Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Syria--To Bomb or Not To Bomb

295 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Find one person in this thread who agrees who our ally is in the region is.

 

That won't even happen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Find one person in this thread who agrees who our ally is in the region is.

 

That won't even happen.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone will agree that Israel is our "ally" in the area. The question isn't whether they ARE an ally, but whether they SHOULD be. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Kill hundreds of innocents with chemical weapons - BAD. Must have military response.

Kill innocents with drone strikes - Heh, I got a medal in 2009 so it's all good.

2rz5glt.jpg

 

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think everyone understands that Peace Prize was a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not that I am for the bombing, but if the administration keeps talking, they will know when the bombing will happen, how many bombs will be dropped and exactly which buildings will be hit. Never seen such a public display of details. But again, it is all posturing anyway for opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I opposed Iraq and I'll oppose this one. It's hilarious that Iraq war cheerleaders are now outraged and can join in with the Iraq war protesters who are now calling for this war. 

 

Hypocrites are in good company 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Or they learned their lesson
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Or they learned their lesson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Or they learned their lesson

Some. But the ones that call for war or oppose it based on who is in the WH at the time are scum and ***** and are easily recognized. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I supported the admin irt Libya and more than likely I will support this move as well.  In this case, its probably the right thing to do. 

 

There are times we should get involved and times we shouldn't. We just need to get better at choosing when to get involved.   Although its a lot easier to pick and choose in hindsight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Find one person in this thread who agrees who our ally is in the region is.

 

That won't even happen.

 

I think most would agree that Turkey is an ally since we have a treaty with them (They are a member of NATO). 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think most would agree that Turkey is an ally since we have a treaty with them (They are a member of NATO). 

 

As is Saudi Arabia, technically. They were a founding member of the UN and also the recipient of the largest arms deal in US history, totaling over 60 billion, in 2010. All this despite that 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 "terrorists" were Saudi nationals and that Saudi Wahabism is widely viewed to the the root of Islamist extremism. 

 

But you know, money and such. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Its all just building up to invade Iran.  Have to make sure your back is safe before you do it though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As is Saudi Arabia, technically. They were a founding member of the UN and also the recipient of the largest arms deal in US history, totaling over 60 billion, in 2010. All this despite that 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 "terrorists" were Saudi nationals and that Saudi Wahabism is widely viewed to the the root of Islamist extremism. 

 

But you know, money and such. 

 

We actually have a treaty with Turkey (NATO) approved by the Senate, that says we will come to their aid if they are attacked by another country.  We have no such treaty with Saudi Arabia.  And if we did, the fact that 19 of their citizens decide on their own to commit a criminal act would not affect that treat in any way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

We actually have a treaty with Turkey (NATO) approved by the Senate, that says we will come to their aid if they are attacked by another country.  We have no such treaty with Saudi Arabia.  And if we did, the fact that 19 of their citizens decide on their own to commit a criminal act would not affect that treat in any way.  

 

Don't we have a military alliance?  SA, UAB, Kuwait, Qatar, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Don't we have a military alliance?  SA, UAB, Kuwait, Qatar, etc...

 

 

But nothing like Turkey.  You can say Turkey is one of our truest allies over there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

We actually have a treaty with Turkey (NATO) approved by the Senate, that says we will come to their aid if they are attacked by another country.  We have no such treaty with Saudi Arabia.  And if we did, the fact that 19 of their citizens decide on their own to commit a criminal act would not affect that treat in any way.  

 

We actually signed a mutual defense agreement in 1951 with Saudi Arabia and it's why we have a base inside their country (though technically it's a "US Training Mission"). Nice try though. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm not sure why, with all the bitching from every corner of the planet about the US "interfering" in the middle east, we would get involved in this at all.

 

I get the humanitarian issues, but how the fug is bombing them going to aid in that???

Simple, leveling the playing field. But the problem arises, just like in afghanistan and iraq, once we topple it down, we get too involved in trying to rebuild. Thats when the costs arise and the lives start to stack up. I don't want to fight in war thats more twisted than either iraq and afghanistan combined. Its a death trap for anyone trying to get involved. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare - That was the term I was trying to remember yesterday.  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_hegemony

 

 

 

"....Put a McDonalds on every fugin' corner. If we gotta blow up the corner, then build the McDonalds- so be it."

 

petro dollar was what I thought was the underlying reason for Iraq but the broader reason being Iraq could become a fulcrum for the ME to swing.

