Syria Disintegrating: Part 2

[derspiess]

I fail to see the logic in wasting money just because we've wasted money in the past.

[frunk]

I fail to see the logic in wasting money just because we've wasted money in the past.

That's the point, it's not a waste of money, and in fact it's probably one of the more efficient uses of US military power in the past 20 years.

[DGuller]

But apparently it can afford to blow a trillion dollars on Iraq.

First, I would not have spent that much.  Secondly, you people stop bringing up Iraq.  Thirdly, spending too much money on one thing is not justification to spend additional money (even if a smaller amount) on something else later.

No, of course Iraq is not a justification.  Mentioning it, however, is a good way to discredit a position that is inconsistent, and justified by a pretext rather than rational analysis.

[derspiess]

No, of course Iraq is not a justification.  Mentioning it, however, is a good way to discredit a position that is inconsistent, and justified by a pretext rather than rational analysis.

I'm not quite sure I follow you.  Whether or not Iraq was justified, the expense of the Iraq war/occupation is IMO more reason to tighten up the purse strings when it comes to more foreign adventures.  I'm not saying we go completely isolationist-- I just think we should carefully evaluate the national interest benefits vs. the cost involved. 

IMO Qadaffi was not worth spending a billion plus that we didn't have.  I'm equally skeptical of spending any money to help people who most likely hate us as much as the Assad regime does.

[Neil]

Perhaps but that does not necessarily mean so. Most WW2 assassinations of high ranking nazi officials were, to a degree, suicide attacks.

Yeah, but none of them did any good.

[Neil]

I fail to see the logic in wasting money just because we've wasted money in the past.

In the past?  Money is wasted then, now and in the future.  Does the USAF still exist?  If so, money is wasted.

[Barrister]

No, of course Iraq is not a justification.  Mentioning it, however, is a good way to discredit a position that is inconsistent, and justified by a pretext rather than rational analysis.

I'm not quite sure I follow you.  Whether or not Iraq was justified, the expense of the Iraq war/occupation is IMO more reason to tighten up the purse strings when it comes to more foreign adventures.  I'm not saying we go completely isolationist-- I just think we should carefully evaluate the national interest benefits vs. the cost involved. 

IMO Qadaffi was not worth spending a billion plus that we didn't have.  I'm equally skeptical of spending any money to help people who most likely hate us as much as the Assad regime does.

How much do you think the US has spent over the last 40 years on defending against Gadafi and/or containing him?  Over the years Gadafi supported ETA, the IRA, the PLO, the Red Brigade.  They blew up the Berlin disco, and the Lockerbie bombing.

Putting an end to all that for a mere billion dollars?  That's one of the most cost-effective uses of military power in a long time.



And I got nes for you spicey - your government is almost certainly giving money to the anti-Assad forces.  There are lots of reports on how the rebels are saying they are getting funds (and even buying guns right from corrupt regime officials), and just aren't saying where the money is coming from.

[derspiess]

How much do you think the US has spent over the last 40 years on defending against Gadafi and/or containing him?  Over the years Gadafi supported ETA, the IRA, the PLO, the Red Brigade.  They blew up the Berlin disco, and the Lockerbie bombing.

Putting an end to all that for a mere billion dollars?  That's one of the most cost-effective uses of military power in a long time.

You make it sound as if he was continuing to do all that stuff up until the day we intervened.  In truth, he ceased to be a threat to us long ago.

And I got nes for you spicey - your government is almost certainly giving money to the anti-Assad forces.  There are lots of reports on how the rebels are saying they are getting funds (and even buying guns right from corrupt regime officials), and just aren't saying where the money is coming from.

It would figure.  All those oil-rich Ayrab countries over there who actually do have a dog in the fight, and we're the ones bankrolling the rebels.  We are the suckers of the world.

[Barrister]

How much do you think the US has spent over the last 40 years on defending against Gadafi and/or containing him?  Over the years Gadafi supported ETA, the IRA, the PLO, the Red Brigade.  They blew up the Berlin disco, and the Lockerbie bombing.

Putting an end to all that for a mere billion dollars?  That's one of the most cost-effective uses of military power in a long time.

You make it sound as if he was continuing to do all that stuff up until the day we intervened.  In truth, he ceased to be a threat to us long ago.

It was only maybe 7 years ago he made overtures to the West.  And given his history he could easily have become a foe once again (not to mention what he did to his own people).

And I got nes for you spicey - your government is almost certainly giving money to the anti-Assad forces.  There are lots of reports on how the rebels are saying they are getting funds (and even buying guns right from corrupt regime officials), and just aren't saying where the money is coming from.

It would figure.  All those oil-rich Ayrab countries over there who actually do have a dog in the fight, and we're the ones bankrolling the rebels.  We are the suckers of the world.

But again - Syria has been a thorn in the US side for decades.  It helps bankroll Hezbollah (and through that may well be responsible in part for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit), was/is a russian ally, is a foe of Israel, and has made life generally miserable in Lebannon (a country whihmight otherwise have good ties to the US).

The US certainly has a dog in the fight.  If you can help get rid of Assad and all it takes if giving a few million to some rebels that's one hell of a bargain.

[Valmy]

Just think 1849, when the Hungarians officially threw the Habsburgs out

Hungary actually won something for a few minutes and they never stop to crow about it

Austria was easily startled but they would soon be back and in greater numbers.

[derspiess]

It was only maybe 7 years ago he made overtures to the West.  And given his history he could easily have become a foe once again (not to mention what he did to his own people).

He stopped actively antagonizing us before that.

But again - Syria has been a thorn in the US side for decades.  It helps bankroll Hezbollah (and through that may well be responsible in part for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit), was/is a russian ally, is a foe of Israel, and has made life generally miserable in Lebannon (a country whihmight otherwise have good ties to the US).

The US certainly has a dog in the fight.  If you can help get rid of Assad and all it takes if giving a few million to some rebels that's one hell of a bargain.

Believe me, I have no love for the Assad dynasty and on a certain level I am sorta cheering for the rebels. But whatever replaces the Assad regime is likely to be just as bad for us if not worse.  I'll be happy if I'm wrong on that.

Surprises me that neoconservatism is still alive & kicking, espec. here.

[Razgovory]

Did you think Iraq served our interests?

I think the invasion did.  But I don't think that's relevant to this conversation.

Of course it's relevant.  It's a middle eastern Baathist dictarship.  In 2003 there were only two of those in the world!

[Razgovory]

No, of course Iraq is not a justification.  Mentioning it, however, is a good way to discredit a position that is inconsistent, and justified by a pretext rather than rational analysis.

I'm not quite sure I follow you.  Whether or not Iraq was justified, the expense of the Iraq war/occupation is IMO more reason to tighten up the purse strings when it comes to more foreign adventures.  I'm not saying we go completely isolationist-- I just think we should carefully evaluate the national interest benefits vs. the cost involved. 

IMO Qadaffi was not worth spending a billion plus that we didn't have.  I'm equally skeptical of spending any money to help people who most likely hate us as much as the Assad regime does.

We didn't have the money then. 

[DGuller]

But we're really broke now.  Flat broke.

[Razgovory]

But we're really broke now.  Flat broke.

Just like we were in the early 1990's.  It's weird.  There was a huge ruckus about the debt in the early 1990's where we just couldn't to afford to spend any more.  Then it sorta went quite for a decade the debt was on longer a big problem even though it was now larger then the one in the 1990's.  Then we apparently were on the brink again around 2008.