Boots on the ground in Syria?

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36556261

So US diplomats are urging a military intervention in Syria.

I'm leaning toward it becoming the inevitable option. What do you think?

Whatever we chose to do it'll get messy, as is doing nothing.

 

[barbos]

Yes, Sweden should invade Syria

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, Sweden should invadede Syria

I'm all for it. I hate Sweden's neutrality bullshit. I have zero respect for it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is no good solution. And the US will get blamed no matter what happens. If we do nothing, we'll get blamed (Rwanda). If we invade, take out the asshole, then leave it up to the locals to remain in power, we'll get blamed (Libya). If we invade, take out the asshole, but then occupy, we'll get blamed (Iraq and Afghanistan). There is no good solution. We ought to just stay out the ME.

 

[bigfield]

There is no good solution. And the US will get blamed no matter what happens. If we do nothing, we'll get blamed (Rwanda). If we invade, take out the asshole, then leave it up to the locals to remain in power, we'll get blamed (Libya). If we invade, take out the asshole, but then occupy, we'll get blamed (Iraq and Afghanistan). There is no good solution. We ought to just stay out the ME.

It's as if your idea of a 'good solution' is based on not being told off, as opposed to doing what you think will produce the best outcome for the people in danger.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is no good solution. And the US will get blamed no matter what happens. If we do nothing, we'll get blamed (Rwanda). If we invade, take out the asshole, then leave it up to the locals to remain in power, we'll get blamed (Libya). If we invade, take out the asshole, but then occupy, we'll get blamed (Iraq and Afghanistan). There is no good solution. We ought to just stay out the ME.

It's as if your idea of a 'good solution' is based on not being told off, as opposed to doing what you think will produce the best outcome for the people in danger.

Well, to me the issue is that I don't think there is any solution. We've tried everything, and it has failed. The west cannot fix a Muslim civil war. And we are crazy for thinking that we can.

 

[bigfield]

It's as if your idea of a 'good solution' is based on not being told off, as opposed to doing what you think will produce the best outcome for the people in danger.

Well, to me the issue is that I don't think there is any solution. We've tried everything, and it has failed. The west cannot fix a Muslim civil war. And we are crazy for thinking that we can.

You haven't tried everything: you've tried a very small of things and executed them poorly.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, to me the issue is that I don't think there is any solution. We've tried everything, and it has failed. The west cannot fix a Muslim civil war. And we are crazy for thinking that we can.

You haven't tried everything: you've tried a very small of things and executed them poorly.

So you have great confidence that all of a sudden the US can do something in the ME and then magically execute it perfectly?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You haven't tried everything: you've tried a very small of things and executed them poorly.

So you have great confidence that all of a sudden the US can do something in the ME and then magically execute it perfectly?

Perhaps we've reached the point where humility might set in and USA quits being dicks?

 

[Trausti]

No US boots. There are enough boots on the ground already, even if they're not ours. The strategy we have now - aiding the Kurds - is the perhaps the best we could have in this situation. (Though I'd stop the drop of weapons to the "rebels," as determining a good one from bad one is near impossible and these weapons usually end up in the hands of Al-Nusra or ISIS anyway.) There are just too many moving parts and groups in the conflict. Attacking Assad aids ISIS and invites a conflict with Russia. Right now Syria attacking ISIS from the West - with Russian air support - Kurds attacking from the Northeast - with US air support - is working. ISIS's only recent gains are against "rebels." Otherwise, it is losing territory every few days. But once ISIS is overrun, and it will be, the resulting "peace" will be a cluster fuck. Pre-civil war Syria cannot be reestablished. Having US soldiers be sitting ducks in the midst of that is not worth it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So you have great confidence that all of a sudden the US can do something in the ME and then magically execute it perfectly?

Perhaps we've reached the point where humility might set in and USA quits being dicks?

So all that we have to do is convince all Americans and our military to not being "dicks"? How would that work? How do we decided what behavior constitutes "not being a dick"? And then how do we simultaneously convince an entire country all at once to follow this strategy?

 

[bigfield]

You haven't tried everything: you've tried a very small of things and executed them poorly.

So you have great confidence that all of a sudden the US can do something in the ME and then magically execute it perfectly?

No, I don't.

 

[+or-1]

How many times, in recent decades, have we tried military intervention in the middle east? How many times has it helped a given situation? How many times has it, in fact, made said situation worse, sometimes exponentially so? Honestly, some people need to pull their heads out and get some air.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You haven't tried everything: you've tried a very small of things and executed them poorly.

So you have great confidence that all of a sudden the US can do something in the ME and then magically execute it perfectly?

