QuoteU.S. naval forces are moving closer to Syria as President Barack Obama considers military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad government.
Whoopee we're all gonna die. Do we back the oppressive dictator or the batshit crazy islamists? It's a good thing other countries have absolutely no interests in Syria of we might run the risk of causing problems due to unforeseen circumstances. Hell, intervening in the middle east has worked out so well for us in the past, what could go wrong?
Tens of thousands massacred...international world sits idle...
A few hundred killed in a specific way...suddenly the world wants to intervene.
Hmm.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Tens of thousands massacred...international world sits idle...
A few hundred killed in a specific way...suddenly the world wants to intervene.
Hmm.
Exactly.
Conventional weaponry and murder is bad, just not the right type of bad.
I, for one, still wish for us to steer well clear of anything relating to Syria.
Quote from: "billhilly"Whoopee we're all gonna die.
you think this will cause WWIII? LOL
my guess is we lob a couple missiles at the government if that.
then they get pissed. thats it. nobody wants a ground war, even Obama. they really don't even want to do the missile thing but feel pressured. LOL
syria doesn't stand a chance against the US, and the international community would back us.
so how are we all gonna die?
The US should stay out of any militaristic ventures for a few years at least, too many unpopular wars as of late, and it would just cost more than it would gain us, as we aren't gearing for a major war like Korea or Vietnam or WW2, at most we would be a policing action, using quick blitzkrieg-type strikes to destroy the enemy and leave a government we support in behind us.
Syria is a rotten place, one where we should have no place in. We have Al-Qaeda back rebels fighting against Assad's Hezbollah backed troops. Yes, we've had allegations of Chemical use, however there is also belief that both the rebels and Assad forces used it, hence the international community hesitating at intervening.
And as for the US fleet moving in the area, this is most likely a measure meant to contain security of the waters, or at least to appear as such. But it could also be a move to set up a position for a strike against Syrian forces.
He hasn't done much good, but if Barry can keep us out of that wasp's nest I'll like him just a little more
not much though
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Quote from: "billhilly"Whoopee we're all gonna die.
you think this will cause WWIII? LOL
my guess is we lob a couple missiles at the government if that.
then they get pissed. thats it. nobody wants a ground war, even Obama. they really don't even want to do the missile thing but feel pressured. LOL
syria doesn't stand a chance against the US, and the international community would back us.
so how are we all gonna die?
Calm down. It was a reference to a Country Joe and the Fish song.
[youtube:x62ghwx9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuUBCF3KKxc[/youtube:x62ghwx9]
Oh and that international community backing us deal sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before? It won't cause WWIII but Russia is pretty tight with Assad.
I'm really tired of my government thinking we need to butt in everywhere.
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"We have Al-Qaeda back rebels fighting against Assad's Hezbollah backed troops.
While it has obvious draw backs (massive civilian suffering, increasing risk of drawing neighboring countries (especially Lebanon & Iraq) into the war, risk of further radicalization, moderates being pushed out, ect), I wish people were at least willing to discus the idea that the best coarse of action maybe to hope for (perhaps even facilitate) a prolonged Hezbollah/Syria/Iran vs Al-Qaeda war, which weakens both sides and eventually end in a crippled Assad (devil you know) clinging to power.
However, if they (US/NATO) have good intelligence as to where chemical weapons are stored, they would be smart to attempt to destroy them or their means of delivery (preferably with missile strikes, but CIA/special forces may be needed), with preventing their use in Syria being only a secondary goal to preventing them from being smuggled out of the country for use by terrorist or a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.
Quote from: "billhilly"Calm down.
LOL I'm not mad.
QuoteIt was a reference to a Country Joe and the Fish song.
hey I like this song! thanks for sharing.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"We have Al-Qaeda back rebels fighting against Assad's Hezbollah backed troops.
While it has obvious draw backs (massive civilian suffering, increasing risk of drawing neighboring countries (especially Lebanon & Iraq) into the war, risk of further radicalization, moderates being pushed out, ect), I wish people were at least willing to discus the idea that the best coarse of action maybe to hope for (perhaps even facilitate) a prolonged Hezbollah/Syria/Iran vs Al-Qaeda war, which weakens both sides and eventually end in a crippled Assad (devil you know) clinging to power.
However, if they (US/NATO) have good intelligence as to where chemical weapons are stored, they would be smart to attempt to destroy them or their means of delivery (preferably with missile strikes, but CIA/special forces may be needed), with preventing their use in Syria being only a secondary goal to preventing them from being smuggled out of the country for use by terrorist or a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.
Going in to a middle eastern country looking for weapons of mass destruction again? "We have intelligence on where they are and we can't risk them getting into the hands of terrorists." Sound at all familiar???
If our government was to intervene for the sole purpose of humanitarian reasons, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Seeing as how that isn't how governments work though, I am extremely skeptical of any government action in Syria.
I personally think since its basically a muslim terrorist group vs a dictatorship that we should just let them fight it out.
I think most americans feel that way. whether the government will stay out of it is another matter. I'm not sure what we gain by getting mixed up with that shit.
There's a whole boat load of power and wealth waiting for whoever wins the conflict. When a victor emerges, the people will be declared free and the fighting and bloodshed will stop. Peace will blanket the area as the secret police start rounding up and torturing those suspected of being sympathetic to the opposition. Peace will prevail as long as the victors keep rounding, torturing, and killing the opposition. It will be a lasting peace, and we can return our attention to the next American Idol on the Television.
Other Mid East countries will look to Syria and say, "Oh look how those people are free! The weak have risen up against the mighty, and now the weak have all the power, and things are as they should be."
Then another country will rebel and replace it's cruel leaders with new cruel leaders and peace will reign again forever, and Pat Roberston will say all the evil was because of the gay people. And Westborro Baptist Church won't give a shit because it doesn't have much to do with picketing funerals or how God hates fags.
Republicans will thank God that George Bush was so clever to invade Iraq, and Democrats will just be grateful that Obama stepped in and fixed the mess.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"my guess is we lob a couple missiles at the government if that.
then they get pissed. thats it. nobody wants a ground war, even Obama. they really don't even want to do the missile thing but feel pressured. LOL
What would that achieve?
"Everyone is killing each other so let's fire explosive ordinance at them, that'll stop them killing each other!"
If they're dead they can't kill eachother, perfect solution.
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"The US should stay out of any militaristic ventures for a few years at least, too many unpopular wars as of late, and it would just cost more than it would gain us, as we aren't gearing for a major war like Korea or Vietnam or WW2, at most we would be a policing action, using quick blitzkrieg-type strikes to destroy the enemy and leave a government we support in behind us.
They were unpopular because they achieved only human suffering and nothing else.
Likewise with the practice of installing puppet regimes.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.
Why would he do that to NATO member states or Turkey?
If we'd carried out surgical strikes on his soil then maybe but if he is losing power he is far more likely to use indiscriminate weaponry on his domestic opposition.
Syria is a rotten situation, now we have accusations that both rebels and governmental forces are using gas on each other, it's so convoluted that no matter which side you pick, the bad guy will take power. As I've said, the US and Europe should stay out of it, this is one thing we want no part of.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Poison Tree"a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.
Why would he do that to NATO member states or Turkey?
If we'd carried out surgical strikes on his soil then maybe but if he is losing power he is far more likely to use indiscriminate weaponry on his domestic opposition.
NATO countries have already smuggled weapons and equipment to Syrian rebels and have apparently trained some of them in camps in Turkey. There seems to be renewed talk about a no fly zone or strikes against Assad's air-force or its infrastructure, either of which would practically necessitate the use AA systems NATO shifted to Turkey and/or French and British forces (French and British officials having been more boisterous that Obama in calling international action). Assad (or his generals, or who ever actually has hands on chemicals at the hypothetical end)--if he think he's actually about to loose--may just decide to throw whatever he's got at whatever impact target is close without needing any clear advantage to be gained. If he thinks he's loosing a genocidal war, why wouldn't he target opposition refuge camps in Turkey--would likely kill far more of the "enemy race" then attacking a bombed out shell of a town--? If it looks like a tortuous death is the only outcome (a point we are far from currently), I don't think there will be a lot of rational long term risk-reward thinking going on.
On the other hand, I fully expect Iran/Hezbollah to shoot their bolt in Syria because of its importance as a supplies path between them. If Iran's nuclear program is coming to a confrontation (Israeli/US strike) they may decide to throw whatever they've got (possibly even chemical) in range against Israeli/US bases, knowing that a defeat in Syria will seriously hamper their ability to respond later.
Now those are just possibilities (which we are not near to, either), but some of the one that have to be on the minds of people contemplating action against Syria.
I expect it would turn out much like Libya. A few targeted airstrikes and it would be about over. Iran talks a lot of smack, but they have nothing to back it up.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"my guess is we lob a couple missiles at the government if that.
then they get pissed. thats it. nobody wants a ground war, even Obama. they really don't even want to do the missile thing but feel pressured. LOL
What would that achieve?
"Everyone is killing each other so let's fire explosive ordinance at them, that'll stop them killing each other!"
If they're dead they can't kill eachother, perfect solution.
:lol: fuck if I know. I'm with you. I'm just saying what the US government might do. go ask them.
I think there may have been for some time plans to plant seeds of sectarianism to completely split Suni and Sheite to weaken the Sheites. Maybe it's some odd wish of the house of Saud who, if not mistaken are Suni, but I could be wrong. In any event it's divide and conquer and make the opposition irrelevant.
Consider our history in the Middle East. The rebels are violently anti-American, so of course that's the side we're going to back. Then bitch like crazy after they've taken over the country (with our help) and, ungrateful wretches that they are, they turn on us.
Why should we change a winning strategy?
Oh! Er ...
100,000+ deaths and several chemical attacks later, we are just now getting offended over chemical weapons being used. There have been suspected chemical attacks going back months now and we didn't say anything so the fact that we are just now talking about intervention... it just seems about a year late.
If we were going to get involved, we should have done it along time ago. And the only reason we care about Syria is because of its strategic importance, not the fact that civilians are being slaughtered; otherwise we would be discussing Bahrain, Sudan and Myanmar amongst others. If we get involved, I don't like doing it under the guise of humanitarianism because that sure as fuck isn't something we care about.
----
On the topic of chemical weapons, a interesting (and wholely unsurprising) article on America's use of nerve gas through Iraq.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... assed_iran (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran)
QuoteIn 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I personally think since its basically a muslim terrorist group vs a dictatorship that we should just let them fight it out.
I think most americans feel that way. whether the government will stay out of it is another matter. I'm not sure what we gain by getting mixed up with that shit.
You might want to invoke Goodwin's law and say I lose on this argument, but I will nevertheless point out that Hitler used those same arguments: the world didn't do anything when the Turks massacred the Armenians, why would they do anything if we massacre all those annoying Jews. The problem here, IF Syria is using gas to kill its own people AND the world does nothing, then every country run by a dictator will feel empowered to gas any undesirable segment of its population.
Two question for you, what is the difference between him using gas to kill a few hundred people or regular bombs to kill hundreds of thousands?
Second. the Jews are not our enemies. From what I understand the rebels are. Why should we risk our lives and our soldiers for hezbollah and shit?
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Two question for you, what is the difference between him using gas to kill a few hundred people or regular bombs to kill hundreds of thousands?
Second. the Jews are not our enemies. From what I understand the rebels are. Why should we risk our lives and our soldiers for hezbollah and shit?
(1) The argument that was used to ban warfare by poisonous gas might be old and subtle but still valid: guns can be used strictly speaking to kill the enemy (in those days, they wore uniforms), while a gas will kill indiscriminately men, women and children.
(2) yes, there is a problem, and why the US is hesistant in getting involved. But still the US with other countries cannot be silent, and must send a message that the use of poisonous gas will bring harsh retaliation. For instance, all airport could be bombed and disabled, and any aircraft from the regime to be shot down, and then impose a no-fly zone over the whole country. If the regime continues to use poisonous gas, then more punishment must follow through.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Two question for you, what is the difference between him using gas to kill a few hundred people or regular bombs to kill hundreds of thousands?
Second. the Jews are not our enemies. From what I understand the rebels are. Why should we risk our lives and our soldiers for hezbollah and shit?
(1) The argument that was used to ban warfare by poisonous gas might be old and subtle but still valid: guns can be used strictly speaking to kill the enemy (in those days, they wore uniforms), while a gas will kill indiscriminately men, women and children.
with guns I see your point but what of bombs? has syria up to this point only killed rebel soldiers? from I know hundreds of thousands have died on both sides and not just soldiers. suddenly a few die by gas instead of fire.....and we need to knee deep in that shit. LOL what?!
