Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Not all thefts are equal, not all foreign civil wars are equal.

And not all interventions are equal (not refuting what you said, just saying that it's an extra parameter)

True dat. There's a big difference in "supplying geospatial intelligence to rebels" and "sending half the US Army to overthrow the government/protect the government".

Vietnam was essentially an intervention in a foreign civil war that got WAAAAAAY out of hand.

[Sheb]

Yeah, they are plenty or other reasons than oil not to intervene in Syria. It's way harder, and the US don't have a UN mandate for exemple.

[Owlbread]

I think the Americans are basically doomed to intervene in Syria and have been since the get-go. There was no coming back for Asaad when he stepped up the attacks back in 2011, let alone back when we were actually trying to get him to step down this year. Look at it now. It's just a big shit sandwich that the world is going to have to bite, because if we don't do anything it'll be an ugly stalemate that will just destabilize the middle east again. Islamic extremism will start to grow again out of the rebel movement and it'll all get much, much worse.

Of course, if the British ride in on a distinctly smaller white horse in support of the Americans, the Scottish independence movement may benefit from it to an extent because we'll get involved in another bloody war that the Americans can handle by themselves, or with other NATO members.

[Scoops Novel]

What were the actual numbers of the military in Vietnam, compared to the size of the military now?

[Sheb]

At the peak they were  536,100 US soldiers in Vietnam, out of 1,830,000 total. Altogether 1.4 million US soldiers fought there. To compare, ISAF forces in Afghanistan currently number 112,579, including ~78,000 US soldiers.

The US Armed Forces currently have 1,456,862 active service members, and roughly as many reservist. (~40,000 of those soldiers are US Coast Guard).

All my numbers come from wikipedia, because I couldn't be arsed to go further to look up numbers for someone that couldn't be arsed to do it himself.

[Helgoland]

Vietnam was essentially an intervention in a foreign civil war that got WAAAAAAY out of hand.

That's why we should have intervened earlier, mandate or no mandate: In the beginning an intervention was not welcome, but when the Syrians realized they couldn't do it on their own, they asked for help. When the West refused, they felt let down - and turned to others, including extremists, which makes interventions now way harder. We bred the last generation of terrorists through interventions; we'll breed the next through inactivity.

[Owlbread]

But do the powers of the west have enough money to act?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It isn't a question of money, it is a question of legitimacy. With Assad having sarin gas and potentially about to use it or lose it we have that legitimacy. Russia having distanced themselves from Assad only helps matters.

[Owlbread]

It isn't a question of money, it is a question of legitimacy. With Assad having sarin gas and potentially about to use it or lose it we have that legitimacy. Russia having distanced themselves from Assad only helps matters.

I don't doubt the point of the legitimacy though, just the ability of the USA and its subordinates to successfully invade and sort out the Syrian situation. Ideally you would want enough peacekeepers there to ensure the country doesn't collapse into sectarian violence post-Assad either. You could use special forces to great effect, just like in the Iraq war when marine force recon basically drove through Iraqi lines in humvees to defeat them quickly and decisively. However, the problem there was that the troops were not prepared to be a force of occupation (for want of a better word), so they found it very difficult to police civilian areas, hand out supplies and defuse bombs and so forth. NATO can't let that mistake happen again.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not sure why you'd doubt that. We have the best weapons of war by far. Iraq's government was considered a regional powerhouse, and the Coalition took it down in a month. Syria is not only not that, but has been embroiled in a civil war for a year. They'd crumple like paper to a US or NATO intervention.

[WealthyRadish]

I think he means the long term consequences. Invading would be easy enough, but ultimately Western countries have a horrible track record for rebuilding stable governments that don't, you know, want to kill us later. Not that you can really blame them, for all the  exploitation the middle east has been through since WW1.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's generally because those invasions were by the West for the West. This would be assisting an existing Syrian movement. Like with Libya, it will pay off (in no small part because it undermines how Islamist groups portray the West).

[misko27]

Unfortunately, look at libya today. Miltias running all over the place. People don't want that.

[Karnewarrior]

Not sure why you'd doubt that. We have the best weapons of war by far. Iraq's government was considered a regional powerhouse, and the Coalition took it down in a month. Syria is not only not that, but has been embroiled in a civil war for a year. They'd crumple like paper to a US or NATO intervention.

He's not talking about the initial invasion, he's talking about the power vaccuum. He doesn't think NATO has the ability to keep insurgencies down, which, admittedly, we don't have a good track record with recently.

Of course, the intervention would be better placed early on, before the Extremists get their hands on it, but we wouldn't have justification. It's a catch-22. Mostly because the U.S government is more concerned about their world power rather than actually helping people, but all governments are and I doubt that's going to change.

I think keeping our help on the downlow would possibly be better. Assassinate well-chosen targets and help the resistance along without actually putting many American boots down. That way we could influence their government without much backlash here, letting us deal better with the backlash over there.

Really though the best thing to do would be education, for everyone. If we can educate a generation the Extremists will have a very hard time indeed taking the territory back. It's that first generation that's the hard part, when their parents are still more crazy than not.

Unfortunately, look at libya today. Miltias running all over the place. People don't want that.

This happens every time there's a civil war, IIRC. Look at America right after the Revolution. Every state for themselves.

If we were smart, we'd start directing Libyan government along the same thought patterns that led to the modern Union. We shouldn't try to set them up like we are right off the get go, but we can give them a swift kick down the road.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The most important post-revolution objectives are to impart our political experience onto progressive alliances and to undermine Islamist groups. Otherwise you get shit like in Egypt, where the secularists, Coptics, and moderate Muslims all work at cross purposes when they should be a coalition and make rookie mistakes like abandoning their seats during negotiations, causing the Muslim Brotherhood to acquire Ultimate Power.

Libya is by far the best example of how we can make Islamists look stupid in front of everybody. NATO helped the Libyans get to where they are, and the Islamists in their foolishness murdered the U.S. ambassador not but months later. Viola, they immediately go from vanguards of traditional values to ungrateful sociopathic traitors, hated by the mainstream.