Jump to content
flareback

Military Action in Syria

Military Action in Syria  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the U.S. take military action in Syria

    • Yes - and I live in the USA
      7
    • Yes - and I live outside the USA
      0
    • No - and I live in the USA
      25
    • No - and I live outside the USA
      11
    • I don't know
      7


Recommended Posts

 

Calling troops home leads to thousands more unemployed people, cutting military spending kills more jobs when contracts get cancelled.....see where I am going with this?

But they're jobs that shouldn't be needed, we shouldn't be planning/designing next drone, we should be improving battery technology for electric cars.

 

We shouldn't be building thousands of tanks (that we don't even use!) and start building up America's infastructure or improving the efficiency of OUR homes.

 

There are PLENTY of jobs that can be made once the economy jumps back from all the money we save as a country by not spending al lof it fighting these conflicts that don't concern us.

 

You may want to do a little reading on American history. Most technology advances start with the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling troops home leads to thousands more unemployed people, cutting military spending kills more jobs when contracts get cancelled.....see where I am going with this?

Actually it can increase jobs. More troops at home means more bases have to stay open and thus an increase in the civilian jobs they create. The military cuts and savings from this can be almost all covered by the decrease in expenses incurred by having the troops over seas. This would not mean a slow down in new development.

 

 

You may want to do a little reading on American history. Most technology advances start with the military.

 

Those advancements typical come from a time of war. When at peace NASA and other science agencies have a higher tech advancement. Also look at the recent wars, no real tech advances. The reason is there is no need, the enemy is inferior in tech so we do not need new.

Edited by ComputerEd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troops at home means more bases closing actually. I live 40 minutes from one that just lost an entire battalion when they stepped in and said that since we are not at war or in a conflict currently there is no need to have this many troops on standby. While that may sound great, it actually put hundreds of people out of work just in the town that was built just to support the activities at the base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRACs and force reduction are nothing new and don't only rely on being at war.  I'd much rather have us be at home then to have to deploy to Afghan, Iraq or whatever other shithole might be next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRACs and force reduction are nothing new and don't only rely on being at war.  I'd much rather have us be at home then to have to deploy to Afghan, Iraq or whatever other shithole might be next.

That's kind of an interesting word that we commonly use to describe these places. I mean are there any americans or american soldiers more specifically that describe that part of the world with any nice words? Is it really worth it for us to try and save places that we can't even find kind adjectives for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Death

That's kind of an interesting word that we commonly use to describe these places. I mean are there any americans or american soldiers more specifically that describe that part of the world with any nice words? Is it really worth it for us to try and save places that we can't even find kind adjectives for?

I have friends who have been in some of these places you describe. Some as civilians and some as soldiers, the soldiers for the most part don't want to go back, the civilians do. Both tell of the people being nice, but as you say the soldiers regard it as a hellhole, the civilians as a tragic beautiful place. They are both right, i think any place you send a soldier, and put him under stress, shoot at him, keep him constantly on his toes, constantly running scared, that will to him be a hellhole. a civilian however, though they do see the violence, can see the beauty and interact with the people without having to worry about watching their back and wondering who will take a shot at them from where.

I'm mean, take your closest big city, or the city you live in; sure it may not be the prettiest place on earth but it has lots of things to like i'm sure. Cool place, people and things. Now imagine being a foreigner coming to that city as a soldier in time of war; every window, every alley, every doorway could hide an insurgent or sniper, every person could be an enemy. That would be a hellhole for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Death

That's kind of an interesting word that we commonly use to describe these places. I mean are there any americans or american soldiers more specifically that describe that part of the world with any nice words? Is it really worth it for us to try and save places that we can't even find kind adjectives for?

I have friends who have been in some of these places you describe. Some as civilians and some as soldiers, the soldiers for the most part don't want to go back, the civilians do. Both tell of the people being nice, but as you say the soldiers regard it as a hellhole, the civilians as a tragic beautiful place. They are both right, i think any place you send a soldier, and put him under stress, shoot at him, keep him constantly on his toes, constantly running scared, that will to him be a hellhole. a civilian however, though they do see the violence, can see the beauty and interact with the people without having to worry about watching their back and wondering who will take a shot at them from where.

I'm mean, take your closest big city, or the city you live in; sure it may not be the prettiest place on earth but it has lots of things to like i'm sure. Cool place, people and things. Now imagine being a foreigner coming to that city as a soldier in time of war; every window, every alley, every doorway could hide an insurgent or sniper, every person could be an enemy. That would be a hellhole for sure.

