[noisy06]

(Original post by Stalin)
It could, theoretically, take unilateral action, just as Turkey, Britain, Iraq or Cyprus could.

Btw, just to be clear. None of these countries you mentioned can ever take unilateral action. None of these countries can so much as put on their boots without US permission.

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
Well, of course nation building took a lot out of them. I'm not disagreeing about the economics of nation building, but the fact of the matter is that currently the US can take unilateral action without too much repercussions as long as they do it right. They'll probably be able to do this for the next 50 years. Their military has been stretched but this has nothing to do with unilateral action on Syria, something that you have explicitly mentioned. It would be a relatively quick destruction of Assad's regime. They can turn Damascus into a rubble and neither the Chinese nor the Russians can lift a finger. Everyone in congress knows the US can take action if it wants. The question is not, can the US do it? The question is, what does the US gain from doing it? That's the only difference of opinion in America.

I'd argue the complete opposite: the repercussions would be devastating if the U.S. decided to take unilateral action, let alone lateral action. Hezbollah would send a few thousand missiles into Israel and Syria would unleash a missile barrage of biological and chemical weapons into both Israel and Saudi Arabia, whilst also having the possibility of targeting Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields.

Yes, Bush allowed that. The US effectively allowed Russia to annex parts of Georgia (in fact, Russia had effectively already annexed it from Georgia long before the war, the Georgians did not have much authority in Abkhazia or South Ossettia, and the Russians gave everyone in these places free Russian citizenship in anticipation of their formal takeover) . But what the US could not tolerate was Russia overthrowing a democratically elected government in Tblisi, that's why the war ended when it did.

Bush allowed the Russians to annex two provinces? And there was me thinking the world's sole superpower, or hyperpower even, would have had more command over the lesser countries of the world than that.....

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
Btw, just to be clear. None of these countries you mentioned can ever take unilateral action. None of these countries can so much as put on their boots without US permission.

They could if they wanted to - they have fighter jets in range of Syria. Would it be intelligent for any of them to do unilaterally? No, of course it wouldn't - but they could do it nevertheless.

[handsome7654]

(Original post by Awyk)
I understand where you are coming from but indias time is short lived they are only where they are because help from the uk and other countries as people within India become richer I think they will start to move their businesses from India and into other countries and we are seeing this with indias skilled workers.

You are a prick who doesnt know any crap! Go and revise your sources!

[noisy06]

(Original post by Stalin)
I'd argue the complete opposite: the repercussions would be devastating if the U.S. decided to take unilateral action, let alone lateral action. Hezbollah would send a few thousand missiles into Israel and Syria would unleash a missile barrage of biological and chemical weapons into both Israel and Saudi Arabia, whilst also having the possibility of targeting Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields.

Bush allowed the Russians to annex two provinces? And there was me thinking the world's sole superpower, or hyperpower even, would have had more command over the lesser countries of the world than that.....

Please don't kid yourself. This isn't a playstation game, and it isn't funny. If the US stuck its nose in Syria's business, that would be the end of Assad and Syria as we know it. You can dream up these creative scenarios all you want, because that's all they are, wishful thinking. It's laughable what you are saying.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Stalin)
They could if they wanted to - they have fighter jets in range of Syria. Would it be intelligent for any of them to do unilaterally? No, of course it wouldn't - but they could do it nevertheless.

No they couldn't. They can't just start a conflict without US permission, the US must give permission. (And possible aid).

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
Please don't kid yourself. This isn't a playstation game, and it isn't funny. If the US stuck its nose in Syria's business, that would be the end of Assad and Syria as we know it. You can dream up these creative scenarios all you want, because that's all they are, wishful thinking. It's laughable what you are saying.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...owers-1.388135

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=256584

How very shortsighted of you to think for a second that when backed into a corner, a dictator would refrain from using his weapons of mass destruction to at least cripple the victors of the conflict, especially if you consider that Al-Assad, his entire family, his supporters and just about every Alawite in Syria will be slaughtered if captured by the Sunnis.

What exactly do they teach you at this 'better university'?

[umarrehman187]

(Original post by math1234)
Not even Kargil, India lost all the wars against China & Pakistan since 1947, and the funny thing is, they believe that they won these wars lol
Perhaps, US has supported India on different occasions against Pakistan but if India fights against Germany then there is no way that US will support India


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

exactly....they lost all wars and yet they make stupid bollywood films saying they won all these wars loool

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
No they couldn't. They can't just start a conflict without US permission, the US must give permission. (And possible aid).

Britain didn't need permission to engage the Argentines in the Falklands despite Reagan telling Thatcher to back off. Moreover, just how would the U.S. stop Britain from sending its jets from Akrotiri to Syria?

