Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Robert Gates Says Syria Is A Tornado, And The US Should Keeps Its Hands Out
Business Insider ^ | July 3 2013 | GEOFFREY INGERSOLL

Posted on 07/06/2013 10:45:11 PM PDT by WilliamIII

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham think attacking Syria to establish a no-fly zone will somehow stem Iranian nuclear ambitions, while Dr. Robert Gates says the whole mess is like "sticking your hand in a tornado." Gates, both a former Secretary of Defense and a former CIA director, says involvement in Syria is a slippery slope that will only lead to deeper, riskier commitments.

"The question about the involvement in Syria is, can you put just a few fingers into the tornado? And at what point, when that fails, do the pressures to do more gradually draw you in further and further?" Gates said during a talk at the Hearst Tower Sunday.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Israel; Russia; US: Arizona; US: South Carolina; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: arizona; iran; israel; johnmccain; lindseygraham; nancymace; randsconcerntrolls; robertgates; russia; southcarolina; syria; waronterror

1 posted on 07/06/2013 10:45:11 PM PDT by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Stalin and Hitler are duking it out. There are millions of dead Nazis and Communists. We need to get a piece of that.

Sure. Made sense in 1941.

Oh, wait...

2 posted on 07/06/2013 10:56:24 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Sound advice.


3 posted on 07/06/2013 11:04:59 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

So we shouldn’t have supplied the USSR with war material through the Lend Lease Act and joined the Allies on the Western Front?

Let the Nazi’s take control of Europe?

I think a stalemate is in the best interest of the US.

Letting Assad’s Government win would be a huge win for Iran in the Middle East and that would be hurt US interest.


4 posted on 07/06/2013 11:06:32 PM PDT by Reaganez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
"Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham think attacking Syria to establish a no-fly zone will somehow stem Iranian nuclear ambitions,..."

Wow. Guess I missed that one by the Mclindsey girls. Sheesh, go off line for a moment...

5 posted on 07/06/2013 11:19:44 PM PDT by A Navy Vet (An Oath is Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind
- Proverbs 11:29a

6 posted on 07/06/2013 11:20:34 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Gates, Graham, McCain and Obama.

And Syria.

And Mother Russia.

Oy vey.

When should we start digging our own bomb-shelters?


7 posted on 07/06/2013 11:28:50 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1Jn4:15;5:4-5,11-13;Mt27:50-54;Mk15:33-34;Jn3:17-18,6:69,11:25,14:6,20:31;Ro10:8-11;1Tm2:5-6;Ti3:4-7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch
Gates and others before him are all very wise AFTER leaving office, the office and state of the Union they left in a complete mess to the next “expert” who, in turn, will leave their post in a mess similar to the one they inherited.

If Syria/Iran/CCCP win in Syria, the CCCP will have tremendous leverage in that region and with a nuclear Iran - lights out! Israel...alone...again!

8 posted on 07/06/2013 11:31:22 PM PDT by Netz (Netz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Netz

If Syria/Iran/CCCP win in Syria, the CCCP will have tremendous leverage in that region and with a nuclear Iran - lights out! Israel...alone...again!

************************
What changed in 2011 that made the Assad creeps more dangerous? They’ve been there since 1971. Assad loses, so do Christians.

If Assad is gone, it sure won’t be people friendly to Israel running things and it is guaranteed that any Christians that survived will be killed.

Anyhow, we don’t fight wars anymore. We get our soldiers killed and burn through tax dollars playing little nation building games.


9 posted on 07/06/2013 11:57:38 PM PDT by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez
In what sense was giving the Russians control of Eastern Europe better than letting the Nazis have it? If we were aghast at the Holocaust, why did we allow the repatriation of millions of anti-Communist Russians, Poles and Eastern Europeans to a dictator who had already murdered more of his own people than Hitler had? Why did we send Atomic Bomb secrets, Uranium and other materials to the Russians through Lend-Lease? Why did Russian armies have a higher priority for war materials than our own troops? Why did the British have to pay us back for Lend Lease, but not the Russians?

Did you know that Khrushchev told us in the late 1950's that our Lend Lease trucks and other war gear were used to allow the Russians to take over Eastern Europe and reach Berlin first? Why did we open a second front in France via two amphibious landings when we were already positioned to open a second front via the Aegean? Why did Stalin constantly whine about our lack of second front, when the invasion of Sicily was exactly that? And why did Stalin open no second front against Japan, even though China was supposedly every bit as much his ally as ours?

Hitler had no capacity to invade Britain, and his admirals repeatedly told him that Germany would have no such capacity for a decade. Yes. we should not have helped the Russians. We should have let two totalitarian dictators beat each others brains out and picked up the pieces when they were done. The Soviets thoroughly infiltrated our government in the 1930's and 1940's and were at least as dangerous to our interests as the Nazis. The Monster the Soviets and their agents of influence created in China is still with us, and will be for a long, long time to come.

