Will there be American invasion in Syria?

[Deleted member 365]

I gotta be honest, the overwhelming majority of (online) posts on news agencies and social media demonstrate clearly a desire for the USA to desist from intervening in these petty squabbles. Finally, I think the paranoia about WWIII, the Ruskies, and the desire to intervene at every lil sniffle is beginning to end. Perhaps, after so many nation building disasters dating back 40-50 years ago, we have finally learned to STFO of quagmires. This should only increase as the older (paranoid) generation dies off and our national debt increases (as we struggle to get our economy back).

One can only hope that a return to Monroe Doctrine is imminent. We just can't afford this "charity" anymore. No nation in the history of mankind can sustain a massive police force and stuff "peace" and "democracy" in the forms of bombs and million dollar payouts. Sorry Syria, Egypt, etc but you folks have gotta learn to "play nice" and "govern yourselves." Training wheels are off, colonial powers have left for quite some time. You folks are sovereign nations. Time to figure your **** out. If that means repressive regimes or dysfunctional democracies, or charitable monarchs or flourishing democracy, then so be it. Just decide what you are and roll with it. No more bitching and complaining and asking for Unkie Sammy to do everything for you... Then using our own money and weapons against us... Allah will bless you for your self-sufficiency. Allah is great, right?

My hope is that not only will we stop trying to cure every lil sniffle in the world but also cut down on our completely bloated and unnecessary defense spending. If SS isn't sustainable then forking out $135 million for a crap jet airplane and $600+ billion annually in "offensive" defense spending surely isn't!!!

 

[Stoked]

ECTYA, NATO is not a civil rights oriented entity. It is a security and power alliance. It is about making it to risky to ever attack the members. It was not designed or intended to be the civil rights policeman of the world. It has since been used in a inconsistent manner.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Doesn't Syria have a Russian oil pipeline through it. Ultimately I think all these outside powers are only concerned with energy security. America and the west need to show their might without threatening Russian interests. There will come a day when the great powers go to war over the worlds remaining oil, but that day isn't today. For now we just play the opening game and vie for position.

Why do we need to show our might?

Hasn't blowing the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq done that enough?

I'm pretty sure every country on earth knows how kick *** our military is.

It's what happens after the fact that sucks.... No foreign power can control or govern a country. Especially, in the ME.

 

[♪alt13]

Why do we need to show our might?

Hasn't blowing the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq done that enough?

I'm pretty sure every country on earth knows how kick *** our military is.

It's what happens after the fact that sucks.... No foreign power can control or govern a country. Especially, in the ME.

I guess I worded that poorly. America in particular needs to show that just because Russia supports you doesn't mean we won't **** you up. The rest of the west definitely needs to show their might.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I guess I worded that poorly. America in particular needs to show that just because Russia supports you doesn't mean we won't **** you up. The rest of the west definitely needs to show their might.

Why?

I just don't understand why this is necessary. I guess what I'm asking is so what? What consequences do you foresee if we "don't" stand up to the ruskies? Another "domino effect?"

 

[ema]

ECTYA, NATO is not a civil rights oriented entity. It is a security and power alliance. It is about making it to risky to ever attack the members. It was not designed or intended to be the civil rights policeman of the world. It has since been used in a inconsistent manner.

Exactly. But they pretend to be one and based upon that they incite people and feed a civil war in Syria. Then they think they need to protect themselves against what they created. Isn't it evil?

Btw, I as a Turkish citizen never trust NATO. Our relationship with NATO is not genuine. Those patriots they gave us, they tried everything not to give them. I don't believe NATO would do every thing that the alliance treaty requires when it comes to Turkey. TSK(Turkish Army) also knows this, the NATO membership is more like a political weapon for us.

US gave us the membership in return of helping in the Korean war anyway.

 

[Stoked]

Exactly. But they pretend to be one and based upon that they incite people and feed a civil war in Syria. Then they think they need to protect themselves against what they created. Isn't it evil?

Btw, I as a Turkish citizen never trust NATO. Our relationship with NATO is not genuine. Those patriots they gave us, they tried everything not to give them. I don't believe NATO would do every thing that the alliance treaty requires when it comes to Turkey. TSK(Turkish Army) also knows this, the NATO membership is more like a political weapon for us.

US gave us the membership in return of helping in the Korean war anyway.

That is a few (notably America, Turkey, Britaina nd France) members acting on their own and not as NATO.

ECTY. That is the point! NATO is a political weapon. A way to scare off people from attacking your country. No offense but I would not count on Turkey to come to America's defense militarily anymore than you should count on America to come to Turkeys defense miritarily.

 

[♪alt13]

Why?

I just don't understand why this is necessary. I guess what I'm asking is so what? What consequences do you foresee if we "don't" stand up to the ruskies? Another "domino effect?"

