Suggestions from washington : www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/05/three-big-ways-the-u-s-could-help-syrians-without-using-the-military/

@ Invictus

I'd still allow for Latin American intervention in certain situations because the costs of a brief, decisive little war a few hundred miles from home is far less than the potential cost of having an annoying dictator in our backyard.

Furthermore, I would still favor retaliation in the event of an attack on an embassy/consulate, but not our allies. We are not allies with anyone who cannot look after themselves, excepting if our Pacific allies were to be attacked by Red China.

My point is that NOTHING good will happen if we intervene in Syria at ANY time in the forseeable future. There are simply too many things that could go wrong. A lot of bad things could happen just from a handful of Tomahawks.

"I'd still allow for Latin American intervention in certain situations because the costs of a brief, decisive little war a few hundred miles from home is far less than the potential cost of having an annoying dictator in our backyard."

If geography is your logic, then you'd rather go to war in Syria than in Panama...

"I'd still allow for Latin American intervention in certain situations because the costs of a brief, decisive little war a few hundred miles from home is far less than the potential cost of having an annoying dictator in our backyard.

Furthermore, I would still favor retaliation in the event of an attack on an embassy/consulate, but not our allies. We are not allies with anyone who cannot look after themselves, excepting if our Pacific allies were to be attacked by Red China."

What you're really saying is you just want a smaller, more local empire, and a less benign one at that, since you're rejecting any mutual defense alliances. So America should not do anything about any threats or problems until they literally threaten the country itself? Do you really want the government to do nothing to stop the Ruritanian invasion until the ships have set sail?

At any rate, a dictator in Central America or the Caribbean is only a threat to the United States in that he could be a client of a major power who really does pose a threat. That's why Ortega in Nicaragua was opposed so strongly during the Cold War but totally ignored now. I'll bet you didn't even know he was back in power until I just told you. Just the existence of a government down there that opposes our polices is no real threat.


As for allies, the Pacific is exactly the one place where we are allies with states with real militaries. All of them, unlike the eunuch Europeans, maintain significant armed forces that can effectively defend their countries against any plausible conventional attacks.

I agree nothing good can come from our intervening in Syria. I just leave open the possibility that there may come a point where not intervening will lead to an even worse outcome. We may have to choose the least worse option now, since the chance to have a positive outcome was squandered over the past two and a half years.


I really don't think you've thought this through very much, Gunfighter06. Not that it matters. You're very far from the corridors of power where these kinds of decisions are being made, as am I. But if you really think that in the modern age we can turn away from the world and expect that it will leave us alone you're delusional.

The Excited States has zero moral credibility regarding chemical weapons. They dumped 20, 000, 000 gallons of chemicals on Vietmam over a decade for starters. They used White Phosphorus on Iraqui women and children in 2004. Also, they murder their own children with their stupid gun laws.

one of those is not like the others

'excepting if our Pacific allies were to be attacked by Red China.'

It's such an odd phrase, i think i asked before - why refer to it as 'Red' China? I believe your reply was that it is just a factual statement - which brings us back to 'can factual statements be rascist' - yes of course they can.

So adding the word red to your description of China is odd, mostly because you don't add modifiers to describe any other country - blue france? (a republic) purple england? (a monarchy) - why not? Is it to signify that they are, in your weird little world, a threat, a communist menace? (when infact they are a massive trading partner and they subscribe to the notion that they will prosper with the US - in my mind Chinese Imperial ambition is comparable to US Imperial ambition, and neither is particularily beneficial - if they both held each other in check then we might be fine, but i suspect that sort of balance is highly unstable... (even if Iraq/Afghanistan proves to be a turning point in US foreign military use, which i guess we'll look back on in 50 years when we can compare it with Vietnam...)

There is nothing special about China which requires a reminder that it is run by a single party system. That it's democracy is not like the US two-party system (limited choice in the US and the appearance of freedom, but both parties seem to do the exact same things when in power...) their economy is regulated capitalism, just like the US, and i suspect there are subsidies for some industries, just like the US. Nothing special there at all...

orathiac, it's really very simple. Red China is a term to distinguish the communist-run mainland Chinese government from the non-communist exiled ROC on Taiwan. It's imprecise, it's loaded, but it's not wrong.

@Vicy, i seem to recall China having one permanent seat on the UN security council. Now when did it transfer from the ROC to the PRC? I'm pretty sure everyone recognises this changes, and most refer to these two governments as Taiwan (ROC) and China (PRC) - only the Chinese (PRC) have a problem with this, as it implies that Taiwan is seperate from China (the de facto position) which of course they will not accept.

