75,000 US Troops Might Be Needed

[Coffey]

if the chemical weapons stocks they are KNOWN to have (by international observation) become unsecured.

Is that "KNOWN" in the same way as Saddam/Iraq having WMD's?

So "KNOWN" is code for "BS"....?

[Corp]

... but if we the coalition attack, no chemical weapons will be found. However it will soon be determined that they were transported back through Iraq . . and into Iran .

*

Syria does have chemical weapons, they've come right out and said so. So the comparison with Iraq's WMDs doesn't match up.

As for the OP I think this is just spitballing. I don't think the US is stupid enough to get involved unless it has widespread support to do so.

[+and-then]

Syria does have chemical weapons, they've come right out and said so. So the comparison with Iraq's WMDs doesn't match up.

As for the OP I think this is just spitballing. I don't think the US is stupid enough to get involved unless it has widespread support to do so.

As I said, the chemical weapons are the ONLY thing that could cause the US to become involved. But if those weapons start disappearing or moving into position to be used then yeah, I think we'd need to get involved. And floating a story about that size a contingent force might also be a good marker to lay on the table with Assad just now while he might be thinking everyone's eyes are elsewhere.

[Drayno]

Don't drag the US into this.

My two cents.

[Professor Buzzkill]

WHAT?! LMFAO

If that is so then why do they want to put a militant group in power of Syria.... LOL

I get why the rebels are fighting Assad. I uderstand their reasons and agree with them, but do you really think the US goverment would help them for rightous reasons?! LMFAO

How long have psychotic religious fanatics raped, tortured and massacred the people of Africa and other surrounding countries, yet the US has never intervened. At least not properly.

I for one would like to see the US get its hands on these chemical weapons and have them destroyed or removed back to america.

If there were african countries capable of using chemical weapons then i imagine there would be coalition involvement in those countries as well.

Whichever radical religious fanatic rules Syria, let them do it without the power of chemical weapons.

What is wrong with this stance?

[MidKn13ght]

umm? do we even have that many troops anymore??? with all the military cuts and the army seperating soliders like they are an elmo muppeter ..... ohhhh too soon???? lol

[Corp]

The US Army has over half a million active personnel, plus another half million reserve and national guard troops. I don't think they're going to be cutting 93% of their soldiers.

[Coffey]

I for one would like to see the US get its hands on these chemical weapons and have them destroyed or removed back to america.

If there were african countries capable of using chemical weapons then i imagine there would be coalition involvement in those countries as well.

Whichever radical religious fanatic rules Syria, let them do it without the power of chemical weapons.

What is wrong with this stance?

Nothing wrong with what your opion of that is, it's more the facts around it that's the problem. We all heard this same old story with Iraq. Bush stated they HAD WMD's. He said it was a fact. Ther eis millions of youtube videos showing him lying about it.

The point with Africa is that the US pretends to be helping innocent people and overthrowing "tyrants" when in reality it only does it if they gain something. Ther eis nothing innocent or pure about the US goverments motives behind getitng into wars.

It's a sad truth. I would love the US goverment to use it's impressive military and it's enthusiastic troops. Sadly the men and woman who sign up to serve their country, the ones who think they are making a difference are being used by greedy selfish "people"... (obviously i woudl like to use a more appropriate word than "people") Very sad.

[+and-then]

Nothing wrong with what your opion of that is, it's more the facts around it that's the problem. We all heard this same old story with Iraq. Bush stated they HAD WMD's. He said it was a fact. Ther eis millions of youtube videos showing him lying about it.

The point with Africa is that the US pretends to be helping innocent people and overthrowing "tyrants" when in reality it only does it if they gain something. Ther eis nothing innocent or pure about the US goverments motives behind getitng into wars.

It's a sad truth. I would love the US goverment to use it's impressive military and it's enthusiastic troops. Sadly the men and woman who sign up to serve their country, the ones who think they are making a difference are being used by greedy selfish "people"... (obviously i woudl like to use a more appropriate word than "people") Very sad.

Assad has made the statement that his government would use chemical weapons on anyone who attempted to intervene from outside Syria - he said he would NOT use chemical weapons on his own people. So obviously HE believes he has chemical weapons. Even Russia told him to shut up about it.

