Post: Syria Intervention
Options
08-27-2013, 08:02 PM
#1
JP
Israeli/Palestinian Unity
US Secretary of State John Kerry has stated;
"Make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapon against the world's most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny".
Along with basically telling the world that the US will hit Syria for their use of chemical weapons, John Kerry has stated that US forces are "ready to go" should the Barack Obama order a military strike.
Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled the UK Parliament on Thursday August 29th for a vote on military action in Syria which is a confirmation that the US and UK will strike if the Parliament votes in favour. The UK will not strike alone so this therefore confirms the US will accompany them with strikes.
Iran, China and Russia have issued threats against the US and UK if they proceed with military action, but the only country stupid enough to retaliate on Syria's behalf is Iran. Russia and China will not risk a war with two other Superpowers, especially if France joins in on the strikes which it has hinted towards. Israel will most likely enter the conflict on the side of UK/US soon.
With the sheer power and sophistication of the United Kingdom and United States military is logical to expect a military strike on Syria within minutes of the UK Parliament voting in favour. I assume that David Cameron will order Generals to launch missiles within minutes in order to not give Syria much time to react to hearing the outcome of the vote. The US constitution has a big enough loophole in it to allow the President to launch Tomahawk Cruise Missiles like he did in Libya two years previous.
So, do you expect the UK Parliament to vote Yes or No to military action in Syria which will ultimately decide if the US strikes also? Do you expect NATO to take control of the conflict are initial strikes? Do you believe France will join if it goes ahead? Will Russia, China and Iran carry out their warning threats? Discuss.
08-27-2013, 08:35 PM
#2
Millz
Worth the Weight
As I stated in another thread with regards to the next world war (kind of explains the entire build up to where we are today and what will lie in the future):
We all know that the USA had the gold standard. In 1971, Nixon took the USA off the gold standard completely as it became clear to other countries that the US dollar was being printed by the federal reserve which meant that they were printing far more money than they had in gold. In response, countries started asking for their gold back, causing a rapid decline of the US dollar. By 1975, the USA had effectively established the petrodollar. Every member of OPEC agreed to trade oil for US dollars only, with the USA granting them military protection. Basically other countries would now have to export to the USA, while getting paper money from the USA in return, as the OPEC nations would not accept anything else. This made the USA very rich and was practically the largest con in history.
You can imagine that because of this, during the Cold War era leading into modern times, the USA was able to use the petrodollar to outspend every other countries military expenditures combined. They then invaded Iraq, destroying most of their land and put into place sanctions that made it nearly impossible to rebuild, and it is estimated that over 500,000 children were killed as a cause of this, many more if you factor in adults as well.
Fast forward a bit, and Iraq started to only accept Euros for oil, and not dollars. This was clearly and obviously an attack on the USA, and as you can imagine this caused the huge outbreak of a "possible WMD" reports by the media projected for by the government. As you can imagine they invaded Iraq, and took their oil and made it again so that countries must only use the US dollar to buy oil from Iraq, which didn't make much sense as the Euro would yield higher profits. It was clearly to sustain the petrodollar.
We now have the huge media propaganda of Iran and a so called nuclear weapon, as well as how Iran is making deals with Russia and accepting gold and other payment methods for its oil. Syria and Iran are very close allies, and have many defensive pacts, which is why you are currently seeing how the USA and NATO have helped in the de-stabilization of Syria in attempt to intervene. It's clear that if a few countries start selling oil in other currencies, the US dollar will collapse.
Iran is also close friends with the Russians and the Chinese. They realize that if the USA launches an invasion on Iran, then there will be no way to avoid the US dollar for oil trading, other than war.
This is practically set in stone at this point, the only way to stop this conflict from ever carrying out in the future is for the public to start to fight back. We are already in a intellectual revolution, as the mindset of people start to change and understand exactly what is going on. It's going to take a long time, but looking towards the government to save us is extremely naive. The government will not save us, as it is corrupt to the core with cronies. The federal reserve stands to lose the most if the dollar falls, and they are willing to pull the strings to start WW3 in order to save their precious paper currencies.
I hope that they vote no. They have no actual reason to go into Syria other than the fact that Syria is a close friend of Iran, and Iran is dealing oil off the US dollar. They are not acting as humanitarians right now, they will do what they did in Afghanistan and go into nation-building. Through their policies they will kill more people indirectly (but still as a cause of their actions) instead of allowing a civil war to break out.
