walksalone Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 If the POTUS sends U.S. troops over there, he's got his head seriously planted deeply in his ass. This is a job for the U.N. Link to comment
zoogs Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Are the rebels even "good guys"? Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Are the rebels even "good guys"? I'm going to lean twords, probably not... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 26, 2013 Author Share Posted April 26, 2013 If the POTUS sends U.S. troops over there, he's got his head seriously planted deeply in his ass. This is a job for the U.N. So, he has basically made a threat he isn't/shouldn't back up. Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 If the POTUS sends U.S. troops over there, he's got his head seriously planted deeply in his ass. This is a job for the U.N. So, he has basically made a threat he isn't/shouldn't back up. yes Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 26, 2013 Author Share Posted April 26, 2013 If the POTUS sends U.S. troops over there, he's got his head seriously planted deeply in his ass. This is a job for the U.N. So, he has basically made a threat he isn't/shouldn't back up. yes OK....good to know because that usually doesn't work out real well. Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 No, it doesn't. We've got no dog in this fight, and why aren't we hearing the U.N. renouncing what Syria is doing? Link to comment
lo country Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Are the rebels even "good guys"? Some reports say AQ backed/supported. Iraq reportedly supporting Assad. It, like all of the other ME springs ie Libya, Egypt and this are a lose lose for the United States. Not reliable enough intel to even know who we are actually supporting. The ME hates the U.S yet the world expects us to be the world police and then attack our interests when "their bad guy" is defeated. If we do take a proactive military approach, IMO, it needs to be done like Bush I in the first Gulf War, get an MED coalition and make them go against Assad and his regime. On a side note. Seems like there were reports years ago about Iraq's WMD going into Syria. Anyone know how Assad got his current stock? Ironic that the pursuit of these weapons got us into the war in Iraq and WMD might now bring us into a new one. I just hope we have a better plan for this one than the last. Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 Some reports say AQ backed/supported. Iraq reportedly supporting Assad. It, like all of the other ME springs ie Libya, Egypt and this are a lose lose for the United States. Not reliable enough intel to even know who we are actually supporting. The ME hates the U.S yet the world expects us to be the world police and then attack our interests when "their bad guy" is defeated. If we do take a proactive military approach, IMO, it needs to be done like Bush I in the first Gulf War, get an MED coalition and make them go against Assad and his regime. Precisely the reason we should have nothing to do with this. The U.N. needs to step and do it's damn job. The only reason we should take "any" proactive military approach, is if American's are being put in harms way, and that's not happening. The last thing I want to see is American troops babysitting these numbskulls. Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 If we do take a proactive military approach, IMO, it needs to be done like Bush I in the first Gulf War, get an MED coalition and make them go against Assad and his regime. That's exactly what Bush I didn't do in the first Gulf War . . . Link to comment
walksalone Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 If we do take a proactive military approach, IMO, it needs to be done like Bush I in the first Gulf War, get an MED coalition and make them go against Assad and his regime. That's exactly what Bush I didn't do in the first Gulf War . . . Best thing is, not to take anything resembling a proactive miltiary approach... Link to comment
lo country Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 If we do take a proactive military approach, IMO, it needs to be done like Bush I in the first Gulf War, get an MED coalition and make them go against Assad and his regime. That's exactly what Bush I didn't do in the first Gulf War . . . The U.S. assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq's aggression, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the U.S. itself.[69] U.S. Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. was designated to be the commander of the Coalition forces in the Persian Gulf area. Maybe I am missing your comments, but the above list of 34 countries shows ME nations supporting in Operation Desert Storm. Bush 1 did get UN support and ME support to go against Iraq............It wasn't a lone US operation. Here is a link with countries and actual support provided..... http://www.desert-st...ar/nations.html Now if you are saying they didn't move to depose Saddam and topple his regime, I would agree. 1 Link to comment
walksalone Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 US still not sure who used chem weapons http://news.yahoo.com/obama-us-still-not-sure-used-chem-weapons-150858303.html This statement doesn't say much for the current state of affairs of our intel gathering community... Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 If we do take a proactive military approach, IMO, it needs to be done like Bush I in the first Gulf War, get an MED coalition and make them go against Assad and his regime. That's exactly what Bush I didn't do in the first Gulf War . . . The U.S. assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq's aggression, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the U.S. itself.[69] U.S. Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. was designated to be the commander of the Coalition forces in the Persian Gulf area. Maybe I am missing your comments, but the above list of 34 countries shows ME nations supporting in Operation Desert Storm. Bush 1 did get UN support and ME support to go against Iraq............It wasn't a lone US operation. Here is a link with countries and actual support provided..... http://www.desert-st...ar/nations.html Now if you are saying they didn't move to depose Saddam and topple his regime, I would agree. Check out the part that I had underlined in your quote and my comment. I'm not sure that I can make it any more clear than I did in my original post. Link to comment
lo country Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 If we do take a proactive military approach, IMO, it needs to be done like Bush I in the first Gulf War, get an MED coalition and make them go against Assad and his regime. That's exactly what Bush I didn't do in the first Gulf War . . . The U.S. assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq's aggression, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the U.S. itself.[69] U.S. Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. was designated to be the commander of the Coalition forces in the Persian Gulf area. Maybe I am missing your comments, but the above list of 34 countries shows ME nations supporting in Operation Desert Storm. Bush 1 did get UN support and ME support to go against Iraq............It wasn't a lone US operation. Here is a link with countries and actual support provided..... http://www.desert-st...ar/nations.html Now if you are saying they didn't move to depose Saddam and topple his regime, I would agree. Check out the part that I had underlined in your quote and my comment. I'm not sure that I can make it any more clear than I did in my original post. Self delete. Link to comment
Recommended Posts