I did, but Iraq is not a homogenous country either, but there is more than enough who want to see it together still, I’d think somewhat that would apply to the Syrians as well, unless you know they wouldn’t.
No one is willing to address the water problem. I wonder why?
I’ll ask again: What is more important than water?
The Golan is a key issue here too. Israel can’t give up the Golan because it is 30 percent of the water supply from the Jordan. Assad can’t give up the Golan for the same reason (plus political and cultural reasons).
Why is it so hard to face the facts of this problem?
Why must so many innocent people die because we cannot face the facts.
Problems can be solved without innocent people dying. I no longer have patience for those that think otherwise.
An invasion of Syria would be planned and executed by the same people and I think it would have many of the same problems. The military end would probably not be difficult, but you’d need a larger force for security- and where’s it going to come from? I think it would be the same problem (too few people) with a different reason (the armed forces just aren’t large enough). Unless you pull people from Iraq or Afghanistan, and that just creates other problems.
Have you got a couple hundred billion dollars, a few hundred thousand troops and the supplies they would need lying around the house?
Given complete control of the West? Certainly. If we stopped pouring billions into ass-backwards things like missile defense systems, we could easily dispatch with many of the conflicts with small deployments of well armed and trained troups.
Case in point: Rwanda, where a few thousand troops could have prevented the whole thing from breaking out. No one was interested. 800,000 people lost their lives as a result.
That’s what the Pentagon thought would work in Iraq. 140,000 troops was plenty to beat the military there, but it wasn’t enough to secure the country afterward. I would imagine we’d need a force roughly the same size for Syria, and much more than a majority of the army is involved in Iraq. (Not to mention Afghanistan again.) The trend in the US military for some time has been to a smaller, better-equipped military because that’s more cost-effective. The technological advantages made it easy to win the war, but ‘boots on the ground’ is still an issue when you’re occupying a country.
Yes, it probably could’ve. But that’s not what we’re talking about doing in Syria. That would’ve been a peacekeeping force, not a full-scale invasion and occupation.
Where did you address my questions Ryan? You say “I did” but I don’t see it here. Perhaps you can cite or state clearly?
Your point re Iraq makes no sense. Please state clearly.
IIRC, Bush made one and only one clear and unambiguous campaign promise this year: There will be no draft. How can he break that promise?
No, we shouldn’t and won’t invade Syria, for many reasons, but mainly because we can’t. We have 150,000 troops committed to occupying Iraq. We can’t send them to invade Syria and leave a rebellious Iraq at their backs. And we can’t get a significantly larger army without reinstating the draft. The same problem stands in the way of any major military actions against Iran.
On the other hand, I can see why one of the stories linked above described Syria as the “low-hanging fruit” that tempts neocon regime-changers. Regarding Syria’s demographics, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Syria:
74% Sunni. But President Assad is of the Shi’ite Alawi sect. Easy to see how the people would be discontented with his rule – or, at least, how the neocons in Washington might draw the conclusion that they are. So, of course, the Syrians will welcome U.S. troops as liberators just like the Iraqis did . . .
Iraq is an unfair example; it is a textbook example of how NOT to invade a country. And global peacekeeping missions need not be invasions toppling regimes; most of the time they simply maintain the status quo while things can be worked on peacefully.
I agree. My point in this thread was just that the only reason for getting involved with another country isn’t “it is in our best interests”.
I agree, but I don’t think it’s an unfair example. As I said, a war against Syria in the immediate future would be planned by the SAME PEOPLE, but with even fewer resources.
I agree with that, too, but we’re not talking about sending a peacekeeping mission to Syria. The OP is talking about attacking the country because they are supporting the Iraqi insurgency.
Exceptions are sometimes made for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes, yes. I don’t think that applies here.
Read his lips.
It’s not true that an Arab country cannot become a democracy. Look at Afghanistan.
I’m still not sure if the majority of Iraqis have welcomed our overthrow of their government. Saddam killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of them. I’m sure they want us out, but reports are conflicting as to whether they wanted us in. I see films of Iraqis applauding as American servicemen walk the streets, and then you read all the other opposing views.
Anyway, the OP was prompted because it is hard to fight the terrorists when they have a safe haven in Syria. It’s hard anyway, but if you eliminate their base you may be able to defeat them.
Afghanistan is not an Arab country.
(But I agree, I do think Arab countries can become democracies, though probably not by armed imposition. )
Afghanistan, maybe. About what we got so far is people who are permitted to vote for a representational government that controls Kahbul and the immediate vicinity. Better than nothing? Sure. A democracy? Too generous by half.
As to your final argument, it may well be that denying a base will be effective, presuming, of course, that they are, in fact, based in Syria cannot find another. To launch another war without total certainty on those two points would be batshit crazy.
And it’s not a democracy either. More like a constitutional anarchy.
Sounds like an “it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is” situation. The people vote, but how democratic can you say the country really is? It’s probably too soon to proclaim it a success.
Cold shower time, time of General Question:
Who are you to have the arrogance to “decide” what people in other nations “should” have as government and /or state form?
I don’t know why you people always, over and over again, fail to see your own disgusting arrogance.
I for one don’t need you to show this disgusting arrogance to even think you could tell me in what kind of nation, under what kind of government I SHOULD LIVE.
And if I decide that I am not happy with my government, it is ME who shall decide wether I want to make an effort to try to change it.
Understood? Or is that a much to difficult truth to grasp for such deluded war mongering arrogant minds?
Dear Aldy, let me help you out. It’s really quite simple. We are the Americans. The Americans, the only ones. You are not the Americans. See now? We are, you aren’t.
Hope that clarifies. Glad to help.
:dubious: Fuck that shit. All human political issues are my business – not because I’m an American, but because I’m a human being. If I’m entitled to have any opinions at all about politics I see no reason why that right should end at my own country’s borders. American neocons are not, you know, the only people who think they know what form of government or social organization is best for every country. There are international socialists, international communists, and international Islamists. I consider myself an international and internationalist democratic socialist – I hope to live long enough to see a united world with a democratic government and a socioeconomic system which is in some sense socialist and in every sense highly egalitarian. You got a problem with that, A? :mad:
Yes, and a great relief it indeed is that I am not US made…
Yest I honestly do hope for God’s Chosen Nation the dear House of Saud and the other nice regimes USA 1 keeps safe under its bloodred umbrella do not collapse due to some quite staggering awareness among the populations about who actually shelters who and who is actually the terrorist. In their eyes, of course.
Holy innocent US eyes see all these things innocently (in)different as long as Cheap Oil Corp. keeps flowing towards its Capitalist Economy.
Salaam. A
Really, cover yourself with what you describe here so typical US-like. You honestly think you have any right to interfere with *my life?
I have a problem with anyone who even thinks he can give me orders. So you can imagine I have a bit of a problem with an unknown US citizen thinking he can decided how I live my life in (]my** country.
Are there some cold showers available where you live because you need more then one at a time.
Salaam. A
The point I’m making is that there shouldn’t be any such thing as a “country,” in the sense you’re using the term. A global union – like the European Union in its present form – is theoretically compatible with the continued existence of distinct national cultures and a wide variety of political traditions. But some forms of government simply should not be allowed to exist anywhere on Earth. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Islamic Republic of Iran are all excellent examples.