Why are you abandoning Hillary's strategies?

 

[DrZoidberg]

No US boots. There are enough boots on the ground already, even if they're not ours. The strategy we have now - aiding the Kurds - is the perhaps the best we could have in this situation. (Though I'd stop the drop of weapons to the "rebels," as determining a good one from bad one is near impossible and these weapons usually end up in the hands of Al-Nusra or ISIS anyway.) There are just too many moving parts and groups in the conflict. Attacking Assad aids ISIS and invites a conflict with Russia. Right now Syria attacking ISIS from the West - with Russian air support - Kurds attacking from the Northeast - with US air support - is working. ISIS's only recent gains are against "rebels." Otherwise, it is losing territory every few days. But once ISIS is overrun, and it will be, the resulting "peace" will be a cluster fuck. Pre-civil war Syria cannot be reestablished. Having US soldiers be sitting ducks in the midst of that is not worth it.

If the Iraq army stops on the old Iraq border then what will happen? If Iraq continues into Syria to finish off ISIS... is that really a good thing?

Declaring support for Kurds is like declaring war on Turkey. Good/bad?

 

[Harry Bosch]

So you have great confidence that all of a sudden the US can do something in the ME and then magically execute it perfectly?

Why are you abandoning Hillary's strategies?

Interesting that you assume that I support all of Hillary's strategies. BTW: I think that she'll be far less invasive than the republicans. I think that she learned something from the Libya experience. But do you support all of Bernie's policies? Every single one?

 

[funinspace]

Not that I found any vote item all that appealing, so I picked backing Assad. Though it would be more towards letting him be. I'd put pressure on the Sunni royal dictators to stop directly or thru proxies funding the terrorists, including Turkey. I would cooperate more with Russia, Iran, Iraq, and the Kurd's towards crushing this emergent power. There are no moderate terrorist to support there, so stop pretending... We should have let Gaddafi send his military into Benghazi to crush the 'rebellion' instead of bombing the shit out of his military.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why are you abandoning Hillary's strategies?

Interesting that you assume that I support all of Hillary's strategies. BTW: I think that she'll be far less invasive than the republicans. I think that she learned something from the Libya experience. But do you support all of Bernie's policies? Every single one?

Of course not and don't try to derail the thread. Bernie isn't really relevant since he will not be the President and has barely any influence, but Hillary Clinton will be President and can engage countries through interventionist doctrine that she and Obama used to assist with Arab spring hopes. So what will she do and do you support it, why?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Interesting that you assume that I support all of Hillary's strategies. BTW: I think that she'll be far less invasive than the republicans. I think that she learned something from the Libya experience. But do you support all of Bernie's policies? Every single one?

Of course not and don't try to derail the thread. Bernie isn't really relevant since he will not be the President and has barely any influence, but Hillary Clinton will be President and can engage countries through interventionist doctrine that she and Obama used to assist with Arab spring hopes. So what will she do and do you support it, why?

Who's attempting to derail? You are the one using the thread to attack Hillary. But I'll take your bait. Again, I think that HRC will be less interventionist than the republicans. I think that she learned a lot from the Libya situation. But she has recently favored joining the west and creating a no-fly zone area in Syria. I do not support this. I think that it will make it worse in the ME.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Who's attempting to derail?

It's not a derail. Should "we" invade Syria?

Wiki on Royal We:
The royal "we", or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis in Latin, literally, "the plural of majesty"), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a sovereign (e.g., a monarch or sultan) or religious leader (e.g., the Pope or a bishop). The more general word for the use of we to refer to oneself is nosism.

...

Western Usage

It is commonly employed by a person of high office, such as a monarch, earl, or pope. It is also used in certain formal contexts by bishops and university rectors. William Longchamp is credited with its introduction to England in the late 12th century, following the practice of the Chancery of Apostolic Briefs.[2] Its first recorded use was in 1169 when King Henry II, hard pressed by his barons over the Investiture Controversy, assumed the common theory of "divine right of kings", that the monarch acted conjointly with the deity. Hence, he used "we", meaning "God and I...".[3]

In the public situations in which it is used, the monarch or other dignitary is typically speaking not only in his or her personal capacity but also in an official capacity as leader of a nation or institution. ...

Should "we" invade Syria? has meaning of should your government invade Syria? i.e., is it okay with you?

Since it's actually the President deciding these kinds of things lately without rigorous Constitutional balance of powers, we're talking about whether Hillary should decide to invade Syria and if it's okay with you...unless we're talking about Obama, but I don't think so since saber-rattling and so forth may take 6 months or so.