Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Should we strike Syria?

Pros:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/28082 ... e-in-syria

That one is rather weak, but this one is a little better
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 ... -democrats


Cons:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... tion-kerry

http://www.policymic.com/articles/40451 ... e-in-syria

http://journal.georgetown.edu/2012/12/1 ... illerbeck/

Either way, this could provide a nice investment entry point over the next couple weeks.

Whatever we do I hope we do it and get it over with. Dragging this out is just bringing down the financial markets and increasing oil prices.

We gotta stop those Russkies from securing the cheap oil for themselves, one way or another.

In January 2005, Russia and Syria signed a deal that wrote off nearly 80% of Syria's debt to Russia, approximately €10.5 billion ($13 billion). The agreement left Syria with less than €3 billion (just over $3.6 billion) owed to Moscow. Half of it would be repaid over the next 10 years, while the rest would be paid into Russian accounts in Syrian banks and could be used for Russian investment projects in Syria and for buying Syrian products.

And also help France to get Total, whose profits were completely ruined by this civil/proxy war, back in business, eh?

Now watch this drive ...

Definitely Total and it will give the warhawks one more chance to try and go to war with Iran.

What really irks me is that I actually thought we (US) were different than Alexander's Greece, Rome, the Mongols, etc. Not that this is what demonstrated it, that happened long ago.

thebbqguy wrote:Whatever we do I hope we do it and get it over with. Dragging this out is just bringing down the financial markets and increasing oil prices.

If we do anything there is a good chance it gets drug out. If Iran let's Syria go down without a fight they are alone.

This is starting to feel like Groundhog Day.

Ego wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... syria.html

That's a good article Ego. Russia and Iran do not want Syria to fall. They would be boxed in even more than they are now.

What no one, at least in the articles and analysis I have read, has said, is that the fall of Syria would go along way towards establishing a Sunni Caliphate in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and a new Syria would all slowly move towards each other as Sunni governments with populations of mostly Sunni people. When you are "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't"...I choose don't.

There are no good guys. Rebel forces have al qaeda ties, Assad is a dick, with a long history.

Ideal solution: establish the chain of command authorizing chemical weapons. Release that intelligence. Issue 100 million in letters of mark.
Fix this with economic power, rather than military Power.

If we really can't resist tampering, air drop liberator style pistols all over the population centers. Empower commoners, and raise the price of tyranny. That'll get the world's attention!

Riggerjack wrote: Ideal solution: establish the chain of command authorizing chemical weapons. Release that intelligence. Issue 100 million in letters of mark.
Fix this with economic power, rather than military Power.

If we really can't resist tampering, air drop liberator style pistols all over the population centers. Empower commoners, and raise the price of tyranny. That'll get the world's attention!

Highlighting who actually commands the chemical weapons is interesting, but I would doubt we know that in detail. Plus, it appears we aren't even sure if Assad authorized the use of the weapons, as it seems a stupid risk on his part for no gain. May have just been a gung-ho commander.

I'm sure they have plenty of weapons, so no need for the pistols. There is always another Lord of War with a stockpile of AK's to be had. Just another giant mess for us to get stuck in.

That assumes we want a solution. Fostering chaos in a potential foe while play-acting as the good guys is not an entirely unknown concept & method.

Ego wrote:That assumes we want a solution. Fostering chaos in a potential foe while play-acting as the good guys is not an entirely unknown concept & method.

Kind of like with the Iran-Iraq war. We definitely didn't want either to gain the upper hand, which is why we helped Saddam when Iran started to get the upper hand.

And the Arab Spring.

In Egypt the MB came out of hiding thinking they would be ruling the country. The military had been trying to get their hands on MB members for twenty years. The lucky are now in jail. Or maybe the lucky are dead.

The people of Libya, Tunisia, and to some extent Yemen now have an inward focus. They're too caught up in their local troubles to worry about anything beyond their borders.

All true. It's almost like Rome paying one barbarian tribe to fight another.

It's certainly a good attempt at distracting US citizens from all the leaks about the scope of domestic surveillance programs!

This whole Syria thing strikes me as very strange. Why ask Congress for permission when they are in recess? Why give the Syrian government several weeks notice? Why throw the French under the bus, when they were the only ones supporting the White House on this? What are we actually going to accomplish?

This sounds very much like an expensive fireworks show with the intent of "doing something about the chemical attack". The only thing the Syrians could benefit from are the GPS coordinates of the targets and the date and time of the attack. Just making sure the regime suffers no damage. If Assad stays in place and no significant military objective is accomplished, maybe it would be better to stay out of this one. With an impending war in the Middle East, it may be a good idea to buy oil companies or oil futures.

Yeah! Let's waste another trillion dollars in tax money and probably a few thousand more American lives before it's all said and done by continuing to take unprovoked military action, in direct violation of the principles of just war, so we can insert ourselves in a three thousand year old conflict between a bunch of people who hate us, just to make sure oil companies, war contractors, and the rest of the 1% continue reaping ridiculous profits, and hopefully distract the other 99% from all the rights being systematically stripped away using yet another mid-east bogeyman.

Oh, and all on the justification that Assad "is suspected of" using chemical weapons (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/world/syr ... index.html). Doesn't sound at all like how Saddam was "suspected of" holding weapons of mass destruction!

I think I'd rather impeach Bushbama...

Er... wait a minute, guys. It looks like there's a black chopper labeled "NSA" landing in my front yard... some jack-booted brown shirts appear to be coming to my door... excuse me while I see what these polite gentlemen need!

I vote no. Philosophically I'm not in favor, but whether this is a good idea or not is completely irrelevant because we can't afford it without more borrowing. We can't afford our current bills without borrowing, let alone the costs of a war. And no, I'm not willing to accept other nations' IOUs as payment for aggressive services rendered.

The greatest threat this nation faces at the moment is our complete inability to control ourselves financially. When our leaders debase our currency through inflation to service debts like this one, to the point that those of us attempting to live off our nest eggs can no longer support ourselves thus, THEN will people think this was a good idea?

The real question is: what price are we savers willing to pay for this war out of our own personal assets? Because the money to pay for anything will always (eventually) come from those who have it.