Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?
- Thread starter Defiant47
- Start date
I trust our current Commander-in-Chief to effectively lead the best military in the world - I just think the mission is not vital to our national security.
I agree that it's not vital to our national security. That's a red flag - it's more about protecting the innocent and punishing a flagrant and dastardly violation of international conventions. But while we do have the best military in the world (for the time being), it's civilian leadership is clearly not (the best in the world).
I think we can agree that while civilian leadership is not as good as it was in the 1990s, it is a couple of steps up from the previous batch.
Wait! The 1990's? You're of course refering to President Clinton's brilliant handling of the Blackhawk-Down debacle in Somalia? Or perhaps his clever cruise missile strike against the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Quite possibly you may be thinking of his great success in hunting down Osama bin Laden, preventing any deadly Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States. Certainly he was quite handy with the ladies. Yes, the 1990's - good times.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,163
somalia was a brilliant move by the Americans to explain why they couldn't make the Serbians stop while they were cleansing Europe from the Islamic vermin ; Bosnians in the forum need not answer , ı just can't use smilies . The B-2 attack on the Chinese Embassy was a nice one from the American "Military" , which within a year or two had the right stuff to land a freakin' secret plane on a Chinese tarmac instead of ditching in the Pasific to result in a 15 minute swim until helos arrived . Even the 1998 attacks on Afghanistan had its uses to show a certain country in the vicinity that it had to watch its steps , with that single cruise missile that "ran out of fuel" and landed hard enough to damage it all , but for the "foreign" language stencils on it that said it could happen elsewhere too . 1990s were good , Americans had all the money back then .
The matter is settled then: the US will not invade and you no longer need to support that option. (Because, ofcourse, it is an option, meaning you can either take it or leave it.)
EU agrees Assad regime responsible for Syria chemical attack
European Union officials have agreed that the August 21 chemical attack outside Damascus appears to have been the work of Syrias regime, but that any potential military attack against it should wait for the UN inspectors report.
It is said that all indications converge toward the fact that the regime is responsible.
Germany joined in blaming the attack on the Syrian government.
European Union officials have agreed that the August 21 chemical attack outside Damascus appears to have been the work of Syrias regime, but that any potential military attack against it should wait for the UN inspectors report.
It is said that all indications converge toward the fact that the regime is responsible.
Germany joined in blaming the attack on the Syrian government.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
They all said this after meeting with John "you guys want any ketchup" Heinz Kerry. And not after the inspector's report.
Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Kerry: You don't believe the Assad regime carried out the attacks, well, I only need 50 of those 150 Tomahawks, you know...
EU: WE BELIEVE YOU!
Sent via mobile.
Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Kerry: You don't believe the Assad regime carried out the attacks, well, I only need 50 of those 150 Tomahawks, you know...
EU: WE BELIEVE YOU!
Sent via mobile.
In case you hadn't noticed, my vote for this thread indicates that none of those are deal-breakers. So ultimately, "political posturing" is irrelevant in me deciding whether the US should invade or not. Most importantly, the US's interests are irrelevant when figuring out what the right call is.
I forgot the questionable move into Somalia - guess I was giving Bush the Elder too much credit.
A bit incoherent, but I sense you're trying to trivialize the issue with sarcasm.
It was successful under Bush 41 - the Warlords intimidated, food and medicine getting through to the people. Black Hawk down occured when Clinton withdrew the greater strength of US forces and turned control over to the UN, and refused requests for the backup "911" force.
If it was successful under Bush 41, it would have been concluded by the end of his Presidency.
Not so, we had an election in the midst of the operation. Clinton won and - in between skirts - blew the operation.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
Sorry for the sarcasm.
I am not trying to trivialize it, just pointing out that this administration wants war, and will do anything to justify it.
This is Bush 44.
Obama has decided -- there IS to be military action no matter who "approves." All other debate is simply an exercise.
I refer you back to the 21 Conditions for MY position (as well as Cuba, China and Vietnam, and likely Belarus):
C'Mon. It's true, you know it. The UN -- today's "democratic" reorganization of the League of Nations, has not stopped any wars.
We did not have an election in the midst of the operation.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
There's no "war is wrong" option. That seems like a fundamental oversight.
You're correct. The 1992 Presidential election (3 November 1992) took place immediately prior to Operation Restore Hope (6 December 1992). George Bush began the American intervention and remained in office until January, 1993, when Presdient Clinton was inaugurated and took over the operation.
As UNITAF's mandate was to protect the delivery of food and other humanitarian aid, the operation was regarded as a success.[20] United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali determined that the presence of UNITAF troops had a "positive impact on the security situation in Somalia and on the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance." An estimated 100,000 lives were saved as a result of outside assistance.
During 1993, President Clinton gradually withdrew most US forces - to be replaced by UN Peacekeepers.
This caused a delay in the transition between UNITAF and UNOSOM II, with U.S. forces already withdrawing. The transition itself did not go well. UNOSOM II on 4 May had only 28% of its staff in place when it took over from UNITAF. Its mandate had not even been settled by this time.
By October, little more than a battalion of rangers, some Navy Seals and support troops were left of the American force, when Clinton approved Operation Gothic Serpent, which became the "Blackhawk Down" episode.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin resigned his post late in 1993. He was specifically blamed for denying the U.S. Army permission to have its own armor units in place in Somalia, units which might have been able to break through to the trapped soldiers earlier in the battle. U.S. political leaders felt it would be bad for the mission's peacekeeping image if tanks were in country.
Osama bin Laden, who was living in Sudan at the time, cited this operation, in particular U.S. withdrawal (under Clinton -GF), as an example of American weakness and vulnerability to an attack, which may have inspired him to plan the attacks on the U.S. on 11 September 2001.
In any case, as much as I enjoy playing this game of "who was most incompetent" - Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama? - the main point is that the US military is only as strong as it's weakest link - the politicians in Washington.
