Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"Quick, my friends! There is mainejeff, get him!!!"

Do we step into another hornet's nest like Vietnam? Cold War redux? We have the Russians arming Assad to the teeth, do we jump in, Conks? How long would we be there?

The Cap'ns position: Yes, we arm the rebels, we have a moral obligation. Defense stocks go up, defense workers stay employed. What's not to like about it?

Discuss.

Lots of good choices, but none really rang true with me.

I voted "YES because chinless, gutless pussies like Assad should suck on an M16."

Great poll options...

I think this situation is too much like Iran... if we arm the rebels we undermine the legitimacy of their grassroots movement to take control of their country.

It sucks to watch from the outside - especially as Iran and Russia meddle... but that meddling is right now actively working to undermine Assad with his own people.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Great poll options...

I think this situation is too much like Iran... if we arm the rebels we undermine the legitimacy of their grassroots movement to take control of their country.

It sucks to watch from the outside - especially as Iran and Russia meddle... but that meddling is right now actively working to undermine Assad with his own people.

i'll bet you would have been for denying air cover to the cuban freedom fighters at the bay of pigs just like that pinko john kennedy........son of a nazi sympathizer dismissed from his post as ambassador to England for basically slobbering on hitler's cockandballs.

-
We've helped the Muzzie brotherhood take over all the other countries...why stop now

WMD
Where have I heard this before

Report: State Department Warning Region About Danger Of Syria’s Vast WMD Stockpile Once Regime Crumbles…

Wonder where they got them?

Ha’aretz has revived the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/satellite- ... -to-syria/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What about pee in Asads butt?

Seriously though, we should Arm them, only through Nato. We shouldn't go alone. Either the entire world acts or we don't. I hate to say it, but we have problems at home that we must fix, before we start helping others. Charity MUST start at home. Syria will have it's day and with Russia and China as her allies, this can quickly evovle into a global conflict. Remember folks, WW1 started b/c of a Bosnian-Serb assasssinating the Austrian Archduke and it was fought using German, Italian, American, French and British armies.

Where's the option for letting them 3rd world fuckers fight their own battles & worrying about our own problems here at home?

griz37 wrote:Where's the option for letting them 3rd world fuckers fight their own battles & worrying about our own problems here at home?

Unfortunately, that isn't possible. With global economics the way it is, we would be affected by a war or any sort of conflict that englufs the Middle East. We are already feeling the affects at the pump. Sooner or later, we'll get involved. We have to. The world hates that we get involved, but then bitch and moan when we don't.

Ibanez wrote:

griz37 wrote:Where's the option for letting them 3rd world fuckers fight their own battles & worrying about our own problems here at home?

Unfortunately, that isn't possible. With global economics the way it is, we would be affected by a war or any sort of conflict that englufs the Middle East. We are already feeling the affects at the pump. Sooner or later, we'll get involved. We have to. The world hates that we get involved, but then bitch and moan when we don't.

Nope. griz37 has it right. Stay out of the crap going on in that area.

Ibanez...tell me what is happening now in Libya. Do you know the results of that "intervention"? What is going on in Egypt? Somalia? How have those interventions turned out for us? How about Iraq? Afghanistan?

And if we help the rebels in Syria...what are we going to do, in front of the whole world, when the majority of the people of Bahrain erupt in revolution against their oppressive minority government a week after we start arming the people of Syria?

It's a joke...we aren't going in to save people at all...and we certainly don't have to go in to defend OUR (as in, normal people's) economic interests.

Al Qaeda would like for us to arm the Syrian rebels. That is as a good a reason not to do it as any.

Libya and Egypt are pretty good examples of why we should not waste our money. No matter who wins, they just aren't going to be our friends afterwards anyway.

I say give weapons to both sides and let them kill each other.........

Just bring our troops home and pay them to upgrade the infrastructure in this country.

CID1990 wrote:Al Qaeda would like for us to arm the Syrian rebels. That is as a good a reason not to do it as any.

Libya and Egypt are pretty good examples of why we should not waste our money. No matter who wins, they just aren't going to be our friends afterwards anyway.

+1

Syria has never been friendly with us...never will...don't waste any of our talent or treasure on that shit hole...

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Unfortunately, that isn't possible. With global economics the way it is, we would be affected by a war or any sort of conflict that englufs the Middle East. We are already feeling the affects at the pump. Sooner or later, we'll get involved. We have to. The world hates that we get involved, but then bitch and moan when we don't.

Nope. griz37 has it right. Stay out of the crap going on in that area.

Ibanez...tell me what is happening now in Libya. Do you know the results of that "intervention"? What is going on in Egypt? Somalia? How have those interventions turned out for us? How about Iraq? Afghanistan?