[Coffey]

Assad has made the statement that his government would use chemical weapons on anyone who attempted to intervene from outside Syria - he said he would NOT use chemical weapons on his own people. So obviously HE believes he has chemical weapons. Even Russia told him to shut up about it.

OR he is lying to scare people from getting involved.... He's in a sticky situation right now with the world watching, he has his back against a corner, so he will bark pretty loud.

Kinda like how North Korea does all the time. Yet the US doesn't run in there and grab their nukes....

[Chooky88]

I would hardly call Hezbollah Ragamuffins.

, and You're right. They are 'Scallywags!'

[Insaniac]

OR he is lying to scare people from getting involved.... He's in a sticky situation right now with the world watching, he has his back against a corner, so he will bark pretty loud.

Kinda like how North Korea does all the time. Yet the US doesn't run in there and grab their nukes....

...Which reminds me, why in God's name have the US not claimed North Korea's nukes? Seems hypocritical to me.

[+and-then]

...Which reminds me, why in God's name have the US not claimed North Korea's nukes? Seems hypocritical to me.

Probably because that regime can be bought off relatively cheaply. Also, because it seems inherently stable for now and is not based on apocalyptic religious fervor. As for hypocrisy - so? Nations do what are in their interests, hypocritical or not.

[ExpandMyMind]

Probably because that regime can be bought off relatively cheaply. Also, because it seems inherently stable for now and is not based on apocalyptic religious fervor. As for hypocrisy - so? Nations do what are in their interests, hypocritical or not.

Nah, the real reason, in my opinion, is because once a country has nukes they are more or less untouchable (remember that the father was still alive when they first had them and the U.S. did nothing). The U.S. hasn't 'taken' them because they like the idea of Seoul still existing.

[+and-then]

Nah, the real reason, in my opinion, is because once a country has nukes they are more or less untouchable (remember that the father was still alive when they first had them and the U.S. did nothing). The U.S. hasn't 'taken' them because they like the idea of Seoul still existing.

True enough. But I was thinking past the obvious and thinking of course, more about Iran's situation. I'm not sure they will be so predictable or reasonable. Take the conflict in Gaza for example. Once Iran has a nuke they can push Israel and paralyze Israeli cities on a whim. They can be relatively sure Israel will not go overboard with retribution and so be tied down and bled slowly. While this may seem all to the good for one who supports the Palestinians I submit that it makes things much more dangerous in the region. Eventually someone will miscalculate - just a matter of time. Cornered wild animal? Or psychopath, if you prefer that metaphor.

[ExpandMyMind]

Once Iran has a nuke they can push Israel and paralyze Israeli cities on a whim. They can be relatively sure Israel will not go overboard with retribution and so be tied down and bled slowly. While this may seem all to the good for one who supports the Palestinians I submit that it makes things much more dangerous in the region. Eventually someone will miscalculate - just a matter of time. Cornered wild animal? Or psychopath, if you prefer that metaphor.

Paralyze Israeli cities? How? Are you suggesting that Iran would actually use a nuke?

All it would do would be to even the playing field. Iran are not stupid and they do not want all out war.

[+and-then]

Paralyze Israeli cities? How? Are you suggesting that Iran would actually use a nuke?

All it would do would be to even the playing field. Iran are not stupid and they do not want all out war.

No, they wouldn't need to actually detonate a nuke to threaten Israel into submission. The paralysis I speak of was just demonstrated. For 8 days little or no commerce or schooling was done in Israel's south. They were in bunkers and hiding just like the Palestinians. A nation can only deal with such problems for a limited time and then they will do what is needed to change the situation on the ground. The whole history of this conflict has been about one side pushing the other and the world having to come to the rescue to stop a bloodbath. Escalation is normal and expected. So what happens when one side goes too far? Israelis want the land but they also want to live in the land - they want peace (most, anyway) and Iran wants to dominate the region and has openly said through Khomeini and Khameini that sacrificing millions of Iranians would be worth the goal of destroying the little Satan. I guess the difference we have here is that I actually believe their rhetoric. Iran MAY not want, today, an all out war. but they could very easily miscalculate if they had a few crude nukes in storage. After all, everyone KNOWS that no one would actually use one of those things again, right? Until someone does......

