Log in

View Full Version : World Politics - Syria



Pages : 1 [2] 3

PanzerJaeger
08-05-2013, 04:41
I think calling Assad benevolent is pushing it quite a bit, and he obviously isn't stable. He is secular, though, that I agree with, and that is a priority of mine when assessing Middle Eastern politicians.

Why did US support the rebels is a good question. Rebels aren't really better than him in any was. They also won't be able set up a stable government, they're far from benevolent and they aren't secular, so they're the worse option in my book.

The only reason I can think of is that Assad is a "Russian man", but that's Cold War reasoning that should have that much effect on US foreign policy now.

I was referring to pre-rebellion Syria. This is the Middle East and Arabs we're talking about, so there is going to be a bit of torture and repression, but in Assad's Syria, this was largely limited to declared political opponents. Pre-rebellion, a Syrian could choose an apolitical path and largely avoid government harassment while maintaining a decent quality of live. As opposed to, say, Hussein's Iraq, where non-favored religious or ethnic groups were routinely abused en masse, Syria wasn't all that repressive under Assad II, which is surprising considering the issues his father had to deal with and may have been his downfall.

As for stability, again, pre-rebellion, you couldn't ask for a more stable and predictable player in the region. He was, after all, 'our man in Damascus' in regard to the Israeli situation.

Lemur
08-05-2013, 05:57
Where is Lemur with his blame Obama .gif?
Sorry, didn't seem appropriate. You can source them yourself here (http://thanks-obama.tumblr.com/).


now that we've thrown our lot in with al-Nusra
I wasn't under the impression we were rallying 'round al-Nusra. Can't find a mainstream source that backs up that assertion (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/17/world/meast/syria-civil-war), either—maybe your Google-fu is stronger.

Personally, I think we're best staying way the hell out of Syria. But it's interesting that a chorus of interventionist Dems (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/10/world/la-fg-us-syria-20120811) and interventionist Repubs (http://www.jpost.com/International/Top-Republican-senators-urge-Obama-to-intervene-in-Syria-318276) want us to, you know, go play in that sandbox one more time.

Empire*Of*Media
08-05-2013, 23:49
Why in World Media dont give much attention about Kurds Revolution In Syria?!

as you may know, now that YPG close to PKK killed the Top Al-Qaeda leader in Syria because those muslim terrorists wanted to Abuse The Kurds soil and even abuse to Women & Children, so the whole Islamic fundamentalists and Al-Qaeda of Iraq & Syri, by the the military & money aids of fascist government of Turkey (because of fearing Kurdish Autonomy refion of Syria and its Influence in Kurdistan of Turkey), instead of fighting against bloodthirsty Assad, they are fighting with the peaceful Kurds that have no harm for anyone!!

now Kurds In Syria are facing 7 tough enemies!! Jebhat-ul-Nasra (al-qaeda) - so called Free Army of Syria - Bashar Assad's Army - Turkey - Syria - Islamic Republic of Iran - Iraq!!!!!!

now Turkey & Islamic Regime of Iran are trying to provoke and cheting and deceit the muslim Kurds to join Al-Qaeda to Fight against their own brothers & Sisters In Kurdistan of Syria!!

but thanks to YPG and PKK, all attacks & Abuses the muslim terrorists did to Kurds of Syria was repulsed even when those terrorists were aided by Turkey!!

bus sadly, 202 kids & children were kidnapped & god knows what they have done to them, as those islamists FATWAed that they said Abusing & Ra ping to Kurdish Women is Halal and Allowed!!!!!! (too much surprising when those they say are halal to kill & ra pe are muslims!!)


while im not Jurnalist or correspondent, and many web sources are blocked by the internet police (cyber Army) and i cant link u,
But it is strange and total surprising for me how not even a little news is not said to the world about the damned & woeful situations of Kurds in Syria, that have nowhere to go, nothing to placed, nothing to eat, and facing 7 great enemy!! really why ?!!!

it reminds me of MANY MANY revolts & protests that Kurds in Turkey did, but nothing broadcasts them, while they broadcasts little revolts racists kamalists lovers protests against Normalization!!!!!

Kralizec
08-06-2013, 14:50
Assad, a stable, secular, and largely benevolent authoritarian, is clearly the preferable choice in this conflict.

Indeed. The man is a veritable Napoleon. An enlightened despot, a philosopher king, etc etc....

