General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTop US military officer says any move to use force in Syria could cost billions
The top US military officer has outlined the costs, risks and benefits of possible American military involvement in the Syrian conflict.
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen Martin Dempsey offered five military options, including limited strikes and establishing a no-fly zone.
But he said using force in Syria would be "no less than an act of war" and could cost the US billions of dollars.
Washington has so far ruled out military intervention in Syria.
Its role in the conflict is currently limited to delivering humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries and providing non-lethal help to the Syrian opposition.
'Act of war'
In an open letter to senators, Gen Dempsey analysed five military options the US military could potentially undertake in Syria:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23414906#TWEET831024
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)There won't be a serious discussion of why. Of what "threat" Syria poses to the USA.
There won't be any recognition that the USA started the war and openly via proxies ("leading from behind" has been engaged in the Syrian war for several years now, and is now aspiring to openly, sans proxies, beef up and accelerate it as another Obama war a la Libya (as in "whoa, that rag-tag band of rebels kicked major ass" .
As I said, there won't be any serious discussion of why - but there'll be plenty of wild-west imagery in the propaganda.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)does care about the cost. As more and more people live on less and less wages and cannot feed their families there will demand from the public to stop going to war. We saw the appetite for war diminish after a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't even hear the republicans talking about war anymore. Although the democrats have seemed to pick up the slack. During the Democratic Convention you would have thought the democratic party was the war party instead of the republicans. Anything for votes right? But none the less, the public's appetite for war is growing smaller and smaller and the more the people suffer under poverty wages the more the demand to stop going to war will grow.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Think it through. Think it through in terms of how phrases like "good Germans" described people of another time.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)dead bodies therefore it just doesn't register. We are more concerned with our day to day existence which is probably all by design. How can someone care about foreign affairs when they can't feed their child? This is what those in power want. For us to be so mired in poverty that we can only care about what happens in our day to day existence and don't have the luxury of enlightenment, education, or asking questions. It is human nature, but if we want things to change we will have to wake up from our day to day existence. In order to make things better we will have to make enlightenment, education, and questioning a necessity, not a luxury. When will that happen? I don't know, but our people are getting deeper and deeper in poverty and eventually the people will be pushed too far and will wake up.
delrem
(9,688 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)population of the USA isn't mired in poverty. The corporations want to make the minimum wage the standard wage for all, and so far they are being very successful at doing so.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)...shows Obama has not done much at all to change our foreign policy.
We'll go billions further into debt to fund more wars half-way around the world, meanwhile our infrastructure is crumbling and the middle class is being destroyed.
This is why I dont see America surviving much past 2040 without some radical changes.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Are we done with the Iraq cost plus program where you just burn a semi for having a flat tire? And still make bank?