Quote(2) yes, there is a problem, and why the US is hesistant in getting involved. But still the US with other countries cannot be silent, and must send a message that the use of poisonous gas will bring harsh retaliation. For instance, all airport could be bombed and disabled, and any aircraft from the regime to be shot down, and then impose a no-fly zone over the whole country. If the regime continues to use poisonous gas, then more punishment must follow through.
thats probably what they'll do. if we just lob a few missiles at them, and don't actually get into a war, then I don't really care either way. I still think the US government is being a hypocrite. especially when they helped saddam hussein when he gassed iranians.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... assed_iran (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran)
Quoteyes, there is a problem, and why the US is hesistant in getting involved. But still the US with other countries cannot be silent, and must send a message that the use of poisonous gas will bring harsh retaliation. For instance, all airport could be bombed and disabled, and any aircraft from the regime to be shot down, and then impose a no-fly zone over the whole country. If the regime continues to use poisonous gas, then more punishment must follow through.
Sending "messages" with bombs hasn't worked out so well in the past and that's with the assumption that we know for sure who all has used gas. Bomb airports or shoot down planes and they'll have pics of dead civilians lined up on Al Jazeera. "Punishing" foreign governments doesn't have a good track record. Why do some keep thinking it'll work next time?
At some point, we really need to just fuckin stop with the world police shit.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"(1) The argument that was used to ban warfare by poisonous gas might be old and subtle but still valid: guns can be used strictly speaking to kill the enemy (in those days, they wore uniforms), while a gas will kill indiscriminately men, women and children.
with guns I see your point but what of bombs? has syria up to this point only killed rebel soldiers? from I know hundreds of thousands have died on both sides and not just soldiers. suddenly a few die by gas instead of fire.....and we need to knee deep in that shit. LOL what?!
As I've mentioned, in those days, the enemy wore uniforms ( more specifically, WW1 when poisonous gas was used widely). Today, that is often not the case. Of course, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't help the US moral stand. Nevertheless, doing nothing is a worse evil as dozens of dictators will see this non-intervention as a green light for their use of the gas on those undesirable in their country.
QuoteQuote(2) yes, there is a problem, and why the US is hesistant in getting involved. But still the US with other countries cannot be silent, and must send a message that the use of poisonous gas will bring harsh retaliation. For instance, all airport could be bombed and disabled, and any aircraft from the regime to be shot down, and then impose a no-fly zone over the whole country. If the regime continues to use poisonous gas, then more punishment must follow through.
thats probably what they'll do. if we just lob a few missiles at them, and don't actually get into a war, then I don't really care either way. I still think the US government is being a hypocrite. especially when they helped saddam hussein when he gassed iranians.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... assed_iran (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran)
Yes, we do have a few stains in our closet, but it doesn't mean we should stand silent and paralyzed when the situation can lead to greater disaster.
Air strikes on Syria are infeasible as they have a fairly complex air defence system provided by the Russians.
Long range missiles are the only way to go.
But as both sides appear to be pretty shit (the secular voice has long since been drowned out), who would we target, and why? And what would it achieve?
The reason why Syria is such a powder keg is the notion of it becoming a proxy war (arguably it already is). The Chinese and the Russians aren't simply going to sit still whilst their lapdog Assad is removed aided by western missile strikes.
Neither do I think the west will like it when rebel commanders devout to the cause of extreme Islamic ideologies install themselves in power and begin doing much worse things to their population than chemical weapon attacks (although that might also be very much a viable option for them).
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Air strikes on Syria are infeasible as they have a fairly complex air defence system provided by the Russians.
It's no match for the US. Heck, the Israelis could take it down in less than 24 hrs.
QuoteThe reason why Syria is such a powder keg is the notion of it becoming a proxy war (arguably it already is). The Chinese and the Russians aren't simply going to sit still whilst their lapdog Assad is removed aided by western missile strikes.
It is a proxy war, but not what you think. It's Saoudi Arabia (Sunnis) Vs Iran (Shiites). The Russians are only interested as long as they can sell their weapons to one side. Presently, to Assad, but any other regime favorable to them would be acceptable. As to the Chinese, as long a the US is entangled in some conflict, they are quite happy.
QuoteNeither do I think the west will like it when rebel commanders devout to the cause of extreme Islamic ideologies install themselves in power and begin doing much worse things to their population than chemical weapon attacks (although that might also be very much a viable option for them).
It depends which ideology wins. I believe this conflict will be as long as any other conflict in the ME -- very, very long. And the Israelis don't mind if Syria becomes another failed state.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Air strikes on Syria are infeasible as they have a fairly complex air defence system provided by the Russians.
It's no match for the US. Heck, the Israelis could take it down in less than 24 hrs.
If the US and Europe are finding it hard to stomach the prospect of getting involved in another conflict in the ME, they'll find it doubly hard to stomach the loss of various aircraft in bombing sorties on as of yet undefined and un-identified targets. Also, what would the estimated costs be of installing a no-fly zones, especially ones manned by very few (if any) states outside the US, UK, and the French, and not mandated by the UN (Russia and China would veto)? I guess that would be the ultimate aim of using aircraft over long range missiles.
It's not going to happen. And it's not just about superior firepower in this case. The conflict in Syria is not black and white. As I said, there's no defined target. Assad isn't the only 'bad guy' just like the rebels aren't the 'good' guys. There are no concrete targets.
It seems clear that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, but that's just the tip of the iceberg of attoricites committed by both sides. The chemical weapons have caused far, far fewer deaths than just carpet shelling by government forces and indiscriminate murder committed by various sections of the (disorganised and disunited) rebel forces. Seems odd that when chemical weapons are used it's an outrage, but everything else just gets a stearnly worded speech from a foreign secretary.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"QuoteThe reason why Syria is such a powder keg is the notion of it becoming a proxy war (arguably it already is). The Chinese and the Russians aren't simply going to sit still whilst their lapdog Assad is removed aided by western missile strikes.
It is a proxy war, but not what you think. It's Saoudi Arabia (Sunnis) Vs Iran (Shiites). The Russians are only interested as long as they can sell their weapons to one side. Presently, to Assad, but any other regime favorable to them would be acceptable. As to the Chinese, as long a the US is entangled in some conflict, they are quite happy.
But neither the Russians nor the Chinese are the friends of the extremists that are fighting against Assad currently.
Many of the international fighters that have flocked to Syria are also involved in the Chechen struggle, and whilst true the Chinese will happily buy land and resources for anyone willing to sell (Easten African states refer to the communist government as the ca-Ching dynasty, the governmental structures in place under Assad facilitated the flow of credit and resources a lot better than anything that would be installed the chaos that will undoubtedly ensue after the Alawites have been deposed.
Also, we can't forget that both the Russians and the Chinese have invested considerable resources into Syria and Assad. Relatively speaking, Iran and the al Sauds are small players outside of their local demographics.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"QuoteNeither do I think the west will like it when rebel commanders devout to the cause of extreme Islamic ideologies install themselves in power and begin doing much worse things to their population than chemical weapon attacks (although that might also be very much a viable option for them).
It depends which ideology wins. I believe this conflict will be as long as any other conflict in the ME -- very, very long. And the Israelis don't mind if Syria becomes another failed state.
But at least Assad wasn't firing chemical weapons at the Israelis. We're talking about people who look up to those who eat the hearts of the people they kill and want to kill every Jew in their local vicinity. I know you meant ideologies in a name only sense, but their MOs, and their ultimate wants are actually very similar and one would be hard pressed to find any discernible difference.
The cause for secularism in Syria was strong until the conflict began to get entrenched and the tactics by both sides became steadily more extreme.
That it will be a long conflict is further evidence that we should steer well clear. There will be no winners in this, only losers.
Also, if the UK indicates it wants to get involved, I will certainly be investing time into lobbying my local MP to oppose any intervention and submitting my signature to any petition that seeks to keep British and other forces out.
QuoteThat it will be a long conflict is further evidence that we should steer well clear. There will be no winners in this, only losers.
An excellent reason to watch from the sidelines.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Also, if the UK indicates it wants to get involved, I will certainly be investing time into lobbying my local MP to oppose any intervention and submitting my signature to any petition that seeks to keep British and other forces out.
Most likely, everyone concerned in this situation is hoping that the UN inspectors won't find evidence of who has used chemical warfare. Otherwise, the US and NATO won't have any other alternative but to act. And acting feably will bring derision from the rest of the world. The stakes are high, much higher than most people are anticipating.
Not that I support any "no-fly zone" action, or any other intervention, but not only are Russian air defense systems vulnerable due to overweening centralization (knock out data chokepoints, down the system), I'd be surprised to find Syria's system in good repair, given the last two years of war. Because the rebels have little to no airpower, that infrastructure, on the government side of the ledger, has probably gotten short shrift. And these are systems that need continual maintenance and upkeepp in order to work efficiently.
Finally, from a tactical standpoint, AD systems are vulnerable to cruise missiles, which fly below the radar net, are programmable to a 20' CEP, and are submarine-launched. If I were designing an air campaign, I'd strike first with Tomahawks upon the C³I nodes of the system, and then attack the now-blinded individual sites with Wild Weasel strikes.
Again, not advocating attacking; just pointing out that defeating an AD system is readily doable.
As long as we're not advocating.......... You lay out an excellent plan but I have to wonder to what extent the Russians and or Chinese have thought this through as well. If I were a dirty red commie :), I might train a few Syrians to test some new countermeasures I may or may not have come up with to defeat the cruise missile based AD attack that everybody pretty much expects now days. If it works or not I could claim it was just some old stuff I had laying around and sold to the Syrians when I was cleaning out my garage.
Quote from: "billhilly"As long as we're not advocating.......... You lay out an excellent plan but I have to wonder to what extent the Russians and or Chinese have thought this through as well. If I were a dirty red commie :), I might train a few Syrians to test some new countermeasures I may or may not have come up with to defeat the cruise missile based AD attack that everybody pretty much expects now days. If it works or not I could claim it was just some old stuff I had laying around and sold to the Syrians when I was cleaning out my garage.
The problem is radar-detecting the cruise-missiles amongst the ground-clutter. To do that you have to have what's called "look-down/shoot-down" radar mounted on an aerial platform. Such planes are obvious in an electronic environment because of the copious ELINT signals they emit. Plus, they're pretty vulnerable, because they're big and slow. And Syria has none of them, anyway.
Without look-down/shoot-down, you have ground based radar losing the cruise missiles (which can fly 40' AGL at mach .9) against features such as hills and buildings.
The other thing is stealth tech. It's not only incorporated into planes, but into AGMs. Even if LD/SD radar can detect these missiles, with stealth features, that recognition is too late inside the attack envelope.
You're right, it's no sure thing -- nothing in war ever is -- but dismantling an AD system is a special study inside every air force worthy of the title. Bottom line: static defenses anchored to land are second-best, most of the time.
None of this takes into account things like decoys or chaff.
That makes sense. It's not like I keep up with Jane's or anything but I remember a few years back there was a concern about the new generation of Chinese anti ship missiles and working on countermeasures for them. I figured the Chinese would have thought about countermeasures as well since they designed the missiles and any countermeasures would need to effectively track very low flying cruise missiles.
I didn't consider the down looking radar although now that you mention it, I think I do recall that being discussed at the time. That makes a lot of sense as naval groups keep planes aloft anyway and it would be a different game on the ground in Syria.
I do wonder if they've got any last minute "oh shit" kinetic systems like the Phalanx or Metal Storm. Either way, I'm just speculating and hope to hell somebody's got enough sense to not get us involved in another war in the middle east. It must be like a drug or something. No president seems to be able to resist regardless of how much they were against such misadventures when they were governors, senators, or whatever.
Well, it's been confirmed by Kerry, all hopes that it wasn't chemical gas have been dashed. Get ready for the fireworks.
Yep, here we go.
QuoteRussia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800)
The Syrian SA-17 and 22 are supposed to be effective short to medium range AD systems. Last year the Ruskies announced a successful test of a SA-22 shooting down a low flying cruise missile in a live fire test. The SA-22 is the same system that shot down the Turkish F4 a while back. It is both mobile and effective. But as Joseph has pointed out the weakness will be their early detection systems. Any air defense system needs early warning to get things spun up before they can shoot anything. Most of their early warning radars are fixed assets and as such shouldn't be too difficult to take out. I do however find it hard to believe the Syrians won't be using a layered defense with the short range stuff between us and the early warning radars. While taking down the Syrian AD systems is far from undoable, it may not be a cake walk either. We could see some loses in the early part of any such operation.