Perhaps it depends on the person, I really only know a couple of people that fought over there, Iraq specifically, and only have about three friends that have gone there for vacation. None of them really enjoyed it. You're completely right though, doesn't matter where a soldier is sent, they'll probably hate the place. I know a couple that had to help during Katrina and they said it was one of the worst experiences of their lives. I've been to New Orleans and parts of Texas that suffered from it though, couple years later however, and while there was still a lot of ugliness, there was some nice things to see as well though.

 

One of my friends that visited Iraq for vacation though, he went to visit several of the countries in that area, Isreal being one of them, he told me that was his favorite. So maybe he wasn't impressed with Iraq because of that. I'm not sure what to think though. That was pretty much why I posed the question. I've never been there but from what I've heard from friends, nobody really wants to save it, but I guess nobody would at this point, I'd be interested in finding some opinions from people that visited there before the war, maybe it was a better place back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it depends on the person, I really only know a couple of people that fought over there, Iraq specifically, and only have about three friends that have gone there for vacation. None of them really enjoyed it. You're completely right though, doesn't matter where a soldier is sent, they'll probably hate the place. I know a couple that had to help during Katrina and they said it was one of the worst experiences of their lives. I've been to New Orleans and parts of Texas that suffered from it though, couple years later however, and while there was still a lot of ugliness, there was some nice things to see as well though.

 

One of my friends that visited Iraq for vacation though, he went to visit several of the countries in that area, Israel being one of them, he told me that was his favorite. So maybe he wasn't impressed with Iraq because of that. I'm not sure what to think though. That was pretty much why I posed the question. I've never been there but from what I've heard from friends, nobody really wants to save it, but I guess nobody would at this point, I'd be interested in finding some opinions from people that visited there before the war, maybe it was a better place back then.

Really? How about the people who live there? I'm sure they very much want safety to go back to their normal lives. A lot of the people over there are tribal, barely settled nomads. The vast majority have no use for the Taliban and would prefer to left alone to live as they have for centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Calling troops home leads to thousands more unemployed people, cutting military spending kills more jobs when contracts get cancelled.....see where I am going with this?

But they're jobs that shouldn't be needed, we shouldn't be planning/designing next drone, we should be improving battery technology for electric cars.

 

We shouldn't be building thousands of tanks (that we don't even use!) and start building up America's infastructure or improving the efficiency of OUR homes.

 

There are PLENTY of jobs that can be made once the economy jumps back from all the money we save as a country by not spending al lof it fighting these conflicts that don't concern us.

 

You may want to do a little reading on American history. Most technology advances start with the military.

 

Keyword there...We need to not repeat history and advance technology for the sake of furthering and improving our life, not because it's a bi-product of a conflict.

 

 

Calling troops home leads to thousands more unemployed people, cutting military spending kills more jobs when contracts get cancelled.....see where I am going with this?

Actually it can increase jobs. More troops at home means more bases have to stay open and thus an increase in the civilian jobs they create. The military cuts and savings from this can be almost all covered by the decrease in expenses incurred by having the troops over seas. This would not mean a slow down in new development.

 

 

You may want to do a little reading on American history. Most technology advances start with the military.

 

Those advancements typical come from a time of war. When at peace NASA and other science agencies have a higher tech advancement. Also look at the recent wars, no real tech advances. The reason is there is no need, the enemy is inferior in tech so we do not need new.

 

Precisely, there will be organizations such as these (and possibly others that pop up) that will be able to have more funding/focus and advance technology for specific improvements of our everyday life or future life. I don't want them to be designing a special new alloy for a tank that just happens to eventually get passed down to the commercial/civilian level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps it depends on the person, I really only know a couple of people that fought over there, Iraq specifically, and only have about three friends that have gone there for vacation. None of them really enjoyed it. You're completely right though, doesn't matter where a soldier is sent, they'll probably hate the place. I know a couple that had to help during Katrina and they said it was one of the worst experiences of their lives. I've been to New Orleans and parts of Texas that suffered from it though, couple years later however, and while there was still a lot of ugliness, there was some nice things to see as well though.

 

One of my friends that visited Iraq for vacation though, he went to visit several of the countries in that area, Israel being one of them, he told me that was his favorite. So maybe he wasn't impressed with Iraq because of that. I'm not sure what to think though. That was pretty much why I posed the question. I've never been there but from what I've heard from friends, nobody really wants to save it, but I guess nobody would at this point, I'd be interested in finding some opinions from people that visited there before the war, maybe it was a better place back then.

Really? How about the people who live there? I'm sure they very much want safety to go back to their normal lives. A lot of the people over there are tribal, barely settled nomads. The vast majority have no use for the Taliban and would prefer to left alone to live as they have for centuries.

 

Why are we setting up a new government for nomads? That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Governments hate nomads, that's why ours committed genocide when it expanded west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...