Skip to main content

View Diary: We Just Have To Bomb The Sh*t Out Of Something (265 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed. Then Let The UN Handle It (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delphine, greenbell, Johnny Q, JVolvo

    Doesn't Turkey, Brits, France, Germany have the resources to take out Syria? Is only the US the power that can? As a group, if the US doesn't lead NATO, they can't do the job on their own?

    I know I keep asking questions, but if they think we have to lead, well then maybe we should pull out of NATO cause I don't want those nations having my back if war happens with say Russia or China (which I don't think will remotely happen).

    •  that's about what happened w/Libya. US role was (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      the fan man, delphine, Loge, hooper

      quite restricted.

      •  The initial part, Operation Odyssey Dawn, was (3+ / 0-)

        under the direct command of AFRICOM. This lasted from March 19 thru March 24, 2011 when command of operations transferred to NATO except for activities of US forces. Full command was transferred to NATO (Operation Unified Protector) on March 31, 2011.

        The US supplied the bulk of the fighting assets during this period. By it's end, Operation Odyssey Dawn had completely gutted Libyan defenses. Further activities were mainly in ground support of Libyan rebels and targets of opportunity.

        BTW, for all practical purposes, NATO is controlled by the US. It's Supreme Allied Commander has always been American and the US pays 3/4's of it's costs.

        I would disagree that the US's role was restricted. It was simply kept in the background.

    •  Only the US has the assets to take out Syria's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alice in Florida

      defense system. They never relinquish the command of these assets to NATO. They didn't in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan or in Libya.

      In any event, NATO is controlled by the US. If the US says yes or no, it is yes or no. If other partners disagree, then it is discussed and arm twisting takes place. If any nations disagree with where the US wants to take NATO, they simply stay quietly in the background.

      You can see this take place as the various NATO nations publicly discuss what they want to do while always deferring to the US for the final say.

      •  I don't think this is true of the Arab League, (0+ / 0-)

        though.  

        The UN should be the body to respond but as usual they can't act due to China & Russia.  That would seem to leave 3 choices... an ad-hoc coalition, the US acting alone, or doing nothing.

        Which would you choose?

        •  No military action. The only solution will (0+ / 0-)

          be political. Unfortunately, the NATO countries along with the GCC have ensured there would be none. They make preconditions that they know are completely unacceptable and have also continually sabotaged any attempts at talks.

          What many in the west don't seem to realize is that there is considerable support for Assad within the country. What is going on is a civil war overlayed with sectarian violence.

          The Russians have been consistent in saying that a political solution is the only way to resolve this. Any military solution will result in the complete destruction of the country. Unfortunately, the west and GCC are quite willing to let that happen. In fact, there is some viable evidence that this has been their initial goal in the first place.

          Syria is now a fucking catastrophic mess that's going to get worse even if the US bombs the shit out of the country. Most of the deaths are from knives, AK47's and improvised weapons (including missiles, canons and IED's).

          The only way to stop this type of fighting is with boots on the ground. All the US will be able to do is target an entire village with a cruise missile and let god sort them out.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site