View Full Version : If a Labonese civil war breaks out, do we go in?
jimmyboy
16-03-2005, 06:07
Well, the Syrians may be leaving Lebanon. But yesterday 500,000 pro-Syrians were picketing. And the day prior, 500,000 anti-Syrians were also picketing. We know that both sides are armed to the teeth.
Since we (the U.S.) was the catalyst in getting Syria to leave, if a civil war breaks out in Lebanon, are we obligated to send in our troops? Did we just openned a can of worms?
blu3l1ghtn1ng
16-03-2005, 07:47
Did we just openned a can of worms?
Just for that, you shouldn't :p
Peregrine
16-03-2005, 08:14
Go in with what? We're already massively over-committed, and I doubt we have enough numbers left to get involved in a third foriegn country. This is of course the reason the Iraq war was such a stupid idea. Not because it was immoral, but because it destroyed our strategic options. I just hope we don't regret it too much and watch helplessly as something like this turns into a disaster.
Necrolestes
16-03-2005, 12:22
As it's an internal affair of a foreign nation, we are not obligated to send troops. This is between Lebanon and Syria. This does not mean that we are not obligated to provide humanitarian aid to either side (preferably the Lebanese, as they don't have a long standing tradition of trying to kill us). We should send food, water, and medical supplies but not weapons, logistical support, or troops.
There's nothing civil about a civil war.
DrunkCajun
16-03-2005, 13:12
Ohh, come on, you mean your blood isn't stirring at the thought of another war? Let's go! Giddee-up! Let's forcibly recruit Canucks and send them!
Since we (the U.S.) was the catalyst in getting Syria to leave, if a civil war breaks out in Lebanon, are we obligated to send in our troops?
Last time we tried that it didn't turn out so well.
Where is the country of Labon anyway? :p
Freemason
16-03-2005, 18:40
If a civil war breaks out, that gives us all the incentive we need to send a quick strike force into Syria. Seeing as how we have a rather large force in Iraq currently not involved in combat operations, we seem to have a forward deployed combat force... We're not as overdeployed as Peregrine says we are.
Syria knows this very well. They know how many combat troops are over there. They know how many are not currently in a combat role. They also know how fast and how hard we can strike.
I don't believe the Syrian thugs are dumb enough to give us a reason to attack them. They saw what Libya did. Gadaffi cried "uncle" and is still running his country. Saddam said $&%& YOU! and is in prison. Syria cooperates and it's government gets to live a little longer. Pretty simple choice isnt' it?
Nastie_Bowie
16-03-2005, 19:10
If a civil war breaks out, that gives us all the incentive we need to send a quick strike force into Syria. Seeing as how we have a rather large force in Iraq currently not involved in combat operations, we seem to have a forward deployed combat force... We're not as overdeployed as Peregrine says we are.
Syria knows this very well. They know how many combat troops are over there. They know how many are not currently in a combat role. They also know how fast and how hard we can strike.
I don't believe the Syrian thugs are dumb enough to give us a reason to attack them. They saw what Libya did. Gadaffi cried "uncle" and is still running his country. Saddam said $&%& YOU! and is in prison. Syria cooperates and it's government gets to live a little longer. Pretty simple choice isnt' it?
Amen, Smegeroo!
Syria knows this very well. They know how many combat troops are over there. They know how many are not currently in a combat role. They also know how fast and how hard we can strike.
If I recall correctly, Iraq was suppoused to be a really quick war, over in what, weeks? months? Certianly not years. Yet look where we are now, entrenched in Iraq, thanks to a "fast war", you know, desert storm round 2, over before we know it.
Yeah, they may know that we can strike them, and theres not a whole lot they can do about THAT, but if theres resistance like there is/was in Iraq, and all hell breaks loose we simply dont have the troops for another Iraq. So yeah, we can sure do a quick strike, but we both know if we did, it wouldnt end there, they wouldnt say "ok, ok, you struck us, we're done, nice fighting with you", they would take up arms (if not the government, rebels in the country), and we would end up having to withdraw anyways, because like I said, we simply cant fight 2 Iraqi-level wars.
-Matt
CyberHawk
16-03-2005, 22:45
If a civil war breaks out, that gives us all the incentive we need to send a quick strike force into Syria. Seeing as how we have a rather large force in Iraq currently not involved in combat operations, we seem to have a forward deployed combat force... We're not as overdeployed as Peregrine says we are.
Syria knows this very well. They know how many combat troops are over there. They know how many are not currently in a combat role. They also know how fast and how hard we can strike.
I don't believe the Syrian thugs are dumb enough to give us a reason to attack them. They saw what Libya did. Gadaffi cried "uncle" and is still running his country. Saddam said $&%& YOU! and is in prison. Syria cooperates and it's government gets to live a little longer. Pretty simple choice isnt' it?
nuff said. :thumbsup:
DrunkCajun
17-03-2005, 01:55
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAW!
*dons cowboy hat and M-16*
Where to, boys? I hear that them there Chinese were talkin smack today, let's git em!
Er, wait. No, I kinda agree with Matt. Sort of. We probably have the capability of getting involved in Syria, and moreover probably could do a better job there than we're doing in Iraq. That said, it would be almost as messy as Iraq, and if we decided to throw that onto the fire too, I'd go ahead and pack up and leave the country. It would only be a matter of time at that point before some country with smarter leadership than ours woke up and realized, "hey, one of these days the US is going to stretch its limits and we're going to be able to get away with murder without them so much as blinking an eye at us!"
Whether that means Canada finally invading, some nation supporting terrorists to attack the US, or just another one of those incosequential African countries deciding that half of its population needs to meet the sharp side of a machete after being beaten or gang-****** (depending on their sex/age, of course), I'm not sure how excited I'm going to be to sit here and realize that we brought it on ourselves (or the citizens of whatever country turns on itself) by scattering our deterrance so widely in the wind.
blu3l1ghtn1ng
17-03-2005, 01:59
You guys dun luv yer yung'uns do ya?
(lots of words that don't need quoted again)
With all of that talking, you never once related anything to the topic at hand. If a civil war in Lebanon breaks out, does the US get involved? You only said why there would be no civil war.
While we have many troops in Iraq "doing nothing," they are there to prevent, not to be deployed as soon as we get the chance to attack somewhere else. They are not in the Middle East for the ultimate goal of Syria. Also, going to war with ANOTHER Middle Eastern nation, or any nation for that matter, would be politcal suicide for Bush. Approval of the amount of troops in Iraq is not high, and causing more deaths is not going to solve that. If a civil war does break out, the US will not get involved beyond sending humanitarian aid. The US will send more of that than all other countries combined.
But, even though I called Freemason out, I agree with him that there will be no civil war. Look at what happened in Ukraine not long ago. Not only were there large factions within the country, but outside forces (Russia, Poland) were planning to get involved if something happened (or one caused something to happen) and yet, nothing did happen. East Europe and the Middle East, while unstable, are not to the point of major civil wars.
Steve_Kow
17-03-2005, 03:51
When I was a kid playing the original Zelda I would never use the bow and arrow, as each shot cost a gold piece. I intended to save it for when I "really" needed it, yet there were plenty of times when it would have come in handy, yet I refused to use it--thinking that I might need it more later on.
I think there are a few people in this thread who can relate to that.
Here's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/819200.stm) a pretty good timeline of what's been happening in Lebanon in case anybody might be interested in the events leading up to the current situation.
So let me get this straight, Smeg. According to you, if Country A has a civil war and the troops in Country A sent there by a Country B can't keep the peace, Country C is obligated to invade Country B to take care of things? Classic.
So let me get this straight, Smeg. According to you, if Country A has a civil war and the troops in Country A sent there by a Country B can't keep the peace, Country C is obligated to invade Country B to take care of things? Classic.
Smeg's logic is inescapable ... to him.
jimmyboy
17-03-2005, 04:24
Well we can't attack Syria just because civil war breaks out in Lebanon. After all, the Syrians were in Lebanon to keep the peace. Civil war will occur because the Syrians listened to us and left. This left the Lebanese to themselves. But then this is Lebanon. It's like saying we're leaving the Pakis and the Indians to themselves.
I wish it was like the Ukraine. But the difference is that the Ukranians weren't killing each other over religion like the Lebanese were in 82'.
Anyways, if a civil war do break out, we... are sort of responsible since we got the Syrians to leave and left he warring Lebanese to themselves. But if we do deploy to Lebanon for peacekeeping. Oh crap, we're stuck in the middle east indefinitely.
DurfBarian
17-03-2005, 04:37
So let me get this straight, Smeg. According to you, if Country A has a civil war and the troops in Country A sent there by a Country B can't keep the peace, Country C is obligated to invade Country B to take care of things? Classic.
Invade country D, too. They're a bunch of evildoers. Took a bunch of embassy workers hostage, if you'll recall.
AeroJonesy
17-03-2005, 05:39
I don't think the US can afford to get involved in another country. And I don't think the US population in general has the capacity to learn where another country is on the map.
DurfBarian
17-03-2005, 05:41
I don't think the US can afford to get involved in another country. And I don't think the US population in general has the capacity to learn where another country is on the map.
"Hey wow, there's a New Mexico now."
Where is the country of Labon anyway? :p
Yeah, I thought about that too..i have a friend whose lebanese
anyhow...we really just don't have the resources anymore...not too mention just about everyone would be opposed of the war (hell, even the buisnessmen aren't that greedy...nm)
Civil wars are internal matters. It is not immediate permission for the U.S. to invade.
Attitudes like Smegs are what I think will lead to the eventual downfall of the U.S. empire. Smeg is convinced of the U.S.'s invulnerability and will gladly overextend his forces so they can be wiped out piecemeal. You know the old addage "divide and conquer"? The U.S. is doing it for themselves. Keep sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong and we'll wind up with one less nose.
