PDA

View Full Version : Viet Nam started this way, didn't it?


Tom
08-02-2012, 10:56 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/02/obama-order-supporting-syria-rebels?newsfeed=true



Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorisation, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

A government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the US was collaborating with a secret command centre operated by Turkey and its allies.



I thought transparency was an Obama promise.
All this with a $500 billion military budget cut looming.

Hey, Dipstick....this ain't the economy...we can't print soldiers."

ArlJim78
08-02-2012, 11:29 AM
again, why is it that every secret action that this administration undertakes is made common knowledge around the world in short order?

Tom
08-02-2012, 11:45 AM
Is this clearly Nation-building?

I thought that was a bad thing?

Robert Fischer
08-02-2012, 11:51 AM
Nam , and also much like Afghanistan in the 70s/80s...

Tom
08-02-2012, 11:54 AM
We had a real mission then, and it paid off with the demise of the Soviet Union.

We have nothing to gain in Syria. We have no business in Syria.

Robert Fischer
08-02-2012, 11:58 AM
again, why is it that every secret action that this administration undertakes is made common knowledge around the world in short order?

some blame to the Admin., but also doesn't help that we are living in the information age.

We have a foothold in the media, especially western media.
However other super powers are backing Assad. They have media, and and we all infiltrate each other's media just like we do on the ground...

a million and one problems...

rastajenk
08-02-2012, 11:59 AM
Dude is in way over his head. Armed rebellion probably wasn't covered extensively in his community organizing classes.

Robert Fischer
08-02-2012, 12:02 PM
We had a real mission then, and it paid off with the demise of the Soviet Union.

We have nothing to gain in Syria. We have no business in Syria.

In that region we have opposition.
Syria is a major ally in that opposition.

mostpost
08-02-2012, 03:18 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/02/obama-order-supporting-syria-rebels?newsfeed=true





I thought transparency was an Obama promise.
All this with a $500 billion military budget cut looming.

Hey, Dipstick....this ain't the economy...we can't print soldiers."

It is not like Viet Nam at all. In Viet Nam we supported the oppressive government against the rebels. In Syria we are supporting the rebels against the oppressive government.

In Viet Nam the government was our ally, while the rebels were perceived as an enemy if they took control. That did not turn out to be the case. In Syria the government is perceived as our enemy and their actions certainly confirm that perception. Should the rebels take over in Syria, their actions towards the United States could not be any worse than the actions of the Assad government, and perhaps would be better.

Finally, we don't need to print soldiers. Working in conjunction with a third party-Turkey-to provide intelligence does not equal a commitment to send troops.

Tom
08-02-2012, 03:35 PM
Swing and amiss.

Gee mostie, must be noisy with all those ideas sailing over your head!

Saratoga_Mike
08-02-2012, 03:36 PM
Is this clearly Nation-building?

I thought that was a bad thing?

GWB thought nation-building was a bad thing - remember the debate with Gore? - until he became president. He had it right in the debate.

Nation-building is very fuzzy, liberal concept - is O on record opposing it? Surprises me.

elysiantraveller
08-02-2012, 03:51 PM
We have nothing to gain in Syria.

You are joking right?...

Robert Fischer
08-02-2012, 04:38 PM
the over-simplified 3 step version:


1.Libya... 2.Syria... 3.???

mostpost
08-02-2012, 04:56 PM
Swing and amiss.

Gee mostie, must be noisy with all those ideas sailing over your head!
A swing and a miss is thinking Viet Nam and Syria are the same. If you disagree with what I say point out where and why, If I missed one of your ideas (unlikely) it is because it was beneath my notice, not over my head.

newtothegame
08-02-2012, 05:24 PM
You are joking right?...
Elysian, I ALMOST agree with you here. Question is, WHO are we supporting as a government. It was not that long ago, we "supported" the overthrow of the egyptian regime led by Mubarak. Everyone was assured that the brotherhood, was not going to step in and take control. In essence, we supported the BROTHERHOODS rise depending on how you perceive what EVERYONE knew would happen.
IS Assaad (sp) an asshole? Sure. But, who would fill the vaccuum? Al Queda? (sp). More of the Brotherhood?
See, it is of my opinion, and probably Tom's at this point and time that we have NO business in "nation building". It hasn't worked well in the past for us and will most likely not work in our favor in this one as well.
But yes, I understand your point that we do have valid concerns there.....question is, what does our current administration want to come of Syria???

Tom
08-02-2012, 05:39 PM
You are joking right?...


