US new war strategy - Breaking Americans

reply to post by neo96


Wow Neo, you know I have respect for you..... but really? Seriously?

US involvement in Libya had nothing to do with Iran
US invading Iraq had nothing to do with Iran
US involvement in Egypt had nothing to do with Iran

Bahrain.... oh wait, we wont invade them or help those who are protesting there, the protesters are not humans, they are shia and we like the unjustness of the Bahraini government....

The list could go on, but is redundant...

Just because Assad is Alawiyyah means nothing, yes, Iran supports him in that Iran is trying (or at least was in the beginning) to be a mediator between the government and the people, Iran has also criticized Assad as well... but that mediation was something that the Syrian government had asked from ALL Muslim nations, so that their government was not destabilized while any governmental reforms were made....

that was the biggest concern for the syrian leaders.... they did not want to see the country completely destabilized.... it just so happens that for some, that destabilization was better

Now, if you are saying, that the US government just hates shia people so much that they would do anything to oppose them, even go as far as to help the enemies of all of us, the enemies of both americans and shia peoples, then perhaps you have a point....

Is that it? Is American government just backing the extremist groups because that is the only group who Iran wont deal with? If thats the case the government here is a joke....The Iranian government today would be a democratic government and not an Islamic Republic if the United States had not wanted to ### in that sandbox....

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mideast

 

The US is just following France's lead. Why not bash them?

I do not understand France in this one, why are they pushing so hard? The extremists are a menace in their own country so I don't get why france is rooting for them elsewhere in the world....

But this is my whole problem in all these skirmishes, why is the west backing their enemies???

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mideast

 

Neither one of US would like to see continued war in the Middle East. I'd be happy to see the factions kill each other off and leave the rest of the world alone.

If they left the rest of the world alone.

Bush screwed up with his approach to the war. Obama is equal in his failure. We should have carpet-bombed and then waited for the white flag.
This "hearts and minds" crap has been a failure from the get-go.

But that is all in the past. If the US is smart, we'll just stay out of it. But we don't have smart leaders so my rant is moot.

The rest of the world is not or should not be the concern of Americans, Americans need to concern themselves with themselves, screw everyone else... we cannot afford it anyway...

Bush should have never gone into to Iraq.... that in and of itself was a failure....


The attempt of hearts and minds in Afghanistan was only a failure because years and years on we are still there..... if you recall the Afghani people wanted to see US go in and help, but to never ever ever win or leave made the whole thing a failure.. although I do believe we could have learned more from Russia with that....

Afghanistan is another Vietnam

and no, we dont have smart leaders.... if they were smart, none of this would be happening today.

reply to post by mideast


I don't know if there will be another.... and that is honest. Maybe Egypt standing up and breaking the back of the brotherhood, which was unforseen (at least for me, I never saw that coming) will change this current tide...

I do not know, because perhaps if the wahabbis think they can take Syria then eventually they will also be able to get Egypt back I don't know, but I am being hopeful that what happened in Egypt will be a lesson for the wahabbis and those who want to back them....

Maybe now the US will just leave it all be.

Perhaps a pipe dream but one we can hope for anyway..... Although I do agree with most of your OP. The US government tries to either distract from what is happening, or they try to gain popular support..... the popular support is gone for the most part.....so there is left distraction if they were to go in.....

Originally posted by mideast

Yes , but what were the results of last wars exactly ?

Security and development for Iraq ? or ceasing terrorism and drug export in Afghanistan ?

Tell me some example ,please.

That's an excellent question, and one that serves to illustrate the new US war strategy. Being from the time I am, I can't really understand this new strategy.

In my day, when we fought, we had a more or less clear reason for doing it. Back then, the US was not prone to making invasions, and when they did, there was a clear reason for it, and a clear plan of action that resulted in the invasions being generally pretty short lived. Panama, Grenada, that sort of thing. Even the Korean war lasted only two years of intensive battle. Vietnam was an anomaly, lasting 10 years (of US involvement - not counting the French intervention, only US).

