Do you think the US should get involved in another war
 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

I have no opinion, but if this comes to pass this will just open more doors for terrorists to strike on US interests.

Two wars at a time is difficult even for a former superpower.
They should hold off until they have concluded the War on Freedom.

If going in to stop the real use of weapons whose only intent is to cause the mass suffering, if not destruction, of a people is the wrong thing to do then maybe the US should just sit back and watch it unfold in front of them.

Oneday the UN Security Council will not be afraid of Russia and China and actually do the right thing.

My question is how/when will WWIII begin. With Syria or with Iran or maybe with both at the same time ? I'm thinking with Iran and there's still a few more years left.

Let's hope we won't go that far and will be another 'close call' instead of WW3. Seriously? People didn't learn anything from WW2 and WW1 - that these global wars are not only pointless but tragic above limits? :banghead:

I don't understand why the USA is helping al-Qaeda in Syria create anarchy and chaos. I hope the Syrian government can restore order so the Syrian people can be safe and secure again. It's not like they've been blowing up skyscrapers full of their own people, like on Sept. 11th 2001, or burning women and children alive with white phosphorus, like in Falujah. http://4crito.com

I think only an individual can learn from the past, and only if they examine it very closely for misinformation. The price to pay if you don't ...

If everyone learns, then there will not be a war, but that's not possible, so there must be a war. It has a point, in fact it has many.

I don't know if they should, but they unquestionably will. Drinking once again from the kool-aid that says that "there is such a thing as 'a winnable war,'" or at least a nice "surgical" one with no long-term consequences, the US will above all else look to the $$profit$$ that comes from ... for example ... "no fly zones" (billions of dollars a month), military bases the size of small cities (and the endlessly-lucrative contracts to supply them), and of course, weapons and materiel.

"War is a Racket." The most-decorated military officer in the United States at that time, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, minced no words about what he saw. And this two-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner, this recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal, this person who had earned every commissioned rank in the Marine Corps ("Semper Fi!") that there was to be earned, knew what he saw and he also knew why.

A generation later, General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term, military-industrial complex to describe the abuses that he saw from the point-of-view of the only military rank that outranks Butler: Commander-in-Chief. He warned that the price of "one heavy bomber" (in 1950) was equivalent to "two fine, well-equipped hospitals." (Heh... Little did he know that the day would come when Americans cannot enter those "fine" hospitals without facing bankruptcy, and that hospitals would be closing because they are "unprofitable.")

Both of these Commanders realized from first-hand experience that there is no "military" justification for these institutions, nor for incessant war-mongering, other than the financial profit of the entities that are not-so secretly behind them.

Today, 95% of the Members of the US Congress do not know what they are voting for, or even that they are voting for anything, because they "don't have security clearances." Huh?! Several people face lifetime prison sentences, or worse, merely for revealing the existence of these boondoggles.

"When is World War III coming?" It is already here. Un-declared, un-official, never-ending, and world-wide. Like a ravenous cancer, it is eating the economy of nations from the inside out. Including yours.

(The complete description of the context surrounding this authentic quote can be found at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp. The conversation at the end of the page is chilling.)

I disagree. Sure there is an ongoing war, but it's not really a world war. Trust me, you'll know when it is here.

Yes, I used to think so too, Tex. But there are three problems with "conventional" war: they are actually called "wars," they are to be declared, and then at some point in the future (after suitably-barbaric and exhausting bloodshed) they must end. From the point-of-view of those who have discovered that a government will spend money on War even to the detriment of its own people (as the USA is certainly doing now), "The End" is the problem. There is vastly more money to be made in selling swords than in selling plowshares.

After WW2 ended, war itself changed. It became "conflicts," "engagements," in short, anything but "war." It was proclaimed to have "purpose," and it was as much as possible pushed completely out of public view. (You will see endless "sideboob" on American television 'news,' but you will never see a picture of a flag-draped coffin, much less a transport-plane stuffed with them like the ones that fly into Edwards AFB every single night.) The financial drag became enormous ... this is essentially where the US National Debt (sic) is coming from ... and people are simply being told that "we can't afford to" do anything . . . except . . . this new version of world war.

O rly? OK then..show those points in that case cause for average normal person with logic and common sense global war doesn't make any reasonable points(money profit from weapon sales doesn't help humanity) unlike smaller scale of war which also could be questioned. No wonder even Albert Einstein once said:

It helps someone somewhere, and there's more to gain than just money. As for "humanity", it's a rather ambiguous term nowadays. They do a lot of things for "humanitarian" reasons, and yet I can't figure out what they mean by this. To "help humanity" is just as ambiguous as "to serve man" ;)

That remark is right on target.