Americans don't like it.
[youtube:34ff8kaw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTwZCeBS0U[/youtube:34ff8kaw]
Come on all you Christian soldiers, serve your country in time of need! Just ignore looking behind the curtain that contains this: (//http://i.imgur.com/Pa4DXGB.jpg) :roll: When will we learn? :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Savior2006"Americans don't like it.
Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTwZCeBS0U)
All those guys saying we have to attack were Republicans. You think there might be political motivations here? Get Obama to attack Syria, and then complain when this thing drags out into another Iraq. Then of course the military industrial complex will benefit because these things end up getting expensive, and they end up making money. It's a win for the conservative agenda.
Still, I have a feeling we're going to end up in Syria. Just a feeling, and Obama does have a history of pushing conservative agendas. Besides the intelligence seems to be more solid than anything we had on Iraq. I don't want to invade Syria, but think it's coming.
When will we learn that playing world police just gets us more shit in the long run.
I know this is supposed to be a moral high ground move, stopping the use of chemical weapon use in line with international conventions (funny, I thought slaughtering your own people/ civilians was also a war crime but whatever), but really, the information about what's going on in Syria is as obscure as it comes.
It seems likely that Assad used chemical weapons, but we still don't know for sure. There have been reports that rebel groups and clandestine agents within Syria have attempted to use chemical weapons in order to accelerate the prospect of foreign intervention which will, after all, destabilise the country even more.
There's no information about who the missiles will be targeting and why. Will it be Assad? Will it be the various rebel groups that have murdered countless hundreds both within their own sects and those who aren't?
Or will it just solely be targeting chemical weapons facilities? If so, does that mean that we're ok with a killing field just so long as its the right type of killing field?
People need to remember that international conflict of this form is no longer about superior fire power. You can fire all the missiles you want at someone but you'll never blow up an idea that people advocate. And in Syria, 'I hate the US/West' is one of the strongest.
QuoteObama Seeks a 'Coalition of the Willing' on Syria
With blockages at the UN, NATO, EU and the Arab League, Obama must cobble together a patchwork of allies on Syria
http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/26/ob ... z2dCPs0Mej (http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/26/obama-seeks-a-coalition-of-the-willing-on-syria/#ixzz2dCPs0Mej)
Seeking a coalition of the willing to take down an Arab Ba'athist dictator over WMDs. Where have I heard this before?
The question is: will the action taken be retaliatory, or part of a larger strategy for a more stable region? Obama has a lot on his plate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... ml?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-lays-groundwork-for-probable-military-strike-against-syria/2013/08/27/538d072e-0f3c-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html?hpid=z1)
I think the question is: What is could possibly cause someone to think intervening in the middle east would be a net positive for the US given all the evidence to the contrary? Faith?
Quote from: "billhilly"I think the question is: What is could possibly cause someone to think intervening in the middle east would be a net positive for the US given all the evidence to the contrary? Faith?
If there is no action, then every dictator will use poisonous gas. This is just logic.
I'm a dictator in country A. In region B, there is a faction challenging my authority. Simple: gas region B, end of problem for me.
If there is no action taken in this case by anyone, the US, NATO, the UN, whatever, then this kind of news will be on day after day after day. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
Quote from: "billhilly"I think the question is: What is could possibly cause someone to think intervening in the middle east would be a net positive for the US given all the evidence to the contrary? Faith?
Each time we enter into one of these conflicts, people view it as new and different from the last conflict, with greater urgency then the last time, which for some reason or other usually ends up seeming like a waste of time, lives, and money. But each time it's always different with a more just cause, and greater risk if we don't get involved.
We tend to forget the follies of the past, which in retrospect seemed like, well, follies. Suddenly, war seems like a brilliant idea and a magic cure for injustice. The one difference today is that we are still mired in the war in Afghanistan and watching Iraq in it's precarious state after a 10 year conflict that was supposed to be over in months, with Iraq rebuilding itself with all those oil revenues, instead of being funded by our tax dollars. We have not yet outgrown the war weariness that always settles in after CNN no longer televises the Shock and Awe of our mighty Air Force that creates a rush of adrenalin for it's viewers. We are a bit more tentative with the past not so far behind. I don't know about everyone, but right now, I'm pretty sick of this shit.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"The Syrian SA-17 and 22 are supposed to be effective short to medium range AD systems. Last year the Ruskies announced a successful test of a SA-22 shooting down a low flying cruise missile in a live fire test. The SA-22 is the same system that shot down the Turkish F4 a while back. It is both mobile and effective. But as Joseph has pointed out the weakness will be their early detection systems. Any air defense system needs early warning to get things spun up before they can shoot anything. Most of their early warning radars are fixed assets and as such shouldn't be too difficult to take out. I do however find it hard to believe the Syrians won't be using a layered defense with the short range stuff between us and the early warning radars. While taking down the Syrian AD systems is far from undoable, it may not be a cake walk either. We could see some loses in the early part of any such operation.
The US has developped unmatchable skills in the use of drones. And besides that, I foresee the use of long range missiles, if necessary. But most importantly, if the US is in, many of Assad's men will be defecting like rats on a sinking ship.
(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/Syrianmap.jpg) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/Syrianmap.jpg.html)
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "billhilly"I think the question is: What is could possibly cause someone to think intervening in the middle east would be a net positive for the US given all the evidence to the contrary? Faith?
Each time we enter into one of these conflicts, people view it as new and different from the last conflict, with greater urgency then the last time, which for some reason or other usually ends up seeming like a waste of time, lives, and money. But each time it's always different with a more just cause, and greater risk if we don't get involved.
We tend to forget the follies of the past, which in retrospect seemed like, well, follies. Suddenly, war seems like a brilliant idea and a magic cure for injustice. The one difference today is that we are still mired in the war in Afghanistan and watching Iraq in it's precarious state after a 10 year conflict that was supposed to be over in months, with Iraq rebuilding itself with all those oil revenues, instead of being funded by our tax dollars. We have not yet outgrown the war weariness that always settles in after CNN no longer televises the Shock and Awe of our mighty Air Force that creates a rush of adrenalin for it's viewers. We are a bit more tentative with the past not so far behind. I don't know about everyone, but right now, I'm pretty sick of this shit.
Yes but this time it isn't different. It's the same old shit. A Ba'athist dictator with WMD's Even the justifications are the same. josephpalazzo's reasoning sounds just like the shit the Bush administration was saying the last time. Don't these arguments sound familiar?
QuoteIf there is no action, then every dictator will use poisonous gas. This is just logic.
I'm a dictator in country A. In region B, there is a faction challenging my authority. Simple: gas region B, end of problem for me.
If there is no action taken in this case by anyone, the US, NATO, the UN, whatever, then this kind of news will be on day after day after day. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
The main difference on this is that there will be no vote from congress, no attempt at convincing the UN, and no poll numbers indicating support for such moves. It's true that there's apparently no large scale invasion planned but they did that before because they recognized that piecemeal bombing and instrumentalism didn't work. Now it looks like we're back to trying that as if it's some strange time loop of retardation or something.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The US has developped unmatchable skills in the use of drones. And besides that, I foresee the use of long range missiles, if necessary. But most importantly, if the US is in, many of Assad's men will be defecting like rats on a sinking ship.
[ Image (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/Syrianmap.jpg.html) ]
But who will be taking their place?
Superior fire power against an ideology is irrelevent, and right now the biggest sentiment besides 'I hate the [other] Muslim' is 'I hate the US/Israel/West'. Syria and Israel have technically been at war for decades since the October war, but Assad never really showed any intent on escalating anything.
I don't think the leaders of the various disparate and often clandestine groups that occupy vast swathes of Syria will be so accommodating, and removing the Syrian political structures (failures though they may be) will simply create a favourable vacuum to them.
And ultimately,
we have absolutely no information on the context of the supposed chemical weapons attacks. I'm not in denial about them being used, but I'm yet to see conclusive proof of who used them, where, and why.
And yet we have political leaders arguing for tactical strikes on, well, god knows what because we haven't been told.
The lines in Syria are blurred to such an extent that it makes it impossible to identify what/who is 'good' and who isn't.
Seems more a case of certain leaders feeling like they need to be seen to be doing something.
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteObama Seeks a 'Coalition of the Willing' on Syria
With blockages at the UN, NATO, EU and the Arab League, Obama must cobble together a patchwork of allies on Syria
http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/26/ob ... z2dCPs0Mej (http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/26/obama-seeks-a-coalition-of-the-willing-on-syria/#ixzz2dCPs0Mej)
Seeking a coalition of the willing to take down an Arab Ba'athist dictator over WMDs. Where have I heard this before?
(//http://th04.deviantart.net/fs5/PRE/i/2004/322/6/a/you_forgot_poland_wp_by_asjova.jpg)
There's no easy solution. I don't think Obama is contemplating foot on the ground. As to who will win this war, that's up for grabs. AFA the US is concerned, that won't make much difference as the present regime is aligned with Iran. So anybody else is going to be just as bad, or perhaps slightly better or slightly worse. But whatever... there has to be a response as a deterrent for every crazy dictator on this planet.
Why does there "have" to be a response? Assad and Saddam both killed way more people with regular old conventional weapons that they did with gas. Why is how they were killed different. Gas has been around for over 100 years and hasn't been anywhere near the problem that you seem to think it will all of a sudden become. Where does it end? Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, what about Iran? those fuckers are crazy too. Reckon we ought to invade them just to be on the safe side? Then there are the NORKs. Who's crazier than little kim eh and he's got WMD's.
Hell, the narcos are killing a shit load of people in Mexico. We should annex them and solve the illegal immigration problem while we're at it. Bring the US to them and save em the trip. The logistics would be easier. What we need to do is control the world so we can be safe. Logic says there's no way around it. Or maybe we could just mind our own fuckin business.
"a response as a deterrent for every crazy dictator on this planet" just means that the ME can keep the US tied up for centuries by just starting little skirmishes every time the old war is winding down, and throwing a little poison gas at someone. Then we get involved for 5 or 10 years. Wash, rinse, repeat.
If they want to commit mutual suicide, I say let them. Then we have one less "crazy dictator" to worry about in the future.
Quote from: "Colanth"If they want to commit mutual suicide, I say let them. Then we have one less "crazy dictator" to worry about in the future.
And the massive civilian death toll? Not our problem?
Quote from: "billhilly"Gas has been around for over 100 years and hasn't been anywhere near the problem that you seem to think it will all of a sudden become.
Evidently, it is. Hence the present situation.
And if using WMDs on civilians isn't the sort of thing that merits intervention, what is?
US has spent over 1.4 trillion dollars in 12 years for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, another half a trillion to Syria.
The US taxpayers will be paying for these wars.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "billhilly"I think the question is: What is could possibly cause someone to think intervening in the middle east would be a net positive for the US given all the evidence to the contrary? Faith?
If there is no action, then every dictator will use poisonous gas. This is just logic.
I'm a dictator in country A. In region B, there is a faction challenging my authority. Simple: gas region B, end of problem for me.
If there is no action taken in this case by anyone, the US, NATO, the UN, whatever, then this kind of news will be on day after day after day. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
I had no idea war was so black and white.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Colanth"If they want to commit mutual suicide, I say let them. Then we have one less "crazy dictator" to worry about in the future.
And the massive civilian death toll? Not our problem?
Truthfully? There have been countless massacres of civilians throughout the world on an almost yearly basis that nobody has wanted to involve themselves in.
Look at Somalia. Arguably doing more to prevent pirate attacks and the operations of Islamist groups there would be much more beneficial, as we could save money by stopping freight being taken and from the deployment of a constant
Naval flotilla around the Horn of Africa.
If you are completely honest with yourself, you realise you don't really give a fuck unless someone explicitly forces media attention on it and tries to make you feel bad about it. If nobody does, you will go on with your happy life without consciously realising that there's loads of horrible things going on around the world.
The main reason someone keeps rubbing in "massive civilian death toll" is because they're hoping to profit from it, otherwise it'd be getting about as much coverage as all the other civil wars and horrible dictatorships in the world get. (Wait, there's more than Syria and North Korea? Why didn't we know? :o)
Quote from: "dawiw"US has spent over 1.4 trillion dollars in 12 years for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, another half a trillion to Syria.
The US taxpayers will be paying for these wars.
I remember before going into Iraq, some Sunday morning news program group was throwing around figures about how expensive the war might get. They were talking in single digit billions. One wild pundit said it might even go as high as 10 billion. The others shrugged and acted skeptical, but agreed, that they supposed that might be possible.