Originally posted by another user
We all know that the USA had the gold standard. In 1971, Nixon took the USA off the gold standard completely as it became clear to other countries that the US dollar was being printed by the federal reserve which meant that they were printing far more money than they had in gold. In response, countries started asking for their gold back, causing a rapid decline of the US dollar. By 1975, the USA had effectively established the petrodollar. Every member of OPEC agreed to trade oil for US dollars only, with the USA granting them military protection. Basically other countries would now have to export to the USA, while getting paper money from the USA in return, as the OPEC nations would not accept anything else. This made the USA very rich and was practically the largest con in history.
You can imagine that because of this, during the Cold War era leading into modern times, the USA was able to use the petrodollar to outspend every other countries military expenditures combined. They then invaded Iraq, destroying most of their land and put into place sanctions that made it nearly impossible to rebuild, and it is estimated that over 500,000 children were killed as a cause of this, many more if you factor in adults as well.
Fast forward a bit, and Iraq started to only accept Euros for oil, and not dollars. This was clearly and obviously an attack on the USA, and as you can imagine this caused the huge outbreak of a "possible WMD" reports by the media projected for by the government. As you can imagine they invaded Iraq, and took their oil and made it again so that countries must only use the US dollar to buy oil from Iraq, which didn't make much sense as the Euro would yield higher profits. It was clearly to sustain the petrodollar.
We now have the huge media propaganda of Iran and a so called nuclear weapon, as well as how Iran is making deals with Russia and accepting gold and other payment methods for its oil. Syria and Iran are very close allies, and have many defensive pacts, which is why you are currently seeing how the USA and NATO have helped in the de-stabilization of Syria in attempt to intervene. It's clear that if a few countries start selling oil in other currencies, the US dollar will collapse.
Iran is also close friends with the Russians and the Chinese. They realize that if the USA launches an invasion on Iran, then there will be no way to avoid the US dollar for oil trading, other than war.
This is practically set in stone at this point, the only way to stop this conflict from ever carrying out in the future is for the public to start to fight back. We are already in a intellectual revolution, as the mindset of people start to change and understand exactly what is going on. It's going to take a long time, but looking towards the government to save us is extremely naive. The government will not save us, as it is corrupt to the core with cronies. The federal reserve stands to lose the most if the dollar falls, and they are willing to pull the strings to start WW3 in order to save their precious paper currencies.
I hope that they vote no. They have no actual reason to go into Syria other than the fact that Syria is a close friend of Iran, and Iran is dealing oil off the US dollar. They are not acting as humanitarians right now, they will do what they did in Afghanistan and go into nation-building. Through their policies they will kill more people indirectly (but still as a cause of their actions) instead of allowing a civil war to break out.
The following user thanked Millz for this useful post:
08-27-2013, 08:58 PM
#4
Rath
Today Will Be Different
Originally posted by Millz
As I stated in another thread with regards to the next world war (kind of explains the entire build up to where we are today and what will lie in the future):
I hope that they vote no. They have no actual reason to go into Syria other than the fact that Syria is a close friend of Iran, and Iran is dealing oil off the US dollar. They are not acting as humanitarians right now, they will do what they did in Afghanistan and go into nation-building. Through their policies they will kill more people indirectly (but still as a cause of their actions) instead of allowing a civil war to break out.
I hope that they vote no. They have no actual reason to go into Syria other than the fact that Syria is a close friend of Iran, and Iran is dealing oil off the US dollar. They are not acting as humanitarians right now, they will do what they did in Afghanistan and go into nation-building. Through their policies they will kill more people indirectly (but still as a cause of their actions) instead of allowing a civil war to break out.
Looks like I'll be going to Syria after bootcamp and SOI if they vote yes. All in all I don't agree with doing shit, as much as I am pro-military I don't agree with policing the world. I mean, after 9/11 it was justifiable. We were attacked on the homeland, we figured out who targeted us and we dealt with them. And frankly if we do go, we're going to be over there in the shit fighting for someone. Then once it all winds down we'll be doing the Afghan shuffle, trying to set up their military, their police, logistics and training. Which results in us pumping serious money into their government, and that's the last thing we need as a nation.
As much as I want to see combat, I don't want to see combat in Syria because it's going to be a pointless war.
