1. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Cultural Settlement - Feudal Japan

    Arising from the Sengoku period of Feudal Japan, the clan of Akechi Mitsuhide has requested your help.
    As the Daimyo of his village, it is your task to lead the Feudal Japan to prosperity! Detailed information here!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Changelog 1.157

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.157 will take place on Wed, July 24, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Syrian Rebellion

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Dominotx711, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    So we all know Syria has been in the news a lot lately. Something came to my attention that kind of made me do a double take. Everyone keeps making a big issue about why we are letting the regime get away with the horrific crimes against their people. But really what can we do? The UN (wonderful power that it is) hands are tied. If the US goes against the UN and intervenes, does this then become another Iraq?

    But THAT isn't my question. Robert King is one of the few reporters that has actually made it into the villages getting pummeled. He posted a video blog, and in it he states that the media is basically ignoring the plight of the people. He then goes on to say "the rebellion wants us to bomb the regime. They don't want boots on the ground, but they want us to supply them weapons so that they have a chance". *before you ask me to cite this, I can't. But I can tell you, and Hellstromm can verify the accuracy of it, as I have cleared this with him before posting. Something about pitchforks and such :p

    Here is my question, if it is as bad as they want the world to think it is (though I agree it is) do they have the right to expect us to just hand them weapons and not put boots on the ground as well? Is it fair for them to expect us to bail them out, but not good enough to assist? We have done this with Iran, and Afghanistan, and look how well that worked out. My personal opinion is if things are that bad, they would welcome the aid, so if they are being picky, they get what they get. Our weapons, we should have a say so in how they are used so they can't be used to bite us 25 years later.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2012
  2. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
  3. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    oh don't get me wrong :p I approved Iraq remember.

    But, the fact that they just want our guns kinda bugs me. Makes me think after all the drama we got for helping save Iran and Afghanistan from Russia by giving weapons, only to have the Taliban move in and jack it up....makes me think if you want our help, specifically our weapons, you dang sure get our boots as well. I just take offense to the attitude of it all, since they are killing the kids, wouldn't you want all the help you can get? If that is their attitude, they get what they get.
     
  4. I think either way you will be just replacing one regime with another anyway.
    I am sure both sides are just as bad as they other.i say let them settle their own disputes.
     
  5. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    The impression your original post gave me was that they really want air support and munitions, two things they would be finding rather difficult to obtain themselves, rather than an endless supply of the actual guns, rockets and tanks. Easy way to prevent someone "jacking it up": don't give them too much of anything at a time to stockpile, keep them dependant on regular U.S. supplies. And still not a single boot in the mud...
     
  6. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    ummm diggo, what part of Afghanistan and Iraq did you miss? We did the exact same thing there, and that was a successful endeavor 20 years later (NOT). I vote, heck no. Secondly, how are they going to maintain the weapons? and Finally, why in the world would we hand over a government to the Taliban?
     
  7. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Tbh, approaching it like how Libya was approached, through air support, would be the most effective assistance. That is, of course, assuming the Syrian army isn't strapping kids to their backs (which unfortunately they are).
     
  8. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Human rights aside, diplomatically speaking, America would be shooting itself in its foot to overthrow one regime who is friendly to the US in favor of probably the Taliban. That being said, If we haven't learned our lesson right now, we deserve everything we get.
     
  9. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    At least for Iraq, I didn't miss anything. During the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. showered Iraq with support in the form of "several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran". (In that link, please also note the section on chemical and biological exports.) All this was to a country that "No one had any doubts about continued involvement in terrorism", according to senior U.S. officials.

    To my knowledge, the Syrian rebels are not known terrorists, nor do I propose we send them billions of dollars and elite military equipment and training.
     
  10. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Diggo, you do realize the Taliban are big power players in that region right? And when I bring up "giving weapons" worked out so well, I am going back to the 70's. IE: We helped Afghanistan fight off Russia with weapons, and the Taliban moved in. We armed Iran as well, check out what peaches they are. My opinion is and will always be, you want our weapons, you get our weapons in the hands of our troops, otherwise not happening ever. Air power has never won a war (in the middle east), so to think simple bombing of a regime is the answer, those who agree just fell off the truck.....
     
  11. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Worked in Libya.
     
  12. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    hahahahaha, hope that truck wasn't so lifted :p
    Worked so well, they just completed a revolt yes?

    edit: I couldn't leave that hanging...

    I don't know that I would consider the 1986 bombings successful in the sense that you are trying to use them. We bombed them as retaliation, yet those bombings failed to do anything to Gaddafi. Point in fact he stayed in power until just recently, so how you can say they worked is a miscarriage of interpretation. The bombings did NOT successful free the country from a monster, point in fact he successfully defeated the rebels.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012
  13. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    I was actually referring to the last instance (March 2011) of France, U.K., U.S. air assistance provided to the Libyan rebels that resulted in the rebels gaining control.
     
  14. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    ahhhh yes....(forgot about that, so the record is 1 success / 100 fails) So why can't we bomb the regime in Syria? Why must we "give" the rebels weapons? If we did consent to air strikes, are the rebels armed enough to take it from there? The rebels in Libya could.

    Isn't the difference here Russia and China?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2012
  15. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    I dispute the one success to a hundred fails comment. Campaigns with air support clearly work when you have an identifiable, tangible enemy force. Whilst this is not the case with guerrilla fighters prominent throughout the Middle East, government forces with tanks and uniform soldiers (like those of Libya and Syria) ought to say their prayers.

    We can "just" bomb the Syrian regime, as I said, it's all I thought the comment you quoted was calling for. Air support and ammunition, nothing more. Ammunition, of course, being a finite resource when provided in appropriately small quantities, not just "giving them the upper hand" by showering them with all the bullets the U.S. can muster.
     
  16. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    nah, truly my biggest beef is the want of weapons, but not troops. I had forgotten about Libya's bombing of 2011. I just don't want to give them our own weapons to have them turn on us as has happened so many times in that region.
     
  17. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    Yeah, quite simply, don't do that hehe. Unlike ammunition, the physical weapons and artillery can be reloaded and used again (for any means), not clever. Although I wouldn't send in troops either unless you're prepared to get caught up in defeated loyalist forces initiating a guerrilla campaign after their conventional defeat. Not to mention the risk of the movement collapsing over division of "renewed imperialism" from western powers...
     
  18. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    hahahahaha, well I will say publicly that I hope Obama sends troops in, so I can snicker at the democrats who screamed about Iraq to me :p.
    I jest.

    But seriously, if France hadn't helped us out, we would still have a queen. So it begs a tricky question separate from the one I put forth. No weapons without troops, BUT, should we send troops if they ask? I mean, look at Egypt, the rebellion won, and now what? Look at Libya, the rebellion won and now what? Should we not then support the regime for our own diplomatic security.
     
  19. nope those arnt our fights so we shouldnt be in them.
    any way why would you want to support a regime.
    i would think it pretty self explanatory.those are pretty bad people to.
    i think that we shouldnt choose a side and remained diplomatically nuetral.
    thats not our fight to be fighting or supporting
     
  20. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    There is no diplomatic neutrality...that is false. If you don't support the rebels, you are in essence supporting the regime.
    Why support the regime? Look at Egypt. We need to support the side which is diplomatically strategic in our favor, and unfortunately, the result of the rebels winning would be disastrous for us as a nation.

    I saw something on CNN the other day that got me thinking, we need to stay on Russia's good side, and they have good ties to Iran, who is a much larger threat. We really, for diplomatic reasons, need the regime to stay in power.
     

Top