A few weeks later, on another program, talking heads started competing with each other to come up with biggest estimates. One guy threw caution to the wind and said it could cost a trillion dollars, but everyone just thought he was looking for attention.
Quote from: "Hydra009"And the massive civilian death toll? Not our problem?
It's not an easy question to address. Everyone recognizes the horrors of wars. Few people relish the thought of massive human suffering, but take the emotional response out of it, and I don't see a clear cut answer to your question. Why should any country expect a solution from us? Because we have a lot of money and a powerful air force?
OK we've established that suffering is a bad thing. If it is somehow determined that it truly is our problem, that takes us deeper into much more difficult questions where black and white answers are not so easily arrived at with a heartfelt emotion.
Our response is always the same in these situations. We send in the Air Force and bomb the place into chaos. That's what we do, because the assholes involved in this civil war aren't going to pay any attention to us if we don't. We also do this because we really don't know what else to do. This of course results in massive civilian deaths, although now it's being done by the good guys with good intentions.
As someone said, "Wash, rinse, and repeat." You know how this plays out over and over again. What is the civilian response to us in the end? What happens when power is turned over to the next dictator, who now has the right to perpetuate the evil for his own self interests.
Aside from the ineffectiveness of our massive military strength that can't seem to bomb bad people into good people, there is the question of cost, and this issue is especially important. The financial hardship on the tax paying class is no small thing. We could spend all of our money, and what then? It's not like we can once and for all end suffering and injustice around the world. It's not even close to a reasonably achievable goal.
But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious: "Stop the suffering. Stamp out the evil." What comes next is the hard part. It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Hydra009"And the massive civilian death toll? Not our problem?
It's not an easy question to address. Everyone recognizes the horrors of wars. Few people relish the thought of massive human suffering, but take the emotional response out of it, and I don't see a clear cut answer to your question. Why should any country expect a solution from us? Because we have a lot of money and a powerful air force?
OK we've established that suffering is a bad thing. If it is somehow determined that it truly is our problem, that takes us deeper into much more difficult questions where black and white answers are not so easily arrived at with a heartfelt emotion.
Our response is always the same in these situations. We send in the Air Force and bomb the place into chaos. That's what we do, because the assholes involved in this civil war aren't going to pay any attention to us if we don't. We also do this because we really don't know what else to do. This of course results in massive civilian deaths, although now it's being done by the good guys with good intentions.
As someone said, "Wash, rinse, and repeat." You know how this plays out over and over again. What is the civilian response to us in the end? What happens when power is turned over to the next dictator, who now has the right to perpetuate the evil for his own self interests.
Aside from the ineffectiveness of our massive military strength that can't seem to bomb bad people into good people, there is the question of cost, and this issue is especially important. The financial hardship on the tax paying class is no small thing. We could spend all of our money, and what then? It's not like we can once and for all end suffering and injustice around the world. It's not even close to a reasonably achievable goal.
But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious: "Stop the suffering. Stamp out the evil." What comes next is the hard part. It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.
Let's move from the general to the particular: in this case, the US is not in the position of changing Syria into a democracy. The lesson from Iraq tells us that in the ME, such a process is froth with too many trappings -- different belief systems in Islam, coupled with diverse ethnicities and complete distrust of Western values, makes it an impossible task. Furthermore in Syria, you have a long history of ties with Iran, which won't disappear overnight. Add to that that the Saoudis will finance Al Qaeda to advance their Sunni interest in Syria, and you can surmise that for the US to go in like in Iraq with the idea of democratization would be utterly foolish.
So it only comes down with the deterence of using chemical weapons. That means, punitive measures such that it will make anyone else thinking of using chemical weapons a non-start.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Or will it just solely be targeting chemical weapons facilities? If so, does that mean that we're ok with a killing field just so long as its the right type of killing field?
Not to mention that targeting chemical weapons facilities is potentially very dangerous for anyone in the surrounding area, seeing as how you're basically blowing up a facility which is storing large quantities of deadly and dangerous chemicals.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"If there is no action, then every dictator will use poisonous gas. This is just logic.
I'm a dictator in country A. In region B, there is a faction challenging my authority. Simple: gas region B, end of problem for me.
If there is no action taken in this case by anyone, the US, NATO, the UN, whatever, then this kind of news will be on day after day after day. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
I'm a dictator in country C, I feel like systematically carrying out ethnic and social cleansing against anyone I don't particularly like. Simple: do it, as long as I don't use chemical weapons I won't get bombed.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Evidently, it is. Hence the present situation.
And if using WMDs on civilians isn't the sort of thing that merits intervention, what is?
Oh come on now, as if people haven't been indiscriminately targeting civillians with area-effect weapons since it became possible to do so.
I strongly suggest reading up on Agent Orange, although of course that "isn't a chemical weapon" depending on who you ask.
People do incredibly cruel things in times of war and picking one very narrowly-defined type of cruel atrocity possible to commit during conflict and focusing on that and only that as something that is unacceptable and requires intervention is sensationalist and irrational, and thinking that absolutely anything whatsoever will be achieved by kicking the hornet's nest and then running away again and doing nothing else is very naive.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"who would we target, and why? And what would it achieve?
Assad and his chemical weapons, because he is the designated bad guy and his chemical weapons, because they are the arbitrary line in the sand drawn where acts of great cruelty that are left unchecked for years suddenly make everyone feel indignant and obliged to seek justice. As for the final question, nothing other than blowing shit up.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Also, if the UK indicates it wants to get involved, I will certainly be investing time into lobbying my local MP to oppose any intervention and submitting my signature to any petition that seeks to keep British and other forces out.
Not that that will have any effect. Where the US goes, the lapdog will surely follow.
Quote from: "Plu"If you are completely honest with yourself, you realise you don't really give a fuck unless someone explicitly forces media attention on it and tries to make you feel bad about it. If nobody does, you will go on with your happy life without consciously realising that there's loads of horrible things going on around the world.
The main reason someone keeps rubbing in "massive civilian death toll" is because they're hoping to profit from it, otherwise it'd be getting about as much coverage as all the other civil wars and horrible dictatorships in the world get. (Wait, there's more than Syria and North Korea? Why didn't we know? :o)
I see. So, no one cares about atrocities in the world except for when the media focuses on it and the only reason people do that is because they're hoping to profit from it. Does that sound correct? :-k
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "billhilly"Gas has been around for over 100 years and hasn't been anywhere near the problem that you seem to think it will all of a sudden become.
Evidently, it is. Hence the present situation.
And if using WMDs on civilians isn't the sort of thing that merits intervention, what is?
In the present situation, gas has killed a tiny fraction of the people killed by conventional weapons. I don't think it really matters to the civilians whether they were killed by gas, shot, or blown up with a bomb. They're dead. Why does it make such a big difference to you?
Quote from: "SGOS"It's not an easy question to address. Everyone recognizes the horrors of wars. Few people relish the thought of massive human suffering
Yet they are more than willing to allow it. A strange set of ethics, that.
Quotetake the emotional response out of it, and I don't see a clear cut answer to your question
Emotions run both ways. I see war-weary people who are understandably loathe to commit to yet another military intervention in an area of world that has long seemed perpetually hopeless. And that ontop of the usual reluctance - cost in lives followed closely (perhaps too closely) with dollar costs, and "not my problem" sentiment.
QuoteWhy should any country expect a solution from us? Because we have a lot of money and a powerful air force?
Good question.
(//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Powers_in_international_relations_2.png/800px-Powers_in_international_relations_2.png)
QuoteOur response is always the same in these situations. We send in the Air Force and bomb the place into chaos. That's what we do, because the assholes involved in this civil war aren't going to pay any attention to us if we don't. We also do this because we really don't know what else to do. This of course results in massive civilian deaths, although now it's being done by the good guys with good intentions.
If your gameplan results in just as much deaths as WMD attacks on cities, it might need just a tad bit of work.
QuoteAs someone said, "Wash, rinse, and repeat." You know how this plays out over and over again. What is the civilian response to us in the end? What happens when power is turned over to the next dictator, who now has the right to perpetuate the evil for his own self interests.
And what happens when this stuff gets ignored? Does it get better? Does it go away?
Yanno, I do know of a Middle Eastern country whose dictator launched chemical attacks on rebel forces and the US didn't get involved. Didn't turn out so well at the time and definitely didn't turn out so well years later.
Obviously, Syria isn't going to be stable let alone safe anytime soon, but I dunno, I think not entirely annihilated is a goal worth moving towards.
QuoteAside from the ineffectiveness of our massive military strength that can't seem to bomb bad people into good people
Is that a proposed solution? :-k
QuoteBut when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious: "Stop the suffering. Stamp out the evil." What comes next is the hard part. It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.
Shouldn't that simply lead one to come up with a better gameplan post-intervention rather than deciding against intervention entirely?
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"If there is no action, then every dictator will use poisonous gas. This is just logic.
I'm a dictator in country A. In region B, there is a faction challenging my authority. Simple: gas region B, end of problem for me.
If there is no action taken in this case by anyone, the US, NATO, the UN, whatever, then this kind of news will be on day after day after day. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
I'm a dictator in country C, I feel like systematically carrying out ethnic and social cleansing against anyone I don't particularly like. Simple: do it, as long as I don't use chemical weapons I won't get bombed.
I dunno, one case where the dictator did carry out ethnic cleansing and most definitely did get bombed soon after comes readily to mind.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Hydra009"Evidently, it is. Hence the present situation.
And if using WMDs on civilians isn't the sort of thing that merits intervention, what is?
Oh come on now, as if people haven't been indiscriminately targeting civillians with area-effect weapons since it became possible to do so.
And such things have become crimes against humanity in recent human history. With a mixed bag of punishments from the international community, up to and including military intervention if the situation gets dire enough.
QuotePeople do incredibly cruel things in times of war and picking one very narrowly-defined type of cruel atrocity possible to commit during conflict and focusing on that and only that as something that is unacceptable and requires intervention is sensationalist and irrational
Is it irrational to call WMD-related atrocity unacceptable? :-k
Quoteand thinking that absolutely anything whatsoever will be achieved by kicking the hornet's nest and then running away again and doing nothing else is very naive.
Last time I checked, the hornets were already abuzz.
QuoteWhere the US goes, the lapdog will surely follow.
UK, France, Germany, and Turkey. And in short order, too. Either we're amazingly persuasive or they are.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "SGOS"But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious: "Stop the suffering. Stamp out the evil." What comes next is the hard part. It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.
Shouldn't that simply lead one to come up with a better gameplan post-intervention rather than deciding against intervention entirely?
I'm not sure what that would be. Our strength is our military, which of course is awesome, but it's not very good at enlightening tribal cultures. And post intervention requires ground troops to protect our emissaries while they fiddle around with stuff for years, often producing questionable results, and it gets expensive to occupy countries over long periods of time.
I guess the financial strain is a judgment call. For me, it looms very large. It may not be important to others.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Plu"If you are completely honest with yourself, you realise you don't really give a fuck unless someone explicitly forces media attention on it and tries to make you feel bad about it. If nobody does, you will go on with your happy life without consciously realising that there's loads of horrible things going on around the world.
The main reason someone keeps rubbing in "massive civilian death toll" is because they're hoping to profit from it, otherwise it'd be getting about as much coverage as all the other civil wars and horrible dictatorships in the world get. (Wait, there's more than Syria and North Korea? Why didn't we know? :o)
I see. So, no one cares about atrocities in the world except for when the media focuses on it and the only reason people do that is because they're hoping to profit from it. Does that sound correct? :-k
Nobody who's posting on the internet about whatever atrocity happens to be discussed in the media at that very moment really cares. People who are actually out there, dealing with the atrocities, those really care. People who discuss atrocities that aren't broadly handled in the media care, at least somewhat.
Before this whole Syria thing started, there was probably an exactly equal amount of shit going around in the world. How many hours did you spend thinking about the horrible things going on then? How much do you think about all the horrible things outside of Syria going on? How many concrete shitstorms that aren't in the major media do you even know about? How much of your time are you spending to try and
solve these problems?
You might care on a fundamental level of "I think this is wrong and I would like it to change", but that's so low on the scale of "care" it might as well be "don't care". I'm certainly not willing to say that someone who think that people being homeless is a bad thing but never gives them money, donates his time to them, or supports any charities trying to help "cares" about the homeless. And I don't think that anyone who only posts on the internet to his close circle about this topic cares enough to deserve the term either.
(Unless some of you are secretly
really doing something about the problem, in which case my hat's off to you.)
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "SGOS"But when confronted with your simple question, the answer is obvious: "Stop the suffering. Stamp out the evil." What comes next is the hard part. It's the part where our history of success is far less than stellar, and that makes the solution to "our" problem not quite so black and white.