Freemason
17-03-2005, 15:32
Smeg's logic is inescapable ... to him.
Funny that the people that think along the same lines I do are the same people winning elections. There's something to that. It's up to you to find what the lesson is.
AeroJonesy
17-03-2005, 15:35
Smeg all that means is that there is a majority of people who think like that, not necessarily that the majority is right. And it's not necessarily wrong either. It's just a large group of people.
Freemason
17-03-2005, 16:23
Smeg all that means is that there is a majority of people who think like that, not necessarily that the majority is right. And it's not necessarily wrong either. It's just a large group of people.
No, what it means is that the conservatives in this country are in power and are making policy decisions. The people have decided that the conservatives are right and the liberals are wrong.
That's the lesson. The people have decided that they approve of what Pres. Bush is doing. Syria is on our excrement list right now. Syria would naturally support the pro-Syrian forces in a civil war thereby making it a concern of ours. They know this and have seen what happens when somebody throws a war and we come.
Necrolestes
17-03-2005, 16:30
There's a reason why Socrates said that "democracy is the rule by idiots". A majority can still be wrong, Freemason. Yes, we may be a republic and not a democracy, but we are still think with our hearts and not with our heads and that makes us idiots (we go with what feels right, not necessarily what IS right).
Your descriptions of American policy, Freemason, don't sound much like democracy though. One party in power, everyone who isn't for the party is against it, and anyone who doesn't agree is anti-patriot: that's not democracy, that's a dictatorship.
Freemason
17-03-2005, 16:37
So what you're saying is that for the 40 years the Democrats held both houses of Congress, during the years a Democrat was president we were a dictatorship? We seem to have survived those years intact.
So what you're saying is that for the 40 years the Democrats held both houses of Congress, during the years a Democrat was president we were a dictatorship? We seem to have survived those years intact.
No, no, no, you're all screwed up like a soup sandwich. When Dems controlled the Executive, Legislative, and most of the Judicial branch, it was freedom (peace & harmony, too). Only when "you people" (http://www.evilconservatives.com/) barely control the first two is it a dictatorship.
{for the blissfully ignorant, [/sarcasm]}
Freemason
17-03-2005, 17:13
No, no, no, you're all screwed up like a soup sandwich.
I prefer the term "@#$%^! up as a football bat"
zarikdon
17-03-2005, 18:02
If these Lebanese (http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/03/07/my-corrupt-western-biases/) want democracy so badly, who are we to deny them? :p
For comparison, we have the typical Syrian supporter here (http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/Comments.asp?svComment=8780).
Who democracy could be so hot (http://www.command-post.org/archives/003688.html)?
Steve_Kow
17-03-2005, 21:31
For those of you don't think the U.S military has any deterrence capacity, you should consider that there are other options than "Invade and occupy country", the U.S can be persuasive with other means.
We could persuade Iran to give up the pursuit of Nuclear arms by launching air raids (and simultaneously destroy their capacity to do that even if they wanted to)--Honestly--what could Iran do? Launch an invasion of Iraq and go armor versus armor with us? I doubt it.
No, what it means is that the conservatives in this country are in power and are making policy decisions. The people have decided that the conservatives are right and the liberals are wrong.
That's the lesson. The people have decided that they approve of what Pres. Bush is doing.
So I assume you agree with this plan from your administration :
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil ...
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists"...
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.
Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.
Secret sell-off plan
The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.
Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.
Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.
"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.
"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."
That was a NeoCon plan ... the old veritable "blood for oil". Our soldiers die for the privitization of Iraqi oil fields and destruction of OPEC.
Nah ... I'm sure you believe that this can't be true. This terrible piece of leftist propaganda must have come from some Commie site.
Yah ... this one:
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm)
You might find who waylaid those plans even more interesting ...
Nastie_Bowie
17-03-2005, 22:53
Too bad they didn't do it.
Breaking OPEC's back is bad? Prior to OPEC, gas was $0.32 a gallon.
Oh, that's right, you like OPEC and thier inflated prices for thier oil, that increases your personal profits.
I see.
Too bad they didn't do it.
Breaking OPEC's back is bad? Prior to OPEC, gas was $0.32 a gallon.
Oh, that's right, you like OPEC and thier inflated prices for thier oil, that increases your personal profits.
I see.
Too bad for our soldiers and their familites that these cutthroats were ever appointed/elected is a better phrase.
When did I say that I liked any of this?
If you believe that blood for oil was a good idea, then you can join the rest of the totalitarian asshats as far as I am concerned.
Greed is no excuse for war.
Greed is no excuse for war.
Not according to history. I agree with you, but I think that could be up for debate.
Smeg, if the democrats were in power, would that all of a sudden make the conservatives inherently wrong? This may be the first thread where you have coem off not sounding as intelligent as you are. The US government is set up in such a way to almost eliminate any power factions could gain. The politcal parties are the strongest factions in American society, but with a near-even split in membership of each, plus the decentralized nature of our government make our parties incredibly weak, too.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.