08-27-2013, 10:13 PM
#5
JP
Israeli/Palestinian Unity
Originally posted by RathHavoc
Looks like I'll be going to Syria after bootcamp and SOI if they vote yes. All in all I don't agree with doing shit, as much as I am pro-military I don't agree with policing the world. I mean, after 9/11 it was justifiable. We were attacked on the homeland, we figured out who targeted us and we dealt with them. And frankly if we do go, we're going to be over there in the shit fighting for someone. Then once it all winds down we'll be doing the Afghan shuffle, trying to set up their military, their police, logistics and training. Which results in us pumping serious money into their government, and that's the last thing we need as a nation.
As much as I want to see combat, I don't want to see combat in Syria because it's going to be a pointless war.
As much as I want to see combat, I don't want to see combat in Syria because it's going to be a pointless war.
Do you not think removing Assad who uses chemical weapons on his own citizens is important though? Like yeah as Millz said Oil is a considerable factor, but letting someone get away with using chemical weapons is wrong. With luck it will be like Libya in a way where they will only strike military targets and not use ground troops, but when a country has the power to stop someone violating international law they must stop them otherwise what is the point in it if no one tries to stop the offender.
The US didn't pump money into Libya as far as I'm aware, so hopefully it will turn out that way. But sadly there will most likely be a conflict in Syria in the coming week.
08-27-2013, 10:47 PM
#7
Rath
Today Will Be Different
Originally posted by JP
Do you not think removing Assad who uses chemical weapons on his own citizens is important though? Like yeah as Millz said Oil is a considerable factor, but letting someone get away with using chemical weapons is wrong. With luck it will be like Libya in a way where they will only strike military targets and not use ground troops, but when a country has the power to stop someone violating international law they must stop them otherwise what is the point in it if no one tries to stop the offender.
The US didn't pump money into Libya as far as I'm aware, so hopefully it will turn out that way. But sadly there will most likely be a conflict in Syria in the coming week.
The US didn't pump money into Libya as far as I'm aware, so hopefully it will turn out that way. But sadly there will most likely be a conflict in Syria in the coming week.
Something needs to be done without a doubt. But the problem is if the US does get involved which is highly likely we're going to do the usual, send in tons of troops and logistics. I've read that we might send some ships into the Mediterranean and launch missiles to send a message, but I doubt that would stop the issue. And if that fails they'll probably have MEUs push in from the Mediterranean, setup FOBs, do reconnaissance missions, and then pull in infantry.
All in all I just don't want this shit to turn into another 10+ year war like it did with Afghanistan and Iraq.
08-28-2013, 10:48 AM
#8
If you defy the west's orders be prepared to be slaughtered and taken over under the guise of freedom. It's so f*cked up.
---
This reminds me of the song Worker Bees by Billy Talent. A couple of verses:
---
This reminds me of the song Worker Bees by Billy Talent. A couple of verses:
Originally posted by another user
We take our orders given by the queen,
We're not the killers we're the worker bees,
If you resist us you will feel our sting,
Surrender now before the swarm sets in.
We're not the killers we're the worker bees,
If you resist us you will feel our sting,
Surrender now before the swarm sets in.
Originally posted by another user
A pollination coming from the west,
And in a flash we will invade your nest,
Supply of honey flowing bottomless,
Play by our rules or you'll be powerless.
And in a flash we will invade your nest,
Supply of honey flowing bottomless,
Play by our rules or you'll be powerless.
08-28-2013, 03:11 PM
#10
Kidd Cold
**** my Toaster !~!
Originally posted by JP
Do you not think removing Assad who uses chemical weapons on his own citizens is important though? Like yeah as Millz said Oil is a considerable factor, but letting someone get away with using chemical weapons is wrong. With luck it will be like Libya in a way where they will only strike military targets and not use ground troops, but when a country has the power to stop someone violating international law they must stop them otherwise what is the point in it if no one tries to stop the offender.
The US didn't pump money into Libya as far as I'm aware, so hopefully it will turn out that way. But sadly there will most likely be a conflict in Syria in the coming week.
The US didn't pump money into Libya as far as I'm aware, so hopefully it will turn out that way. But sadly there will most likely be a conflict in Syria in the coming week.
I do think it is important for a leader such as Assad to be taken down; At the same time I believe the United States needs to sit back while other countries make the decision. Then and only then should the United States step in and do their thing. I'm sick of hearing people who bitch and moan about the U.S getting involved in these things.
Well the United States hasn't pumped the same amount of money as it has in Iraq and Afghanistan; it has pumped a fairly large amount. According to a 2011 ABC article the U.S has spent almost 900 million in the processing of assisting in Libya ((( You must login or register to view this content. ))). We can assume that that the majority of that price tag is military spending.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