Joking aside; I agree with you but only because I don't think that military intervention by NATO/the west will help ensure a stable, benign regime. The only way that route had even a remote chance of succeeding was by supporting the FSA (the only secular rebels with any importance) in the early stages, before all the gulf states started sending fighters and money in favour of the fundamentalists. Even then there could very well have been a civil war against the new government, there are legions of examples for that kind of scenario.

And as you've said, giving verbal support to one side and then just waiting on the sidelines to see which ends up victorious is the dumbest option possible.

rvg
08-06-2013, 18:49
And as you've said, giving verbal support to one side and then just waiting on the sidelines to see which ends up victorious is the dumbest option possible.
Verbal support was appropriate for the time frame when it was first given (i.e. the very beginning of the war); Obambo should have just refrained from proclaiming and red lines/lines in the sand and stuff like that, not only because Russia and/or China would block any sort of U.N. intervention, but also because Obama himself doesn't want to intervene: it's too costly, the situation is too unstable, the goals are too vague, and the whole thing is a veritable clusterfuck. Who the heck would want to get involved in that? Well, in that case, let's keep our mouths shut about any red lines or points of no return. It makes us look bad.

Fragony
08-21-2013, 15:30
Nasty stuff, big chemical attack. Really gruessome, what is that for stuff. Must be the most horrible thing I ever saw

spankythehippo
08-22-2013, 05:22
Nasty stuff, big chemical attack. Really gruessome, what is that for stuff. Must be the most horrible thing I ever saw

The thing that disgusts me the most is the debate on whether it was a "chemical" attack. Countless (well, 1300) men, women and children have been killed and you're worried on the weapon of choice. Planet Earth, go **** yourself.

Fragony
08-22-2013, 06:11
The thing that disgusts me the most is the debate on whether it was a "chemical" attack. Countless (well, 1300) men, women and children have been killed and you're worried on the weapon of choice. Planet Earth, go **** yourself.

I take it you don't mean me personally. If they know what kinda stuff did this it can be traced back, and hopefully it can be found out who did this, the rebels that are who knows who and what, or Assad

spankythehippo
08-22-2013, 06:19
I take it you don't mean me personally. If they know what kinda stuff did this it can be traced back, and hopefully it can be found out who did this, the rebels that are who knows who and what, or Assad

I didn't mean you personally. You were the first one to bring up this atrocity, so I was responding to it.

It's things like these that make me want to live in the jungle, away from the rest of the world.

Fisherking
08-22-2013, 11:49
My guess is that this is some sort of false flag so one side can point at the other and say “Look what these monsters did, help us now!” when it was them who did it, you know, for political advantage.

Fragony
08-22-2013, 12:40
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-attack-cooperation-841/

Interesting

Papewaio
08-22-2013, 14:11
Playing the devils advocate... shelling a city one would eventually hit something containing chemicals... imagine hitting a pool chemical warehouse.

Fragony
08-22-2013, 15:50
Also Devil's advocate, how come the ones dragging the casualties are just fine, and why would Assad do this when the VN just happens to be taking a look. Two questions I want to have answered.

Fragony
08-24-2013, 13:59
Looks like the US and Russia are playing chess again

Fragony
08-25-2013, 07:03
Did I fall for Pallywood-type propaganda? We, well I, am used to video's of dead Palestinian children miraculously resurrecting, are we seeing the same here? Experts on chemical warfare are asking some legitimate questions for sure. I got a question of my own, where are the female victims I only see men.

PanzerJaeger
08-26-2013, 16:41
The news of this attack is coming from the same media/governmental collusion that brought us such classics as WMDs in Iraq and impending genocide in Libya. Using chemical weapons makes absolutely no sense considering Assad's favorable current position. Regardless, the pretext has been established, and no one is challenging it.

Fragony
08-26-2013, 16:46
The news of this attack is coming from the same media/governmental collusion that brought us such classics as WMDs in Iraq and impending genocide in Libya. Using chemical weapons makes absolutely no sense considering Assad's favorable current position. Regardless, the pretext has been established, and no one is challenging it.

Yeah it would be outright stupid to do this just right now. When the VN are just arriving. It stinks

Fisherking
08-27-2013, 06:27
I still say it is a set up. Kerry should show his proof, if he has it.

Meantime. http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

WND and the LA Times, huh.