Maybe we could sent the TSA in to fondle the enemy into submission. If that doesn't work then send the member of the Muslim brotherhood that lives in the US white house to bow to their leaders, and kiss their hands. Or tell them Mushel is coming over to monitor their diet and won't leave until they comply. Or force them to look at a picture of Hillary until they surrender. Or make them listen to John (who serves in Vietnam) Kerry for an hour non stop....This can be solved without bloodshed.

US policy in the area is dictated by the desire to support two "allies": Saudi Arabia and Israel. (What did they ever do in return? Finance Al Qaida and sink the Liberty.) The Saudis hate Assad because he supports Shiite resistance to Sunni persecution, while the Israelis hate him because he supports Arab resistance to Jewish persecution. Therefore, the USA is eager to make war on him.

Remember how the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan? Financed by the USA, who regarded them as an ally against the Soviets! Then the US had to go to war to get them out. Will they end up having to go to war to get Al Qaida out of Syria?

Syria is one of the few places in the region where no-one is discriminated against because of their religion or ethnicity. Since Saddam Hussein was deposed, half the Christians in Iraq have fled. Already the Christians of Syria are fleeing the areas under rebel control. No wonder that (as the Catholic Herald reports) they are praying for Bashar al-Assad. And this is what's to be overthrown by a president who referred to himself as a "devout Christian".

As for Britain, Cameron is Obama's lap dog: he'll do as he's told. "Go on, fire your missiles. Good boy!"

No.

Lies about history are one of the major causes of foreign policy mistakes.
The media has told nothing but lies about the justifications for the US invasion of Iraq, including the Iraqi use of chemical weapons on their own population. The media has created the fiction, now accepted by almost everyone that those justifications were never there and "Bush lied".
The US invasion of Iraq was based on mistakes, not on fraud. Some of the justifications were real and others were based on the best intelligence the CIA could gather (while failing to figure out the fact that Iranian intelligence was more competent and actively tricking the CIA into believing the US needed to invade).
The justifications for invading Iraq were clearer and better and more honest than any justifications for bombing Syria, but they were still WRONG.
That is where the media lies about Iraq lead to bad policy in Syria. If you buy the media fabrication that the Iraq justifications were based on fraud, you will see Syria as entirely different. If you ignore the fact that a hostile (to the US) player successfully manipulated the evidence on the ground in Iraq (especially regarding the nuclear weapons program) then you will discount the likelihood that someone is tricking the CIA this time.
The US bombing of Libya had no real justification correct or incorrect. Obama did that just to satisfy his allies in the media. So of course the media has ignored the horrible consequences of that war. But by ignoring those consequences, you validate a terrible policy that likely will be used next in Syria: The US can engage in massive bombing, killing the civilian supporters of the dictator and providing air support for an unpopular Islamist faction to overwhelm a more popular government. As long as the media is in favor of overthrowing the dictator, they will happily label all the slaughter from that bombing "enforcing a no fly zone". Then the US can simply leave the mess it created, send in no peace keepers and allow the Islamists to pick up the pieces. Again as long as the press is on your side a horrible disaster can look like success.

If you were right about the situation in Syria (which I think is not the case) then it still seems out of character for you to demand that the US be the world's policeman.

If there were a clear good vs. evil (rather than evil vs. evil) in the war in Syria, why doesn't Australia "go in" to support the good side? Given the history and politics, France would be a better choice for policeman this time (except for their track record of always making a lame start at such things and then convincing the US to take over).

What does "going in" mean anyway? You know the US isn't going to send in the hundreds of thousands of peace keepers it would take to separate the sides and slightly reduce the killing. If the US intervenes it would be with bombing that (as in Libya) kills far far more people than the number we were there to protect.

Bombing doesn't protect people. Bombing in Libya selected the otherwise weaker and less popular side in a civil war as the winner and allowed them to create a ruthless government far more brutal in killing dissidents than the evil dictator they replaced.

We can do that again in Syria or we can stay out.

I suggest staying out.

I think if the US steps in, China, Russia and India all should jump in and say: Sup Americans? You wouldn't be trying to pull another Iraq would you?

If this does turn in to another Iraq, then I hope Russia has the guts to hit the US and hard with decimation. 10 nukes all hit one lower state, and then release a political statement, something along the lines of if we catch you playing "police of the world" again we will turn another state to glass and we will keep doing until you learn to keep you nose where it belongs and not in the affairs of others.