[Coffey]

Paralyze Israeli cities? How? Are you suggesting that Iran would actually use a nuke?

All it would do would be to even the playing field. Iran are not stupid and they do not want all out war.

Exactly, evidence of this is the fact they haven't attacked anyone since the 1700's or soemhting like that. lol

The last war thye ahd was when Iraq attacked them and Iraq was pushed into it by the US. When Saddam was still the US's puppet, before he went against them when they wanted him to leave.

No, they wouldn't need to actually detonate a nuke to threaten Israel into submission. The paralysis I speak of was just demonstrated. For 8 days little or no commerce or schooling was done in Israel's south. They were in bunkers and hiding just like the Palestinians. A nation can only deal with such problems for a limited time and then they will do what is needed to change the situation on the ground. The whole history of this conflict has been about one side pushing the other and the world having to come to the rescue to stop a bloodbath. Escalation is normal and expected. So what happens when one side goes too far? Israelis want the land but they also want to live in the land - they want peace (most, anyway) and Iran wants to dominate the region and has openly said through Khomeini and Khameini that sacrificing millions of Iranians would be worth the goal of destroying the little Satan. I guess the difference we have here is that I actually believe their rhetoric. Iran MAY not want, today, an all out war. but they could very easily miscalculate if they had a few crude nukes in storage. After all, everyone KNOWS that no one would actually use one of those things again, right? Until someone does......

Such a biased view. ^

Israel goverment (nuts) do not want peace otherwise they would stop the fighting. (proven by how they keep getting involved with conflicts)

Israeli (sensible) people want peace.

Iranian goverment (again nuts, but not as nuts) don't seem to want war, hence why they haven't started any in a very long time.

Iranian people (sensible) have made it people they don't want war, in the same way the Israeli's don't.

Israeli goverment has a bad record of conflict and ATTACKING others. Iranian goverment is the oppisite. I don't understand why some people can't see this. Unless of course you are brainwashed by media and western religions.

The problem? The Israeli goverment.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Coffey

[ExpandMyMind]

has openly said through Khomeini and Khameini that sacrificing millions of Iranians would be worth the goal of destroying the little Satan.

Where and when was this stated? Reference please.

[+and-then]

No reference forthcoming. I simply don't remember where I read this but I recall reading the same statements more than once - so point to you. However I did find some interesting quotes from the dear man http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234992528-ayatollah-khomeini-divine-quotes-on-israel/

He is STILL venerated above all other Shia leaders, so it should give an indication of their mindset. This is just a statement of facts and in no way amounts to an anti Islamic rant. An Iranian bomb will not be a good thing for anyone. But the "good" seems to be a strangely malleable idea these days.

[stevewinn]

I see Turkey has requested for NATO to provide Patriot missile system to be placed along its border with Syria.

NATO says it will consider "without delay" Turkey's request to deploy Patriot anti-missile systems to protect its border with the unrest-torn Syria. The comments were made by the military bloc's chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Germany's foreign minister has already said the request by Turkey, a Nato member, should be approved. Probable Source

Also the UK Army could be sent into Syria. General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said contingency plans were being drawn up in case the onset of winter saw a worsening of conditions on the ground. Obviously we develop contingency plans to look at all these things. It is my job to make sure that these options are continually brushed over to make sure that we can deliver them and they are credible.

Excerpts probably from this source

I say keep right out of this one,

Edited November 25, 2012 by Karlis
Added probable sources, NOTE: UM Posting Rule 2c. Plagiarism and copyright: If you quote text from an external web site then please always provide a source link.

[Mr.United_Nations]

I think he means is by building housing for the refugees as Turkey can't cope

[WHO U KIDDIN]

Surprise, surprise...

Syria is starting to tear apart, new islamic state declared by the extremists allied to Turkey and the Arab League, this new state excludes the other Syrian rebel groups, as I said in an earlier post it appears that the formation of new cantons representing the different groups is rapidly emerging:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162353#.ULKcpoUcqgF