Not unless you count loss of life and treasure a victory.
We gain nothing from Syria. We stand to lose tons.

elysiantraveller
08-02-2012, 06:35 PM
Elysian, I ALMOST agree with you here. Question is, WHO are we supporting as a government. It was not that long ago, we "supported" the overthrow of the egyptian regime led by Mubarak. Everyone was assured that the brotherhood, was not going to step in and take control. In essence, we supported the BROTHERHOODS rise depending on how you perceive what EVERYONE knew would happen.
IS Assaad (sp) an asshole? Sure. But, who would fill the vaccuum? Al Queda? (sp). More of the Brotherhood?
See, it is of my opinion, and probably Tom's at this point and time that we have NO business in "nation building". It hasn't worked well in the past for us and will most likely not work in our favor in this one as well.
But yes, I understand your point that we do have valid concerns there.....question is, what does our current administration want to come of Syria???

You are trying to compare two totally different situations. This is much more like Libya than Egypt.

We care because we can A) hurt our rival's influence in the region and B) roll the dice on getting a friendlier regime.

The outcome of other countries elections really is beyond the control of the President.

elysiantraveller
08-02-2012, 06:38 PM
Not unless you count loss of life and treasure a victory.
We gain nothing from Syria. We stand to lose tons.

We weaken a rival, their influence in the region, and possibly gain more influence in a country that has politically been a problem.

Thats a gain. There aren't a lot of ways this is a loss.

fast4522
08-02-2012, 07:05 PM
Horseshit, every time Obozo sticks himself into another country affairs we get monsters greater than the previous one. Just watch what goes on in Libya in the next five years.

Tom
08-02-2012, 08:14 PM
mostie, you have no conception of how things relate to each other.
It is like the Viet Nam deal because we start out with a few "advisers" and no intention of sending troops. Yadda yadda yadda and guess where we end up?
Who we support and who is the bad guy is not the point.

And btw, there is not good guy in this scenario.

Robert Fischer
08-03-2012, 12:44 PM
Syria could be a stepping stone to Iran ?

whiptastic
08-03-2012, 01:00 PM
We had a real mission then, and it paid off with the demise of the Soviet Union.


Jimmy Carter fan?

Tom
08-03-2012, 01:44 PM
Ronald Reagan.
1980s.

whiptastic
08-03-2012, 03:34 PM
For some history (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html).

Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Tom
08-03-2012, 03:39 PM
1979 was (thankfully) his last year....Reagan took over and the introduction of the the stinger sealed the deal. That, and Star Wars and his firing of the air traffic controllers.

Native Texan III
08-03-2012, 07:59 PM
Saudi, Turkey, Qatar back rebels. US backs Saudi, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Israel, Iraq etc etc. Britain back US and supplies military comms equipment but not arms. Turkey supplies military training. Someone supplies small arms. Russia arms Syrian Government. It is the Middle East diplomatic quagmire where whatever US does is right for some countries and wrong for others. Absolutely nothing to do with Nation Building. Obama is doing the right thing once again by keeping US troops well out of it.

"Some US lawmakers, such as the Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have criticised Obama for moving too slowly to assist the Syrian rebels and have suggested the US government become directly involved in arming Assad's opponents."

TJDave
08-03-2012, 08:05 PM
As long as the we're not involved, the thought of Syria turning into another Vietnam gives me a stiffy.

Tom
08-04-2012, 12:25 PM
"Some US lawmakers, such as the Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have criticised Obama for moving too slowly to assist the Syrian rebels and have suggested the US government become directly involved in arming Assad's opponents."

Some Us lawmakers are complete idiots.
McCain...hasn't he hurt this country enough?
John, go home and shut your big mouth - no one cares what you have to say. If you feel so strongly about it, YOU take your sorry ass over there and do whatever it is that you do. Drool on them, fart at them...be all that you an be, John.

elysiantraveller
08-04-2012, 01:01 PM
Some Us lawmakers are complete idiots.
McCain...hasn't he hurt this country enough?
John, go home and shut your big mouth - no one cares what you have to say. If you feel so strongly about it, YOU take your sorry ass over there and do whatever it is that you do. Drool on them, fart at them...be all that you an be, John.

Wow...

Your crassness really has no bounds does it. I can promise you that you aren't even a .5% of what John McCain was and is...

Go ahead and disagree but have some respect.

Wagergirl
08-04-2012, 01:04 PM
As long as the we're not involved, the thought of Syria turning into another Vietnam gives me a stiffy.

You are just wrong.. you know that though