Fragony
08-27-2013, 06:48
It just doesn't make any sense Assad did this. He has everything to lose, rebels everything to win. I don't get it why the west wants an islamist Syria because that's what we are getting. We would also be activily supporting the genocide of ethnic minorities. The rebels aren't even denying they are out for christian and alawite muslim blood

Fisherking
08-27-2013, 09:00
Assuming that it was the Syrian Government flies in the face of reason. They had nothing to win and everything to lose by the use of chemical weapons.

It has been the military and intelligence networks that have kept the politicians in check up to this point but it only seems to have slowed them a bit.

This is insane. It can lead to a wider war. Russia will not sit on its hands.

Yahoo news said in Apr there would be a false flag chemical attack in Syria this summer. Opposition media have reported this twice before, must have got their signals crossed.

It is clearly a set up.

ICantSpellDawg
08-27-2013, 11:44
Arm the Kurds in the east, bomb all of the large military camps west of Damascus, government or insurgent. The only exception to the bombing should be those camps which are interested in secular justice, they can have a religious dimension, but if they are Salafi jihadists they eat dirt. Inspect camps using small numbers of boots on ground and clandestine external civilian reconnaissanse.

Fisherking
08-27-2013, 13:25
No Way put boots on the ground!

Leave the place alone!

You know that 60% say no go in Syria

31% say undecided, in other words, they could not care less one way or the other, while only 9% think intervention is necessary.

The military wants no part of it and for good reason. The troops! The don’t want to go some where that the supposed friendly side is more a danger than the designated enemy.

The powers that be are on very shaky ground on this one.

Sarmatian
08-27-2013, 13:44
This reminds me so much of Yugoslav conflict. Complicated as hell with no good guys. Now for the sake of political convenience, good guys and bad guys need to be invented. It worked back then, but the world has matured a little since then.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-27-2013, 15:06
Assuming that it was the Syrian Government flies in the face of reason. They had nothing to win and everything to lose by the use of chemical weapons.

It has been the military and intelligence networks that have kept the politicians in check up to this point but it only seems to have slowed them a bit.

This is insane. It can lead to a wider war. Russia will not sit on its hands.

Yahoo news said in Apr there would be a false flag chemical attack in Syria this summer. Opposition media have reported this twice before, must have got their signals crossed.

It is clearly a set up.

Depends on your definition of "government" - it's entirely possible that Assad has lost control of his forces to the extent that they're using chemical rounds in their artillery. That's hardly surprising at this point, given the amount of chemical weapons floating around.Possibly a local unit, possibly Hamas.

Regardless, the massive humanitarian crisis (reportedly a million child refugees), argues against the "better not to intervene" shtick.

Did Libya turn out the way we wanted?

Not so much, but it's not a completely dead duck, arguably doing better than Egypt, and drawing the conflict likely saved lives and infrastructure to judge from what is happening in Syria. There are still Liberal-leaning and secular voices alive in Libya, in Syria they've all been either squashed or radicalised.

Either we intervene now, or we intervene later, but like Somalia this conflict will continue to fester unless the boil is lanced.

As to Russia - last word was that they were working to quickly evacuate their remaining Civilians.

Lemur
08-27-2013, 15:15
Either we intervene now, or we intervene later

https://i.imgur.com/s3J79GK.jpg

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-27-2013, 15:22
https://i.imgur.com/s3J79GK.jpg

Sure - you can wait a decade until Syrian Society has completely collapsed and then let Iran intervene.

Fisherking
08-27-2013, 15:33
That is a line I don’t even think that you believe.

UN inspectors on site when chemical weapons are deployed by the Syrian Government, with the full knowledge it would bring in the US and NATO? Give us a break!

They don’t pass out chemical munitions like gum drops.

Also the UN Inspectors have been kept from a full examination of the site by snipers, most likely rebel snipers. But lets not stop there.

We have lies and counter lies :http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_25/Syrian-rebels-manufactured-chemical-weapons-outside-Damascus-8968/

An Libya is just off the radar. They are still pretty much in a state of lawless chaos after all this time.

And speaking of Somalia, we intervened, but what good did it do? It has been over 20 years and it is still a mess. The intervention did nothing to help.

So I guess we just make the same stupid mistake one more time and everything will be just peachy.

rvg
08-27-2013, 15:36
Let's see what the inspectors can dig up...

1. Think
2. Act

Not the other way around.

Fisherking
08-27-2013, 15:56
Let's see what the inspectors can dig up...

1. Think
2. Act

Not the other way around.

I would agree.

This is “the do something” disease.

