SYRIA thread

[Strike For The South]

Ramzan Kadryov is the despot ruling the Chechen republic. The man is a walking vulgarity. His rule, a testament brutal hedonism. He is basically the third man in power (chronologically) since Putin shelled his own country and kidnapped his own citizens. After that Putin exploited a division between Chechen Muslims and the whabbis by hand picking Kadryovs father as leader. There's more to it than that, but that basically gets us to where we are at now.

Kadryov has been more than happy to get his hands dirty assassinating Putins political opponents while Putin has been more than happy to pump money into the republic now that it has a friendly disposition to Moscow. Nothing to surprising there, a princeling is showered with gifts when he does the Czars bidding.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7700711.html

Recently Kardryov has been accused of rounding up the gays, which while passe, is still troubling. Allegedly, this started when a group of gay men sought permission to hold a parade. I suppose sometimes asking does have its consequences. The Chechen response has been all over the place. First, they claimed it was an April Fools joke. Then, they claimed that no gay men existed in their republic. This unassailable fact was then amended. Kadryov stated that if these men did exist (no doubt as a result of western corruption) their families would simply "take care of them". No doubt a reference to honor killings, which also permeate the republic.

Unsurprisingly, Moscow is unmoved. They are backing their strongman without so much as a curiosity about what is going on. Considering the state of gay rights as a whole in the country, this is entirely unsurprising. Putin will back his man so long as he remains his man. Sort of like how you could gas your own people and Russia will claim that you didn't. Even when France and The USA have proof that you did. Russias propaganda arm is about the only thing that works in the country. They may run out of bread, but by God can they muddy the waters when it comes to news.

The Chechen story is a great illustration of this because Russia simply doesn't care enough about gays to make up an elaborate lie. Syria is wrapped up in a humanitarian crisis and power politics. That makes things unclear for people and when things are unclear disinformation is a powerful tool.

Why should you believe anything the Russian government says?

[Sarmatian]

Why should you believe anything American and French government says?

American government has quite a record of manufacturing evidence to further their own agenda. Iraq WMD is just the most famous example, because every single politician of importance was parroting it for a year, so it stuck with people.

You're starting from a position of American government doesn't lie therefore anyone with a different opinion is lying.

Russian government lies, American government lies, Assad is a dictator, a lot of rebels aren't much better and many are worse. In that chaos, somebody gassed civilians. How can you be so sure it was Assad?

[Strike For The South]

Why should you believe anything American and French government says?

American government has quite a record of manufacturing evidence to further their own agenda. Iraq WMD is just the most famous example, because every single politician of importance was parroting it for a year, so it stuck with people.

You're starting from a position of American government doesn't lie therefore anyone with a different opinion is lying.

Russian government lies, American government lies, Assad is a dictator, a lot of rebels aren't much better and many are worse. In that chaos, somebody gassed civilians. How can you be so sure it was Assad?

I know the American government lies. You misrepresent my position, I would argue the US government tends to utilizes omission while The Russian government very much employs a brinkmanship/double down strategy. The Russian strategy is more effective but requires a stronger propaganda arm.

Stories about Israeli or Saudi atrocities simply never hit the US airwaves or are very much downplayed. The US strategy is simply not to talk about them. In this case, they are very much helped by a media that loves intervention and neo-conservative policies.

I would also argue that, on a relative scale, the American government is more trustworthy that the Russian one . Of course the scale for honesty among global powers is horribly weighted with a certain amount of lying. unfortunately, that is power politics. The French also love to disagree with the Americans, if there was something afoot, they would surely seize it. I am sure you would disagree, but that is for another time.

Assad may have been winning militarily but he is trying to re-assert control and his military will not be strong enough to help him govern. These attacks are being used to strike fear in those rebels who are weighing peace under Assad vs continued fighting.

[Elmetiacos]

1) there were reports of Al Nusra making sarin and using it before (long before this attack)
2) reports mentioned sarin was being produced in Iraq
3) unitary sarin was actually produced first, a long time ago, it is not a "new research path"
4) binary sarin is more advanced, more complicated to produce and harder to deploy. To deploy unitary sarin you just break the container. For binary, you have to have a complicated mechanism to make sure the precursors mix at the right time. Even Iraqi army in the Gulf War had troubles with that. Google for reports US soldier surviving sarin attacks almost unscathed because of faulty mechanism. Iraqis used unitary sarin for the most part.
5) Al Nusra and other terrorist groups have a large number of ex Baathist in their ranks

As you've just highlighted yourself, unitary sarin is unstable and degrades quickly while producing acid which eats at whatever it's stored in which is why everyone gave up on it decades ago. Once again, the issue is not whether rebels could have chemical weapons, it's the extremely unlikely scenario that the alleged rebel sarin was accidentally released as the Kremlin claims.