Shouldn't that simply lead one to come up with a better gameplan post-intervention rather than deciding against intervention entirely?
I'm not sure what that would be. Our strength is our military, which of course is awesome, but it's not very good at enlightening tribal cultures. And post intervention requires ground troops to protect our emissaries while they fiddle around with stuff for years, often producing questionable results, and it gets expensive to occupy countries over long periods of time.
I guess the financial strain is a judgment call. For me, it looms very large. It may not be important to others.
It is a financial strain but look at the alternative: if the US would pull out, and as "nature abhors a vacuum", Russia and China would definitely fill in the gap, and impose their will on the high seas. Do we really want that? Countries that have an abysmal record on human rights, making decision for us, and most likely against us?!?? In the long run, we would not only face greater financial strain, but our way of life would be in dire strait.
It's a good thing we've got politicians on the left who will speak out against unilateral military action.
QuoteOBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/18/libya_2/ (http://www.salon.com/2011/03/18/libya_2/)
If both sides have been using chemical weapons, and we end up bombing the chemical plants, we have to take out Syria's defenses first. The rebels may have used chemical weapons just to draw us into the war for the purpose of destroying Assad's defenses. It's possible we are just being used. Perhaps this has been brought up in this thread.
Just thinking about what strategies may have been involved, and how much of what we might do is playing into someone else's hands. I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other. Just wondering.
QuoteIt is a financial strain but look at the alternative: if the US would pull out, and as "nature abhors a vacuum", Russia and China would definitely fill in the gap, and impose their will on the high seas. Do we really want that? Countries that have an abysmal record on human rights, making decision for us, and most likely against us?!?? In the long run, we would not only face greater financial strain, but our way of life would be in dire strait.
And if we take out the ruling regime that won't create a vacuum and how is bombing Syria going to effect the naval balance of the world? I can't believe you (or anyone really) can argue with a straight face that not bombing Syria will jeopardize our way of life. False dichotomies and hyperbole are not very persuasive.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Colanth"If they want to commit mutual suicide, I say let them. Then we have one less "crazy dictator" to worry about in the future.
And the massive civilian death toll? Not our problem?
Why is it our problem? Who appointed us protector of all people? We can't even protect all Americans. Once we get our own house in order we can worry about others.
Quote from: "SGOS"Our strength is our military, which of course is awesome, but it's not very good at enlightening tribal cultures.
And that's the main problem in the ME. The culture is still tribal, bit we've imposed a nationalistic life on the area. Do we have people who feel no ties to the country they live in, but very strong ties to their tribes.
Now force formerly-warring tribes to live with each other and you have the perfect formula for never-ending conflict.
And how do we solve the conflict? We keep forcing them to live together.
When will we learn that gasoline makes a terrible fire retardant?
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteIt is a financial strain but look at the alternative: if the US would pull out, and as "nature abhors a vacuum", Russia and China would definitely fill in the gap, and impose their will on the high seas. Do we really want that? Countries that have an abysmal record on human rights, making decision for us, and most likely against us?!?? In the long run, we would not only face greater financial strain, but our way of life would be in dire strait.
And if we take out the ruling regime that won't create a vacuum and how is bombing Syria going to effect the naval balance of the world?
The financial strain was in regard to the US as being a superpower. What's happening in Syria has other implications, namely, that other dictators will use this as a green light to use chemical weapons on their own people to eliminate the undesirables. Please try not to confuse the issues.
QuoteI can't believe you (or anyone really) can argue with a straight face that not bombing Syria will jeopardize our way of life. False dichotomies and hyperbole are not very persuasive.
I'm not responsible for your limited IQ.
Quote from: "Hydra009"I dunno, one case where the dictator did carry out ethnic cleansing and most definitely did get bombed soon after comes readily to mind.
Yeah, and countless others get away with it.
Humanitarian reasons are at best a secondary objective/concern. If they weren't, the US military would be using it's mind-bogglingly VAST capabilities to feed the starving in Africa and whatnot, but they aren't, because it wouldn't particularly serve their interests.
QuoteQuote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Hydra009"Evidently, it is. Hence the present situation.
And if using WMDs on civilians isn't the sort of thing that merits intervention, what is?
Oh come on now, as if people haven't been indiscriminately targeting civillians with area-effect weapons since it became possible to do so.
And such things have become crimes against humanity in recent human history. With a mixed bag of punishments from the international community, up to and including military intervention if the situation gets dire enough.
Actual LOL. People massacre each other all over the world all the time, and people completely flout international law as well. The west picks and chooses who to punish for it based on their interests in the name of justice.
People even pick and choose which conventions and treaties they want to sign. The US, for example, did not sign anything saying that they will be held accountable for scorched earth warfare tactics, thus they can carry them out with impunity.
International law is far from standardised, universal, effective, fair, and is only useful when bent by those nations controlling it who can use it to justify their actions.
QuoteQuotePeople do incredibly cruel things in times of war and picking one very narrowly-defined type of cruel atrocity possible to commit during conflict and focusing on that and only that as something that is unacceptable and requires intervention is sensationalist and irrational
Is it irrational to call WMD-related atrocity unacceptable? :-k
No, it is irrational to draw an arbitrary line in the sand whereby hundreds of thousands of people can be slaughtered, tortured, abducted, mutilated, raped and countless other atrocious and appalling things without warranting anyone lifting a finger but as soon as 100 die in one, very specific and particular way that just so happens to be the latest thing that people have decided makes you the bad guy, then everyone has their fingers on the trigger.
It shows western intervention for what it is; shallow self-service under the guise of justice and kindness. If they'd have done something from the start to try to stop countless innocents being massacred then that would have been a sincere effort to help someone. Dropping the odd bomb on a few facilities when the scale of human suffering is already beyond imagination and the shit hit the fan 2 years ago is going to achieve nothing in humanitarian terms.
QuoteQuoteand thinking that absolutely anything whatsoever will be achieved by kicking the hornet's nest and then running away again and doing nothing else is very naive.
Last time I checked, the hornets were already abuzz.
So kick it up even more by firing missiles and hope that when the dust settles everything will be better?
QuoteWhere the US goes, the lapdog will surely follow.
UK, France, Germany, and Turkey. And in short order, too. Either we're amazingly persuasive or they are.[/quote]
The UK government is the lapdog that I was referring to...
Oh look, NATO...the treaty alliance for self-defence that is supposed to oblige countries in it to defend each other is such a shining example of brilliant international law and treaties at work.
Oh no wait NATO designates whatever country those who have a controlling stake in it ie. the US want to invade, and then everyone is obliged to do the same. Making Afghanistan a NATO mission? What a sick joke, as if putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan was self-defence.
There's genuinely committing to doing something positive (and Syria is now such a mess that the time when this might have been possible has long since passed, and if it is possible, it will be a HUGE intervention), or there's not doing anything at all. The halfway house of shooting missiles at it and hoping it gets better is clearly not a humanitarian campaign, and designating it a NATO mission and citing various international laws etc. is just justification to shoot missiles.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteIt is a financial strain but look at the alternative: if the US would pull out, and as "nature abhors a vacuum", Russia and China would definitely fill in the gap, and impose their will on the high seas. Do we really want that? Countries that have an abysmal record on human rights, making decision for us, and most likely against us?!?? In the long run, we would not only face greater financial strain, but our way of life would be in dire strait.
And if we take out the ruling regime that won't create a vacuum and how is bombing Syria going to effect the naval balance of the world?
The financial strain was in regard to the US as being a superpower. What's happening in Syria has other implications, namely, that other dictators will use this as a green light to use chemical weapons on their own people to eliminate the undesirables. Please try not to confuse the issues.
QuoteI can't believe you (or anyone really) can argue with a straight face that not bombing Syria will jeopardize our way of life. False dichotomies and hyperbole are not very persuasive.
I'm not responsible for your limited IQ.
QuoteRussia and China would definitely fill in the gap, and impose their will on the high seas.
Sun Tzu ain't got nothin on you does he?
Quote from: "SGOS"If both sides have been using chemical weapons, and we end up bombing the chemical plants, we have to take out Syria's defenses first. The rebels may have used chemical weapons just to draw us into the war for the purpose of destroying Assad's defenses. It's possible we are just being used. Perhaps this has been brought up in this thread.
Just thinking about what strategies may have been involved, and how much of what we might do is playing into someone else's hands. I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other. Just wondering.
I brought up the notion of lack of evidence or information about the chemical weapons attacks.
It seems likely from the anecdotal evidence that chemical weapons in some form were used, but that's about it. Not even the UN inspectors, the people tasked with trying to investigate the context of the attacks, know much more than the media reporting do. All we have is eye-witness accounts of the results of the attack(s), not who used them or even why.
There is clearly not enough evidence at this moment in time to commit to an offensive strike (against what is still unclear!), but we're going to do it anyway.
Also, regarding the idea that China and Russia would fill the vacuum left by Assad's fall, I doubt this to be true in 100% of scenarios that could take place as a result. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians are particularly fond of the extremist elements that undoubtedly hold sway in the opposing rebel factions (sadly), hence why they're desperate for Assad to remain in power. They've invested time and resources in his government and they don't want to see those resources in the hands of people who will try and use them against them in the future (eg. Chechnya).
It could also be an excuse to wipe out whole groups that oppose.. .well..everyone but themselves. I'm no fan of Assad, but also no fan of the extremists pouring into Syria and lettïng them slug it out keeps hundreds of thousands in the crosshairs of both sides. This is damned if you do, damned if you don't. None of the above option isn't palletable and neither is starting a new war, but one group who loves it is the people pouring money into defense contracting and who always wins when massive amounts of bombing takes place.
Al-Asad serves more Western interests than the rebels it appears, so I am surprised we are seriously considering attacking him.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Humanitarian reasons are at best a secondary objective/concern. If they weren't, the US military would be using it's mind-bogglingly VAST capabilities to feed the starving in Africa and whatnot, but they aren't, because it wouldn't particularly serve their interests.
QuoteActual LOL. People massacre each other all over the world all the time, and people completely flout international law as well. The west picks and chooses who to punish for it based on their interests in the name of justice.
People even pick and choose which conventions and treaties they want to sign. The US, for example, did not sign anything saying that they will be held accountable for scorched earth warfare tactics, thus they can carry them out with impunity
International law is far from standardised, universal, effective, fair, and is only useful when bent by those nations controlling it who can use it to justify their actions..
QuoteIt shows western intervention for what it is; shallow self-service under the guise of justice and kindness. If they'd have done something from the start to try to stop countless innocents being massacred then that would have been a sincere effort to help someone. Dropping the odd bomb on a few facilities when the scale of human suffering is already beyond imagination and the shit hit the fan 2 years ago is going to achieve nothing in humanitarian terms.
QuoteThe UK government is the lapdog that I was referring to...
Oh look, NATO...the treaty alliance for self-defence that is supposed to oblige countries in it to defend each other is such a shining example of brilliant international law and treaties at work.
Oh no wait NATO designates whatever country those who have a controlling stake in it ie. the US want to invade, and then everyone is obliged to do the same. Making Afghanistan a NATO mission? What a sick joke, as if putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan was self-defence.
There's genuinely committing to doing something positive (and Syria is now such a mess that the time when this might have been possible has long since passed, and if it is possible, it will be a HUGE intervention), or there's not doing anything at all. The halfway house of shooting missiles at it and hoping it gets better is clearly not a humanitarian campaign, and designating it a NATO mission and citing various international laws etc. is just justification to shoot missiles.
I'm not sure what your position is.
(1) Do you mean that if there are fires, the US should extinguish all of them or none of them? Otherwise they are hypocrites.
(2) And if they only extinguish some of them, then they are cherrypicking only those for self-interest.
IOW, the US can only do bad???
Quote from: "Shiranu"Al-Asad serves more Western interests than the rebels it appears, so I am surprised we are seriously considering attacking him.
Assad has been buying weapons from Russia, but he takes his marching orders from Iran. In no way does that qualify him as serving Western interests.
Quote from: "billhilly"Sun Tzu ain't got nothin on you does he?
If you want tactics, then read him. But for long term strategy, Liddell Hart does a better job..
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"It could also be an excuse to wipe out whole groups that oppose.. .well..everyone but themselves. I'm no fan of Assad, but also no fan of the extremists pouring into Syria and lettïng them slug it out keeps hundreds of thousands in the crosshairs of both sides. This is damned if you do, damned if you don't. None of the above option isn't palletable and neither is starting a new war, but one group who loves it is the people pouring money into defense contracting and who always wins when massive amounts of bombing takes place.