When you have a clear goal, it's much easier to tailor a proper strategy and tactical environment entirely aimed at accomplishing that goal. In the past several years, America has abandoned clear and concise goals, and we get the mires we are currently embroiled in.

Afghanistan - the initial invasion was a righteous one, but then the US almost immediately started moving the goal posts. It went from erasing the Taliban to "making Afghans free" to "eradicating poppies" an so on. Those are all local issues to be dealt with by Afghans. We ain't got no dog in those fights. By moving the goalposts, they took their eye off the ball (erasing Taliban) and muddied the waters. Now it's to the point that no one really knows WHY we are there - the same sort of thing that pushed Vietnam into a 10 year war with no real goals.

Further, the initial strategy in Afghanistan was primarily employing only US Special Forces as force multipliers and liaisons for air support, and employing Afghans for the most part in the fighting to take back Afghanistan for themselves from the invasive Taliban. Some silly-assed conventional general somewhere got all butt hurt that they might throw a war and not give him any chest-candy for it, so they sent in conventional troops and it all started going off the rails.

When Kabul fell, the US had only 100 troops on the ground in Afghanistan. That's all that was needed, and the Northern Alliance was carrying all the weight - as it should be. Now, we have what we have through mismanagement and piss-poor generalship.

Iraq - never should have happened. It diverted resources from Afghanistan where the focus should have been, and mired us up in a no-win situation for no good reason. A lot of folks died because George W was butt-hurt that his daddy accepted an ass kicking in the first Gulf War. There was no al-Qaida there to begin with, but boy howdy did they ever start pouring in afterwards! We had Saddam Hussein buttoned up and pinned down so badly that he couldn't breathe outside the areas where we allowed him to breath, and therefore HE was no danger to anyone but his own... and that would be THEIR problem to fix, not mine nor my son's.

The various "Arab Springs" - more dust-ups where we have no dogs in the fight. The Muslim Brotherhood is nothing more than the political wing of the same movement al-Qaida is the military wing of. There is no sane reason that we should claim to be fighting the one and helping the other. They are both the SAME, with only a difference in tool kits.

WHY the US is helping AQ and the MB to set up a New Caliphate is beyond me. The only answer that makes any sense is that they now need a new boogie man in lieu of the fallen Soviet Union, somewhere to focus the attention of the domestic population in order to keep them from noticing the increasing police state they are growing all around us.

I don't see that working out very well - how can they later justify fighting the New Monster on the Block, when everyone knows hey set that monster up to begin with?

Iran - mystifies me. I could see going to war against Iran 35 years ago when there were American hostages being held (I'm still a little pissed off about that, and Jimmy Carter's all but non-reaction to it), but NOW? 35 years later? Perpetual war engenders only more perpetual war, without reason or rhyme. I don't care if Iran puts a nuke in every Iranian basement, and uses chunks of uranium to light their walkways at night. I - don't - care. If we were unwilling to go to war over actual problems - like hostages - then we REALLY ought not to be going to war over make-believe "problems".

I believe Iranian nukes might be a danger to Israel - which is an Israeli problem - but not in any way a danger to the US. So we've got no dog in THAT fight, either. Let 'em install nukes until the entire country glows. I don't care. IF those nukes are launched in initiating hostilities against their neighbors, then erase the entire country and make it a glass-covered parking lot. Problem solved. UNTIL they take that step, though, they are no danger to anyone at all.

US war strategy in my day had a clear goal - halting expansionist communism. Nowadays, there is no justification for what passes as "war strategy", but is really only a clear madness of a faltering empire going off the rails.

Originally posted by neo96
Maybe if Russia,China,Pakistan, and IRAN would stop aiding, and abetting Assad to keep their puppet regime then the US wouldn't get involved.

You know those Shia groups backing the Assad atrocities.'

I don't believe that to be true, but let's be the Devil's Advocate for a moment and say that it is. Even then, what business is that of OURS?

