Pick a Side - Syria and Egypt!
 

Well unless you a fucking moron you should already know Syria is in a full blown Civil War and Egypt is heading that way.

Recap Syria -

Syria - headed by an asshole rich Dictator. He was raised in England and is a dentist by trade IIRC. After his asshole daddy died he returned to Syria. He and his family are a religious Minority with ties to Iran. The majority of Syrians are Sunnis. He is a sort of Shiite.

Long story short, influxes of Sunni rebels have been fleeing Iraq and into Syria. This is because the US kicked their pipe-bombing asses. Now, the same bad-guys we fought, want to establish a peoples democracy (ie majority Sunni will be in charge) in Syria. To do this they need to oust Asad. The rebels are backed by Al-Qaeda.


Question 1 - Do you back the dictator who while he doesn't like America and is friends with Iran and Russia - he actually has never done anything to us.

Or do you back "freedom-fighters" made up of the same terrorist assholes we have been fighting for the last 10 years and are essentially the remnants of Sadam's regime.


Recap Egypt - Mubarak, the dictator has been a strong US supporter for over 30 years. His leadership has helped stabilize Mideast Tensions and he built Egypt into a moderate country with Western values instead of letting it become a fundamentalist shit hole like Yeman. He is also why there have not been massive wars like in the past to destroy Israel.

Mubarak, who is old as dirt, fucked up. He made his son Vice-President. This pissed everyone off. Egyptians can except a believing dictator who is trying to steer them in the right direction. They don't want a Monarchy.

The US (Obama) turned on Mubarak and sold him out. He peacefully stepped down and was then immediately brought to trial. The Muslim Brotherhood, a mainstream political wing of Al-Queada, then ceases power using overseas funding and their existing network of connections. Morsi then can't get his shit together. He begins radically changing Egypts foreign policies, constitution ect - The Military finally says "enough of this fuckwad" and ousts him.

Question 2 Oh no, Military Coupe to get rid of an idiot - however since the US (Obama) already supported the ousting of Military control (Mubarak) we're stuck in an awkward position - Support the guys we like, or Support Democracy?


I'd also like to state the reason Syria is a shit hole is because Assad saw what happen to Gaddafi and Mubarak. Mubarak stepped down peacefully and got fucked. Gaddafi put up a limp wristed defense and got fucked... Assad is now "hmm... I either win or I die."

I've been in Syria and lived there for about 5 years. Its a great country and the people in Syria LOVES their president(Alasad) which now the United States want the American citizens to believe that he kills his own people.

Syria is one of the most peaceful countries in the middle east. But now thanks to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Libya its not anymore.

Almost 95% of the people that fight in Syria right now are from these countries. They getting paid from the countries I've listed above.

Russia see that clearly and that's why they are supporting Alasad.
The only reason why United State want to be involved and take Alasad (Syria's President) down is because of "Israel". United states government will get on its knees and suck Saudi's and Israelis d*** for everything.

All the weapons that been used in Syria by the rebels are from Turkey and Israel. All the terrorist and jihadist are from the golf countries that want to see the middle east burning in hell while they are watching from the window.

"Israel" goal is to take Syria's President down and replace him with the one that can work for them and maybe they can steal as much land as possible.

I support non-interventionist foreign policy.

Some of your take on the situations is very astute, and some is grade A shit.

If we back anything or anyone, it should be very subtly and non-invasive. They hate us for messing around over there, why can't we figure it out and stop?

Egypt is receiving foreign aid while a military coup d'etat has occurred, which is not supposed to happen according to our own law.

That entire region is being upended, but for what reason? Egypt revolted 2 years ago which was what supposedly started all of this, but what caused it? The leadership they elected (Muslim Brotherhood) didn't uphold their end of the deal, and now the military stepped in to establish order, which was a possibility from the get go if they didn't democratically elect a leader.

So now that their deposed leadership is being rounded up (again), we're still funneling money to them? That's my issue. It just shows that the Federal govt doesn't care WHO is in power, but that they are going to arm WHOEVER is in power to assist in establishing "order".

As for Syria...I don't even know how to call that situation. I wasn't alive in the 70's so I can't tell you how Afghanistan was viewed back then, but that's all I'm gonna say on that.

I sincerely believe that if the US cuts off foreign aid to these time bombs, it will improve our domestic issues.

PS, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan...it might not be uniformed soldiers of the US military, but govt contracting is alive and well.

We will get sucked into it. Wanna know why?


http://www.hayovel.com/hayovel3/wp-c...l-Nbrs-Map.jpg

Look what's dead smack in the middle of Egypt and Syria. It's gonna be butt-seks surprise.