#Vietnam#

PE+1

orathic, you're just ignorant of the situation. Taiwan is not an independent state. It regards itself as part of China, just not under the control of the PRC government. Here, enlighten yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_taiwan

At any rate, I cannot understand why you've got such a hate boner for the use of Red China. As I said, it's an imprecise and loaded term, but it's also not an incorrect one. Mainland China is run by the Chinese Communist Party. Red is a color associated with communism. Pretty simple. It isn't even used exclusively with regards to China. See: Red Army, Red Berlin, Red Ed (jocularly), etc.

@ Invictus

"But if you really think that in the modern age we can turn away from the world and expect that it will leave us alone you're delusional."

As things stand now, no one is going to pick a real fight on American soil. As Admiral Yamamoto is famously and erroneously quoted as saying, "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." If we start producing things here, especially energy, I don't see why we have to have our fingers in all of the world's various pies.

"Just the existence of a government down there that opposes our polices is no real threat."

Frankly, it's annoying to have a thorn in our collective side in the form of a Latin American dictator. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a Grenada, Panama, or Haiti-esque war every once in a while if the situation calls for it.

"As for allies, the Pacific is exactly the one place where we are allies with states with real militaries. All of them, unlike the eunuch Europeans, maintain significant armed forces that can effectively defend their countries against any plausible conventional attacks."

Sorry, but I have less faith than you do in the capabilities of the Japanese and Filipino militaries when they have 2.2 million Chinese soldiers headed straight for them. Besides, who's going to launch a serious conventional attack on Western Europe?

@ mapleleaf

"They dumped 20, 000, 000 gallons of chemicals on Vietmam over a decade for starters."

Not gonna argue about Vietnam. It was poorly conducted from the very beginning, which led to... messier tactics such as the chemical defoliants that you alluded to.

"They used White Phosphorus on Iraqui women and children in 2004."

Well, not on purpose. Collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of urban warfare. Once again, not going to argue about Iraq. Besides, WP isn't a chemical weapon like sarin and mustard gas. WP has legitimate uses in target marking/illumination munitions. WP can also be pressed into service as incendiary or smoke munitions if other types are unavailable. America's historical and recent uses of WP have not been outside of commonly accepted rules of war.

"Also, they murder their own children with their stupid gun laws."

I completely agree. Far too many inner-city children have been killed by the Draconian gun laws of California, Illinois, and New York. Imagine how many illegal shootings would take place if half of all law-abiding citizens were armed with adequate, modern firearms at all times.

@ orathaic

Yeah, what Invictus said. I don't like the PRC government or the fact that Americans piss away their hard-earned money on PRC goods. Consequently, I used an "imprecise and loaded term". Ha. It wasn't an imprecise and loaded term 60 years ago when Chinese and Americans were shooting at each other. People seem to forget that.

@Gun ... they said no one was going to attack the United States for around 15 years (end of the Cold War fears) till 9/11. Basically says we are, in an abstract and yes, I know, refutable theory, due for a little tap in the butt. The point isn't that we're due, though, but that we should be defensively ready. If that means we need to have *some* troops in other areas, so be it. And really, Yamamoto isn't related to our situation at all.

If you are so worried about China attacking Japan or the Philippines, please give me some sources other than number so that I can worry with you.

And, please, collateral damage is a preventable reality, not an unfortunate reality. Don't confuse yourself.

"As things stand now, no one is going to pick a real fight on American soil."

This doesn't just magically happen, though. It's because we engage threats abroad before they are able to reach us here, and because we retain the ability to respond to an attack anywhere in the world, which acts as a deterrence. You want to give up both of these things.

"Frankly, it's annoying to have a thorn in our collective side in the form of a Latin American dictator. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a Grenada, Panama, or Haiti-esque war every once in a while if the situation calls for it."

Do you know why we invaded Grenada? It wasn't because the Grenadines (?) were planning to sack Washington. It was because they built an airport we thought was too big for their needs and was really to service Soviet bombers, with some talk about protecting American medical students thrown in too. We did not invade just because there was a Marxist coup there. The revolutionary government, in and of itself, posed no threat. How could it, in a country with a population the size of a small American city? If the same thing were to happen today we would not even consider invading, since there is no superpower foe for the new government to be a client of.