Western countries, particularly the US are not prepared for the commitment it takes to see these things to the end.

We have pulled out early from every intervention since Vietnam with the same result.

Iraq is begging us to come back, but we are too busy pulling out of Afghanistan and trying to get involved in Syria to handle that.

US involvement is beginning to mean a few decades of trouble ahead for what ever country becomes the next victim.

Lemur
08-27-2013, 16:05
We have pulled out early [...] Iraq is begging us to come back, but we are too busy pulling out of Afghanistan and trying to get involved in Syria to handle that.
Eh ... um ... we were heavily invested in Iraq for eight years, at a cost somewhere between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. What exactly were we supposed to do? Make Iraq the 51st state?

You cite Iraq as a negative example of the US "not see these things to the end"—what end did you have in mind?

For most Americans, the Iraq War is, in fact, a negative example (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx), but not the one you're reaching for.

Montmorency
08-27-2013, 16:12
The fact of the matter is the only way to intervene is to destroy the society so utterly and to occupy and direct it so thoroughly that the entire nation is transformed.

But 'democracy through total war' is a tactic we haven't used for a couple of generations...

Fisherking
08-27-2013, 16:23
Eh ... um ... we were heavily invested in Iraq for eight years, at a cost somewhere between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. What exactly were we supposed to do? Make Iraq the 51st state?

You cite Iraq as a negative example of the US "not see these things to the end"—what end did you have in mind?

For most Americans, the Iraq War is, in fact, a negative example (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161399/10th-anniversary-iraq-war-mistake.aspx), but not the one you're reaching for.

That is just it! They are all negative examples. There was no peace in Iraq when we left. I am not making it a positive example. Just another failure like all of the rest.

I only pointed out that they asked for us to come back, it is not that I think we should go. I doubt we would do any better the second time around.

CrossLOPER
08-27-2013, 19:49
That is just it! They are all negative examples. There was no peace in Iraq when we left. I am not making it a positive example. Just another failure like all of the rest.

I only pointed out that they asked for us to come back, it is not that I think we should go. I doubt we would do any better the second time around.
So you are negating your own point?

Fisherking
08-27-2013, 20:25
So you are negating your own point?

No, I think you just may mist understand what I said.

Lemur
08-27-2013, 20:42
No, I think you just may mist understand what I said.
Maybe you could clarify? You appeared to be arguing that the eight years and trillions of dollars we spend in Iraq were somehow incomplete, or as you phrased it, "We have pulled out early from every intervention."

Fisherking
08-27-2013, 21:23
Maybe you could clarify? You appeared to be arguing that the eight years and trillions of dollars we spend in Iraq were somehow incomplete, or as you phrased it, "We have pulled out early from every intervention."

That is true enough. It was not complete. I didn’t say we should have been there but it was unfinished, just as Afghanistan is unfinished, just as Somalia was unfinished.

If you think it is worth going you had better be willing to write a blank check for time, blood, and treasure. Otherwise just keep out.

Papewaio
08-27-2013, 23:16
Maybe you could clarify? You appeared to be arguing that the eight years and trillions of dollars we spend in Iraq were somehow incomplete, or as you phrased it, "We have pulled out early from every intervention."

Lemur this is the most stereotypical American thing I have ever seen you say. So much so it is more caricature of the American tourist then what a typical American is.

The amount of money spent does not equate to how successful one is.

Only Results Count (ORC). Were any WMD found? Is Iraq a functioning society be it democracy or dictatorship? Is it more or less likely to spawn hardline fighters, jihadists and terrorists then prior to the invasion of a secular dictatorship that was enemies of Al Qaeda? Did the price of gold go down?

Essentially US spent trillions, years and most importantly lives intervening in another society to only make things worse for that society in respect to making it safer for Americans and its allies. Ten years is not a generation. Intervention had only scratched the surface and despite lots of money and blood the result is a veteran enemy with more training, motivation and members then before intervention.

So unless we get Russia, China and the rest of the UN behind this and a plan to stay for a generation with a new Marshall plan we had better have a better plan then the same that was applied to Iraq.

Montmorency
08-27-2013, 23:26
Of course, the real problem is that the US doesn't have any good options - as far as I can see.

If we keep out, Obama gets to be the President that made us look like a chump to the antagonistic states of the world.

If we go in, we get a mess in Syria.

If we go all-in...*gulp*.