[AE Bravo]

It's April 25th and the fucking pot calling the kettle black.

[Strike For The South]

All polities are dishonest to some degree. Rampant cynicism and whatboutism are not tenable positions in a world that requires solutions beyond EU money for Syrian refugees.

It is not a high mark of critical thinking when ones only position is critique.

[Sarmatian]

I would also argue that, on a relative scale, the American government is more trustworthy that the Russian one.

I would say it depends on the issue. In domestic issues, American government is much more trustworthy than the Russian one, but the reason for that isn't that American politicians are inherently more honest than Russian ones. US has an effective system of checks and balances in place. There are different interest groups that wield a lot of influence and have a rather loud voice.
It is quite hard to push through an outright lie. Chances are, it's gonna be caught by some of them.

Foreign policy and intelligence organizations are different. They aren't as transparent, they largely fall under the influence of a small group of people. We rarely see original intelligence reports, and if we do, it's years or decades after they are relevant, at a time when nobody cares. The media and politicians are much less divided. News anchors from CNN to Fox sounded as if they were masturbating to missiles being fired. It's not so much about issues but about rooting for the home team. In foreign policy, there are no checks and balances and mainstream media tends to go along, sometimes even run ahead. That is also evident when media omits US allies' crimes, like the Israeli or Saudis you mentioned. That's not a "one off". That's been going on for decades. Hundreds of editors were changed in mainstream media over the years, it can't be a coincidence. In this case, it's not just not rooting for the home team, it's rooting against it. You're making America look bad. Why was Snowden vilified? Did he lie about something? There was a guy who exposed that American government and intelligence constitution are breaking the US constitution on a daily basis. Instead of being lauded as a hero, he was vilified. Why was it so easy to do that? Because he made America look bad.

In Russia, domestic system and foreign policy system work pretty much the same. There are no checks and balances, and the mainstream media supports the government narrative, in both domestic and foreign issues.

So, I both agree and disagree with you in this particular case. When it comes to domestic issues, I feel the American government is much more trustworthy. In foreign policy, I don't think there's a difference.

Assad may have been winning militarily but he is trying to re-assert control and his military will not be strong enough to help him govern. These attacks are being used to strike fear in those rebels who are weighing peace under Assad vs continued fighting.

That is a valid point. Counter point is that there are a lot of methods to strike fear into population, why would he choose the one that practically guarantees an international outrage?

As you've just highlighted yourself, unitary sarin is unstable and degrades quickly while producing acid which eats at whatever it's stored in which is why everyone gave up on it decades ago. Once again, the issue is not whether rebels could have chemical weapons, it's the extremely unlikely scenario that the alleged rebel sarin was accidentally released as the Kremlin claims.

Not everyone has access to the same technology. Even sarin made of low grade material has a shelf life of a few weeks. Better materials and stabilizing agents extend that to years and decades.

It is highly unlikely that sarin made by terrorists in field workshops is a quality binary variant. It is highly unlikely that they intend to store it for decades. It is highly unlikely that they have the means to make complicated firing mechanism necessary for effective deployment.

So, Kremlin story isn't illogical at all. Whether it's true, that's another issue.

[Montmorency]

why would he choose the one that practically guarantees an international outrage?

Because international outrage is very selective and opportunistic, including on chemical weapons.

Anyway, it remains to be seen if there was any genuine threat behind the US reprisal, and that it wasn't just one more item in the backdoor quid-pro-quo between the US and Russia, and something for the domestic media to approve of. What has Assad lost now?

[Strike For The South]

I would say it depends on the issue. In domestic issues, American government is much more trustworthy than the Russian one, but the reason for that isn't that American politicians are inherently more honest than Russian ones. US has an effective system of checks and balances in place. There are different interest groups that wield a lot of influence and have a rather loud voice.
It is quite hard to push through an outright lie. Chances are, it's gonna be caught by some of them.