Panama literally declared war on us in 1989, so intervention would be justified under anyone's views. As for Haiti, I don't know what war you're talking about. The closest thing to a war there was way back in 1915 or so. The 1993 and 2004 interventions were really just poking in to influence who was president, exactly the kind of "fingers in all of the world's various pies" thing you should oppose if you're being consistent. Again, you're just an imperialist who wants a smaller and more brutish empire.

"I have less faith than you do in the capabilities of the Japanese and Filipino militaries when they have 2.2 million Chinese soldiers headed straight for them. Besides, who's going to launch a serious conventional attack on Western Europe?"

How, pray tell, do the Chinese get there? They still do not have a blue-water navy, really. The Philippines, Japan, and South Korea could hold their own with the Chinese navy in a limited conflict, and with American involvement conventional victory becomes virtually certain. You just have a chauvinist view of the Asian powers, which is easy to do when you haven't looked into the issue.

As for Europe, there certainly is no conventional threat. But that doesn't mean they could keep on not having militaries in the absence of free riding on America's. For example, if Spain didn't have the total support of the United States in the event of an attack do you really think Morocco wouldn't make a go for Ceuta and Melilla? Even if it's not likely, Spain would have to take up the slack now carried by the United States and expand its own forces to deal with that potential threat. And who's to say the conflict wouldn't come from within Europe? Hungary has territorial claims on all of its neighbors and a significant nationalist movement that supports reclaiming them. Even if conflict stays unlikely due to the EU framework, all its neighbors would have to increase their militaries without the existence of an effective NATO putting them all on the same side and making war impossible. Hell, Greece and Turkey have almost gone to war while in NATO over Aegean disputes, without it war is almost certain in the long run.


Again ,you really just haven't thought this out. And again, that's fine. You and I will never be in positions of power deciding how the world runs. But for your betterment you ought to look at things more closely and with more recent information.

@invictus/gunf "As I said, it's an imprecise and loaded term, but it's also
not an incorrect one"

My problem is literally this.

It intentionally paints China as 'the red menace' - this is essentialy rascism, pro-US nationalism which has caused most of the inter-nation wars of the past 20 years.

As previously mentioned, being factually true doesn't take away the implication.

In my mind China is no better or worse than the US. Both have Imperial ambitions, Taiwan doesn't declare it's independence because it fears that doing so would provoke a war. China will very likely copy the success of US exploitation if developing markets without invading,

Communism is not evil, it is imperfect - just like democratic-free market-capitalism; Chinese politics are probably corrupt - just like the Deomcrat/Republicans who take massive payments from 'lobbiests'. The Chinese use of the death penalty is a huge human rights violation, just like the US use.

Invictus, i think you are willing to see China as a responcible nation which is out to get as much power for itself, and respect them as perhaps an enemy/competitor, maybe a threat, without needing to paint them as evil.

Gunfigther, i think you are ready to go into middle-school and begin growing up.

"It intentionally paints China as 'the red menace' - this is essentialy rascism, pro-US nationalism which has caused most of the inter-nation wars of the past 20 years."

Racist? Racist would be calling ti the Yellow Peril or something. Just point out that it's a communist state is not racist at all. What bizarre world do you live in? As for pro-US nationalism causing most inter-state wars over the last 20 years, that's just false but debunking it sufficiently would derail the thread too much.

"In my mind China is no better or worse than the US."

Say what you want about America, but we don't have abortion vans forcing women to end pregnancies they want tot carry to term. We don't have slave-labor factories staffed by political prisoners. We don't stake territorial claims on our neighbors. We don't have a closed political system where the country's leaders are chosen through byzantine party processes rather than free and fair elections. We don't have judges who flout the rule of law in order to reach political decisions. And on and on. America is far from perfect, but there's no equivalence between it and China when it comes to "better or worse."

And again, read up on Taiwan. You still don't seem to fully understand the situation.

Don't make me laugh at 'free and fair' elections in the US, two parties which basically do the same thing, hidden paymets from corporate donors and individuals who have personal vested interest.
The US prison-slave population is based on 'class war' rather not political repression.

The judicial system is one thing the US has going for it.

The US doesn't have abortion vans, but it does have killer guns. And the one-child policy in China was an attempt to actually fairly handle population growth in what remains the most populous country in the world (though i suspect India will over-take it in the next 25 years)

There are other differences, China represses freedom of speech and blocks internet access, while the US attacks personal privacy and kill's citizen-terrorists from the skies with drones.