You're talking complete and utter boulderdash and you know it.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Stalin)


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...owers-1.388135

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=256584

How very shortsighted of you to think for a second that when backed into a corner, a dictator would refrain from using his weapons of mass destruction to at least cripple the victors of the conflict, especially if you consider that Al-Assad, his entire family, his supporters and just about every Alawite in Syria will be slaughtered if captured by the Sunnis.

What exactly do they teach you at this 'better university'?

So because of some crappy words from the Iranians (who are allied with Syria), you actually believe that propaganda BS? Even if the dick manages to send a couple of rockets to Israel it's the same thing like with Saddam all over again when he hit Israel. End result? Iraq reduced to rubble, invaded and eventually its regime changed. You really think Hezbollah would take on the US, jeopardise its own existence for a lost Syria cause? Syria is beyond saving for the Alawis if the US intervene, no amount of trash talk is going to save Assad when the US come knocking.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Stalin)
Britain didn't need permission to engage the Argentines in the Falklands despite Reagan telling Thatcher to back off. Moreover, just how would the U.S. stop Britain from sending its jets from Akrotiri to Syria?

You're talking complete and utter boulderdash and you know it.

What is said in public and private are two different things. I guarantee that Britain cannot take a single jet off the ground without US say so. That's just not possible. And the US intelligence services sure like to boast about that, they say this regularly on pretty much every other news network. I can quote Micheal Schueuer directly; "Britain cannot put its boots on without US says so".

[math1234]

maybe, I am wrong but I read somewhere (don't remember the link of that article in some british newspaper) that once US wanted to attack on north korea & george Bush asked the intelligence agencies that what are the chances that north korea don't have a nuke then the agencies answeeed that 90% chances that north korea don't have the nukes, then Bush said US will only attack until they are 100% sure of it.
you may find me wrong but seriously I read it somewhere, & if it's true then don't you guys think that attacking on some nuclear country is too much risky?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
So because of some crappy words from the Iranians (who are allied with Syria), you actually believe that propaganda BS? Even if the dick manages to send a couple of rockets to Israel it's the same thing like with Saddam all over again when he hit Israel. End result? Iraq reduced to rubble, invaded and eventually its regime changed. You really think Hezbollah would take on the US, jeopardise its own existence for a lost Syria cause? Syria is beyond saving for the Alawis if the US intervene, no amount of trash talk is going to save Assad when the US come knocking.

The few Scud missiles Saddam sent Israel's way - which weren't even armed with chemical or biological gases - don't seem comparable to the arsenal Al-Assad has at his disposal.

And when backed into a corner, who knows what a dictator who can see his demise in sight will do? Saddam may have gone down easily, but it would be foolish to expect Al-Assad to go down similarly.

Can't see the U.S. doing anything militarily unless: something major with Turkey or any other U.S. ally in the region occurs and/or if Romney is elected. The public simply don't want it and the scars of Iraq and Afghanistan remain present.

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
What is said in public and private are two different things. I guarantee that Britain cannot take a single jet off the ground without US say so. That's just not possible. And the US intelligence services sure like to boast about that, they say this regularly on pretty much every other news network. I can quote Micheal Schueuer directly; "Britain cannot put its boots on without US says so".

Let me get this straight: Britain must ask the U.S. for permission if it wishes to conduct any training exercises etc? You're talking out your arse yet again. Britain can take unilateral action if it wishes to, despite the repercussions being huge.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by math1234)
maybe, I am wrong but I read somewhere (don't remember the link of that article in some british newspaper) that once US wanted to attack on north korea & george Bush asked the intelligence agencies that what are the chances that north korea don't have a nuke then the agencies answeeed that 90% chances that north korea don't have the nukes, then Bush said US will only attack until they are 100% sure of it.
you may find me wrong but seriously I read it somewhere, & if it's true then don't you guys think that attacking on some nuclear country is too much risky?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Well attacking North Korea and attacking a backwater middle eastern country that has got its hands on a few nukes is not the same. North Korea has vast amounts of resources dedicated to the development of its military and technology wise we have very little information about how progressed they actually are, it is probable they do now have nukes and it is also likely they either have or are close to developing ICBMs capable of delivering them.

Ontop of this the KPA is the fourth biggest army in the world and North Korea has the largest submarine fleet and the largest number of special forces members in the world, most of their equipment is cold war era stuff with slight modifications but they have a lot of it.

Simply put Bush (and everyone else) didn't want to go into North Korea without being absolutely sure they were a threat because the cost and man power it would take to win would be astronomical. A country like Iran or Syria doesn't have a hope in hell against NATO with or without nukes.

[math1234]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
Well attacking North Korea and attacking a backwater middle eastern country that has got its hands on a few nukes is not the same. North Korea has vast amounts of resources dedicated to the development of its military and technology wise we have very little information about how progressed they actually are, it is probable they do now have nukes and it is also likely they either have or are close to developing ICBMs capable of delivering them.

Ontop of this the KPA is the fourth biggest army in the world and North Korea has the largest submarine fleet and the largest number of special forces members in the world, most of their equipment is cold war era stuff with slight modifications but they have a lot of it.