Sometimes to beat a bully you need a bigger bully... Russia is that bigger bully and I hope it has the guts to set things right.

I did not demand anything. The OP talks about the US entering into another war not about it being the worlds policeman. My answer was with regards to entering into another war not if it should police the planet. The US is a part of various organisations, NATO being one of them, they do not have to do anything alone, they do not have to start anything alone, and they most certainly shouldn't threaten anything alone. Telling the world the use of Chemical weapons is a game changer, something that is be rather obvious I would think, backed the US into a corner it could not get out of if the use of chemical weapons eventuated. In the past the US has made huge errors of judgement (Iraq and WMDs which there is still no evidence of) but the Kurds and other minorities had been suffering there (although there were still other options with regards to Iraq).

There are people dying in Syria, dying because their own leaders and military are using their own weapons against them. As an individual you do not have to believe it and I respect your right to but I do and even though I am against war I do believe that other countries need to do something to stop, or at the very least limit the amount of human suffering through death or bodily harm. NATO (more specifically France) enforced a no fly zone over Libya I personally believe NATO should have done it over Syria ages ago.

Simple reason for Australia not being able to do anything right now, we are in an election process. Unlike other countries our government goes into caretaker mode and cannot do anything except defend our own country.

The U.S. government and its citizens should start to learn minding their own business and their own problems – which by the way, are huge with the current economic crisis going on. I see too much “concern” about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but seriously, do you believe Al Assad is stupid enough to use chemical weapons precisely when a UN commission was investigating the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria? People should stop and think for a second to whom do the alleged use of these weapons would benefit under these circumstances.

Something else: people tearing their hair for this should know that the U.S. has been using depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq (and who knows where else) during the last years, and this type of weapons are far worse than poisonous gas because they linger in the environment for thousands of years and cause cancer and children with malformations. So IMO all this “concern” and “indignation” from the U.S. government is nothing but hypocrisy... What a coincidence, Syria – as Iraq, Libya and Iran – has a lot of oil (can anyone see a pattern here?), so anyone who believes in “good intentions” behind a possible attack on Syria has to be very naive.

Very good point and for that reason both sides of the Syrian fight should be considered suspect. But yes, I do think he is stupid enough.

Why does it always have to come down to this? If someone disagrees with someone else they must be naive. There are always more sides to a problem that meets the eye but to discount good intentions just because you personally don't believe in them says no one elses opinion matters.

Only if corporate execs, bankers, stockholders, rush limbaugh and fox news and congress are the foot soldiers in it.
Leave the young folks out of it.

The bombs were all US. The fuel was all US. Most of the planes and most of the pilots were US. All the other logistics and resources were also US. The policy might have been driven by France, but that war was fought by the US.

"No fly zone" was (and always is) a euphemism for a massive bombing campaign. We do not have a magic system for shooting down enemy planes in enemy controlled air space. It takes massive bombing to neutralize enemy communications and air defenses and to destroy enough ground support that the enemy air force cannot function.

In the case of Libya, French policy carried out by the US went much further and attacked civilian and military support for the regime to open a path for a weak rebel force to win the civil war.

If you are in favor of outside military intervention in Syria, then you are not against war. Despite the media hype, there is no compelling case for intervention. Certainly what is happening in Syria is terrible. But the same can be said about the situation in many other countries.

What all that boils down to is asking the US to bear all the costs of being the world's policeman but leave the decisions and authority for those actions to others.

Police who take risks to enforce laws controlled by others get paid to do so. The US doesn't get paid anything when we act as the world's policeman. In fact we pay for the privilege in addition to paying all the direct costs and as a bonus we get world wide condemnation for our actions.

You think it makes things better in Libya that the US only did the killing and paid the costs, while France set the policy and provided the moral authority? Any sane American can tell you that made the US role much worse.

It's very clear that the U.S. government only wants to have Al Assad overthrown no matter what (they have said it over and over again during the last months). They've taken a clear position on the conflict since months ago and they've given weapons to the Syrian opposition (which by the way has committed horrible crimes in Syria), so they're obviously not impartial. They can't pretend to be judge and police in the conflict. Even less when they are an active part of it... So, no, I don't believe they have good intentions.

If I were a young soldier I would be thinking why sacrifice my life fighting for other countries. I took an oath to defend my own country. We're not at war with Syria.

I feel bad what happen to the people in Syria but destroying young lives at the expense of other countries issues is something to think about. Either way, in any war nobody wins but dies.

This pro US line is so tiring. France started enforcing it before the US was even able to.

I don't doubt the rebels have committed crimes, what I doubt is the ability of 5 year old children to be able to comprehend what's going on let alone fight and there are to many womena dn children getting hurt. I seriously don't care about the militants (government or rebels) what I do care about is the innocents.

You have your opinion, I have mine, just don't tell me anyone who is worried about people who don't want to fight is naive.

I dont think there is any stopping it. The reigning global economic interests strategy is to destabilize, bankrupt and then buy/co-opt and control nations and markets. The US gov is just their errand boy and will no doubt do what its told. We are all collateral damage.
If there are any natural resources worth having in Syria, it will be part of the empire.

No. He is evil, not stupid. The CIA's own evidence shows the alleged use of chemical weapons did not go through the chain of command in the Syrian military. That leads fools in the media to groundless speculation that the orders when directly from the top of the command structure to the field bypassing intermediate layers. But it is far more plausible either that the entire event was a fabrication (good enough to fool the Syrian military into the secret internal investigation that the CIA thinks it discovered) or the event was a treasonous act by low ranking officers trying to harm the regime from within.

All that is absurd. DU stays in the environment for billions of years, not thousands. It does not cause any of the health problems that are blamed on it. Overwhelming evidence contradicts all the claimed health impacts. The supposed support comes from statistical studies of populations that might or might not have been exposed to any DU, but definitely were exposed to serious toxins, such as the chemical weapons Sadam Hussein used against his own people in exactly the parts of the country that now have statistical health problems blamed on DU. Large numbers of people who have proven long term DU exposure tens of thousands of times higher than those populations have zero health problems linked to DU.

You're right about it; I wasn't sure if it was thousands or millions (billions?) of years. (Much worse, then!).

Then what do you think is causing the rise in cancer cases and birth defects in Iraq during the last years? Hard to believe that a radioactive and toxic metal doesn't cause health issues in people that has inhaled the smoke resulting from these ammunitions or has ingested water and food polluted with it.

When you consider that the persons backing this misadventure are the same ones who backed the war in Iraq, which has turned out so well, the question answers itself.

Americans refuse to learn from the past.

We even refuse to learn from the bleeping present.

Is the United States becoming the big daddy for countries who can't fight their own battles. :rolleyes:

Well, if the rest of the world doesn't care if the poor regular folks in that place get gassed then why should I?

The US and it's western European allies are struggling with one of the worst financial crises in history...

The US is a war economy, Britain and France are also big arms exporters. As with Iraq this is another opportunity for profit. None care about Syrian civilians and in fact military action by the west will result in many more casualties and prolong the conflict even further.

The current civil war in Syria is being bankrolled by some western governments, the Saudis, Qatar, etc who have been supplying a rabble of jihadists, extremists and others against the Assad regime. Without money and equipment from the west and some Arab countries, this war would have ended two years ago and there would not be an estimated 100,000 dead and several hundred thousand displaced Syrians living in squalid refugee camps.

This is not a new tactic and indeed it was the US and others who supplied the Mujahideen in Afghanistan just to stop the Soviets gaining a foothold. It was this same Mujahideen who then split into factions and proceeded to blow Kabul and the rest of the country apart, before the Taliban (bankrolled and supplied by Pakistan and the Saudis) swept them away and took power in '96... we all know what happened next. This will happen in Syria if these "rebels" win and the ruling Ba'athist regime is toppled.

There seems to be a pattern here, of arming and funding terror groups, islamist groups, destabilising the target country and then lots of hand wringing over civilian deaths and sabre rattling from the political wordsmiths in order to "sell" the war to the masses at home, followed by "military action" (the new catchphrase for bombing and invading).

Really disgusting.

You forgot phase 5:

Profit!

It is hardly the same set of politicians or groups backing this misadventure as backed the invasion of Iraq.

A large majority of Republicans in Congress and a smaller (but still majority) of Democrats backed the Iraq invasion. Notably Clinton backed it and Obama did not.

This time a tiny minority of Republicans back it and a larger but still minority of Democrats. Obama chose to bomb Libya against the clear objection of a majority of Congress (and to continue illegally bombing after the 90 day limit on the President engaging in war despite the objection of Congress). Obama is on track to do the same in Syria, having already armed the Sunni terrorists in Syria against the objections of a majority in Congress.

Here, I'll give you a hint. Look at Great Depression I and check the number of years it took for WWII to bring an end to it. Now look at Great Depression II ... Heck you can even match the dates of Dust Bowl I and Dust Bowl II. I can't help but see a pattern.

Correlation does not prove causation.

WWII causing the end of the Great Depression is one of the established myths of history. But the facts never supported that myth.

The Great Depression ended in most of the world long before it ended in the USA. It was deepened and prolonged in the USA by the government policies that were sold to the public as the solution for the Depression, but were really designed to increase government power and corruption. Exactly the same as been true of the government "stimulus" for the current economic downturn. The real purpose is pure corruption and the real effect is to prolong and deepen what would otherwise have been a trivial economic dip.

Having the rest of the world already out of the Depression was the major reason FDR's continuing corrupt and hopeless policies were overwhelmed by the world economy and the US was pulled out of the depression. We can't rely on that again, because Europe is now even deeper into the same insane economic policies that Obama is using to prevent the US recovery.

Having the rest of the world go into a war well ahead of the US entering the war, also provided a significant boost to the US economy. That was a smaller effect compared to the overwhelming economic boost the US got from being late into WWI, but it was still significant.

Most countries had poor wartime economies. Total production was lower than in peace time, while the government share of consumption was higher. In terms of national morale, that might be masked by the sense of patriotism and shared sacrifice needed to win a war. But it was still an economic disaster. That effect was much more heavily masked in the US by the pent up potential for economic growth that had built while years of technological advancement were suppressed by vicious government interference.

Historians for some reason want to believe that war is good for economies, so they cherry pick the few misleading samples that support that idea out from the vast contradictory background.

As Eisenhower and many other Generals foresaw, there is no military justification for the World (of) War that has been waged continually since 1950. But there is a tremendous economic justification. The United States, in particular, will spend money on "War, Inc." to the detriment of its own people, and it will subsume its own supposedly-"democratic" processes in its pursuit, e.g. by keeping most of its own Congressional decision-makers "in the dark" (no security clearances, y'see ...) about what is really going on.

The net effect of this endless "war-wh*ring" is like that of a ravenous cancer that a person denies having. The legitimate economy dries up as anemia sets in. But there is so damn much money to be made by a very-few, and the size of the bribes goes off the scale. Just pretend that you don't see it, take the money and run.

What they say is what matters, because they are responsible.

Making up your own terminologies. Great Depression II?

I do kind of wonder how so called enlightened countries can ignore so many world issues. From hunger to totalitarian regimes to little girls getting acid thrown on them because they want to go to school. Where is the justice? Where is the so called enlightened society?

I rather doubt any military intervention in Syria would benefit the US in the long run. Syria's government had been bolstered by the USSR for many years and I doubt the locals would like the US there. Kind of like Iraq. They seemed to be doing a good job of killing way before the US stopped by. By common reports Saddam's leadership ended more than a million (M) lives. Yep! The US should have let him continue, he'd have been up to 3 or 4 by now. The US should have never interfered in Afghanistan either. What do I care if they acid attack girls, and murder their own. If Syria want's to murder their own then fine. Let some other country worry about it. Those folks probably deserve to be gassed. If other countries don't care then so goes my opinion. Let the people in Africa murder each other too. Not my problem. If Ireland wants to cause genocide to Protestants then fine too.

They haven't got the support of the UK, even though Cameron wants to go in, so the status quo may continue for a while yet.

Saddam Hussein was actually backed by the US government, they even new about him planning to use chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war and against the kurds before he used them. But it was in their interest at that time to not intervene. So much about so called enlightened countries. This is purely a political/economical (in my eyes the same in the US) decision and has nothing to do with being humanitarian, IMHO.

Right on Jefro. I hear their camps are so bad that escape means China (who empathetically gives them back to N. Korea)

More on the Racket of War.

That is who wrote this

I am all for Isolationism, let somebodies else's kids die for their own freedom. Send in Wall Street Instead.

The U.S.A. has absolutely no reason to get involved in the Syrian civil war. I am strongly in favor of letting the Syrians work out their own destiny without any outside interference.

---------------------
Steve Stites

...

It was working earlier , same article, different news source http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1440186

Ah, yes I read that a little while ago on yet a different source still, nasty little man that one.

The way to do that, is for the west and it's Arab allies to stop sending arms and equipment into the hands of jihadists - in what is a clear attempt to destabilise the country and force regime change - at whatever human cost.

So far, there is no proof whatsoever, in fact not a shred of evidence that the Ba'ath regime used chemical weapons in the conflict.

The UN seems to think that the rebels did however...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-assads-regi/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97R18F20130828

That's very inconvenient - as is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97S18K20130829

But as we've learnt from 10 years ago in Iraq, where there's a will, there's a way...