I'm not sure what staking territorial claims on neighbours has to do with anything; the Chinese national territory (ie what is actually controlled by a Chinese state) has varied a lot over the past 2-3 thousand years. The US continental expansion 'claimed' the entire continent and wiped out several indigenous nations. Again, different by no better or worse - the British wiped out australian aboriginal culture, the Russian wiped out Siberian indigenous cultures, and the US wiped out native American cultures, based on some 'manifest destiny' - China considers it to have a 'natural territory' based at least on historic and cultural links. Big deal. Almost every nation in history has changed it's territory and claimed more. The US currently controls Puerto Rico, since beating the Spainish, and currently refuses to let it vote in federal elections. (since they voted to become a state in Nov 2012, irrc) also took Hawaii around the same time (same war with Spain?)

Not to mention client states in the middle east. When it comes to foreign policy i think China comes across lokking much better than the US...

And i still don't see your point about Taiwan. There is one China sitting on the security council. And the ROC used to hold that seat - there may be two 'Chinas' but only one is recognised as the defacto government of the country, whatever it's borders/territory.

Can you imagine a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? When they can more than likely negotiate a peaceful integration, especially if the US isn't involved...

There are nuances, Taiwanese independence or Japanese colonial status (though the UN has taken a position against colonies) - considering 'China, during the Qing Dynasty, ceded the island of Taiwan, including Penghu, to Japan "in perpetuity" at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War by signing the Treaty of Shimonoseki. In the Cairo Conference of 1943, the allied powers agreed to have Japan restore "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese"'

I'm not sure if ceding in perpetuity counts as stealing - under that interpretation the US 'stole' Texas and California from Mexico...

The depth of your ignorance here is too much for me. Take this as a victory if you want, I'm just too tired.

"The task of changing the national borders
now requires a constitutional amendment passed by the Legislative Yuan and ratified by a majority of all eligible ROC voters, which the PRC has implied would
constitute grounds for military attack."

Vicky, from your link, is that nit what i said? That Taiwan declaring independence by 'changing national borders' would be considered grounds for invasion by the PRC.

It is a little messy... Not as messy as Syria but more messy than Guantanemo bay.

@ orathaic

"but it does have killer guns"

Oh, yes. Our "killer" guns which stand between the people and tyranny. On a more practical level, legal guns kill/deter FAR more bad guys than good guys.

I really don't have any tolerance for anti-gun pricks. Your shoddy arguments are built on anecdotal evidence and cherry-picked statistics, as well as a complete ignorance of modern firearms and firearm owners.

www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/18-year-old-shot-dead-by-close-friend-in-a-prank-g?s=mobile

Yeah, nothing bad can happen if everyone is armed!

I'm not cheery pickig data when i state that te US has higher gun deaths (by homicide) than Canada.

Yeah, okay. Let's blame the inanimate object for the stupidity of people. Seriously, advocating gun control is like advocating castration for all males just because of Ariel Castro.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Kennesaw-Georgia.html

^Gun ownership mandatory. Crime rate=1/3rd of national average. No murders or rapes in recent memory.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html

^Guns effectively banned. De facto warzone.

Same thing goes for states. Compare the crime rates of North Dakota or Alaska with those of California or Illinois. Fact: Guns exist. Fact: Criminals worldwide can acquire guns relatively easily, regardless of national or local laws.

Fact: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Fact: Police cannot be everywhere at every time. Fact: Trained, law-abiding gun owners can, theoretically, be everywhere at every time. Fact: Trained, law-abiding gun owners are more likely to stop crime than unarmed civilians.

Also, I did notice that your most recent post included not only anecdotal evidence but also a cherry-picked statistic.

'Fact: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.' - that is not a fact.

'Fact: Guns exist. Fact: Criminals
worldwide can acquire guns relatively easily, regardless of national or local
laws.' - that is likewise not true.

You're the one cherry-picking : "Same thing goes for states. Compare the crime rates of North Dakota or
Alaska with those of California or Illinois."

I bet if you compare like with like you will find a signifigant different story, compare the crime rates of Alaska with any county in California which has the same population density.

That would be a far fairer comparison.

And no, i'm not blaming the inanimate object; where did you get that idea. I am blaming the culture. Which is exactly what you should look at - in China they have an authoritarian stances on family size, in America you have an anti-authoritarian stance on fire-arms control. In both cases lots of deaths.

Gunfigther, are you denying that more people are killed by gun crime in america than in China?

Tha is my basic premise - your country allows gun deaths to happen and China does not.

Hard to get decent figures but: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Canada puts the US to shame, and China... Well i'll let you work it out!

So did anyone foresee the possible solution being an off the cuff comment leading to a delay to Congress's vote?