I'm not Syrian - are you? I have no family there - do YOU? I do have a Syrian friend or two from long ago, but I know better than to step into THEIR problems with one another, much less backing my avowed enemies in a fight against someone whose never done a thing to me or mine - i.e. Assad.

It's HIS country to deal with, and the Syrian people's country to deal with, not MY problem either way.

SO - what business is what's going on INTERNALLY in Syria to US?

In response to you question about "Iranian Democracy", How's that New Caliphate the US is setting up across the Arab world going to work out for YOU? What makes you think that Iran (or Afghanistan, or Syria, or Libya, etc., etc. ) are suited to "democracy" anyhow? Us trying to force them into "democracy" against their will is no better than the Soviets trying to force US into communism. An alien system is an alien system, regardless of the recipient you intend to force it on to.

There is BOUND to be friction when you try that - forcing YOUR preferences upon the unwilling.

reply to post by nenothtu

I don't believe that to be true, but let's be the Devil's Advocate for a moment and say that it is. Even then, what business is that of OURS?

"It's not that bad to have behind you the Russians, the Chinese and Iranians," Qadri Jamil, Syria's deputy prime minister for economic affairs, told The Financial Times. Read more: www.upi.com...

"Those three countries are helping us politically, militarily -- and also economically." Read more: www.upi.com...

The business is we are getting dragged in to Syria whether or not we want to or not,.

here is BOUND to be friction when you try that - forcing YOUR preferences upon the unwilling.

Yep which is why people are fighting in Syria as they don't want Russia,China,Iran forcing their prerferences on them.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I don't believe that to be true, but let's be the Devil's Advocate for a moment and say that it is. Even then, what business is that of OURS?

"It's not that bad to have behind you the Russians, the Chinese and Iranians," Qadri Jamil, Syria's deputy prime minister for economic affairs, told The Financial Times. Read more: www.upi.com...

"Those three countries are helping us politically, militarily -- and also economically." Read more: www.upi.com...

The business is we are getting dragged in to Syria whether or not we want to or not,.

edit on 25-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry - I guess I didn't make myself clear. Of course Syria is being supported by other countries. I don't dispute that. What I dispute is the line about "Shi'a groups backing Assad atrocities". Iran is mostly Shi'a, but neither China nor Russia seem to be. I further have grave doubts that Assad is committing "atrocities" in any appreciable proportion, nor that any such atrocities are solely at the hands of Assad, nor even predominantly so. Most of the atrocity reports I've gotten are attributed to the rebels, who are predominantly Sunni Wahabbists, not Shi'a at all.

In either case it's not any of OUR business to sort out THEIR internal problems. No one even noticed Hussein gassing the Kurds in his own country until it became a convenient pretext for a useless invasion.

here is BOUND to be friction when you try that - forcing YOUR preferences upon the unwilling.

Yep which is why people are fighting in Syria as they don't want Russia,China,Iran forcing their prerferences on them.

edit on 25-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

BS.

The fighting in Syria is because Syria was the next domino in the chain for the establishment of the New Caliphate by the Muslim Brotherhood. Assad was and is trying to prevent that, just like General Sisi is in Egypt. Assad OUTLAWED the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and that is another reason the Muslim Brotherhood is fighting there. I believe Egypt is about to follow suit and outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood again, and that's not a BAD thing, considering the disruptions that the MB has wrought everywhere it goes.

There was more religious freedom under Assad than in nearly ANY other Arab country, and the MB could not abide by that. The MB has stated their intent to massacre Shi'ites, Alawites, Christians, and any other non-wahabbist group. I'd outlaw the bastards too, as a disruptive influence to my peace and quiet.

China and Russia have a vested TRADE interest, but Syria is a "puppet" of neither - they simply don't care enough about internal religious order in Syria. They care about trade. iran has an interest in internal religious order there, BUT if they were a puppet of Iran, they would be a Shi'a majority to reflect that, and the OTHER sects would be getting erased on religious grounds.