For sure I don't buy into any domino effect. Not engaging Syria after the use of chemical weapons would definitely send the message that we are hands off Russian allies. It would weaken our leverage.

It wouldn't bother me to stay out of Syria, but I believe this is the thinking of the white house.

 

[Stoked]

For sure I don't buy into any domino effect. Not engaging Syria after the use of chemical weapons would definitely send the message that we are hands off Russian allies. It would weaken our leverage.

It wouldn't bother me, but I believe this is the thinking of the white house.

I agree with the message that no matter who you are we will come for you if we need to. I just think that message is already sent. To the point that it is almost a joke. I do not think we need to engage Syria.

 

[♪alt13]

I agree with the message that no matter who you are we will come for you if we need to. I just think that message is already sent. To the point that it is almost a joke. I do not think we need to engage Syria.

I agree with you.

I just think every white house feels the need to prove their willingness to kill.

 

[ema]

That is a few (notably America, Turkey, Britaina nd France) members acting on their own and not as NATO.

ECTY. That is the point! NATO is a political weapon. A way to scare off people from attacking your country. No offense but I would not count on Turkey to come to America's defense militarily anymore than you should count on America to come to Turkeys defense miritarily.

You're right about NATO being a political weapon but it has also requirements too being a part of it. On giving us Patriots for instance again, not only NATO used every excuse not to give them but also they didn't provide the enough amount of them when they finally were convinced that our border was not safe and we needed them. Plus everyone knows that Turkey is an outsider at NATO and Europe. We are certainly not perceived as Europeans by the Europeans and being a big muslim majority country is, well self explanatory. You can see the same treatment against Turkey on EU negotiations. All I'm trying to say is, on paper every NATO member is equal, but in reality some members are just more equal than others. Btw, it's kinda reciprocal also, I mean they know too that we won't be with them lets say on a hypothetical new crusade, obviously, but in practice, we give them more than what we take from them.

You are smart about not counting on Turkey as a totally committed ally. Because to be honest, Turkish people are one of the most anti-American(not American people but American politics, Turkish people have a well sense of distinction about it) public you can find in the world. Turkey being a good American ally is not from the will of its people but the choice of the right wing political leaders that ruled the country predominantly.

As an example to this would be the 1st March Resolution(I can't find the right translation), that was proposed in our parliament to basically allow joining Iraqi war alongside USA and authorizing alliance forces to use Turkish bases and air space in 2003. Although the government were again a right wing pro-America and had a tremendous majority and influence on the parliament, the proposal failed due to a huge pressure of the public. Plus Turkey even had received direct orders from the US government for the resolution to pass but people didn't let it. It was very interesting because even US were very sure about a positive result so they were ready to implement the pre-scheduled plans and about to sending the troops and military equipments.

Now, today, the only reason that Turkey could not make an intervention about the Syrian issue is that the very right wing government of today exactly knows that public is decisively against a Syrian war. Nato implied many times that it's right of Turkey to take necessary steps to defend herself and make an intervention on the situation of Syria, actually they even kinda tried to encourage(there were many border infringements by Syria), but our government was aware that it would be their absolute end of ruling. Because even the most pro-government people are against a Syrian war.

Now they will try to do it with Nato countries and will do their best to be in line with USA's politics.

So, Turkey is an odd figure in world politics that have pro-imperialist governments but has an anti-war populace(especially with the neighbors and the muslim countries. Because we were living together with them until just less than a century and the bounds of hundreds of years are not disappearing easily. Just till beginning of the Syrian crisis(2011 or so), our people and Syrian people were able to meet and cross the border freely on certain days(without any bureaucratic procedures), because there still are big families that have two halves on the each side and vice versa. And now because of someones(NATO, US, Brits, France etc) wanting a war for their greater plans, they expect us to fight against our neighbors. It will only be alongside NATO with a minimal participation of Turkey, and even that will be judged and condemned by the Turkish public forever.

 

[babe]

I've said my bit in another thread, I think.

Here's a link worth reading:

https://larouchepac.com/node/27916

While everybody seems to have some axe to grind, I'm glad that less than ten percent of Americans want us touching the Syria mess. I'm glad congress is rumbling about why don't you come talk to us before you dump billions of dollars in mayhem on innocent people in Syria, and I'm glad that the "logic" about America's imperial "duty" to impose our style of government on the world seems to be losing it's mesmerizing hold on the people in America, even though the mainstream corporate media is not particularly awake about the insanity of our position.

Obama has gone from crowing about killing Osama bin Laden to openly arming Al Qaida rebels in multiple countries.

The two million christian people in Syria are being butchered by the Al Qaida rebels, and nobody is saying boo about it. And we are talking about becoming the Al Qaida Air Force.

It's time to put an end to our government's insanity. Call your congressmen. bombard the White House site with protests against this.