And if we help the rebels in Syria...what are we going to do, in front of the whole world, when the majority of the people of Bahrain erupt in revolution against their oppressive minority government a week after we start arming the people of Syria?

It's a joke...we aren't going in to save people at all...and we certainly don't have to go in to defend OUR (as in, normal people's) economic interests.

Listen, I would love to stay out of that region, but you know that won't happen. Be realistic and take off your blinders. THis isn't 1914. We are in a small world and economies, markets, people, et... are all connected. I know very well the results on an intervention. I also know that if we go it alone (which we shouldn't) we're fucked. Therefore, that's why I stated that the world should decide, i.e. NATO and/or the UN. It isn't our job to police the world. The UN has set the precedent with Bosnio, Libyia Grenada, etc... Let me repeat, America should not go in and assist. I

Don't bethis guy, all the world is a stage. And, like it or not, that's the world we live in.

It's a world of laughter
A world of tears
It's a world of hopes
And a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small, small world

Let me restate, the USA should NOT arm the rebels or the Syrian Government. However, the UN or NATO goes in, we must abide by our alliances and only intervene to protect innocent lives. Let them fight for thier freedom. If you tihnk this won't affect us, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that is priced to SELL!

Ibanez wrote:Let me restate, the USA should NOT arm the rebels or the Syrian Government. However, the UN or NATO goes in, we must abide by our alliances and only intervene to protect innocent lives. Let them fight for thier freedom. If you tihnk this won't affect us, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that is priced to SELL!

Agreed.

I think we should go in, back a new strongman who will be in power for the next 30 years, then help to unseat him when he decides to get too uppity, and wonder why the commoners don't fully respect us.

kalm wrote:I think we should go in, back a new strongman who will be in power for the next 30 years, then help to unseat him when he decides to get too uppity, and wonder why the commoners don't fully respect us.

Whoa! You are reading from the United States Guide to Covert Takeovers and Nation-Building, 1957 edition. The manual was updated in 1992 after the fall of the USSR. Get with it man!

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:I think we should go in, back a new strongman who will be in power for the next 30 years, then help to unseat him when he decides to get too uppity, and wonder why the commoners don't fully respect us.

Whoa! You are reading from the United States Guide to Covert Takeovers and Nation-Building, 1957 edition. The manual was updated in 1992 after the fall of the USSR. Get with it man!

That's a good point.

Ibanez wrote:Listen, I would love to stay out of that region, but you know that won't happen. Be realistic and take off your blinders. THis isn't 1914. We are in a small world and economies, markets, people, et... are all connected.

OK, genius...time to step up and prove the underlying fears about your need to take action.

If we should not go in alone...and we should not arm the rebels...and we should wait until NATO (WTF does NATO have to do with Syria) or the UN (uh...that's us, despite the Libyan fiasco that has worked out well so far ) to go in...can you explain why we need to go in and "do something"?

In other words, if we don't go in, what will happen to the world economy that won't happen if we do go in?

What has happened to oil output and the world economy since Lybia? What has happened to oil output and world economy since Iraq? Since Egypt? Since Tunisia? Since Afghanistan?

Please be specific about your economic domino theory...there's a whole world waiting for your informed answers. You have a chance right here to put money and intelligence into your thoughts. Go for it...I'll be waiting form you to make sense of it all.

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Listen, I would love to stay out of that region, but you know that won't happen. Be realistic and take off your blinders. THis isn't 1914. We are in a small world and economies, markets, people, et... are all connected.

OK, genius...time to step up and prove the underlying fears about your need to take action.

If we should not go in alone...and we should not arm the rebels...and we should wait until NATO (WTF does NATO have to do with Syria) or the UN (uh...that's us, despite the Libyan fiasco that has worked out well so far ) to go in...can you explain why we need to go in and "do something"?

In other words, if we don't go in, what will happen to the world economy that won't happen if we do go in?

What has happened to oil output and the world economy since Lybia? What has happened to oil output and world economy since Iraq? Since Egypt? Since Tunisia? Since Afghanistan?

Please be specific about your economic domino theory...there's a whole world waiting for your informed answers. You have a chance right here to put money and intelligence into your thoughts. Go for it...I'll be waiting form you to make sense of it all.

I'm not going to give you a lecture on macroeconomics, i'm only referring to the emprical evidence of how civil unrest in a already unstable region, can have affect other parts of the world. Remember that stock market crash in 1929 and how Europe suffered alongside us. It's similiar to that. Or, how OPEC punished the US when we re supplied the Israeli military in 1973. Look at history, it repeats itself. We are not alone and keeping our heads in the sand will only invite trouble, like the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, for example. I'm not an economist by no means, but after studying and earning a degree in military history, being active in many historical groups and contributing to historical essays for various publications, I have developed some knowledge of these sort of affairs and how they play out on the world stage. And the UN is not jus us, quit being a typical ignorant American. The UN isn't just for military action. the reason ist falls greatly on the USA is b/c of our superior military and technology. If you need a lecture on the UN Security Council, that can be arranged.


The reason the UN has done nothing in Syria is b/c of

1) the "rebels" are losely organized unlike those in Libya. This is way different than Libya. The Libyan rebels were organized, had terriroty, were fighting a military that wasn't as loyal to the gov't unlike hte Syrian militar which is. There are differences here.
2) The two dissenting votes on the UNSC just happen to be China and Russia, the communist allies of Syria

CID1990 wrote:Al Qaeda would like for us to arm the Syrian rebels. That is as a good a reason not to do it as any.

Libya and Egypt are pretty good examples of why we should not waste our money. No matter who wins, they just aren't going to be our friends afterwards anyway.

This.

Besides, with Russia and China meddling, it gives Al Qaeda a chance to focus their attention on them for a change.

CID1990 wrote:Al Qaeda would like for us to arm the Syrian rebels. That is as a good a reason not to do it as any.

Libya and Egypt are pretty good examples of why we should not waste our money. No matter who wins, they just aren't going to be our friends afterwards anyway.

I agree with you, but reality won't let that happen. You know that.

Ibanez wrote:I'm not going to give you a lecture on macroeconomics, i'm only referring to the emprical evidence of how civil unrest in a already unstable region, can have affect other parts of the world. Remember that stock market crash in 1929 and how Europe suffered alongside us. It's similiar to that. Or, how OPEC punished the US when we re supplied the Israeli military in 1973. Look at history, it repeats itself. We are not alone and keeping our heads in the sand will only invite trouble, like the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, for example. I'm not an economist by no means, but after studying and earning a degree in military history, being active in many historical groups and contributing to historical essays for various publications, I have developed some knowledge of these sort of affairs and how they play out on the world stage. And the UN is not jus us, quit being a typical ignorant American. The UN isn't just for military action. the reason ist falls greatly on the USA is b/c of our superior military and technology. If you need a lecture on the UN Security Council, that can be arranged.


The reason the UN has done nothing in Syria is b/c of

1) the "rebels" are losely organized unlike those in Libya. This is way different than Libya. The Libyan rebels were organized, had terriroty, were fighting a military that wasn't as loyal to the gov't unlike hte Syrian militar which is. There are differences here.
2) The two dissenting votes on the UNSC just happen to be China and Russia, the communist allies of Syria

Holy Crap, I’m being lectured by a military historian who is comparing an uprising in Syria to the 1929 stock market crash and who is worried about the big, bad “communist” allies of Syria…doing what, exactly? Do you envision Russian divisions blasting through Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, Iran and Iraq? Sure, Russia wants to have even more of their civilian aircraft and theaters blown up by Muslim fanatics. And China? They’ll march their troops a couple thousand miles through underground tunnels…I can hear them digging right now.

Russia will drop their support for Assad in a heartbeat if they get some concessions in areas they want. They have ZERO in common with Syria…nada…zip. No cultural ties, political similarities, no trade agreements that can’t be bought elsewhere. And China …are you kidding me? You are farther off the mark than espandos if you think China wants to be deeply involved in a mess in the Middle East. Both Russia and China are using their veto power to punish America and Europe for knocking off dictators all willy-nilly while trying to, in a naïve fashion, get a better foothold on the Middle East oil production without paying proper resects to the other big boys on the block.

Oh, and the U.N. can’t do a damn thing without the U.S. yet we can do anything we want without them. Name one major campaign that they pulled off successfully without our financial or logistical assistance. I’ll be waiting. They need our funding, military, and our approval to wipe their azzes. Security Council…good luck on that lecture.

If you believe that the UN hasn’t gone in because of the “loose” organization of the rebels, then you are a clown and your military history classes were a waste of time. Cripes, you mention Libya…seriously. Help me out here…please let me know how those Eastern rebels, the ones who the world initially supported, rolled over Quadaffi…I’m dying to hear your version of recent revisionist history.

And if it is so difficult to do anything in Syria, then why is there a big push forward from the wonderfully named “Friends of Syria”. Maybe they don’t share your vision.

Regardless of the fluffy distractions above, please let me know more about the economic calamity waiting in the wings. You still haven’t provided a single detail of what you envision happening if we sit this one out.