So NO - the fighting is not because the Syrian people "don't want Russia,China,Iran forcing their prerferences on them".

It's quite the other way 'round. The government is unwilling to become the next domino in the New Caliphate, with all the attendant slaughter of innocents at the hands of the Wahabbists simply on religious grounds.

reply to post by nenothtu

What I dispute is the line about "Shi'a groups backing Assad atrocities". Iran is mostly Shi'a, but neither China nor Russia seem to be.

Think Hamas and Hezbollah isn't in Syria ?

I further have grave doubts that Assad is committing "atrocities" in any appreciable proportion, nor that any such atrocities are solely at the hands of Assad,

Pretty much both sides are trying to blame the other to get international ' support' hell wars can't be fought today without it.

'false flags' if you will to draw aid to both respective sides.

In either case it's not any of OUR business to sort out THEIR internal problems. N

Guess i should have made myself clear.

Don't like either side here. my issue was 'Assad is just a poor victim'.

BS.

Not BS because some people act like the US is the only countries 'aiding' the rebels. Saudi.Qatar,Kuwait, and their allies.

Syria would be going down with or without the US.

China and Russia have a vested TRADE interest, but Syria is a "puppet" of neither

Oh come on. Wasn't for Russia,China, and Iran, Assad would have fell years ago.

So NO - the fighting is not because the Syrian people "don't want Russia,China,Iran forcing their prerferences on them".

Sure are who is backing Assad again?

Who some people don't like, and want gone.

And Assad's supporters are making sure he stays there.

Sounds to me like they are forcing their preferences on them.

What is there to argue about here?

Except two of us arguing to force each other to accept the others preferences.



Much respect to you Neno, but there is nothing here to really argue about.

reply to post by nenothtu

I don't see that working out very well - how can they later justify fighting the New Monster on the Block, when everyone knows hey set that monster up to begin with?

Even though I many proofs that some people wanted 9/11 to happen , I like to remind that US gave the WMD's to Iraq to use them in invasion on Iran. So US was backing this guy until he showed bad symptoms and wanted to bite the hand feeding him. And that was the one reason that US didn't want to let his old dog bite it's hand.So US participated in Gulf war and then they saw that Saddam is not settling down , they finished him.

Now the US govt is helping the same sect it was fighting for years. I mean Al-qaeda and Taliban.

how can they later justify fighting the New Monster on the Block, when everyone knows hey set that monster up to begin with?

People have very very short memory.They forget. They are being kept unstable so that govt can change the label of the groups whenever they want.

If people had memory , they should have remembered that US was helping Saddam.

And that is true about Al-Qaeda , too. One say they are evil , one day close friends.

And about Iran I have similar idea. So , let's just be patient and see what happens. As long as we don't see US govt starting fast and furious mission , we can hope that we can get near to peace.

It's quite the other way 'round. The government is unwilling to become the next domino in the New Caliphate, with all the attendant slaughter of innocents at the hands of the Wahabbists simply on religious grounds.

It seems you know Wahhabis. How do you know them ? How do you think is possible to tell ATS members about them ?

I think that US is using another one of the old dogs in the region. And if this dog fail like Saddam failed to take over Iran , this dog will bite the hand of the US because that is the nature of mercenaries.Many politicians know that gathering forces from different Muslim countries and getting defeated will leave the mercenary groups in a deep inferiority complex so that they will decide to take revenge from the US govt sooner or later. This dog is Wahhabism

Other dog that US failed to train was the Ottoman empire.

I think that US govt should consider that working with these groups of people , from different countries , would have a great threat for the security of the united states.

What do you think ?

Originally posted by neo96

Only fools I see are those who back Assad.

I see several fools.

Any one seeking to interfere in the internal operations of someone ELSE'S house is a fool. It's not HIS house to set in order. That goes for Iran, AND the US.

Fools. The lot of 'em.