Yeah, it's kind of like choosing the least worst option, whatever that might be.
QuoteAssad has been buying weapons from Russia, but he takes his marching orders from Iran. In no way does that qualify him as serving Western interests.
Bashir has been living in relative peace with the Israelis and did not stir up any mess until he began the mass murder of his own people, something the West is more than content with as evidence by our support of genocidal regimes both now and in the past. They did of course provide shelter and most likely arms to groups like Hezbollah but have not been major players in that.
The rebels on the other hand have sizable segments both anti-Israel and anti-Western amongst other radical agendas, and these segments are generally the more violent than those who were fighting for democracy, making them most likely to end up on top of the pile at the end of the day if the rebels win.
So yes, between the two options, keeping Bashir Al-Asad in power is keeping the person who better serves Western interests. It's a lose-lose situation, but from a strictly political POV it is better the mass murderer stay in power who generates small waves than radical groups that will commit the same, if not worse, atrocities against the people once they come into power and will be less predictable and harbour stronger grudges against us.
The best option would have been to support the pro-democracy groups and try to sway them into becoming pro-Western as well, but unfortunately we are a few years too late and they are now dead.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"It seems likely from the anecdotal evidence that chemical weapons in some form were used, but that's about it. Not even the UN inspectors, the people tasked with trying to investigate the context of the attacks, know much more than the media reporting do. All we have is eye-witness accounts of the results of the attack(s), not who used them or even why.
There is clearly not enough evidence at this moment in time to commit to an offensive strike (against what is still unclear!), but we're going to do it anyway.
Thanks, I didn't know where the inspections teams were currently at. How about manufacturing plants that make chemical weapons? The gas had to come from somewhere. Have they identified specific sites that could be targeted?
Quote from: "Shiranu"Al-Asad serves more Western interests than the rebels it appears, so I am surprised we are seriously considering attacking him.
It's what we do, both as individuals and as a government - we vote against our best interests. (It's what happens with a universal franchise, and religion being foremost in people's education.)
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"The Syrian SA-17 and 22 are supposed to be effective short to medium range AD systems. Last year the Ruskies announced a successful test of a SA-22 shooting down a low flying cruise missile in a live fire test. The SA-22 is the same system that shot down the Turkish F4 a while back. It is both mobile and effective. But as Joseph has pointed out the weakness will be their early detection systems. Any air defense system needs early warning to get things spun up before they can shoot anything. Most of their early warning radars are fixed assets and as such shouldn't be too difficult to take out. I do however find it hard to believe the Syrians won't be using a layered defense with the short range stuff between us and the early warning radars. While taking down the Syrian AD systems is far from undoable, it may not be a cake walk either. We could see some loses in the early part of any such operation.
Well, yeah, we'll definitely see some shootdowns. The question is, how efficient is that system? The rebels control swathes of countryside which may or may not contain parts of the integrated system, thereby rendering it less effective. And because the rebels lack airpower, I have to wonder if the Assad regime has continued to draw on what are quite limited resources to maintain an AD system, even as it fights for its life against an enemy not using airpower.
Should be noted that the F-4 is an obsolete plane, too.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"It seems likely from the anecdotal evidence that chemical weapons in some form were used, but that's about it. Not even the UN inspectors, the people tasked with trying to investigate the context of the attacks, know much more than the media reporting do. All we have is eye-witness accounts of the results of the attack(s), not who used them or even why.
There is clearly not enough evidence at this moment in time to commit to an offensive strike (against what is still unclear!), but we're going to do it anyway.
Thanks, I didn't know where the inspections teams were currently at. How about manufacturing plants that make chemical weapons? The gas had to come from somewhere. Have they identified specific sites that could be targeted?
No problem.
The UN inspection teams have been attempting to gain access to the sites where the weapons hit I think and not where the weapons are supposedly stored. They were hampered by government checkpoints as well as sniper fire apparently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23880060 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23880060)
FWIW, a UK cabinet committee has produced a report (3 pages long...) assessing the 'evidence' that Assad was the one that fired the weapons:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427)
I and many others here are extremely skeptical of the claims, especially because the report gives no evidence whatsoever aside anecdote and "It must have been Assad!".
What a debacle. I really hope we steer clear.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"We have Al-Qaeda back rebels fighting against Assad's Hezbollah backed troops.
While it has obvious draw backs (massive civilian suffering, increasing risk of drawing neighboring countries (especially Lebanon & Iraq) into the war, risk of further radicalization, moderates being pushed out, ect), I wish people were at least willing to discus the idea that the best coarse of action maybe to hope for (perhaps even facilitate) a prolonged Hezbollah/Syria/Iran vs Al-Qaeda war, which weakens both sides and eventually end in a crippled Assad (devil you know) clinging to power.
However, if they (US/NATO) have good intelligence as to where chemical weapons are stored, they would be smart to attempt to destroy them or their means of delivery (preferably with missile strikes, but CIA/special forces may be needed), with preventing their use in Syria being only a secondary goal to preventing them from being smuggled out of the country for use by terrorist or a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.
Going in to a middle eastern country looking for weapons of mass destruction again? "We have intelligence on where they are and we can't risk them getting into the hands of terrorists." Sound at all familiar???
THANK YOU.
I find this sudden interest in Syria really dubious. And why the fuck would the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their own people? What does that accomplish?
Okay, I really hate sounding like a conspiracy nut, but the US government has been making it really hard for me to trust *anything* they say to us. They've been doing underhanded shit for years (including this shit with chemical weapons (//http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/new-docs-show-us-involvement-saddams-nerve-gas-attacks/68698/)), and now we're ready to invade another Middle Eastern country?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/pretext-to ... lf/5347176 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/pretext-to-wage-war-on-syria-another-false-flag-operation-history-repeating-itself/5347176)
[spoil:1g4xny1p]
QuoteThe Syrian stance
The Syrian government has repeatedly and unambiguously stated that it would never use weapons of mass destruction, if such weapons exist in Syria, against its own population. Not only because it makes no strategic sense but because of the unethical nature of the use of these kind of weapons by any government against its own population.
The Syrian government also immediately called for an international and scientific investigation backed by the United Nations of the facts and accusations towards it proving that is has nothing to hide.
No military strategic logic in the use of weapons of mass destruction
The Syrian national army has for the last couple of months been on the offensive and made huge gains on the battle field against the terrorist groups and foreign infiltrators all over the country. The Syrian army also made huge progress in Damascus countryside and the Eastern Ghouta and cleared large parts of it from these terrorist groups. From a military point of view it makes no sense to use weapons of mass destruction because the Syrian army proved for the last two years and a half that it doesn't have to use such weapons to successfully counter the aggression against it and the use of chemical weapons in such an environment would not only affect the civilian population but would also endanger its own troops.
Political suicide
The Syrian government repeatedly stated that it would never use such weapons, if they exist, against its own population. The Syrian government also backed any international initiative to find a political way out of the crisis. It gave its full support for the Geneva II Conference while the foreign opposition in the same time boycotted participation in this Conference as well as every other political initiative to find a peaceful way out of the crisis. It is in this context of political goodwill and constructiveness that the Syrian government got the backing and support of many countries, not the least Russia and China, both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. If, hypothetically speaking, the Syrian government would act against its own principles on which its international relations are build on, it would immediately lose this support and commit political suicide. So also from a political point of view it makes no sense at all to even think that the Syrian government would use weapons of mass destruction against its own population.
The timing : Visit of UN chemical weapons inspectors team to Damascus
It is of course no coincidence that the current crisis coincides with the visit of a UN chemical weapons inspectors team to Damascus as the whole world's attention is now focused on Syria. The team of inspectors arrived in Syria to investigate another incident involving chemical weapons, the chemical weapons strike in the village of Khan al-Assal near Aleppo on March 19 in which dozens of people were killed. Also in this attack unfounded and baseless accusations were directed against the Syrian government without any investigations being made.
Turning the situation into a window of opportunity, the Syrian government made use of the visit of the chemical weapons inspectors team and, in an expression of openness and goodwill, agreed immediately to let the inspectors visit the site of the attack to make the necessary investigations. Unfortunately, on their way to the site, the inspectors teams came under a fierce attack by snipers belonging to the terrorists groups and had to return to their hotel in Damascus. These acts of violence and hostilities make it very clear which side wants to sabotage the work of the inspection team and has things to hide.
[/spoil:1g4xny1p]
Without immediately dismissing this, it makes a good point.
And where is this "evidence" that the US claims to have that proves the Syrian government attacked it's own people? Kind of reminiscent of that "evidence" they had for WMDs in Iraq....
State Dept Admits It Doesn't Know Who Ordered Syria's Chemical Strike
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... cal_strike (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/state_dept_admits_it_doesnt_know_who_in_the_syrian_govt_ordered_chemical_strike)
QuoteIn a testy exchange during her daily briefing, Harf very nearly admitted that it makes no difference who in the Syrian government ordered the attack, a reflection of the lack of certainty that still shrouds U.S. understanding of the chemical attack that may have left as many as 1,000 people dead.
In effect, Harf was left arguing that because no one else could have carried out the attack, it must have been the Syrian government. "The world doesn't need a classified U.S. intelligence assessment to see the photos and the videos of these people and to know that the only possible entity in Syria that could do this to their own people is the regime," she said.
Given that U.N. inspectors with a mandate to investigate chemical weapons use were on the ground when the attack happened, the decision to deploy what appears to have been a nerve agent in a suburb east of Damascus has puzzled many observers. Why would Syria do such a thing when it is fully aware that the mass use of chemical weapons is the one thing that might require the United States to take military action against it? That's a question U.S. intelligence analysts are puzzling over as well. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official said. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."
I mean,
come on......
The rich and powerful are playing games and lining up chess pieces and we're being told we should go to war/get involved with yet
another country. And I don't trust a single mainstream media outlet to report this accurately....does anyone remember "Syria Danny" from CNN? A bunch of "Wag the Dog" bullshit, right there.
The UK parliament has voted against military action in Syria. (//http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2013829213840411383)
Nonbinding, but still a blow to Cameron.
On the other side of the pond, Obama is saying, "Regardless of what the UN finds, we have evidence it was Al-Asad and that's good enough for us.".
He is also considering a solo strike on Syria as well as finding ways to legally justify invading.
After this much talk and saber rattling about attacking, I think not attacking would send the clear message that the world (US/NATO in particular) doesn't give a shit about WMD use or dead civilians (which it may well not)
I'm writing my representative, and I hope everyone reading this thread does as well.
No intervention would mean that every dictator would see this as a green light to use chemical weapons... a long lasting legacy that every peacenik should be proud.
Ethics are bought and sold. Both Britain and US have a long history of backing tin pot dictatorships and sponsoring massacres for their own benefit. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when our politicians try and take the moral high ground.
Quote from: "Shiranu"On the other side of the pond, Obama is saying, "Regardless of what the UN finds, we have evidence it was Al-Asad and that's good enough for us."
Politicians said that exact same thing in the case of Saddam, even though inspection teams could find no evidence. The public doesn't care about evidence. They're quick to trust a politician, even one that can produce no evidence as long as he says he "knows".
You have UN inspections teams, who know how to look, scouring for evidence. And you have politicians apparently getting information from anonymous cab drivers. What the fuck is wrong with people? Why would they believe a politician rather than a skilled investigator? Why even bother sending investigators if you have no intention of listening to anything they say?
Quote from: "Shiranu"On the other side of the pond, Obama is saying, "Regardless of what the UN finds, we have evidence it was Al-Asad and that's good enough for us.".
He is also considering a solo strike on Syria as well as finding ways to legally justify invading.
I guess France is right there with the US, though.
France's Hollande backs US on Syria action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775)
QuoteFrancois Hollande said all options were being considered, and that a strike within days was not ruled out.
His comments came after US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said Washington would continue to seek a coalition for possible military action.
However, Germany said it would not participate in military action.
QuoteChinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said there should be no rush to force action against Syria until UN chemical weapons inspectors have reported on their findings.
Washington accuses Damascus of using chemical weapons - which it denies.
The inspectors visited a hospital in a government-controlled area of Damascus.
The experts are due to finish their work later on Friday and give their preliminary findings to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Saturday.
I am interested in learning how these UN experts can find evidence of the guilty party within a matter of days. That seems like too little time, doesn't it? 'Course, I don't know much about chemical weapons investigations. But I would like to see their findings....
QuoteIn an interview with Le Monde newspaper, Mr Hollande said the UK vote made no difference to his support for action against the Syrian government.