This man speaketh the truth. There is no extent to which we will help our most "important" ally even if it means sacrificing our own army, resources etc. Them>US

I pick America...
Roads and bridges don't fix and build themselves, teachers are underpaid and it is costing our children in the form of substandard education.

Let the rest of them figure their own shit out.

I'm not talking intervention. I'm just asking who - you the forum member - think is right.

You can also pick a side and not spend a dime. Russia is actually making money off the deal. at the end of the day of the US wants to be "in charge", that means you need to make decisions.

If it's all about lives, then picking one side will save lives as the conflict will be over quicker, is when nether side can win b and it just drags on and on that casualties mount. The longer it takes to stabilize the less likely things will ever return to normal.

I disagree. Isreal has fought three full blown life-or-death wars without any US involvement. (Beyond selling supplies).

There is no reason to think they could not fight all there neighbors again (at the same time) and (once again) only need supplies from the US - which they paid for.

Hell we could easily funnel them intelligence or a light air campaign and the costs would be minimal with no risk of US life.

www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf‎

this was planned and orchestrated. our empire is managing and co-opting nations.

"Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize"

Why are we choosing sides again? If anything this whole thread is pointless and lets be honest...the only real side here is the CIA...why arent they an option? I choose them!!

So poop is going to hit the fan if we step into this war.... As of this moment, looks like we are walking towards it.

I say niether side is right... only misled.

Let them kill each other off while we sit back, watch, eat popcorn and wait... Hell, let Russia, Turkey, Jordan and anyone else who sees reason to handle it.

But guess what? Won't happen in today's political climate. Wanna know why? Because anyone here who thinks that the US isn't in some way shape or form smack dab in the middle of all this already might need to do some more research; or maybe just open their eyes up to reality. Hence why Russia (and other allies) sees it so differently than we do.

...and how is ANY US air campaign 'not a risk to American lives???' Planes in the air means boots on the ground... Air operations, no matter how big or small put lives at risk- period.

Fuck Egypt and fuck Syria. Fuck Iraq, Afghanistan and everyone else who begs for help, then bites the hand that fed them.

As far as Jerusalem goes- it's like 2 kids fighting over a toy... what do you do as a parent? Take it away from them. Give the occupants 48hrs to evacuate, then level the fucking place- problem solved... nothing left for anyone to piss and moan about. Pull all of our troops back to US soil, take control of OUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY FOR A CHANGE and tell whoever has a problem with it to come and get us if they don't like it.

If Egypt and Syria still hate each other after that- let them continue killing each other until someone 'smart' realizes how stupid it all is.

Some of this was silly rant, other parts not so much.

I take no sides.

I think theres a movie on netflix about that... Iirc "the world with out the US" its about the us pulling out of every country and focus on us.

Sounds like a chick flick :D

lol its a documentary... Automatically becomes a non chick flick

You are correct that they are both "not winners", but saying they are misled implies they have good intentions but poor leaders. But the participants are just as equal to blame. Asad and his supporters want to maintain the status quo, which is the minority class is the ruling class. Those opposing him are the same impoverished back-hills islam fanatic trash that are all over the middle east demanding "democracy" so they can then "vote in" Shira Law and create fundamentalist islamic counties.




They won't handle shit. A, they lack the ability, and B. They really don't care on a moral level.

First, Russia has never been our ally. They were a tool to slow the black tied of the Nazis during WWII and today they are just the same Soviet Union, re-branded after a major financial restructure.

Second, our allies are more crooked then us. 1, because they don't care, and 2, because they are not held to same moral standard. Hate on the US for "war for oil" all you want, they are 10 times worse. The Germans, Hungarians and French all profited heavily off money laundering and illegal merchandise sales in both the Yugoslav civil wars and also from Iraq and Iran during the 1990s sanctions.

Lets not even get started with England, BP and BAE. Remember how the let the Lockerbie Bomber go to get an oil deal with Libya? The same for us would be if we let Osama go for a Saudi oil deal.


Minimal risk. Simple training exercises could be argued to present almost as much risk. Planes in the air also does not mean "boots on the ground". Where you get that logic from? Libya was an air campaign and so was Kosavo - which resulted in two lost planes and a guy that had to spend the night in the woods.




GeoPolitics. Egypt WAS one of our strongest allies and supporters. However we sold them down the shitter and are now acting stupid. I swear this administration is worse then Carter when it comes to foreign policy. You notice Iran, who was once a US ally was fucked over when Carter was in office - I foresee Egypt becoming our future long term enemy over this shit because they won't forget.

Iraq, we have a invested interest in, they need to be the counter balance to Iran to keep them in check.


Once again...