Only a fool would use chemical weapons, er wait they have been used in Syria so they would use a nuke if they had them.

A LOT of "fools" have used chemical weapons, and have, ever since they wee invented. It is STILL not any of OUR business what they do inside their OWN country. I don't see anyone running to the assistance of the US citizens who have chemical weapons used on them by their own government forces on a daily basis.

Tear gas? Pepper spray? Yep, chemical weapons... and our own government uses them on US daily.

Fools.

reply to post by mideast

I like to remind that US gave the WMD's to Iraq to use them in invasion on Iran.

Oh really ?

Wikipedia's article on Iraq's WMDs gives a good rundown of the international contributions:

All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.
Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French.
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas
An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales.
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.
Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

Iraq's WMD's.

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction

That dog don't hunt there.

reply to post by neo96

Who armed Saddam?
From Lev Lafayette, 26 July 2002

1. The British Foreign Office's "Report on Strategic Export Controls" (released last night) shows that:

a. Arms sales to Indonesia increased from #2m to #15.5m. Licences include all-wheel vehicles, components for aircraft cannon, combat aircraft and military aero-engines. This to a country that committed state-sponsored terror in East Timor.

b. Arms sales to Pakistan increased from #6m to #14m. This to a military dictatorship that created the Taliban.

2. In light of these figures, and the rhetoric of war against Iraq, some points need to be made. Given that Saddam is often described as "a man who is willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons", it's worth examining who armed him in the first place.

3. In the 1970s, Saddam approached the USSR, until then his conventional weapons supplier, to buy a plant to manufacture chemical weapons, but his request was refused. Saddam then began courting the West, and received a much more favourable response.

4. An American company, Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York, supplied the Iraqis with a blueprint in 1975, enabling them to construct their first chemical warfare plant. The plant was purchased in sections from Italy, West Germany and East Germany and assembled in Iraq. It was located at Akhashat in north-western Iraq, and the cost was around $50 million for the plant and $30 million for the safety equipment.

5. British, French and German multinationals turned the request down on moral grounds or because the Iraqi delivery schedule couldn't be met—not because their governments objected.

6. The United States took other steps to ensure that Saddam's rule was strengthened. Mobile phone systems were mainly in the military domain at the time, but the United States government approved the 1975 sale by the Karkar Corporation of San Francisco of a complete mobile telephone system. The system was to be used by the Ba'ath Party loyalists to protect the regime against any attempts to overthrow it.

7. The United States also supplied Saddam with satellite pictures of Iranian positions during the Iran-Iraq war.

8. France provided Saddam with extended-range Super Etendard aircraft capable of hitting Iranian oil facilities in the lower Gulf.

9. While Britain's Margaret Thatcher mouthed platitudes about not supplying either Iran or Iraq with lethal weapons, Britain's Plessey Electronics supplied Saddam with an electronic command center.

10. Iraq was also able to buy French-built Mirage-1 aircraft and Gazelle and Lynx helicopters from the British company Westland.

11. In 1976, while on a visit to France, Saddam concluded the purchase of a uranium reactor. Jacques Chirac, then the Prime Minister and now the President, approved the deal. The supplier was Commissart l'Energie Atomique (CEA) and the plutonium reactor was called Rhapsodie. France also signed a Nuclear Cooperation Treaty with France, providing for the transfer of expertise and personnel.

12. In 1978, the Italian firm Snia Technit, a subsidiary of Fiat, signed an agreement with Iraq to sell nuclear laboratories and equipment.