The checks and balances certainly help, as does the devolution to the states. However, there are also issues that simply don't get brought up. Like the fact that no one has enforced firearm regulation in 25 years. That can be a topic for later.

Foreign policy and intelligence organizations are different. They aren't as transparent, they largely fall under the influence of a small group of people. We rarely see original intelligence reports, and if we do, it's years or decades after they are relevant, at a time when nobody cares.

I agree but I also think this is true for all nation states. I think America should hold itself to a higher, more transparent standard. The core problem would still remain though, certain things can't be totally transparent. This is compounded by the fact that Americas "main" adversaries (China and Russia) tend to be a lot more secretive. Being able to hold your cards closer to your vest is a positive in international relations.

The media and politicians are much less divided. News anchors from CNN to Fox sounded as if they were masturbating to missiles being fired. It's not so much about issues but about rooting for the home team. In foreign policy, there are no checks and balances and mainstream media tends to go along, sometimes even run ahead. That is also evident when media omits US allies' crimes, like the Israeli or Saudis you mentioned. That's not a "one off". That's been going on for decades. Hundreds of editors were changed in mainstream media over the years, it can't be a coincidence. In this case, it's not just not rooting for the home team, it's rooting against it. You're making America look bad.

The cheerleading is disgusting. Brian Williams behavior in particular was akin to a 5 year old watching fireworks. 6 companies own 90% of the media in America. The people at the top of these companies are very much Neo-Liberal interventionists. It is not really a shock that they stock their companies with like minded individuals. It's not some grand conspiracy so much as symptom of unfettered global capitalism. It's why I donate to PBS.

Why was Snowden vilified? Did he lie about something? There was a guy who exposed that American government and intelligence constitution are breaking the US constitution on a daily basis. Instead of being lauded as a hero, he was vilified. Why was it so easy to do that? Because he made America look bad.

He made America look bad but also put America at a real disadvantage in the public relations sphere of the grand political game. The only countries that don't do things Snowden exposed are either are unable to do it or allow America to do it for them. Germany is the most notable example of this. I think it's telling the German people howled about it and Merkel sort of brushed it off as the price of doing business.

I think what he did was treasonous. In my perfect world, he is tried by his fellow citizens, found guilty, stripped of his citizenship, and exiled. However, the government would probably railroad him and execute him. He does not deserve to die for what he exposed, nor does he deserve permanent solitary in Levanworth. So I suppose I must make my peace with his self imposed punishment.

So, I both agree and disagree with you in this particular case. When it comes to domestic issues, I feel the American government is much more trustworthy. In foreign policy, I don't think there's a difference.

My first reaction to this was indignation. How could someone even begin to equate the Americans and the Russians? But as I thought about it more, a Serb probably has the most reason to question NATO motives. To take a step back and make it less about me and you, I think Americas greatest blind spot is its lack of personal skin in the game.

America is in its own corner of the world. I will only be bombed in some sort of over in an instant nuclear holocaust. I don't think we have ever really felt a national tragedy. This, of course, is a blessing and yet it sort of hamstrings us in the wider world.

To further illustrate my point. I grew up listening to stories about Cowboys and Indians. More specifically I grew up listenting to the stories about the Comanche, the Kiowa, and The Apache. The plains Indians loom in the Texas psyche to this day. Stories About how they took blue eyed babies and drug them threw the cactus plants, About how they raided white homesteads and took the redheaded women as sex slaves, about how they were the toughest sons of bitches this side of the Pecos. We would point to our scars and imagine they were given to us by some proud Comanche warrior (maybe even Quanah Parker himself). The Cowboys were American knights, defending us from evil.

Now Granted, the Comanche were a salty people who did do those things and did carve out an empire through subjugation. However they also only numbered about 20,000 people total and they were ruthlessly hunted by the Texas Rangers. The Rangers killed indiscriminately, burned whole bands, and when there was nothing left to destroy, they crossed the border to burn loot and rape various Mexicans villages. I guess because Mexicans kind of look like Indians.

The few Comanche left now live hundreds of miles to the East in Oklahoma. We named an attack helicopter them. As if our vanquished enemies give us power.

Now everyone grows up with stories about their national heroes and at the risk of rambling, I will get to my point. The national mythos is usually tempered by national tragedy. America doesn't have a national tragedy. There are no scars on our psyche and I think that is to our detriment. In our minds, we are good and pure. In our minds, force is a tool for a good cause. Force has given us our nation. Force freed the slaves. Force defeated the NAZIs. Force whipped the Japanese. Force never bombed out San Fransisco. Force never occupied New England. Force was never Mexican ranger raids into Texas. Force is not Pakistan violating our sovereignty killing someone in one of our cities.