Simply put Bush (and everyone else) didn't want to go into North Korea without being absolutely sure they were a threat because the cost and man power it would take to win would be astronomical. A country like Iran or Syria doesn't have a hope in hell against NATO with or without nukes.

OK, got it.
What would you say if it was Pakistan instead of North Korea?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Aj12]

(Original post by Politricks)
Can you link me to an article or a report which talks about that please?

India's tank fleet lacks ammunition, its air defences are "97 per cent obsolete" and its elite forces lack essential arms, the country's army chief wrote in an explosive letter leaked on Wednesday. That just proves what a bad state the Indian army is in right now. Good luck fighting any sort of war if you can't even get enough tank shells to your military in peacetime. God only knows what would happen if they tried to supply an army well beyond their borders. Not to mention awhile back there were some strange coup rumours.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Stalin)
It could, theoretically, take unilateral action, just as Turkey, Britain, Iraq or Cyprus could. But by unilateral action I would have assumed that you seriously believed that the U.S., with its debt at 103% of its GDP and extremely fragile economy, could invade Syria, do whatever it pleased and leave practically unscathed. Perhaps you haven't noticed but wounds are yet to have been healed when the U.S. left Iraq, and haven't yet been examined on the U.S. anatomy when it leaves Afghanistan.

US did invade both those places and defeat their conventional militaries pretty much unscathed. Whether the casualties in the occupation were a big deal seems to depend on one's political views. 5,000 dead in 10 years is more "do we actually care about this?" level than "better pull our industry behind the Rockies before they march on Washington". Politically I don't think they will, because ultimately US citizens do not have to care much about the rest of the world, even when the stakes are very low.

Let me ask you again, did the Bush allow Putin to more or less annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia under its sphere of influence then? Georgia's sovereignty has been undermined - surely the U.S. would have said something along the lines of get out or we'll force you out, being the 'sole superpower' and all that, no?

It's a bit of a stretch. The geography put the US in the position of either letting Russia annex their Sudetenland consisting of a bunch of worthless small towns in the middle of nowhere, or else what? Staging some sort of mass invasion from Poland? It didn't do this not because it would lose, but because the cost and bloodshed is wholy disproportionate to the expected pay-off. I don't think the US's decision to let it go is at odds with US being much more powerful and influential than Russia in general.

[vvbox]

what a strange comparison. so different two countries never gonna conflict to each other. Normally people would compare German to UK, India to China, or something like that.

[rmisra]

(Original post by Aj12)
Nukes you can't do anything with. Might as well strike them out. If India was to nuke Germany the US and others would wipe it off the face of the earth. Germany is under the US nuclear umbrella.

More more more does not matter. If you want to look at a war all things considered Germany is going to have allies on its side, even with just European allies such as the UK and France India would have a hard time taking on Germany. India has one aircraft carrier. France and Britain have far more experience in carrier warfare as well as better subs ect. You may try to say oh but this is just a war between India and Germany. Such a thing is very unlikely to ever happen.

Yes infrastructure. The Military ability to actually fight a war. Communication systems, the ability to coordinate large scale battles. The logistics to actually fight a war beyond its borders. Something Germany has experience of, India does not. All Indian wars have been fought on or around its borders. Germany has a military that has benefited from decades of US experience and has also fought wars thousands of miles from its own borders.

A letter was recently leaked that suggesting the Indian army had no tank ammunition http://tribune.com.pk/story/356360/l...ry-weaknesses/ . With allegations like these floating around I doubt the Indian armys ability to fight any sort of protracted war.

If Russia got involved then the US would too. Right now the US military would crush the Russians. One of the reasons the cold war ended was because in conflicts between Western and soviet equipment in the Middle East the Soviet equipment was always shown to be vastly inferior. Japan has pretty much a neutral foreign policy and would never fight a war against an American ally, nor would Israel.

right i'll start of by saying, you basically have won the 'debate' however i'll try and give a reply .

first of all i find it hardly unlikely for USA to join in the war if Russia joined, due to the obvious fact that they have nothing in it for them, they are faced with huge debts to various countrys so a war would bankrupt them further, they are still in afghanistan fighting 2 wars would be difficult, they would face massive losses and also there is a HUGE chance that the USA would lose- they do not have a great sucess record in wars (vietnam they failed, korean war they failed, iraq and afghanistan are just sh*t holes and yet the taliban is still at large)...

Secondly france and britain would not join in the war, there is no 'entente' between any countrys, if a war was to talk place once agin france and britain would not be able to join the war. also britain, germany and france do not even have a particularly strong relationship.

as for your infrastructure point i can only say that India as well took place in both world wars therefore they do have experience of fighting. and if they dont russia certainly does.

However after reading the article it is quite plain to see that the indian army ids an tatters, but with an army of that size surely the ammunition crisis could not affect them all...