"Each country is sovereign to participate or not in an operation. That is valid for Britain as it is for France," he said.
He said that if the UN Security Council was unable to act because two of its permanent members, Russia and China, were in opposition, a coalition would form including the Arab League and European countries.
"But there are few countries which can have the capacity of enforcing any sanction through the appropriate measures," he added.
"France will be part of it. France is ready."
Mr Hollande added that while all options for intervention were on the table, no decision would be taken without the conditions to justify it.
He ruled out strikes while the UN inspectors were in Syria. However, he did not rule out the possibility that military action could be taken before next Wednesday, when the French parliament is due to debate the issue.
Yeah, so, France and America, all ready to go into Syria. :|
So more information:
Obama Striking Assad Risks International Law Conflict
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-0 ... tional-law (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-29/obama-strike-against-assad-risks-conflict-with-international-law)
QuoteThe United Nations Security Council would need to authorize military action or the U.S. would have to be acting in self-defense for a strike to be legal under international law even if it may be justified, according to lawyers including Philip Carter.
"The bottom line is that under hard international law, there is no good legal argument" for a U.S. or allied strike on Syria without UN authorization, Carter, a former Pentagon official, said in an interview.
QuoteHaving decided they can bypass the UN, where Russia has made clear it would veto a resolution authorizing force against Syria, U.S. administration officials are asserting a moral case. Much as President Bill Clinton's administration justified the 1999 bombing of Serbia as necessary to defend Kosovo, Obama and his aides are saying Syria violated international standards by gassing its own people.
President Barack Obama, a former constitutional law professor, said in an Aug. 28 PBS interview that Syria's use of chemical weapons violated "an international norm." Failing to respond could indirectly threaten the U.S. and its allies in the Mideast, and the U.S. must act "to make sure" that chemical weapons are not "loose in a way that ultimately could affect our security," he said.
QuoteThere's a humanitarian argument that the international community has "a right and sometimes the duty to intervene in cases of slaughter and genocide," as it did in Kosovo, according to Carter, a senior fellow and counsel at the Center for a New American Security in Washington. That "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine hasn't been accepted as international law.
"There's no case for individual self-defense and a shaky case for collective self-defense" on behalf of the citizens of another country under existing law, Carter said.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"I'm not sure what your position is.
(1) Do you mean that if there are fires, the US should extinguish all of them or none of them? Otherwise they are hypocrites.
(2) And if they only extinguish some of them, then they are cherrypicking only those for self-interest.
IOW, the US can only do bad???
My position is that shooting a few missiles at chemical weapons facilities and doing nothing else will do absolutely nothing to change the situation in the country and the violence and killing will not stop nor slow down one jot, but at the same time it does risk intensifying it.
Humanitarian intervention is humanitarian intervention ie. going there and protecting and helping people and providing massive amounts of aid.
The US has the power to do good, more so than any other country on earth, but the world has sat and watched and largely yawned and changed channel when people were being herded into rooms followed by a grenade and the door slammed behind them, and tortured and maimed and raped and killed en masse for a very long time. There is something on the agenda other than humanitarian causes.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"After this much talk and saber rattling about attacking, I think not attacking would send the clear message that the world (US/NATO in particular) doesn't give a shit about WMD use or dead civilians (which it may well not)
NATO is for self-defence, it is not a lobbying committee useful for forcing other member states to gang up and attack someone against their better judgement, despite its (ab)use as such in the past.
The US doesn't if they're brown people, and in terms of civillian deaths and WMD and chemical weapons use I wouldn't say the US is setting a high moral standard either.
Shooting missiles and taking the opportunity to destroy some of Assad's military stockpiles and reducing his capacity to attack western nations and Israel and totally ignoring actually helping anyone also doesn't show a great interest in protecting the Syrian people.
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Ethics are bought and sold. Both Britain and US have a long history of backing tin pot dictatorships and sponsoring massacres for their own benefit. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when our politicians try and take the moral high ground.
Agreed. Human rights violations being the motivation are the official line and nothing more.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"I'm not sure what your position is.
(1) Do you mean that if there are fires, the US should extinguish all of them or none of them? Otherwise they are hypocrites.
(2) And if they only extinguish some of them, then they are cherrypicking only those for self-interest.
IOW, the US can only do bad???
My position is that shooting a few missiles at chemical weapons facilities and doing nothing else will do absolutely nothing to change the situation in the country and the violence and killing will not stop nor slow down one jot, but at the same time it does risk intensifying it.
Striking the chemical weapons facilities has been ruled out -- the chemicals could be released to the nearby population. The strikes will most likely target airports, military facilities, etc. The intent would be to discourage Assad to continue in the use of chemical weapons, and also sending a message to other dictators that they will always be a stiff price for such use.
Quote from: "Valigarmander"The UK parliament has voted against military action in Syria. (//http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2013829213840411383)
Nonbinding, but still a blow to Cameron.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898551 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898551)
Looks like it's only going to be France that gets involved in military action with the US.
The UK parliament last night voted against any sort of involvement in military intervention.
All I can say is that finally the UK parliament has refused to kowtow to US pressure and actually listened to what the UK people are saying. =D>
Quote from: "Poison Tree"After this much talk and saber rattling about attacking, I think not attacking would send the clear message that the world (US/NATO in particular) doesn't give a shit about WMD use or dead civilians (which it may well not)
Honestly, I think we're kidding ourselves by saying that this isn't the case.
But let's be fair, this current potential conflict is more about saving face than actually caring about the people being killed or the people doing the killing.
It's only because there's been so much media coverage on Syria that people actually care about Syria.
Do folk in the US know what's going on in Zimbabwe for example?
It's also about expectation. Terrible crimes are going on
right now in Tibet, North Korea, Burma (and so on), but nobody expects the US et al to get involved, so nobody cares when they don't.
I think we're being hypocrites when we say "we do care", because we certainly don't, not universally, and we never will. I don't think there's anything wrong in admitting it. I want a world of selfless people and selfless governments that always help those when they need it. But we don't live in that world.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Striking the chemical weapons facilities has been ruled out -- the chemicals could be released to the nearby population. The strikes will most likely target airports, military facilities, etc. The intent would be to discourage Assad to continue in the use of chemical weapons, and also sending a message to other dictators that they will always be a stiff price for such use.
The intent would be to cripple Syria militarily so that they cannot pose a threat to US interests and Israel while justifying it under this thin, vapid guise.
There is not always a stiff price for the use of chemical weapons, this is sending the message that you can fuck up whoever you like as long as you don't use gas, unless you're white in which case you can use whatever you want. Also, as discussed multiple times in this thread, having chemical weapons as an arbitary line in the sand that must be acted upon while ignoring far worse atrocities for huge lengths of time is silly.
Other dictators and power struggles are left unmeddled with unless interfering in them is advantageous to western interests. As also said, both the US and UK have established histories of backing dicators for their own ends and even deliberately installing puppet regimes.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Striking the chemical weapons facilities has been ruled out -- the chemicals could be released to the nearby population. The strikes will most likely target airports, military facilities, etc. The intent would be to discourage Assad to continue in the use of chemical weapons, and also sending a message to other dictators that they will always be a stiff price for such use.
The intent would be to cripple Syria militarily so that they cannot pose a threat to US interests and Israel while justifying it under this thin, vapid guise.
There is not always a stiff price for the use of chemical weapons, this is sending the message that you can fuck up whoever you like as long as you don't use gas, unless you're white in which case you can use whatever you want. Also, as discussed multiple times in this thread, having chemical weapons as an arbitary line in the sand that must be acted upon while ignoring far worse atrocities for huge lengths of time is silly.
Other dictators and power struggles are left unmeddled with unless interfering in them is advantageous to western interests. As also said, both the US and UK have established histories of backing dicators for their own ends and even deliberately installing puppet regimes.
Exactly. It's nothing to do with Chemical weapons. The US has used chemical weapons in the past, so has Israel.
I completely agree re the red. It's entirely about saving face. Nobody really cares about chemical weapons usage unless it's in a country that's a lot weaker and more vulnerable.
If China used chemical weapons tomorrow against its own people, or even the Tibetans, would there be an international outcry? Yes. Military action? Not likely.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Striking the chemical weapons facilities has been ruled out -- the chemicals could be released to the nearby population. The strikes will most likely target airports, military facilities, etc. The intent would be to discourage Assad to continue in the use of chemical weapons, and also sending a message to other dictators that they will always be a stiff price for such use.
The intent would be to cripple Syria militarily so that they cannot pose a threat to US interests and Israel while justifying it under this thin, vapid guise.
This conflict is more than 2 years old. If it had been a threat to US interests from the start, the US would have attacked a long time ago. The game changer is the use of chemical weapons.
QuoteThere is not always a stiff price for the use of chemical weapons, this is sending the message that you can fuck up whoever you like as long as you don't use gas, unless you're white in which case you can use whatever you want.
This is so off-the-wall, I won't bother commenting on it.
QuoteAlso, as discussed multiple times in this thread, having chemical weapons as an arbitary line in the sand that must be acted upon while ignoring far worse atrocities for huge lengths of time is silly.
There is the Chemical Weapons Convention, that dates as far back as 1925. For what it's worth, it resulted in 92% of all chemical facilities to be destroyed. Assad was warned last year. Why he crossed the red line is anyone's guess, but retaliations is now inevitable.
QuoteOther dictators and power struggles are left unmeddled with unless interfering in them is advantageous to western interests. As also said, both the US and UK have established histories of backing dicators for their own ends and even deliberately installing puppet regimes.
Going back to the point I made earlier,
2) And if they only extinguish some of them, then they are cherrypicking only those for self-interest. IOW, the US can only do bad???, the US cannot extinguish every fire. Anyway, every other nation acts in its own self-interest. Why is the US singled out?
IMO we should have gotten involved from the beginning. When this whole situation started out it was the people vs Assad. All we would have needed to do was impose a no-fly zone and arm the rebels. All we would have done is give them the strength they needed to take out Assad. We'd have no responsibility on the issue of rebuilding the country or setting up it's government unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, and when the rebels won we'd have a new ally.
Instead the government sat on it's hands and let the rebels try to duke it out on their own. So there's a huge power vacuum in Syria with the rebels in dire need of assistance and we just watched our opportunity fade away. But not Al-Qaeda. Now Syria is a no-win situation where either we support Assad with backing from Iran and Russia or we support the same fucks we were bombing in Afghanistan AND THIS IS WHEN OBAMA DECIDES TO DO SOMETHING!?
But then again our government would have only taken that action if it actually gave a flying fuck about average people, and we all know that's the farthest from their priority.
Why is it so important what a dictator uses to kill his people? You would think that the fact that he's killing them would be the issue but apparently you'd be wrong. It seems that we can't allow a dictator to use gas or all the other dictators will stop using whatever it is they're using now and switch to gas. Much better for all involved that they continue to kill them with something other than gas.
If we really want to go all Pavlov on dictators and train them with bombs, why wouldn't we draw our little red lines on a numerical basis? Say for instance if anything over a certain number or better yet a certain percentage of the population under control of said dictator is killed by whatever means, then we bomb him until he quits. That way, each dictator has a quota he can't exceed. Maybe it resets every year or something. Either way it makes more sense than drawing little red lines on method as opposed to people killed right?
Quote from: "billhilly"Why is it so important what a dictator uses to kill his people?
Because, according to the administration, dissidents could get hold of those chemicals and use them in the US. That makes the killing of everyone with an unlicensed handgun a logical action - preventative killing.
Of course the Republicans will criticize Obama whether he goes into Syria to bomb, puts boots on the ground or does nothing. The fact that it's Obama who's doing it is what they consider wrong. So he's probably trying to act in a way that will limit the flaming the most.
[youtube:53r6r5lr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_090jSIrSI[/youtube:53r6r5lr]
Russia is sending in a cruiser and a anti-sub ship to the Mediterranean. On the one hand; good for them, its nice to see someone telling the U.S. to go fuck itself. On the other hand... I don't think the U.S. gives a fuck, they will do what they want no matter what.
Also to quote the video...
QuoteRussian chief of staff said in June the navy had stationed 16 warships and 3 ship-based helicopters in the Med., it's first permanent navel deployment there since Soviet times.
I do not know Russian politics very well, but I would wager there are quite a few in its ranks that would be pro-war as well.
I'm thinking more and more this is less and less about Syria in even the least bit and more trying to fuck with Russia and China.
More news:
US President Obama: 'No decision yet' on Syria strike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23875121 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23875121)
QuoteRussia is sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean.
The ships are being sent to strengthen the navy's presence in the area because of the "well-known situation" there, the Russian news agency Interfax has said.