 

maybe the current ME is the unintended consequence or perhaps intended of the 2nd invasion. who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

yep. sometimes you have to be bold and have balls and not be afraid to either be wrong or go where nobody else goes.

 

stay scared goodwill hunting and never stick your neck out for anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Don't we have a military alliance?  SA, UAB, Kuwait, Qatar, etc...

 

No, not anything as official as NATO.  We have some less formal agreements, memorandums of understanding, exchange of bases, but no Senate approved treaties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

We actually signed a mutual defense agreement in 1951 with Saudi Arabia and it's why we have a base inside their country (though technically it's a "US Training Mission"). Nice try though. 

 

There is a formal arrangement , but we have those with a lot of countries, They are a far cry from NATO. 

 

Here is a list of all treaties regarding defense with Saudi Arabia that were in effect as of 1 Jan 2012.

 

See also ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION
SAUDI ARABIA — DEFENSE ^

Agreement relating to the extending of procurement assistance to Saudi Arabia for the transfer of military supplies and equipment.
Exchange of notes at Jidda June 18, 1951.
Entered into force June 18, 1951.
2 UST 1460; TIAS 2289; 141 UNTS 67.
 

SAUDI ARABIA — DEFENSE ^

Agreement providing for a military assistance advisory group.*
Exchange of notes at Jidda June 27, 1953.
Entered into force June 27, 1953.
4 UST 1482; TIAS 2812; 212 UNTS 335.
Note
* Terminated February 27, 1977, except that the provisions of paragraph 7 remain in force in respect of activities under the agreement of February 8 and 27, 1977 (28 UST 2409; TIAS 8558). See MISSIONS, MILITARY.
 

SAUDI ARABIA — DEFENSE ^

Agreement for the loan of F-86 aircraft to Saudi Arabia.*
Exchange of notes at Jidda
November 10 and 13, 1962.
Entered into force November 13, 1962.
14 UST 1181; TIAS 5414; 488 UNTS 175.
Amendment
May 1 and 22, 1963 (14 UST 1184; TIAS 5414; 488 UNTS 180).
Note
* Paragraph 1, first sentence of paragraph 5, and paragraphs 7 and 8 terminated by agreement of May 16 and November 11, 1965 (17 UST 1390; TIAS 6095).
 

SAUDI ARABIA — DEFENSE ^

Agreement relating to the transfer of F-86
aircraft to Saudi Arabia.
Exchange of notes at Jidda
May 16 and November 11, 1965.
Entered into force November 11, 1965.
17 UST 1390; TIAS 6095.
 

SAUDI ARABIA — DEFENSE ^

Agreement on privileges and immunities for United States personnel engaged in the training program for the maintenance and operation of F-5 aircraft in Saudi Arabia.
Exchange of notes at Jidda April 4 and July 5, 1972. Entered into force July 5, 1972.
23 UST 1469; TIAS 7425.

 

Agreement relating to the deposit by Saudi Arabia of ten percent of the value of grant military assistance provided by the United States.
Exchange of notes at Jidda
April 11, April 19, and May 15, 1972.
Entered into force May 15, 1972.
23 UST 2664; TIAS 7459.
 

SAUDI ARABIA — DEFENSE ^

Memorandum of understanding concerning the Saudi Arabian National Guard modernization program.
Signed at Jidda March 19, 1973.
Entered into force March 19, 1973.
24 UST 1106; TIAS 7634.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

President Obama drew a line in the sand and the Syrian government crossed that line. 

 

He has to react in some way or lose credibility in the region. 

 

But does his response have to be military action?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

President Obama drew a line in the sand and the Syrian government crossed that line. 

 

He has to react in some way or lose credibility in the region. 

 

But does his response have to be military action?

 

I guess we could try rainbows, smiles and loving them into submission.  :)

 

The Russians are going to veto any sanctions, and would likely ignore them anyway.  So I am not sure what other options we could try.

 

One option that might become available in the not so distant future are weapons that don't explode, kill or maim, but knock out command control and communications.  That type of weapon would be idea for this situation, but I don't think it has been developed yet, not enough to use at any rate. 

 

I have wondered what might happen if England, France, the US and Russia and China just offered Assad 1 Billion dollars to pack up and leave and go live on an Island somewhere.  It would be interesting to see if he would accept.   

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites