What in God's name is going on in Syria?

I’ve known war refugees. By and large, they’re not looking for any more of what they’ve escaped.

The trouble is, some of them aren’t war refugees as such. They’re combatants. They’re defeat refugees, and they’ve got something to prove, plus they’ve got a death wish. That makes them dangerous.

If refugees comes streaming in from North Korea, you can bet some of the former ruling class will be among them. They may be willing to kill if they think they can get away with it. But - being of an atheist ideology - they’ll probably not be willing to die. So, no suicide bomber types.

Or, it depends just how they get beat. Think Nazi Germany after WWII. That’s a good parallel.

Ships are on their way. Just for show?

Trump doesn’t always win. But how often does he back down without a proper fight?

China and North Korea are military allies so any attack on the DPRK will draw China in. If anyone can handle war with China though Agent Orange can

[quote]Chinese military intervention in a North Korean collapse scenario is practically a certainty. At the same time, China has repeatedly stated that U.S. military forces entering North Korea would be intolerable, and yet U.S. forces regularly train to do just that. The reality is that South Korea, as capable as it is, may not have a military large enough to handle all contingencies. In such cases the power-projection capability of the U.S. military would be essential. China famously intervened in the fall of 1950 as U.S. and South Korean forces crossed the Yalu River. In the event of a North Korean collapse, barring any agreement between the two countries ahead of time, a military confrontation between the United States and China appears likely.

What would such a conflict look like? The United States would be pushing forces into East Asia, while the Chinese would be working hard to keep them out. Such a scenario plays to the strengths both sides have been steadily developing over the past decade, a forced-entry capability for the U.S. military and an antiaccess/area-denial capability for the People’s Liberation Army.

On the the Chinese side, the People’s Liberation Army would try to shut the door on East Asia while Chinese forces advance on the ground into North Korea. Antiship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D would attempt to keep American carrier battle groups one thousand miles or farther away from the mainland—enough to restrict American naval aviation to missions involving aerial refueling. Medium-range missiles such as the DF-26 “Guam Express” would strike American air and naval facilities on the island of Guam, striking Andersen Air Force Base and U.S. Navy facilities.

Unfortunately, it would also be in China’s interests to target U.S. military facilities in Japan, particularly those on the island of Okinawa, the amphibious naval base at Sasebo, aircraft carrier and surface forces based at Yokosuka, and Misawa Air Base. This would almost certainly cause Japanese military and civilian casualties and draw Japan into the war. Chinese medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and tactical aircraft would all conduct strikes against American, and gradually Japanese, targets. The Americans, on the other hand, would struggle to keep their chain of military bases leading to Korea operational while at the same time striking back at Chinese forces and racing the Chinese into North Korea—a very tall order. THAAD missile interceptors on Guam would attempt to defend the island from incoming ballistic missiles, and Patriot PAC-2 and PAC-3 batteries would defend bases, cities and economic targets from ballistic and cruise missiles. American and South Korean forces would advance north over land or conduct an amphibious landing on North Korea’s shoreline; while North Korean opposition via sea and air would be negligible, Chinese air and naval forces could act to prevent a landing.

The most dangerous aspect of a Sino-American conflict would be conventional U.S. strikes on the Chinese mainland. Such strikes would be necessary to shut down the ballistic-missile threat and allow U.S. forces greater freedom of action. On the other hand that would likely galvanize Chinese public opinion and place it squarely behind the Communist Party, making a ceasefire difficult to achieve.[/quote]

You’re missing the gist of what I was saying, but I was in a hurry when I wrote that, so I can understand. I was saying that we actually won against the North Koreans before, but because of the mass of Chinese sent against us, we lost the war. That won’t happen again. We’ll be able to win even more easily against North Korea. And we have a President who will do what’s necessary and listen to his generals. And if China interferes again, we wouldn’t hesitate to replace the Communist Party.

North Korea has already been emboldened, by Obama’s inactivity. What to watch for is his reaction, will he go in hiding, like his father did during Iraq War, or will he continue his belligerence, in which case, North Korea will be closer to military defeat. As Rowland says, he’s firing warning shots now, so he will have the moral authority to use real power later.

This isn’t like Obama presiding over a war solely by drones. Or Clinton shooting one missile at some factory to distract attention from how his semen got on Lewinsky’s dress.

Historically, Republican administrations have a lack of war because of projected military strength. But both Clinton and Obama have set the table making military intervention necessary as Republicans are saddled with the responsibility to wipe up the mess generated. 911 happened because of Clinton policies setting up a wall of communication between the FBI and CIA so they couldn’t cooperate on tracking terrorists on American soil.

Speking of listening to the generals.

[quote=“IbisWtf, post:138, topic:68610, full:true”]
Because the vast majority of people running to Europe are not war refugees.[/quote]

Can you provide a source for that?

Where can I find a scholarly tome that supports your theory, Professor Pirate Hunter? :slight_smile:

The best decision the U.S. ever made in Vietnam was to just holster its messiah complex and go home and here’s the proof.

Lyndon Johnson wanted to respect the North Vietnamese communists, and just keep them from attacking the South. Wrong! Military is for one purpose and one purpose only: to destroy and smash stuff and win! Democrats never see the military in that light.

If our enemy kept coming down to assault us, we should have gone up there and beat the he-- out of them, like we did North Korea. (And when China came down, we needed to go after them too).

Democrats never get it, they think they are respecting political boundaries. Clausewitz is one of the first officers who instructed American military in Revolutionary War:

The original means of strategy is victory – that
is tactical success – its end, in the final
analysis, are those objects which will lead
directly to peace.
-Carl Von Clausewitz

This, however, was Johnson’s strategy, which is not victory at all:

Our objective, our strategy, is to convince the
North Vietnamese that their Communist-inspired,
directed, and supported guerilla action to
overthrow the established government in the South
cannot be achieved, and then to negotiate for the
future peace and security of that country.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, full of Democrat stupid thinking. Democrats think this is compassionate, but caused us to lose the war and national honor and shed blood for millions on both sides unnecessarily because we didn’t pursue the first objective, which is victory, which shortens wars and limits casualties. Victory is compassion.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a401184.pdf

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/05/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-us-never-lost-major-battle-vietn/

Bringing it back to Syria, all Trump has done was reinforce Obama’s red line, and trying to save his honor. Funny how Russian and Iran’s leader got together and condemned Trump’s action as crossing a red line, when it was just enforcing Obama’s red line, and now we maybe know why he was afraid to enforce it.

Same thing with Iran, Trump gave them notice after they violated the terms of the very lax agreement under Obama so that Trump can tear it all up and renegotiate the terms more strictly. But he’s using Obama’s policy as a starting point and taking it where he wants it to go.

Why are you still talking about Obama?

Obama and Hillary are the ones who started this mess in Syria. This is their doing. They were trying to use the Islamic State and jihadist groups to oust Assad, like the USA did in Afghanistan to oust the Soviets in order to avoid direct US military intervention.

Trump just inherited Obama’s mess.

Blar blar old news blar blar.

Pretty sure there are about ten or twenty countries and ethnic groups involved not just two ppl from the US.

Actually, the way it works is you beat them in the field and then negotiate/dictate a peace on favorable terms, from a position of strength.

You have to do these things in the right order or it won’t work.

Whatever horrors and disasters are to come with respect to American involvement with Syria and Russia: the Republicans own it.

Weren’t you saying Putin was Trumps master? That Putin issues orders for Trump to follow?

1 Like

That was last narrative.

It’s getting so difficult to follow all the different narratives, especially when none of them make sense.

Now you’re sort of contradicting yourself, lol.

I’m loving this.

CNN accidentally got a “wrong” Syrian refugee. He blamed Obama for breaking his red line and praised Trump for his action and reinforcing that red line.

Then the reporterette got political and asked his reaction to Hillary saying that Trump was banning Syrian refugees, and the refugee said, please, we don’t want to be refugees, we don’t want to come to America. Please let us stay in our country, and praised Trump again for helping make that happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3uaf1NFxXc