13. Whenever the declared policies of the Western countries stood in the way of an arms deal, Western governments used two methods to get around their own rules and thereby manage public opinion.

a. The first method was the well-established use of the 'front'. Thus, Western governments supplied Saddam through the pro-West countries of Jordan and Egypt, which acted as a front for Iraq. This was done to overcome Congressional, parliamentary and press hurdles, even when it was obvious to military experts that Jordan and Egypt had no use for the weapons in question. Saddam also set up his own weapons buying offices in the West, with the knowledge of the host governments. For example, Matrix Churchill was a weapons purchasing company set up in Britain.

b. The second method was to extend Saddam massive credits which he could then use for military purposes. Thus, the Banco di Lavoro in the United States gave Saddam US$4 billion worth of credits, ostensibly to buy food, but which was diverted to buy weapons with the knowledge of everyone involved. Britain's Export Credit Guarantee department kept increasing his credit and much of the money went to the direct purchase of arms. The French government guaranteed US$6 billion worth of loans to French arms makers to sell Saddam whenever he wanted. Whenever the declared policies of the Western countries stood in the way of an arms deal.

14. When Saddam did in fact "use chemical weapons against his own people", he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish city of Halabja. The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially blaming Iran for the attack. The Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of the atrocity. The Bush (senior) administration authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record".

15. The US Department of Commerce licensed the export of biological materials—including a range of pathogenic agents—as well as plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment—to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after the Halabja atrocity.
Sources:

 

 

Saod K. Aburish, Saddam Hussein, The Politics of Revenge, New York, 2000.

Mark Phythian, Arming Iraq, Boston, 1997.

Geoff Simons, Iraq from Sumer to Saddam, London, 1996.

Kenneth R. Timmermann, The Death Lobby, How the West Armed Iraq, London, 1994.

www.hartford-hwp.com...

en.wikipedia.org... ------- look for Iran–Iraq War part of article

So , it seems that the hands of US govt was not clean.

And the same about AQ.

reply to post by mideast

3. In the 1970s, Saddam approached the USSR, until then his conventional weapons supplier, to buy a plant to manufacture chemical weapons, but his request was refused. Saddam then began courting the West, and received a much more favourable response.

Had no problems selling him scud launchers though,

Funny.

Already stated that other countries ALONG with the US armed Saddam so why are you only decrying the US for what quite a few done ?

Thanks pretty much disproved the "US armed Saddam'. he had help from quite lot of people.

reply to post by mideast

So , it seems that the hands of US govt was not clean. And the same about AQ.

Niether is Iran's.

Recent rumors depict the Hezbollah-Hamas partnership as deteriorating under the weight of the war in Syria. One rumor even claimed that Hezbollah gave Hamas a 48-hour ultimatum to leave Lebanon. Though the relationship is lukewarm, there is ongoing coordination between the two sides

A delegation from the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing, recently visited Beirut. There, the guests were received by Hezbollah, with the party taking care of security details and accommodations. Beirut was just a stop along the way to Iran, where the military wings of various Palestinian factions go to train

english.al-akhbar.com...

Recent reports claimed that Hamas militants were fighting alongside the armed opposition in Syria.

Denial eh?

Iran (Shia) and Al Qaeda (Sunni) seem like unlikely bedfellows given the Shia-Sunni divide that often exists in Islamic society. This divide, however, has not precluded cooperation in certain conditions, as the two have found "common cause in their mutual hatred of America; both can see the virtue in having more anti-U.S. violence, whatever the source."

www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com...

Iran has improved its ties with al–Qaeda as part of a campaign to target Western interests around the world that could lead to a spectacular attack in Europe, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Canadian police officials have linked the plotting of two Muslim men to destroy a Toronto passenger train to al Qaeda's network inside Iran. The two suspects, neither of whom are Canadian citizens, were taken into custody yesterday and are facing terrorism charges. One of the suspects had placed an image of al Qaeda's banner in a social media site. The image has since been removed. Read more: www.longwarjournal.org...

Hmmm.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by mideast

 

Yes , Iran has invaded numerous countries and I don't remember the names of those countries.

Invaded Iraq to fight Americans,
Invaded Afghanistan to fight the Russians in the 80's
Invaded Afghanistan to fight the Americans in the 00's.
Invaded Syria to fight them evil rebels.
Invaded Lebanon to fight them evil zionist's.