There are no US troops in Israel. They honestly don't need our "help" and I'm sure they would have solved the problem if it was 100 years ago... The problem is when you have to dynamically apposed sides and neither is able to win a decisive victory over the other (see Syria), or in the case of Israel, Israel is simply not aloud to have a decisive victory.

Egypt and Syria are not at war with one another. :picardfp:

Both are struggling with their own civil strife. Not to much unlike the War of Norther Aggression that took place in the US back in 1861. You can note how no European power actually stepped in to support either side (unlike the Revolutionary War).

Europe was disgusted with the North, the North's policies and the fact that the North was hypocritical in their dealings with the South. They also saw the North as an economic threat and rejoiced at the irony of the South rejecting Northern rule. However, while Europe did have strong economic and social ties with the South, they also refused to support the South over the moral grounds of slavery and succession. All of Europe still remembered the series of revolutions that took place in the 1780's following the US Revolution and they didn't want that again.


Taking no sides is the correct answer in Syria. Supporting the Military (our long term ally in Egypt) is the correct answer in that case -

As Roosevelt or Eisenhower once said about Stalin - He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch. (Regarding how we could be allies with someone who was in fact worse then Hitler).

While the Egyptian Military is essentially apposing "free democracy" and the "peoples rule" - they will return order to the country, reestablish the economy, crush fundamentals and terrorists (islamists) and return the country to a moderate demeanor - which works well with US policy and interests.

In Syria, there is no way we can morally support Asad. He is a murdering tyrant who has never backed US Interests. However, it would be lunacy to support his opposition - the very terrorists we've fought a 10 year war with. The logical, geopolitical strategy would be to let them fight amongst themselves - as long as possible.

This would suck up all those rebel-rousing ass whip al qaeda wannabes from across the middle east (just like Afghanistan in the 80's) and see to it they killed in action. It would also keep the rest of the region on edge, so they can't cause trouble with the US, Israel or start any real wars. Iran will be using Syria as a proxy war, and I'm sure others will be supporting the rebels. So just let it drag on - like the Iranian-Iraqi war.

Almost every time America puts their meat-hammers on a country to "help it out" we end up leveling their major cities, killing thousands of civilians, create a new generation of hate leveled at the US, and make the problem fucking worse.

The ONLY thing that we should do is help to alleviate the suffering of civilians not directly involved in the conflict and stay completely neutral.

Picking a side is exactly what nobody should do. Why even pose such a question?

And we need to stop pretending to be experts on all of the world's issues with our internet-regurgitated knowledge.

we also need to stop believing and or trusting the "authorities" and "experts" handed to us on tv or through other media sources.

Dude- The risk of conducting light air ops may seem minimal from the outside looking in.

However, EVERYTHING the US Armed forces does operationally... from training to full-blown combat is inherently dangerous. Planes in the air require support (boots on the ground). Doesn't matter if it's from a base in Germany or Missouri; or from an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean... Ever been on a Navy flight deck? One of the most dangerous places a person can ever be. Raise the ops tempo even an iota; and the risk increases exponentially... Putting US pilots & crews in the air puts lives at risk- whether it be from a base several thousand miles away or a couple hundred. Put them over potentially hostile territory; and the risk increases several fold. We lost more than two aircraft in Kosovo... and we did lose a few American lives- Not by enemy fire, but by accidents that would not have happened had we not been there conducting operations. I was there for the whole thing launching/recovering/turning aircraft; and went out on a few cargo drops... Want to talk about the guys on the ground who support air operations? I've been one of them for almost 21yrs. When you have men & women on the ground generating sorties 24/7 non-stop for 12-13hrs a day, the risk increases dramatically. Ask anyone who was in Saudi or the Gulf during Desert Storm, or anyone launching/recovering/turning fighters out of Italy during Kosovo... Unlike pilots, the people on the ground don't get 'crew rest'... Don't get me wrong- The lucky fucks who get said crew rest need every bit of it in the event they go down or get captured- there is always a trade-off, but the risk is no less significant. What about the SOF teams that are nearly everywhere identifying & painting targets for surgical strikes, conducting recon, gathering intel etc? I assure you, they are everywhere operations are being conducted, in a very up-close and personal way... A lot goes into even 'minimal risk' air operations than initially meets the eye.

As I already stated in sentence number 2. Plenty of service men die in training and routine daily tasks. Plenty more die off duty and driving to work in vehicle accidents.


No they don't. "Boots on the Ground" refers to a specific term - meaning actual men and women IN SYRIA, FIGHTING THE WAR, ON THE GROUND.

It does not refer to the existing personnel located on bases in friendly host countries in Europe and the Middle East. It does not refer to US Navel forces or any other group of people.