Im not sure I have a wider point here beyond my own reflection I am sharing. I should make this more concise. I just feel America is too quick to use force and our own detachment is a big driver of that. If that makes sense.

That is a valid point. Counter point is that there are a lot of methods to strike fear into population, why would he choose the one that practically guarantees an international outrage?

What are their other options that don't involve mass infrastructure damage?


edit: it should be noted Pancho Villa did raid the American southwest. The Americans were fully prepared to invade and subjugate the entirety of Mexico over a Mexican rebel until cooler heads prevailed. That kind of encapsulates my point.

[Elmetiacos]

Not everyone has access to the same technology. Even sarin made of low grade material has a shelf life of a few weeks. Better materials and stabilizing agents extend that to years and decades.

It is highly unlikely that sarin made by terrorists in field workshops is a quality binary variant. It is highly unlikely that they intend to store it for decades. It is highly unlikely that they have the means to make complicated firing mechanism necessary for effective deployment.

So, Kremlin story isn't illogical at all. Whether it's true, that's another issue.

Unitary Sarin (or similar) isn't easier to make than the binary form; it's the same chemical process, but storage of it in that form has been abandoned as it is too unstable. Why would anyone go back to that? The only way the Kremlin version could be true is if the airstrike hit at the very time the reagents had been mixed just before being used - in an unconventional form of munition since Syrians are used to dealing with the binary form. As I said before, it's possible that the rebel faction deliberately released poison gas in a 'false flag' operation, but nobody has claimed that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

French Intelligence fingers the regime for the Sarin attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...h-intelligence

[Brenus]

French Intelligence fingers the regime for the Sarin attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...h-intelligence

We are part of NATO now, little lap dog following USA...

[Sarmatian]

I agree but I also think this is true for all nation states. I think America should hold itself to a higher, more transparent standard. The core problem would still remain though, certain things can't be totally transparent. This is compounded by the fact that Americas "main" adversaries (China and Russia) tend to be a lot more secretive. Being able to hold your cards closer to your vest is a positive in international relations.

I'm not saying it should be transparent, it's just that I don't find America more trustworthy than Russia or even China when it comes to foreign policy. There had been too many outright lies and questionable policy decisions. The international fora are dominated by NATO members. The only international forum not dominated by NATO is UN. Even with all its flaws, it is the only one left. Sure, it devolves often to "reality by consensus" rather than "by facts" and it is most often rendered impotent by permanent SC members, but at least that system makes it impossible for any one side to dominate.

The cheerleading is disgusting. Brian Williams behavior in particular was akin to a 5 year old watching fireworks. 6 companies own 90% of the media in America. The people at the top of these companies are very much Neo-Liberal interventionists. It is not really a shock that they stock their companies with like minded individuals. It's not some grand conspiracy so much as symptom of unfettered global capitalism. It's why I donate to PBS.

I'm not talking about conspiracies. It's business. Very few people in America want to read about America being the bad guy. I was watching some clip of Bill Maher's show on youtube. He was listing crazy things Trump said. Among others, there was his answer to a journalist to a question how he can praise Putin when Putin has done such terrible things. His answer was "we (US) have done terrible things, too". It would probably pass unnoticed if there wasn't a British MP on the show who asked "what's so crazy about that statement?", and threw everyone off track.

There have been too many examples not to notice a trend here.

He made America look bad but also put America at a real disadvantage in the public relations sphere of the grand political game. The only countries that don't do things Snowden exposed are either are unable to do it or allow America to do it for them. Germany is the most notable example of this. I think it's telling the German people howled about it and Merkel sort of brushed it off as the price of doing business

That again requires a higher level of understand of foreign relations, espionage, data collection... than Average Joe has. There was a guy who proved that government was violating the constitution, the very same constitution American politicians swear by (some even claim it is so pure and perfect that it must be a result of a divine intervention), but nobody cared. He made America look bad. The end. He was rooting against the home team, he deserves all the bad things that happened to him.

My first reaction to this was indignation. How could someone even begin to equate the Americans and the Russians? But as I thought about it more, a Serb probably has the most reason to question NATO motives. To take a step back and make it less about me and you, I think Americas greatest blind spot is its lack of personal skin in the game.