10 posted on 07/06/2013 11:59:02 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

“Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham think...”

No, they Don’t Think!

LOL


11 posted on 07/07/2013 12:12:49 AM PDT by buffyt (Abortion is murder. It is not a choice, it is a CHILD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Not entering the war would mean giving the Nazis control of all Europe not just Eastern Europe. That would have been far worse.

Giving aid to allies does not nor should it mean giving them our entire arsenal.

Having Russians die on the Eastern Front is better than American troops getting killed on the Eastern front. Every German soldier fighting on the Eastern Front was not fighting on the Western front.

I would have Patton take Moscow or better yet nuked it after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I don’t agree with all American policies in WWII including Yalta but getting involved was not one of them.

There are a lot of what if from hind site. If Hitler had not let the British retreat from France the British may have been done. If “we let two totalitarians beat each others brains out” the Nazis may have had the time to develop a nuclear bomb. And we don’t get those German scientist to aid on our nuclear development.

Completely stupid to have done nothing till Pearl Harbor when Germany declared war on the US.


12 posted on 07/07/2013 12:36:41 AM PDT by Reaganez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Irenic
Assad is what is commonly called in the Middle East, a “MANIAK” or maniac but the word has a heavier weight to it and is very insulting. He is “stable” when you compare him to the Islamic nut cases, so, ok, he's really a secular nut case and more predictable.
The struggle in Syria is a critical one. Who wins? One side has CCCP, Iran and Hizbollah, the other, every radical Islamic fringe. Who do we want to win? Neither side.
Hopefully, the “rebels” will kill off all the Hizbollah and the Hizbollah will kill off all the Islamic Jihadists.
Either way it's a mess for Israel.
13 posted on 07/07/2013 12:37:17 AM PDT by Netz (Netz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; Reaganez
What you are saying FZ misses a couple of points. Most important is that if the Nazis weren't facing too fronts they may very well won. That is something most historians agree on, together with the point that Hitler started aggression too early. Had he not attacked Stalin, as had been agreed, all of Europe would have fallen. Additionally, major war would have started a couple of years later, when many of the superlative weapons the Nazis had invented would have come online with sufficient numbers to make a difference. Sufficient tanks better than anything anyone else had, sufficient cruise missiles and IRBMs, jet fighters (that no one else had) in sufficient numbers, they were even working on their own nuclear program.

The Soviets were monsters, however so were the Nazis. The difference is that the Soviets had a self defeating ideology ...communism has embedded self-destruct failsafes. Nazism, like any form of fascism/nationalism (eg the Chinese 'communism' which is anything but) has a far longer shelf life.

Anyways, had the Soviets fallen when Hitler expected them to, Europe would have fallen. Germany would have only had one front to deal with rather than three (the Western Allies, the Soviets, and the Russian winter), and Germany would have won. A Germany with superior weapons in superior numbers, with an ally in Japan, and with nuclear weapons.

14 posted on 07/07/2013 1:04:08 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez
Completely wrong. We should have rolled up the Japs and told Stalin if he thought he could make a separate peace with Hitler go ahead and do it. Stalin knew perfectly well what you appear not to know: Russia was bluffing with an empty hand. Hitler was never going to make peace with the Soviet Union. Never. Every Allied soldier killed on the Western front was killed for the benefit of the Soviet Union, and NOT the other way around.

Why did we have to withdraw from the Aegean and invade from France? For one simple reason: so Stalin could march unimpeded to Berlin. He played us for suckers and people like you aided and abetted it.

And we don’t get those German scientist to aid on our nuclear development

Your understanding of physics is as bad as your grasp of history. Germans did not help us with our nuclear program. Heisenberg was years behind us.

15 posted on 07/07/2013 1:04:55 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Too fronts = two fronts.

Apologies for this and other spelling errors. Word fill on phone.

16 posted on 07/07/2013 1:05:43 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

The Germans had no chance of building a nuclear bomb before we did. None whatsoever.


17 posted on 07/07/2013 1:06:46 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez
Letting Assad’s Government win would be a huge win for Iran in the Middle East and that would be hurt US interest.

You do realize that the people fighting Assad are also enemies of the United States, I hope. Having an al Qaeda state on the border of Israel isn't in the interests of the United States either. There is no outcome that serves our interest, we can only take solace in the fact that someone evil is going to lose.

18 posted on 07/07/2013 1:16:49 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Yes I do realize both sides are enemies of the USA.

That is why I said a stalemate is in the interest of the USA.