Of course some people don't call that 'invading' which it is.

"Infiltrations" are not generally considered "invasions", because invasions are generally a good deal more noticeable, what with all the planes and tanks and troop carriers and whatnot, not to mention the thousands of troops that go along with them.

Supplying arms, supplying training, and even supplying advisors is not an "invasion". I can't think of any occasion at all where a US Special Forces mission, for example, was an "invasion".

We infiltrate the hell out of places with SF, though!

Oddly, so does just about everyone else... and it's never considered an "invasion". I can recall when Cuba and the Soviets sent equipment and advisors to Nicaragua, and there was nary a peep about the "invasion", because it wasn't one. Same for Cuba in Angola. No invasion, but Cuban advisors were all over the place,

Iran has infiltrated lots of places covertly, but not an invasion one. By your standards of what constitute an invasion, the US has already invaded Syria.

reply to post by nenothtu

Iran has infiltrated lots of places covertly, but not an invasion one. By your standards of what constitute an invasion, the US has already invaded Syria.

And ?

The US the only country there ? No.

Iran to send 4,000 troops to fight alongside Syrian regime: report

Iranian-Syrian alliance: Robust military moves

There are at least a dozen countries in Syria guess the only country who isn't allowed is the evil US.

As if those other countries haven't been there covertly.

I don't get why people want to argue this.

I really don't some people act like the US is the only country who goes around doing things FACT is the US isn't, but it is the ONLY one who catches bloody eternal hell for it.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Iran has infiltrated lots of places covertly, but not an invasion one. By your standards of what constitute an invasion, the US has already invaded Syria.

And ?

The US the only country there ? No.

Are you seriously claiming that the US has already invaded Syria?

Iran to send 4,000 troops to fight alongside Syrian regime: report


Iranian-Syrian alliance: Robust military moves

Are you claiming this as an "Iranian invasion of Syria?" Alliances are invasions now?

There are at least a dozen countries in Syria guess the only country who isn't allowed is the evil US.

As if those other countries haven't been there covertly.

I don't get why people want to argue this.

I dunno - I suppose the Syrians ought to be able to make the rules as to who is "allowed" into their own country. I think the US has no business there even if we got a golden engraved invitation, and I don't care who else IS there. It's not our fight, and not our problem. We have troubles enough of our own we ought to be addressing, rather than going over there to tell someone else how to run their own damned country.

I really don't some people act like the US is the only country who goes around doing things FACT is the US isn't, but it is the ONLY one who catches bloody eternal hell for it.

edit on 26-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

And we OUGHT to catch eternal bloody hell for it.

We are America, dammit! We're supposed to be better than that, we're supposed to have higher standards and set a better example.

reply to post by nenothtu

Are you seriously claiming that the US has already invaded Syria?

Are you kidding me ?

That is what you said.

Iran has infiltrated lots of places covertly, but not an invasion one. By your standards of what constitute an invasion, the US has already invaded Syria.

Remember saying this ?

REMEMBER ?

Are you claiming this as an "Iranian invasion of Syria?" Alliances are invasions now?

What ?

Forget this comment again ?

Iran has infiltrated lots of places covertly, but not an invasion one. By your standards of what constitute an invasion, the US has already invaded Syria.

So which way is it ?

Covert actions are invasions or not ?

Alliances invasions or not ?

I dunno - I suppose the Syrians ought to be able to make the rules as to who is "allowed" into their own country. I think the US has no business there even if we got a golden engraved invitation, and I don't care who else IS there. It's not our fight, and not our problem. We have troubles enough of our own we ought to be addressing, rather than going over there to tell someone else how to run their own damned country.

Then go tell Russia,China,Iran,Saudi Arabia,Turkey, Qatar,UK,France,and the US, and every other country to get out of Syria.

I have higher standards than continuing this big bad America is evil crap and giving a free pass to everyone else.

I am sitting a new standard of moving on to a better conversation that is worth having because this one isn't.