I wouldn't want to say that my personal experience had nothing to do with it, but I wouldn't say it made me hate America, or NATO. Sure, I am anti-NATO (most people often regard me as pro-Russian, while that is merely a reflection of my anti-NATO position). I just don't accept their explanations at face value, I like to dig a little deeper.

America is in its own corner of the world. I will only be bombed in some sort of over in an instant nuclear holocaust. I don't think we have ever really felt a national tragedy. This, of course, is a blessing and yet it sort of hamstrings us in the wider world.

To further illustrate my point. I grew up listening to stories about Cowboys and Indians. More specifically I grew up listenting to the stories about the Comanche, the Kiowa, and The Apache. The plains Indians loom in the Texas psyche to this day. Stories About how they took blue eyed babies and drug them threw the cactus plants, About how they raided white homesteads and took the redheaded women as sex slaves, about how they were the toughest sons of bitches this side of the Pecos. We would point to our scars and imagine they were given to us by some proud Comanche warrior (maybe even Quanah Parker himself). The Cowboys were American knights, defending us from evil.

Now Granted, the Comanche were a salty people who did do those things and did carve out an empire through subjugation. However they also only numbered about 20,000 people total and they were ruthlessly hunted by the Texas Rangers. The Rangers killed indiscriminately, burned whole bands, and when there was nothing left to destroy, they crossed the border to burn loot and rape various Mexicans villages. I guess because Mexicans kind of look like Indians.

The few Comanche left now live hundreds of miles to the East in Oklahoma. We named an attack helicopter them. As if our vanquished enemies give us power.

Now everyone grows up with stories about their national heroes and at the risk of rambling, I will get to my point. The national mythos is usually tempered by national tragedy. America doesn't have a national tragedy. There are no scars on our psyche and I think that is to our detriment. In our minds, we are good and pure. In our minds, force is a tool for a good cause. Force has given us our nation. Force freed the slaves. Force defeated the NAZIs. Force whipped the Japanese. Force never bombed out San Fransisco. Force never occupied New England. Force was never Mexican ranger raids into Texas. Force is not Pakistan violating our sovereignty killing someone in one of our cities.

Im not sure I have a wider point here beyond my own reflection I am sharing. I should make this more concise. I just feel America is too quick to use force and our own detachment is a big driver of that. If that makes sense.

We can debate the philosophical aspect of the influence of a national tragedy on a national psyche, but that is too broad a subject for this discussion, although I don't disagree.

What are their other options that don't involve mass infrastructure damage?

Not many, true. Incarcerations, show trials, but in this case we're talking about a city that is in control of Al Nusra, that has been bombed quite a few times already.

Unitary Sarin (or similar) isn't easier to make than the binary form; it's the same chemical process, but storage of it in that form has been abandoned as it is too unstable. Why would anyone go back to that? The only way the Kremlin version could be true is if the airstrike hit at the very time the reagents had been mixed just before being used - in an unconventional form of munition since Syrians are used to dealing with the binary form. As I said before, it's possible that the rebel faction deliberately released poison gas in a 'false flag' operation, but nobody has claimed that.

You are again assuming everyone has unlimited access to technical expertise and means of production. Long term storage isn't much of an importance if you're in an actual conflict. Iraqis made low grade unitary sarin during the gulf war that had a shelf life of only few weeks. They didn't care because they were gonna use it within those few weeks.

There are two advantages binary sarin has over unitary. It safer to handle and it safer to store for very long periods of time. Neither of them are important to terrorists.

For them, the ease of deployment is more important. Why would they care about long term storage? They don't have the logistic base to produce, move and store large amount of sarin. They create small amounts in field workshops that will used shortly after production, in the simplest way possible - break the container. It is quite illogical to think they would go to trouble to create special shells that will fire precursors with a complicated mechanism that would ensure that precursors match at the right time.

This is really like saying why would anyone buy fresh meat, when canned food will last for decades. Since the plan is to eat in the next few days, the longer duration of canned food is not a relevant factor. Or why would meth addicts buy low quality meth when they could buy the ingredients and make their own? They are limited in their knowledge and facilities.
Why are they driving old Toyotas when there are better cars?

Seriously, what's so hard to understand?