Lemur
08-27-2013, 23:39
The amount of money spent does not equate to how successful one is.
You seem to be under the impression that I am saying our Iraqi adventure was a success, or a good idea, or something. You also seem to believe that because I mention time and money that I am ignoring every other reality, including, oh, human death, for example.

Don't really know where you're getting this from; certainly not from anything I have written.

I have been saying that the Iraq War was a dreadful mistake since its inception. I have been saying that we should stay the hell out of Syria consistently.

So ... whatever point you're responding to, I don't think it's one I have actually made.

Papewaio
08-27-2013, 23:55
I'm with Fisherking intervention has not been successfully implemented since WWII. Korea was a draw and US is still there. Vietnam was as far as interventions go a failure. So is Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Intervention requires a lot more time, money and people on the ground.

If we are to go in again it has to be with far more resources then Iraq. More solid intelligence, an over abundance of feet on the ground, stripping all weapons out of the society (as per Japan), Russia and China participatiing.

Also because the last intervention went ten years need to have no Mercs. It's not a short term engagement so put in more permanent infrastructure including most importantly logistics. Don't make it another pork barrel for private contractors.

Fragony
08-28-2013, 07:33
ffs. Dronebama will probably start aiding the rebels tommorow. Nothing good will come out of this only more misery for the Syrians. Western bombs also kill kids they don't discriminate. I share Fisherkings concern that this could lead to a bigger conflict, Dronebama doesn't even want to talk to Russia wtf. I have no idea what is going on right now and that scares me.

Ironside
08-28-2013, 09:12
Assuming that it was the Syrian Government flies in the face of reason. They had nothing to win and everything to lose by the use of chemical weapons.

It has been the military and intelligence networks that have kept the politicians in check up to this point but it only seems to have slowed them a bit.

This is insane. It can lead to a wider war. Russia will not sit on its hands.

Yahoo news said in Apr there would be a false flag chemical attack in Syria this summer. Opposition media have reported this twice before, must have got their signals crossed.

It is clearly a set up.

If it's a set up, what does the US goverment gain on playing along? Iraq was fairly easy to see the goal and the mistakes done by the Bush admin, but I'm curious what the Obama admin is estimated to gain by becoming involved from a realpolitical angle.

Montmorency
08-28-2013, 09:16
what the Obama admin is estimated to gain by becoming involved from a realpolitical angle.

It's what they might lose: credibility.

Obama proclaimed a "red line" for intervention over chemical weapons, and now he has little choice but to follow through in some capacity. And he had previously announced limited support for rebel groups, so expanding that won't cut it in the international community.

I'm sure Obama's boys are desperately looking for evidence that Assad is not responsible, or even that the attacks were just faked outright. It would take quite a revelation to allow the US to back down with face intact, though.

Fragony
08-28-2013, 09:18
I'm curious what the Obama admin is estimated to gain by becoming involved from a realpolitical angle.

Loss of credibility because of speaking before his turn. Yes I am that cynical.

Edit: Montie beat me to it

Fisherking
08-28-2013, 09:25
I doubt they are searching hard. It seems like just the opposite.


Cruse Missile strikes only have a tendency to tick people off and make fools of us.

Anyone remember the aspirin factory, the Chinese Embassy, or the bridge loaded with civilians?

Anyone remember the duds that were recovered, giving away technology?

It is obvious no one remembers the billions spent attacking Serbia and the dismal results. After weeks of strikes and the loss of a stealth fighter or two, we managed to destroy about on company’s worth of tanks and another company’s worth of APCs and managed to kill a couple of platoons of infantry. The civilian deaths far outnumbered the military ones. All for the sake of Kosovo. A situation that could be likened to Mexican insurgents taking over New Mexico and declaring independence or Canadian insurgents taking over Maine, and we were upset because they sent in the army to chase them out.

Assad was seen as a reformer, prior to the Arab Spring, but when he cracked down on the protesters he became a devil. I am not saying that he isn’t but what are the guarantees that the rebels won’t be as bad or worse? They have not shown any enlightened ideas in the killing of minorities or those with religious differences.

We also do not know Russia’s intentions. Strikes are an act of war and Russia is a Syrian ally. They could very well strike back against out ships and aircraft, or just aid them by jamming. I doubt they stand by and do nothing. Nor should they.



edit: And yes, the administration is very worried about projecting a weak image.

The US does lack credibility.

But this is a two term president who came in with a Noble Peace Prize and want to be remembered as one of the good guys. This is a hell of a way to do that! NOT!