Having the world’s Sunni crazies being killed by Shia crazies instead of creating Islamic Emirates all over the Muslim world is in the interest of the USA.

The Alawite government is being supported by Russia and Iran.

It is in our interest to support the Sunni crazies just enough to not lose.

If they kill each other in Syria for the next 100 years the better for the West.


19 posted on 07/07/2013 1:25:47 AM PDT by Reaganez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

But, But, Obama’s FRIENDS are duking it out....he MUST send in OUR MONEY and OUR GUYS to get KILLED!!!


20 posted on 07/07/2013 3:15:01 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion.....the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Germans did not help us with our nuclear program. Heisenberg was years behind us.

Their vibration analysts aka rocket scientists were leading the way and continued to advance the mathematical art through the 60s, or as a fine Prussian researcher once told me, "Ya, Ya, if ve only had dese methods in the day of de V2, ve'd all be speaking German now, YA?

21 posted on 07/07/2013 3:28:49 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Metropolitan PHILIP of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archiocese of America used the very same phrase last month:

www.antiochian.org/arab-spring-or-tornado

22 posted on 07/07/2013 4:28:49 AM PDT by lightman (Prosecute the heresies; pity the heretics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Hitler declared war on the USA


23 posted on 07/07/2013 4:32:51 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Who will shoot Liberty Valence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez

A lot of Eastern Europeans, admittedly non-Jews, vastly preferred the Nazis to the Soviets.


24 posted on 07/07/2013 4:50:30 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

25 posted on 07/07/2013 4:52:52 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

The US already stuck its d*ck in the tornado that is islam’s extermination of humanity by electing a fully-fledged islamic cleric and jihadist to the US presidency.

There may not be a good way out.


26 posted on 07/07/2013 4:58:26 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama equals Osama))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

Remember this?

“The Marines are at war. America is at the mall”.


27 posted on 07/07/2013 5:00:49 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama equals Osama))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

A rare common sense headline...


28 posted on 07/07/2013 6:07:05 AM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
There is no outcome that serves our interest

If it weren't for the globalist greed that couldn't accept the dictators showing independence from the west, we were better off with the dictators who doled out limited amounts of freedom that their warring populations could handle.

The lesson should've been learned with Iraq. When you overthrow a government, you don't know what's behind every door. And you don't control (forever anyway) which doors get opened.

29 posted on 07/07/2013 6:16:27 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


30 posted on 07/07/2013 6:36:25 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reaganez

/bingo

But you have to realize, there are those who come straight here from Lew Rockwell, one of the places online where anti-Americanism masquerades as conservativism.


31 posted on 07/07/2013 6:38:29 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

One can *always* count on Gates to take the side of an enemy and give the shaft to an ally.
32 posted on 07/07/2013 6:40:10 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

With this regime in power I say do nothing......this idiot has a propensity do the polar opposite of what benefits this country.


33 posted on 07/07/2013 7:46:13 AM PDT by ontap (***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
My point was directed at another poster who claimed Germany was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The historical record shows the opposite. Rocket science isn't nuclear physics, advanced mathematics, or metallurgy all of which are needed for nuclear weapons, and none of which the Germans had.

German propaganda doesn't equal real science. Your Prussian friend might have wanted to pretend that German science and technology was superior to ours, but it wasn't. Germany's V2's were not intercontinental missiles; they were scuds, and would have been little use to them once we started dropping nuclear bombs.

34 posted on 07/07/2013 9:58:51 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bert

Yeah, so what? He couldn’t even mount an invasion across 26 miles of the English Channel. How was he going to make good on his declaration of war across thousands of miles of Atlantic Ocean?


35 posted on 07/07/2013 10:01:29 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
But you have to realize, there are those who come straight here from Lew Rockwell,

Maybe there are, but I'm not one of them. If you're commenting on my posts, the FR etiquette is to address everyone involved in the thread rather than making cowardly and snarky little insinuations.

One doesn't have to be a Nazi in order to understand that our WWII policy served Soviet interests, and not our own. We gave the Russians everything the Molotov-Ribbentrop promised them, and more, in spades. In addition to that, Soviet agents of influence in the Roosevelt administration maneuvered us into both betraying our ally Chiang Kai-shek and aiding the Ya'nan Communists in China. Imagine how different the world would be today -- and for most of my lifetime -- if American diplomats and high-level military staff had served American interests instead of Soviet ones.

Yet for this, you get called a Nazi by the good little Soviet bootlickers at FR.

36 posted on 07/07/2013 10:11:29 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
That is something most historians agree on, together with the point that Hitler started aggression too early.

First, I can't quite speak to this, because I don't know which aggression you're talking about. Hitler's threats and bluster were a form of diplomatic aggression, and they were, sadly, quite successful.