But another news agency, RIA Novosti, quotes a senior naval command spokesman as saying that this is just a planned rotation, unconnected with Syria.
QuoteCritics have questioned what purpose a limited strike on Syria could serve, but Mr Obama told the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) it would send the government of Bashar al-Assad "a pretty strong signal that it better not [use chemical weapons] again".
The US has yet to produce the intelligence it says shows Mr Assad's government is guilty of using chemical weapons, and UN weapons inspectors are still investigating inside Syria.
The team has just begun a third day of on-site investigations, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appealed for it to be "given time to do its job". He said the inspectors would finish their investigations and be out of the area by Saturday morning.
Syria denies using chemical weapons and blames opposition fighters for the attack near Damascus on 21 August, which reportedly killed hundreds of people.
It accused the West of "inventing" excuses to launch a strike.
In a sign of growing fears about an impending attack among Syrians, the Associated Press quoted Lebanese officials as saying at least 6,000 Syrians crossed into Lebanon in a 24-hour period through the main Masnaa crossing - compared to a normal daily tally of between 500 and 1,000 refugees.
"Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?" one 45-year-old woman, entering Lebanon with her five children, told AP.
In Damascus senior military commanders are reportedly staying away from buildings thought likely to be targeted. You "could hear a pin drop" at one of them, a local resident said.
QuotePresident Obama told PBS that the US had "not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place, and hardly anyone disputes that chemical weapons were used in a large scale in Syria against civilian populations".
"We've looked at all the evidence, and we don't believe the opposition possessed chemical weapons of that sort," he said.
He added he had concluded that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack.
"There need to be international consequences, so we are consulting with our allies," he said.
There was "a prospect that chemical weapons could be directed at us - and we want to make sure that doesn't happen".
The BBC's David Willis in Washington says Mr Obama looked cautious and spoke in a measured way, and he was clearly concerned about getting Congress on board as well as the American public.
Opinion polls until now have shown very little interest among the US public in getting involved in the Syrian conflict.
QuoteThe US has said it will not take action alone - but one of its primary allies, the UK, has agreed to wait until UN inspectors report back before taking a parliamentary vote on potential action.
Russia rejected a UK push to try to agree a resolution on Syria among permanent UN Security Council members on Wednesday, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying the UN could not consider any draft resolution or proposed action in Syria before the UN weapons inspectors reported back.
The use of force without a sanction of the UN Security Council would be a "crude violation" of international law and "lead to the long-term destabilisation of the situation in the country and the region", Mr Lavrov has said.
I hope this doesn't spiral out of control, but I won't be surprised if it does. I'm expecting multiple wars in the Middle East and elsewhere in the next 20 years, and at least 2 or 3 of them, I expect to be quite large and devastating with deaths in the millions or higher.
As far as I'm aware, Syria has Russia's only seaport in the Mediterranean, so it's no wonder that they'd want to make sure Assad stays in power.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Russia is sending in a cruiser and a anti-sub ship to the Mediterranean. On the one hand; good for them, its nice to see someone telling the U.S. to go fuck itself. On the other hand... I don't think the U.S. gives a fuck, they will do what they want no matter what.
Can't agree with you here for a couple reasons. First, Russia isnt some shining example of righteousness. Its just one tyrant challenging another. Challenges to the United States should come from its own people not other countries.
Second, any conventional combat that might take place between the US and Russia won't end conventionally. This feels like Cuba all over again. This is extremely bad, and when I voted for Obama the last thing I ever though I would see him doing is flirting with nuclear war in even the most remote way. What the fuck?
Putin says US should present Syria chemical weapons evidence to UN Security Council
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/ ... ty-council (http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/putin-says-us-should-present-syria-chemical-weapons-evidence-un-security-council)
QuoteRussian President Vladimir Putin says that the United States should present its evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria to the UN Security Council, and has said that it would be "utter nonsense" for the Syrian government to have carried out the alleged chemical weapons attacks, according to the Reuters news agency.
Whether the Assad and/or the Syrian government made this attack, the US needs to provide evidence before making any decisions. To quote some other anonymous internet user:
QuoteWait a second, the US had the UNSC unsuccessfully vote on a resolutions giving the legal basis for an attack, and they didn't even provide the evidence to council members? And yet we are made to believe China and Russia are being 'difficult' and 'counter-productive'? WTF, I get they don't want to share it with the public because when it turns out fake it gets 10 times as awkward but at least let the UNSC poke at it.
Looks like cooler heads have prevailed.
QuoteWASHINGTON—President Barack Obama said Saturday he is prepared to take military action if necessary against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people, but said he will seek authorization from Congress before moving forward.
QuoteMr. Obama said he's talked with leaders in Congress and they've agreed to schedule a debate on using force as soon as they return from their August recess on Sept. 9, though lawmakers could be called back earlier.
The president said the effectiveness of any U.S. military strike, which he vowed would be limited, is "not time sensitive."
"It could be effective tomorrow, or next week or one month from now," Mr. Obama said. He said he is aware that the United Nations and some countries may not agree with his decision. He said he's prepared to go forward without their approval.
Probably not much chance of congress going along after their break what with midterm elections coming up and all.
Oops forgot the link - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579046902682624072.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)
Decision made. Going in.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Decision made. Going in.
Under Bush, the administration said it knew Saddam had WMD. And maybe he could have, but the weapons inspectors could find no proof. Politicians "knew" Saddam had them too, but no actual proof was shown to the voters. The voters generally "knew" Saddam had had WMD based on the word of our leaders.
The parallel here is very similar. Perhaps Assad used chemical weapons. There's a 50% chance that he did (probably less than that as it could have been Assad, the rebels, or some terrorist group), but in spite of our leaders "knowing", no proof has been shown to the voters, and inspections teams can't verify anything. This is Iraq all over again, at least with regards to actual evidence.
When you bomb some country, it's good to be able to provide relevant evidence to justify the action. Either way, we are going to turn the tide on this civil war and help the side that hates us the most win victory. And I'll bet these guys are laughing their asses off right now.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Decision made. Going in.
Under Bush, the administration said it knew Saddam had WMD. And maybe he could have, but the weapons inspectors could find no proof. Politicians "knew" Saddam had them too, but no actual proof was shown to the voters. The voters generally "knew" Saddam had had WMD based on the word of our leaders.
Well, this is true but missing in that picture is that Saddam wanted to make others believe he had WMD's. Even his own generals, after the US invasion, were stunned in finding out he hadn't any WMD's. So yes, the Bush administration did spike the info, and Saddam willingly poured more wine into the cocktail.
Quote from: "SGOS"The parallel here is very similar. Perhaps Assad used chemical weapons. There's a 50% chance that he did (probably less than that as it could have been Assad, the rebels, or some terrorist group), but in spite of our leaders "knowing", no proof has been shown to the voters, and inspections teams can't verify anything.
What was this figure derived from? :-s Reminds me of theists saying that there's a 50/50 chance that God exists. :-|
Various governments have put forth some evidence, the JIC report (//https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235094/Jp_115_JD_PM_Syria_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_with_annex.pdf), for example, but no slam dunk case yet. Other evidence, allegedly of a highly sensitive nature, is being withheld for the time being. Though we have heard from reporters on the ground that alleging that the rebels have come under chemical weapons attack (//http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/05/27/chemical-war-in-syria_3417708_3218.html). And in defiance of the odds (and the international community), it's pretty likely that Assad's regime did launch at least one chemical weapons attack.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "SGOS"The parallel here is very similar. Perhaps Assad used chemical weapons. There's a 50% chance that he did (probably less than that as it could have been Assad, the rebels, or some terrorist group), but in spite of our leaders "knowing", no proof has been shown to the voters, and inspections teams can't verify anything.
What was this figure derived from? :-s Reminds me of theists saying that there's a 50/50 chance that God exists. :-|
It was derived from the two, possibly three suspects that could have launched the attack. No other information is available so that's about the best you can do. Expect the information you say Obama is not reporting. If you know something no one else knows, then that would change the 50/50 odds, but since you don't, you have no more to go on than faith, something common in theist arguments by the way. And I don't know many theists that talk about 50/50 when it comes to gods.
I'm not saying Syria didn't launch the attacks. I don't know, and neither to you. This is the same argument I had with holders of faith in Saddam's WMD 10 years ago. I suspect your need to see Syria bombed outweighs your need for information. If I'm using "theist" reasoning, then you are doubly so, as far as I can tell.
Quote from: "SGOS"It was derived from the two, possibly three suspects that could have launched the attack.
A poor methodology. Two suspects who might have done it does not make it a 50/50 chance and attempting to derive a likelihood from that alone is embarrassingly poor reasoning. Especially when more information actually is available.
QuoteNo other information is available so that's about the best you can do.
I didn't post those links for my health, you know. :-|
QuoteIf you know something no one else knows, then that would change the 50/50 odds, but since you don't, you have no more to go on than faith, something common in theist arguments by the way.
(//http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4798818/swing-and-a-miss-o.gif)
Oh, so close!
QuoteThis is the same argument I had with holders of faith in Saddam's WMD 10 years ago.
Always with the Iraq, as if they were identical situations. They're not, and neither the situation, the reasoning behind intervention, nor the scale of the intervention is similar. In one case, a brutal civil war and humanitarian-disaster-in-progress that has recently gone WMD and threatens to deteriorate even further. On the other, a brutally oppressive but largely contained situation where unilateral action was pre-planned and the public and international community were deliberately misled.
Iraq was so terrible and so profoundly jarring that I'm not surprised that people are still stuck in Iraq mode, reacting to a new situation as if it were the old one. It's fortunate that not everyone knee-jerked that way.
QuoteI suspect your need to see Syria bombed outweighs your need for information. If I'm using "theist" reasoning, then you are doubly so, as far as I can tell.
As far as you can tell. However, that is clearly not the case. And these predictable accusations (even if they weren't horribly, horribly mistaken) do nothing for your argument, such as it is.
Assad: U.S. attack on Syria will bring 'repercussions' (VIDEO)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... g/2784995/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/syria-bashar-assad-chemical-weapons-cbs-interview-warning/2784995/)
QuoteSyrian President Bashar Assad has denied in an interview that his country had used chemical weapons against his own people and warned of "repercussions" for any U.S. strike against his country.
"You should expect everything," Assad told CBS' Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning. "You should expect everything. Not necessarily from the government. It's not only the government are not the only player in this region. You have different parties, you have different factions, you have different ideology. You have everything in this region now. So you have to expect that."
He also warned that terrorist groups who support his regime might also respond to any U.S. strike with attacks on their own.
Quote"Our soldiers in another area were attacked chemically, our soldiers," the Syrian president told CBS. "They went to the hospital, as casualties because of chemical weapons. But in the area where they said the government used chemical weapons, we only had video and we only have pictures and allegations. We're not there. Our forces -- our police, our institutions don't exist. How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidences? We're not like the American administration. We're not social media administration or government. We are the government that deals with reality."
He called on Obama to "present what you have as evidence to the public, be transparent."
Of course, if Assad threatens the US, the US should cower down.
Of course, if Assad denies the use of chemical weapons, that must be true.
Of course if the US intelligence was wrong on Iraq, it must be wrong on Syria.
Of course if the Republicans vote against Obama, they must be right.
:Hangman:
It isn't just Republicans voting against this and not all of them are. Quite a few Democrats who were against bombing the middle east when Bush was president are still against it now that Obama is president just as some Republicans who were all for bombing brown people when Bush did it, still think it's a good idea. Go figure.
Democrats don't count.
:P
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Assad: U.S. attack on Syria will bring 'repercussions' (VIDEO)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... g/2784995/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/syria-bashar-assad-chemical-weapons-cbs-interview-warning/2784995/)
QuoteSyrian President Bashar Assad has denied in an interview that his country had used chemical weapons against his own people and warned of "repercussions" for any U.S. strike against his country.
Denial and threats. Sounds like exactly the kind of reaction a falsely-accused person would have.
Whenever I hear a government official ask me to trust him, I get doubly skeptical.
Quote from: "billhilly"It isn't just Republicans voting against this and not all of them are. Quite a few Democrats who were against bombing the middle east when Bush was president are still against it now that Obama is president just as some Republicans who were all for bombing brown people when Bush did it, still think it's a good idea. Go figure.
Though "bombing the middle east" is an awfully general way of putting otherwise pretty dissimilar actions, but yeah, they sure were/are. Independently of the details of the situations, it seems.
Libya caused quite a stir, too (//https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/20-1). Sadly, the impeachment call did not garner much support. Oh well, there's always next time to grind that axe.