Posted on 04/09/2017 5:09:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
I am not a globalist.
I am an American nationist.
“Because, although no one is willing to say it, the world doesn’t care.”
Wrong. Because the world know it’s Assad or Islamists. He’s bad and they’re worse.
Neocon ramblings ain’t gonna fly with much of the base these days no matter how many pics of dead babies they manage to dredge up.
_______________________________________________________
Exactly!
Assad will be replaced. Just like our tremendous success in Lybia. If you are a Christian, Kurd or any other minority it is time to flee. The day of secular leaders in the Middle East is over.
It is not a matter of not caring (at least for me). It’s that all the alternatives are bad. Decent people in Syria can only hope to flee, for now, since supporting any side of this is folly. Choices:
1) Support “moderate” Islamist rebels (Al Qaeda) against Assad. Terrible. If Islamists win, there will first be wholesale slaughter of Christians and other religious minorities, then civil war rounds 2 through 50 of competing Islamist factions. The cruelest of them will prevail, with a regime that makes Assad’s look like paradise.
2) Support ISIS against moderate Islamists. See above.
3) Support Assad against the Islamists. Better, but horrible solution, that plays into extensions of regional power for Russia and Iran.
4) For the US or any outside entity to arm any side of this, and use military power (especially fecklessly) merely aggravates a bad situation. Good intentions don’t count if you are a civilian bystander killed by foreign versus domestic bombs. Enforcing peace upon the multiple sides of this conflict would require a major application of violence, with much collateral death and suffering, then years of policing by an occupying force. Perfect formula for perpetual guerilla war. Any takers?
5) Blockade Syria to prevent introduction of weapons and war material. In about 50 years, existing stockpiles would be exhausted. Except that blockading Syria is physically and politically impossible.
6) Assassinate Assad or otherwise replace Assad and his regime. Unfortunately, the consensus statesperson that all factions agree upon doesn’t exist. The only way the country has been held together at all is by centralized coercion. Anyone capable of that will be no better than Assad.
7) Cry over pictures of human suffering, and say someone should do something NOW. Talk tough in the UN. Write a strongly worded memo. Finally, solutions that will work...
When you declare war, your intention is to defeat an enemy state -- even to the point of obliterating it.
The U.S. has no intention of ever "defeating an enemy state" these days. Now, we are a global empire whose primary purpose is to occupy these countries -- which means obliterating them defeats the whole purpose of going to war against them in the first place.
We do not occupy countries.
We do not loot countries.
We have no colonies.
If this is an “empire” we really suck at it and should open a history book and find out how it’s supposed to be done.
The U.S. military currently has a presence in more than 80 countries around the globe. There isn't another empire in the history of the world that can lay claim to that kind of armed presence.
Have to agree with you there. That’s why I thought we should do nothing in regards to Syria. Thought that when Obummer was in power and still think that. Doesn’t mean I don’t still like Trump, just disagree with his decision here.
What I would like to see the president do is simply say we have no vital national interest in Syria, both side are crappy, and we are staying out of it.
Agree with you there. During my 2nd deployment to Iraq the Stars and Stripes had an article about the Iraqi government holding biddings for companies to drill new oil fields in southern Iraq. There was a French, Chinese, and American company bidding on this. The article stated the Chinese company won and all I could think is how there is no way in hell any other country than America should be getting Iraq’s oil business after all the blood and money we spent to liberate them.
That's just silly.
We do not "occupy" Germany in any sense.
We do not "occupy" Japan in any sense.
Hey, I hear the US National Guard is in Nebraska -- it's occupied territory! Are they under Martial law??
One of my issues is that we spend a lot of money on forward deployment of US military assets -- and we get nothing for it. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AN EMPIRE.
One of my issues is that we spend a lot of money on forward deployment of US military assets -- and we get nothing for it.
How 'effing stupid do you think the people who make these decisions really are? Do you think those assets are there as decorations?
All I suggest is that “empire” is an inaccurate word to describe the US. The Left loves to call us an empire. Don’t adopt their terminology. It’s not accurate or helpful.
“No one is willing to say it, but the world doesn’t care”
OK, lets deconstruct this globalist nonsense.
First: I don’t care, at all, who does what to whom over there, I’m happy to say it, and there are many more like me.
Second: There is no political, religious, military or moral entity called “the world”. The planet Earth is inhabited by incompatible and mutually hostile tribes and religions, who, without imposition of peace by the strong will constantly be committing atrocity after atrocity. Use of “the world” means what elite European and settler populations want to happen among lesser breeds without the law, but no longer desire to colonize and rule.
Looking at that neatly dressed peasant woman, for one thing the clothing of all the victims would have to have been removed and disposed using CW protocol for a persistent nerve agent
They really need to train arab disaster actors in more realism if they are going to persuade us to start WW3
That is the stance the US took about Jews during WWII and we saw how that worked out for the world.
Achieving those goals that efficiently would involve enormous casualties.
Completely agree that Trump should not have jumped in with a measured military response. Possibly this was a signal to North Korea, China, etc., that he’ll bite if you tug his chain. It also shuts up the pro-Russia balderdash.
Let’s assume the US actually does have some vital interests in Syria, even if most are negatives with no upside. We don’t want ISIS or other Islamists to have a territorial state; we don’t want Russia and Iran to expand their M.E. influence and be seen as driving us out; we don’t want a failed state next to Iraq; we don’t want refugees fleeing Syria to Europe and the US, etc. Unfortunately, none of that makes the available “solutions” viable. It provides justifications to people like McCain who seek intervention without a clear concept of where it will lead.
They did a fairly good job this time. One does not have to persuade the logical. One only has to convince those who base their actions on emotion. That will always get the results their handlers desire.
But they didn't, so we're in the current mess.
Our leaders are, and have always been, shortsighted and we suffer the consequences.
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.