If you mean aggression against Western Europe, it's hard to argue with success. If you're talking about aggression against Russia, there are plenty who claim he had no choice. In The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich even the very pro-Soviet William L. Shirer concedes that the Russians were already expanding their sphere of influence beyond what they agreed to in the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and that if anything Hitler struck too late because of a vendetta against Yugoslavia that pushed his offensive too late into the year. There was also some evidence the Soviets were preparing to strike first.

If you mean in general terms, I can't really agree. One of the reasons Hitler had a technological advantage at the start of the War was that he had mobilized a decade before the Allies. The advantage -- contrary to what some people on this thread have posted -- was rapidly disappearing, and by the end of the war was virtually gone. The one weapon he had that the Allies did not was the ME-262; a truly formidable weapon which fortunately he did not have the foresight to exploit. [If you believe Speer -- and there's probably no reason you should, since his bio is largely self-serving crap and he was Nazi scum -- Hitler diverted research and war production into increasingly less effective weapons systems.] Heisenberg, again in a self serving account, claims he deliberately foot-dragged the development of the German nuclear bomb. The truth was that Heisenberg could not mount a first-rate research staff because the Nazi's had already exiled, driven-off, or murdered most of the people who might have developed nukes. Heisenberg himself appears to have actually been working on a hydrogen bomb -- but he had no engineers who could have told him that while the physics for thermonuclear weapons was mostly understood, the technology for such a weapon did not yet exist, and would not for 15 years.

I don't take my history from throw-away lines from Patton or other Hollywood vehicles, and I certainly don't believe Nazi propaganda fed to the German people about miracle weapons that would be "coming to the front any day real soon now" in order to keep them fighting. The V1 and V2 were terrorist weapons and not effective weapons of war. A lot of the other technology was years from fruition.

As for what "most historians" believe, I'm afraid I must demur. I'll be glad to discuss individual historians, but when you remember that "most historians" believe that Joe McCarthy was a witch hunter, Richard Nixon was a more dangerous enemy of liberty than Barack 0bama, or that Bill Clinton should not have been impeached, just to name three bits of conventional wisdom (read: lunacy) I can think of off the top of my head, I'm afraid I can't say I'm very impressed with what "most historians" believe.

37 posted on 07/07/2013 11:31:17 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Separated by a common language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
One can *always* count on Gates to take the side of an enemy and give the shaft to an ally.

Correct. He is taking the side of your enemy Assad and giving the shaft to your ally Al Qeada.

38 posted on 07/07/2013 5:10:24 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

No, that’s *your* ally the Assad dictatorship that he’s backing; Assad and al-Qaeda are *both* my enemy, which is something you and your fellow pro-jihadists can’t say.


39 posted on 07/07/2013 6:24:07 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Well, thanks for self-identifying, perhaps via your psychic gifts, but the fact is, I’m in agreement with those who think we gave Stalin far too much during the war, which made it politically and militarily impossible to do otherwise than was done after the war. Of course, all of that is with the benefit of hindsight and not having to be there at the time.

The USSR had the best tank of the war. Molotov went to the Far East for surreptitious meetings with the Japanese, who told him nothing outright, but he returned to tell Stalin that he thought the czarist-era treaty would hold, so 70 divisions were stripped from that frontier and shovelled straight into the German front in the west, a remarkable redeployment.

Stalin realized that he would have to let people who knew how to fight a war direct the war, a lesson Hitler never learned.


40 posted on 07/07/2013 6:32:01 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Netz

I agree with your post, apart from “a mess for Israel”. As long as the fighting continues, Israel can quietly finish building its fences, continue to build new homes in the areas ethnically cleansed of Jews in 1948, and watch tearfully /s as Hizbollah feeds itself to the guns in Syria. Meanwhile, the US is unable to apply any pressure whatsoever, and this is more true now that the fragility of Egyptian society has reared again.


41 posted on 07/07/2013 6:36:01 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
There should be no illusions, yes, the Arabs are killing each other - business as usual.

Their societies are on the bring of absolute unraveling and mayhem but, it won't last forever and the danger to Israel, post-Syria civil war, Hizbollah combat experience and mayhem in Egypt will rear it's ugly head in the future.

What absolutely fascinates me is the fact that the Egyptian Junta and Israel seem to be on the same playing field on this one. Both are cooperating in ridding themselves of the Salafists and HAMAS or Jihad elements. In addition the Egyptian Air Force is destroying tunnels between Gaza and Sinai. Too bad they waited this long.

The great thing, is that both Egypt and Israel are turning their backs on Obama & Co. They know he's worthless and cannot be relied on.

42 posted on 07/07/2013 10:18:15 PM PDT by Netz (Netz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson