The US has no reason to send our strong men and women to go and die somewhere on the other side of the world.
Its today Syria tommorow USA. If Iran will get another grip, then they will get Iraq and all the other crumbeling places. And you realy dont want another pearl harbour do you?
Its today Syria tommorow USA. If Iran will get another grip, then they will get Iraq and all the other crumbeling places. And you realy dont want another pearl harbour do you?
Compared to 1943 where the USA had not quite established itself as a world superpower, it's clear in 2013 that we have more defense budget than the top 5 next-highest countries combined. Ignoring the "begging the question" fallacy, it's laughable to imagine Iran mounting an air offensive on us, considering we will see it coming the moment they decide to start stockpiling.
it's laughable to imagine Iran mounting an air offensive on us
ikr. Perhaps "another 9/11" would've been more applicable, as a military intervention would likely fuel more anti-Western movements, potentially making more extremists. But for a small nation, forget it. This against that. If it were a game of battleship, they'd be blindfolded with their hands tied starting with a half-dead patrol boat on the board, while our board is full and we cheat in every way imaginable.
Befor world war 1, something lime in 1840+- most of the japanese army was still armed with bows and Yari's.
The UN wasn't around to set limits back then. Iran is already boxed in. We're basically waiting for an excuse to blow the crap out of 'em. Go ahead, make my day.
If it were a game of battleship, they'd be blindfolded with their hands tied starting with a half-dead patrol boat on the board, while our board is full and we cheat in every way imaginable.
Can I just say that given the rules of battleship, having a lot of boats is not necessarily a good thing. But I get what you are saying.
Moving on to more serious things: What do you guys think about trying to seek congress approval for military action? There is a lot of precedent for Obama just going in and saying that the U.S. will attack, especially if we aren't even going to land ground forces. Is he copping out or being democratic?
having a lot of boats is not necessarily a good thing.
I mean the entire board filled, so they'd literally need to hit everywhere to win, but they don't get a turn.
Is he copping out or being democratic?
He knows this could really start something due to Russia's involvement. He doesn't want to be the president whose actions lead to ww3, at least not without approval.
If they say yes, which I think they will (only a matter of time), it will support Obama's decision, which as Emp said strengthens their position (a tiny bit) against Russia. But it started with the British. If Cameron wasn't bound to ask the British parlament for permission, neither the American or French president might have done so.
Of course they will. There's rarely a backlash against congressional representatives (no more than usual anyway) for approving something like this, so they don't have nearly as much riding on it as Obama does. And if they refuse, they're viewed as indirectly responsible for all the other civilians who die because they blocked a chance to do something.
Ah, Obama met with Putin and others today in St Petersburg to discuss the world economy. It would've likely been much more unfriendly if Obama had planned a military action in Syria without consulting congress, so the democratic approach was a good move on his part.
^But how much of it is just talk? Syria has the last major naval base for Russia outside of the former Soviet Union; Tartus is a major warm water port of call for Russian ships; Tartus grants easy access to the Mediterranean, whoch in turns allows naval power to extend to Southern Europe/North Africa.
The last 400 years of Russian History have had this issue in the background: Russia seriously lacks warm water ports, especially in the West. Should Tartus become unavaliable, the RN has to go to their Black Sea ports to refit/refuel, which means they're bottle necked up by the Turkish straits. Worst case scenario for Russia has much of their Western Fleet trapped in the Black Sea by a few destroyers with cruise missiles or a carrier group.
Now throw in the last 100 years, which has seen Russia twice invaded (with rather good success, considering), Detente, and increased US military activity in the near region.
Tartus is important to the RN; Tartus is in Syria; the question then becomes, "Under what circumstances would Russia give up Tartus?" And this, to me, is the million dollar question.
In other news, CNN has relorted that Harry Reid has turned down an offer to meet with Russian officials over Syria.
The haters are niether Arabic butthurt ("Its USS fault! Anything is there fault" or Smuggish european ("They want oil!", But the realy annoying one are the anti-war peoples. I mean, dont you read the news? "USA shouldnt start another war" - USA didnt start a war for the past 80 years i belive. Name one and get 100 Danielo points.
Wow. Just... wow. I know this is page one, but... Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq. 300 points, please. Google it.
Befor world war 1, something lime in 1840+- most of the japanese army was still armed with bows and Yari's.
Then, 100 years later, they had planes. 100 YEARS. Give us a good example.
The context was how Iran can get strong and powerfull, even if just to sting the western world, not challange it.
Vietnam - The south cried for help. Afganistan - there were battles between the crumbeling Democratic government and some militias who opposed Taliban against the Taliban and there allies. Iraq - As Iraq attacked Quwait, i dont belive USA is the fuse of it.
Its mayby quite lame and cheap; but USA didnt was at the beggining of these wars. They always joind a faction who was already in a fight.
Its like saying that USA started WW1.
And dont dare to touch my points! You will get them when you will deserve them. No points for you!
even if just to sting the western world, not challange it.
To what end? "Hurray, a mouse kicked a bear!" If their goal is to anger us, it's not a great plan. There is no throne, there is no version of this where they come out on top.
Vietnam.
Started by France.
Afghanistan.
Civil war intervention.
Iraq.
Which one? I find the recent one to be an extension of the disarmament of Iraq following the Gulf War, which they started by invading Kuwait.
On topic, videos of the chemical weapons victims are being released.