If you say we have "boots on the ground" in Syria, that means you have US Marines or Soldiers in downtown Damascus going door to door to secure "peace".

Asked and Answered.


How many thousands of lives did you lose? Did the maimed and injured number in the tens of thousands?

Lets quantify this -

List of combat losses of United States military aircraft since the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Whatever happen to the needs of the many vs the needs of the few?

At the end of the day we are talking about casualties and injuries in the SINGLE DIGETS with the possibility to save lives in the TENS OF THOUSANDS.

we need to keep our noses out of it...


but its pretty obvious from watching the news that the power that be want us so badly to be involved with syria that it is inevitable.

needs of the many? then why don't we give a rats ass about tibet or the other such peoples around the globe in similar situations who have died, are dying and will die? this has nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with spreading empire. it stinks to high heaven of the same kinds of CIA involvement like iran in 53 and the bay of pigs in 61 or the us banks and corporations that were actively financing and supplying the enemy during WWII while the war was going on. no this is needs of the few, the few being those who stand to gain by engaging and profiteering from conflict and war.

One American life to save tens of thousands of AMERICANS. No problem.

One American life to save tens of thousands of Syrians or Egyptians. Not no but HELL NO.

Has anyone ever noticed that EVERY war in recent times we have gone into we have lost?

Namely Vietnam, Iraq 1&2, Afghanistan.

When i say lost please understand, I am well aware that an objective was accomplished in Iraq/Afghanistan but looking at the bigger picture its a loss. There are still terror cells everywhere, we have spent billions of dollars, theres no infrastructure setup and we aretrying to pull our troops out. So yes a loss.

We go into alot of these issues with an easy as pie approach thinking we will just launch a few warheads and that'll be that and then get sucked in for a long term project.

Almost like taking half your car apart assuming shits not going to break or be rusted then having to sell your half apart project on zilvia because you have no clue what you've gotten yourself into (but asking top dollar of course, cause its fukin zilvia).

I've done alot of research on topics like this and thought long and hard as to the pros and cons into going into these things and policing the world.

Most of it has to do (IMO) with the captain save a hoe mentality where we feel and have made it our job to be the hero always.

Part of it has to do with being able to flex our arms that we are still the big dogs in the world.

The rest boils down to money and gains of course.

I can't understand why we can't get this shit right.

We go into a country, take control, put people in place then leave without any accountability or oversight. We leave our weapons behind, Arm a society with no accountability, minimal training and expect shit to be peachy.

Then the country repeats itself and we do the same thing again or they become our enemy.

Who put Castro in office when we ran down in Cuba??? We did, arming the "rebel" fighters.

Look how that turned out.

Who put Sadam Hussein in office???? Again arming the "rebel" fighters..... Oh yea us again, look how that turned out.

Who gave Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets all of their training and weapons when the USSR was trying to invade Afghanistan????

Oh shit us again..... Boy did that one bite us in the ass....

Ghadaffi- Same deal, arm the rebels, they overthrow the government with our aid and help, they get into power, theres no oversight of anything and bam back to square one.

Currently this is the same deal we are going through in Afghanistan with Hamid Karzai. One day hes a good little boy, the next he's shunning us.

One day it's "we will never negotiate with terrorists and the Taliban, the next day it's this:

Afghan president Hamid Karzai urges Pakistan to help broker Taliban peace talks - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So this is a very very interesting scenerio. Let me tell you how it plays out.

We go in there, destroy shit, stay for a while people complain that we are wasting time and funds, then leave a half ass government, with a half ass broken country and expect someone honest and loyal to say "Hey wait a minute we need a leader thats going to rebuild all this shit and I'm going to run it correctly" . Person X gets into office with a half ass "democratic" voting system (honesty policy applies here) then decides I'm the new Sheriff in town and noone's gonna tell me how to run shit. We tell them what to do and they say "Nah I have other ideas".

Meanwhile we give aid, there's no accountability as to whose getting it and how funds are dispersed, it falls into the wrong hands and boom. Egypt part 2.

LoL. At this point you just sit back and take the madness in as entertainment. I love my country. Im a dedicated Voter that tries to make the right decision and tries to give my input to make it a better country.

But some of the ass backwards shit we do boggles my mind.

End Rant. Thanks.

Simple. There is no side, both of them are wrong and in a little bit of time there wont be any "sides" to pick. There is no "lesser of two evils" killing people is wrong, whether it be 1 or a million. Human life has become cheaper than bullets and any one who buys into it is equally as evil as the enemy they are trying to defeat.

Both are "right" as far as they are concerned. It's simply neither support our interests.

News Flash - Most of the World hates us.

Fuck the Haters.