French Intelligence fingers the regime for the Sarin attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...h-intelligence

So far, the most conclusive report that incriminates Assad, but there are a few rather large holes, if one bothers to read the actual intelligence report, or more precisely, political interpretation of the actual intelligence report.

1) the entire thing is based on one single thing - that three "unidentified" shells that were recovered a few years back were indeed dropped by Syrian army. The evidence for that is circumstantial at best.
2) why would they compare it to the three unidentified shells when Syria surrendered its stockpiles? OPCW must have analyzed it, if for no other reason than to make sure Assad isn't surrendering air freshener. The documentation still exists.
3) They consider proven that 2013 gas attack was made by Assad - UN commission reached a different conclusion. Why would they withhold conclusive and incontrovertible evidence from UN commission?
4) How did the French analysts gain access to the site when the town is in control of Al Nusra Front?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We are part of NATO now, little lap dog following USA...

Cute little poodle....

[AE Bravo]

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. The states have managed to push national tragedy after national tragedy like everyone else for a while, depending on your definition of national tragedy. Soldiers that die overseas, hostage crises, assassination of political figures, etc. are all national tragedies with occasionally foreign perpetrators.

I would not think being a victim in a political narrative would make much of a difference. It is the aim of having overkill with disproportionate government funding of the military that makes the US have an insanely itchy trigger finger compared to the rest of the world.

[a completely inoffensive name]

America is in its own corner of the world. I will only be bombed in some sort of over in an instant nuclear holocaust. I don't think we have ever really felt a national tragedy. This, of course, is a blessing and yet it sort of hamstrings us in the wider world.

To further illustrate my point. I grew up listening to stories about Cowboys and Indians. More specifically I grew up listenting to the stories about the Comanche, the Kiowa, and The Apache. The plains Indians loom in the Texas psyche to this day. Stories About how they took blue eyed babies and drug them threw the cactus plants, About how they raided white homesteads and took the redheaded women as sex slaves, about how they were the toughest sons of bitches this side of the Pecos. We would point to our scars and imagine they were given to us by some proud Comanche warrior (maybe even Quanah Parker himself). The Cowboys were American knights, defending us from evil.

Now Granted, the Comanche were a salty people who did do those things and did carve out an empire through subjugation. However they also only numbered about 20,000 people total and they were ruthlessly hunted by the Texas Rangers. The Rangers killed indiscriminately, burned whole bands, and when there was nothing left to destroy, they crossed the border to burn loot and rape various Mexicans villages. I guess because Mexicans kind of look like Indians.

The few Comanche left now live hundreds of miles to the East in Oklahoma. We named an attack helicopter them. As if our vanquished enemies give us power.

Now everyone grows up with stories about their national heroes and at the risk of rambling, I will get to my point. The national mythos is usually tempered by national tragedy. America doesn't have a national tragedy. There are no scars on our psyche and I think that is to our detriment. In our minds, we are good and pure. In our minds, force is a tool for a good cause. Force has given us our nation. Force freed the slaves. Force defeated the NAZIs. Force whipped the Japanese. Force never bombed out San Fransisco. Force never occupied New England. Force was never Mexican ranger raids into Texas. Force is not Pakistan violating our sovereignty killing someone in one of our cities.

Im not sure I have a wider point here beyond my own reflection I am sharing. I should make this more concise. I just feel America is too quick to use force and our own detachment is a big driver of that. If that makes sense.

I see where you are coming from, but I think the point is too black and white and doesn't quite capture reality.

A. The US has never seen destruction on the scale of Post-War Europe, but there are events which did fundamentally alter the American psyche. Both 9/11 (and the War on Terror in general) and the Vietnam War made profound impacts on day to day living in American society.

B. There are counter examples of countries which have seen plenty of national tragedies and have gladly taken up interventionist foreign policies. See the UK under Blair and for the reasoning you could take a look at PVC's posts in the Libya thread from a few years back.

America does have its scars, but the way we have dealt with them is less modern European and more akin to the Romans who stayed committed to a given conflict mentality at any cost. I am in no particular position to give an accurate breakdown beyond these points however.

[Montmorency]

A. The US has never seen destruction on the scale of Post-War Europe, but there are events which did fundamentally alter the American psyche. Both 9/11 (and the War on Terror in general) and the Vietnam War made profound impacts on day to day living in American society.

Civil War deserves a mention, surprised Strike didn't.

