. Honest question. Who would you rather have this power? The US or Russia and China? Germany? Israel? Iran? Turkey?
CitizenofCapua
Well-Known Member
OK so White House press secretary said US strike on Syria would be limited in scope and duration but after that strike what is future holding for Syria and Syrians? Its very blurry... Will that operation stop Esad and unseat him from his throne? Nope, only it would provoke more kills and contribute the hostile environment in Syria. Even you strike some of his military bases Assad has been massively armed by Russia, Iran and Hezbullah fighting along side his well armed troops and 2-3 days operation would not be enough to end this. Besides that, rebels getting no significant support from any country. They were getting some from Qatar and Suud regime but then they withdraw from it. Turkey doing some things under the rose like logistic support and they were some rumours about first handedly Turkey arming rebellions.. well there is no smoke without fire. And rebels are not a homogenous formation. The rebels comprised of FSA and Al-Nusra (which is associated with Al-Qaeda) but these two groups figthing against each other cause their ideology and future plans for Syria is different and theyre fighting with Syrian Kurds in Southern regions.
But who are the rebellions? Some would rightfully like to know that "ok lets say Assad has gone but who is coming next?" To put it mildly they're bunch of professional killers. They're proffesionals cause no matter wherever or which country they are in, they made an internetional intervention legitimate to that country. And they probably getting paid for it and that makes them professionals. Most of them ex-military men who fighted in Chechnya, Libya and Afganistan and they studied master on how to kill people. They abused many human rights such as killing kids just because they're Alewi, killing Syrian kurds or psychopathicly eating a dead man's heart and many more. Theyre bunch of islamic extremists and with their actions these ************s giving Assad an advantage in the propaganda war which he calls rebels as thugs and terrorists and thats why West has its doubts about sending weapons to rebellions. OK lets say Assad has gone are we sure the next one will do a better job than him or Syrians will crave for Assad's dictator regime?
Lastly we are not sure who is responsible for chemical weapons attack which seems like justified a cruise missile attack on Syria. Obama administration and UK trying to do everything within their power to block UN chemical weapons investigation and rendering it as meaningless. Cause a repeat like "it was rebels not Assad's forces" would prevent the march to the war. But looks like US, UK, others and mainstream media molding a pubblic opinion about that it was %100 Assad and a strike on Syria has become a neccesity and we should immediately act through it.
Lets just hope things will not get uglier than it already is.
But who are the rebellions? Some would rightfully like to know that "ok lets say Assad has gone but who is coming next?" To put it mildly they're bunch of professional killers. They're proffesionals cause no matter wherever or which country they are in, they made an internetional intervention legitimate to that country. And they probably getting paid for it and that makes them professionals. Most of them ex-military men who fighted in Chechnya, Libya and Afganistan and they studied master on how to kill people. They abused many human rights such as killing kids just because they're Alewi, killing Syrian kurds or psychopathicly eating a dead man's heart and many more. Theyre bunch of islamic extremists and with their actions these ************s giving Assad an advantage in the propaganda war which he calls rebels as thugs and terrorists and thats why West has its doubts about sending weapons to rebellions. OK lets say Assad has gone are we sure the next one will do a better job than him or Syrians will crave for Assad's dictator regime?
Lastly we are not sure who is responsible for chemical weapons attack which seems like justified a cruise missile attack on Syria. Obama administration and UK trying to do everything within their power to block UN chemical weapons investigation and rendering it as meaningless. Cause a repeat like "it was rebels not Assad's forces" would prevent the march to the war. But looks like US, UK, others and mainstream media molding a pubblic opinion about that it was %100 Assad and a strike on Syria has become a neccesity and we should immediately act through it.
Lets just hope things will not get uglier than it already is.
berkkobe
Well-Known Member
i didn't say that they are somebody who told it, i said that IF
what is get bent i don't know stoked my friend
Good points CitizenofCapua
If America strikes Syria with limited missile strikes then what? If nothing else happens all that does is prolong the war. If it leads to escalation such as strike at Israel as has been stated will happen than it just widens the war and threatens it to be a region wide war (beyond the skirmishes already. I mean full on war) if not a world wide war.
As for these rebels. Well some of them are terrorists. A common question being asked here in the US is: Are we really about to become Al Queda's air force? Neither side is America's friend. Any pretense otherwise is dishonest.
If America strikes Syria with limited missile strikes then what? If nothing else happens all that does is prolong the war. If it leads to escalation such as strike at Israel as has been stated will happen than it just widens the war and threatens it to be a region wide war (beyond the skirmishes already. I mean full on war) if not a world wide war.
As for these rebels. Well some of them are terrorists. A common question being asked here in the US is: Are we really about to become Al Queda's air force? Neither side is America's friend. Any pretense otherwise is dishonest.
Basically I insulted you. "then you die pls"? Get that trash out of here.
berkkobe
Well-Known Member
Hm, okay i understand, excuse me for writing some idiotic things.
I agree with you however that America threatening action in Syria has nothing to do with democracy. The vast majority of America wants no part of this Syrian conflict.
That's not what I meant, read my post again in the lead of this post.
I tried to say, in a world of 7 billion people, 300 M Americans can't rule the world forever. Things will change. It does always. I'm trying to state that Americans should think about what they are doing with all the power they have. If only they care about what the remote future generations of humanity will think about the great America.
No one! That's the whole point.
