Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

now listen to me... go find someone else to play with!

You'll want to recover that phlegmatic disposition long enough to recall that you don't give orders 'round here.

You've expressed certain opinions that need to be supported to be taken seriously. It's up to you to support them, is it not? If you're not willing to do that, why should you be ordering anyone else to listen to you?

[JMA]

You'll want to recover that phlegmatic disposition long enough to recall that you don't give orders 'round here.

Last time I said something like that to someone I got suspended.

You've expressed certain opinions that need to be supported to be taken seriously. It's up to you to support them, is it not? If you're not willing to do that, why should you be ordering anyone else to listen to you?

Let me help you here.

I am obviously different from the emotionally fragile USians of your generation and younger.

I am happy to be taken seriously by people I care about. I am not driven (it should be obvious by now) to attempt to seek acceptance by people I don't know and will never get to know and really don't need to know.

This discussion group is interesting and I have learned much here... but it gets trying when people without even rudimentary knowledge of the military speak as if they do. Always better to stay within the bounds of your expertise which in your case is what?

[Dayuhan]

I am obviously different from the emotionally fragile USians of your generation and younger.

I'm aware that you've a high opinion of yourself. The reminder is unnecessary.

I am happy to be taken seriously by people I care about. I am not driven (it should be obvious by now) to attempt to seek acceptance by people I don't know and will never get to know and really don't need to know.

I don't know why you'd see supporting your statements with evidence or reasoning as "seeking acceptance". I also can't see why you'd bother making statements if you're not prepared to back them up if questioned: it's called a discussion board for a reason. Stating fringe opinions and retreating to bluster and obfuscation when they're challenged is not consistent with any definition of "discussion" that I know of.

it gets trying when people without even rudimentary knowledge of the military speak as if they do. Always better to stay within the bounds of your expertise which in your case is what?

The discussion in progress on this thread is predominantly political, not military. In any event the credence any opinion gets here should depend solely on the reasoning and evidence presented to support that opinion.

I'd be curious to know what specific expertise supports your dramatically stated opinion that US leaders won't intervene in Syria because they're pissing their pants in terror of some still unspecified threat from Russia and China.

The repeated suggestion that these interventions could be achieved neatly and cleanly if only people were "competent" begs the question of what steps you think competent people would take, what you think the outcome would be, and why you think that. In the absence of that information, the claim of "incompetence" is less than compelling.

Just run your military credentials past me so I can try to understand where you are coming from here.

I asked the question so that you might display your knowledge.

If I challenged your assessments of the capacity to carry out such a strike, or the means by which such a strike might be carried out, that would involve military credentials. The question as asked involves the anticipated political response to a military action, not the action itself, and is essentially a question involving political expertise, not military expertise.

Again, it looks like you're evading the question because you can't answer it. Best way to change that perception is to answer the question.

You've proposed the three cruise missile theory and the process by which it would be implemented. No question or challenge there. The question is what political outcome you'd expect from those steps, and why.

Entropy's post above would be an excellent starting point for reasonable discussion of the prospects for intervention in Syria.

[JMA]

I'm aware that you've a high opinion of yourself. The reminder is unnecessary.

I don't know why you'd see supporting your statements with evidence or reasoning as "seeking acceptance". I also can't see why you'd bother making statements if you're not prepared to back them up if questioned: it's called a discussion board for a reason. Stating fringe opinions and retreating to bluster and obfuscation when they're challenged is not consistent with any definition of "discussion" that I know of.

The discussion in progress on this thread is predominantly political, not military. In any event the credence any opinion gets here should depend solely on the reasoning and evidence presented to support that opinion.

I'd be curious to know what specific expertise supports your dramatically stated opinion that US leaders won't intervene in Syria because they're pissing their pants in terror of some still unspecified threat from Russia and China.

The repeated suggestion that these interventions could be achieved neatly and cleanly if only people were "competent" begs the question of what steps you think competent people would take, what you think the outcome would be, and why you think that. In the absence of that information, the claim of "incompetence" is less than compelling.

I asked the question so that you might display your knowledge.

If I challenged your assessments of the capacity to carry out such a strike, or the means by which such a strike might be carried out, that would involve military credentials. The question as asked involves the anticipated political response to a military action, not the action itself, and is essentially a question involving political expertise, not military expertise.

Again, it looks like you're evading the question because you can't answer it. Best way to change that perception is to answer the question.

You've proposed the three cruise missile theory and the process by which it would be implemented. No question or challenge there. The question is what political outcome you'd expect from those steps, and why.

Entropy's post above would be an excellent starting point for reasonable discussion of the prospects for intervention in Syria.

LOL ... pass