I hate the Yankee nation, and everything they do. I hate the Declaration, of Independence too.
I hate the glorious Union - 'tis dripping with our blood. I hate the striped banner, I fought it all I could.

And I don't want no pardon, for what I was and am. I won't be reconstructed, and I don't give a damn.

[Strike For The South]

I see where you are coming from, but I think the point is too black and white and doesn't quite capture reality.

You're not real man.

A. The US has never seen destruction on the scale of Post-War Europe, but there are events which did fundamentally alter the American psyche. Both 9/11 (and the War on Terror in general) and the Vietnam War made profound impacts on day to day living in American society.

9/11 simply whipped us into a frenzy and our response was wholly disproportionate. Vietnam is a footnote in the wider change of the 60s. The war is a mere cog in that change machine.

B. There are counter examples of countries which have seen plenty of national tragedies and have gladly taken up interventionist foreign policies. See the UK under Blair and for the reasoning you could take a look at PVC's posts in the Libya thread from a few years back.

The UK is much more comfortable with realpolitik. We still like to feel as if we are ideologically pure.

America does have its scars, but the way we have dealt with them is less modern European and more akin to the Romans who stayed committed to a given conflict mentality at any cost. I am in no particular position to give an accurate breakdown beyond these points however.

I agree with this and our enemies constantly think we wont see things through. Bin Laden thought we would withdraw from the middle east and now he is directly responsible for two decades worth of muslim deaths. The Japanese thought we would be brought to the bargining table, instead nukes and firebombs.

Civil War deserves a mention, surprised Strike didn't.

I hate the Yankee nation, and everything they do. I hate the Declaration, of Independence too.
I hate the glorious Union - 'tis dripping with our blood. I hate the striped banner, I fought it all I could.

And I don't want no pardon, for what I was and am. I won't be reconstructed, and I don't give a damn.

The civil war is too wrapped up in the Politics White Supremacy to be considered a true national tragedy. It certainly was a tragedy in the south. The Class of 64 from ole Miss suffered a 100% causality rate. Mass property was seized and/or destroyed. (other than slaves). A southern hold on the national government was broken. To top it off, industrialization accelerated in the north.

One also has to realize that Southerners are a very insular people. They were more concerned with keeping power in their states and keeping their states with power in the wider union to really concern themselves foreign policy. Americas foreign policy has been dominated by Northerners and later Jews and Catholics (from all corners).

[Strike For The South]

Now I have an itch for a new civil war book.

[Elmetiacos]

You are again assuming everyone has unlimited access to technical expertise and means of production. Long term storage isn't much of an importance if you're in an actual conflict. Iraqis made low grade unitary sarin during the gulf war that had a shelf life of only few weeks. They didn't care because they were gonna use it within those few weeks.

There are two advantages binary sarin has over unitary. It safer to handle and it safer to store for very long periods of time. Neither of them are important to terrorists.

For them, the ease of deployment is more important. Why would they care about long term storage? They don't have the logistic base to produce, move and store large amount of sarin. They create small amounts in field workshops that will used shortly after production, in the simplest way possible - break the container. It is quite illogical to think they would go to trouble to create special shells that will fire precursors with a complicated mechanism that would ensure that precursors match at the right time.

People in Syria who know how to make and deploy nerve agents are going to be used to doing it this way. If they have munitions designed for a chemical attack, they will be the sort that mix binary agents. It would be easier to use pre-existing stock or to have any arms plants you have seized to continue to manufacture according to the processes they already use. Maybe Tahrir as-Sham are using trebuchets to fling soft drink bottles full of Sarin at government forces, but somehow I doubt it. I'm getting bored with this now.

[Sarmatian]

I'm getting bored with this now.

I'm not surprised.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're not real man.

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

9/11 simply whipped us into a frenzy and our response was wholly disproportionate. Vietnam is a footnote in the wider change of the 60s. The war is a mere cog in that change machine.

Perhaps it is still too early to make the call, but do you think the 9/11 'frenzy' has died down? Do you think we will ever take the Patriot Act off the books? The point I am trying to make is that, yes, America got riled up and massively overplayed itself BUT our national security policy seems to be on a new path that is not temporary and is sustained by a new mentality born out of 9/11 hysteria. I definitely consider it as big of a mental scar on the country, if not a physical scar.

As for Vietnam, I have not heard that viewpoint before. Typically, Vietnam is portrayed as the catalyst for much of the 60s counter culture, not a cog in a bigger machine.

The UK is much more comfortable with realpolitik. We still like to feel as if we are ideologically pure.

Well, on a relative scale we do give liberal democratic views the most lip service than anyone else. That counts for something right?

I agree with this and our enemies constantly think we wont see things through. Bin Laden thought we would withdraw from the middle east and now he is directly responsible for two decades worth of muslim deaths. The Japanese thought we would be brought to the bargining table, instead nukes and firebombs.

I stopped reading after the 4th word.

[Gilrandir]

More on chemical attacks:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/01/...erve-agent-use

[Crandar]

http://www.aymennjawad.org/2017/05/c...-islamic-state

[Gilrandir]

http://www.aymennjawad.org/2017/05/c...-islamic-state

And? Does it surprise you? Such guys are like that. In "Donetsk People's Republic" if you want to borrow a book in Ukrainian from a library you are to file an official request to the director of the library with an appended explanation why you need this book.

[Crandar]

And? Does it surprise you? Such guys are like that. In "Donetsk People's Republic" if you want to borrow a book in Ukrainian from a library you are to file an official request to the director of the library with an appended explanation why you need this book.

I just found it interesting and funny. And I don't see why you compare the need to check whether pharmacists know their job with an obviously negative example, surprisingly concerning Russia.

I suspect you didn't bother to read the questions. They don't ask them to write by heart the verses of Quran.

[Gilrandir]

I just found it interesting and funny. And I don't see why you compare the need to check whether pharmacists know their job with an obviously negative example, surprisingly concerning Russia.

It doesn't concern Russia. It concerns quasi-states of Donbas. But thank you for thinking of Russia so nicely.

I suspect you didn't bother to read the questions. They don't ask them to write by heart the verses of Quran.

I read the questions and found it stupid to demand from those who want to open a BUSINESS to have such specific knowledge. Such questions should be asked of those who apply for a job at the pharmacy, but not of the owners of it who might have nothing to do with medicine. It is like to demand from the owners of McDonald's to be able to make a Big Mac.

[Sarmatian]

And I don't see why you compare the need to check whether pharmacists know their job with an obviously negative example, surprisingly concerning Russia.

There's got to be a connection... Wait...

......
.........
.........
.........
.........

... there are books in library in Donetsk in which Syria is mentioned and there are books about pharmacology. There you go, that's the connection.

[Crandar]

It doesn't concern Russia. It concerns quasi-states of Donbas. But thank you for thinking of Russia so nicely.

Well, I never denied Russia's intervention in Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalism's obsession with Russia.

I read the questions and found it stupid to demand from those who want to open a BUSINESS to have such specific knowledge. Such questions should be asked of those who apply for a job at the pharmacy, but not of the owners of it who might have nothing to do with medicine. It is like to demand from the owners of McDonald's to be able to make a Big Mac.

The owner is also in 99% of the cases the one who operates the pharmacy. Don't think of them like large corporations eploying half a dozen of workers.

In Greece, also the owner or one of his associates needs to possess a certificate associated with pharmaceutical studies, just like people working in engineering offices or having pesticide jobs. Probably, that's the same clause predicted by daesh' legislation.

Anyway, to lighten the mood a bit, VD celebrations in Syria:

[Gilrandir]

There's got to be a connection... Wait...

......
.........
.........
.........
.........

... there are books in library in Donetsk in which Syria is mentioned and there are books about pharmacology. There you go, that's the connection.

I never pretended there was any connection. I just gave another example of stupid rules introduced by another violent regime.

Well, I never denied Russia's intervention in Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalism's obsession with Russia.

It is natural not only for nationalists to pay a close attention to a country who bit away one part of your land and keeps the pot boiling in another part of it.

The owner is also in 99% of the cases the one who operates the pharmacy. Don't think of them like large corporations eploying half a dozen of workers.

The article mentioned "opening the pharmacy" which is quite different from "working as a pharmacist".

In Greece, also the owner or one of his associates needs to possess a certificate associated with pharmaceutical studies, just like people working in engineering offices or having pesticide jobs.

So in Greece if you open a bus company taking people on tours around the country you are to know the history and the date of building Parthenon and if you want to become the dean of the department of English you are to know the differences between the gerund and the participle?

There should be a difference in requirements between those who apply for administrative jobs and jobs presupposing preliminary special training and skills. Owning/running a business is clearly the first.