Fisherking
08-28-2013, 09:57
On the morning news, after reporting on US Foreign Policy, the German Commentator remarked that the US has not consistent foreign policy…

It is just much too true.

The Wizard
08-28-2013, 10:24
What I am missing in this discussion is the subtle game of high diplomatic stakes being played here, IMO. That is, the U.S. (and France, and the UK, and Turkey, and the Arab League, all independently, as most of you seem to forget in this U.S.-centered discussion) are raising the stakes with regards to Russia (and China by extension) by threatening to attack Syria more and more. What I think Washington is doing is creating an international climate of Western intervention, from which it is becoming harder to back down from with each passing day. In other words, Obama, Hollande, Cameron, Erdogan and the Saudis are implying with increasing vehemence (backed up even by Germany now) that they'll even go around the UN if they have to. This puts immense pressure on Moscow to bend and allow the UNSC to pass a resolution authorizing a punitive attack. In so doing they're banking on the assumption that Moscow doesn't want a break with the West over this. With the U.S. alone, maybe, but not with the whole West, including Germany. So I think they're trying to create a climate where a "Libya lite" resolution can be passed, but with a much more hardball diplomatic game.

The problem, of course, is: what if Russia doesn't blink? Then France, England, USA etc. have maneuvered themselves into a position from which they can't realistically back down anymore, without losing a lot of face. They've created an international situation in which backing down will create exactly what they're warning for right now: a green light for the use of chemical weapons. A self-fulfilling prophecy, which nobody wants, and which would force the West's hand if Russia doesn't allow the UNSC sanction to go through.

Those are the high stakes. They flow from the international norm, shared among virtually all countries, proscribing the use of WMDs. Playing up this norm without defending it would damage it, which of course is highly undesirable, and which makes the "no intervention" option quite unlikely by now, I think. It is now a question of UN-sanctioned intervention or no, not intervention or no.

P.S. I wouldn't worry about any military role for Russia (or Iran) in opposing intervention. Nobody in Moscow is prepared to defend anything except their own borders. Russia won't stick its neck out to try and save Assad's hide, not with the full force of NATO coming down on him.

Myth
08-28-2013, 10:25
Afghanistan happened after the Talliban stopped all heroin production. Now, under US occupation and inlfuence, the heroin production is at an all-time high. Don't even get me started on 9/11, I think even the majority of US citizens nowadays feel there is something fishy about it. Only 1 in 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories) beleive the talliban did it.

Iraq happened for complex reasons, oil being the primary one but also because it is a threat to Israel, because it has some very important archeological sites (believe it or not) and that whole chemical weapons scare was a hoax as was revealed. Now I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a sodomizing evil despot, but I'm saying that major foreign policy decision are not made because "let's bring liberty, freedom, democracy and Mcdonalds for the Iraqui people". Baghdad hadn't even fallen yet when tankers for the already pre-contracted oil companies came to leech from Iraq. I know a guy who was a military surgeon stationed in Kerbalah, so I have some knowledge of what is going on. He told me that the US military was so well equipped, they could have ended this war in 6 months, but they dragged it out because they needed an excuse to keep the land occulied and contine with the oil theft.

Libya happened after Gaddafi had ideas to revive the golden (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Videos.php/2011/05/08/gaddafi-gold-for-oil-dollar-doom-plans-b) dinar and also because of its oil. Can't have someone messing with the hegemony of the all mighty worthless green paper printed by the "federal" reserve.

Egypt has been the object of CIA/Mossad interests for years now, and has been thoroughly destabilized. The latest events in Egypt are products of the funding and planning provided by these agencies and mean to remove the muslim threat from the second largest and one of the scariest neighbors of Israel.

Syria is a pure 100% product of the efforts of western and Israeli agents. The mercs who are the "rebels/protesters/freeDUHm fighters" have been paid for and equipped by the allies. Hell, they even admitted to supplying them with weapons. This gas attack everyone is talking about now was done by the rebels and pinned on the government, because you know what? There is no such thing as independent and objective western media (not that the eastern meida is much better). They force feed their people bullshit and most eat it with an appetite and like it. Some even get mad when they are being told the truth.

Now after a lot of machinatins, the retards from our Bulgarian government blamed Hizbualh for the suicide bomber attack at the Burgas airport. This made the Eu finalyl cave to Israeli/US (the same thing basically) demands to catalogue Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Lebanon is next and maybe they were thinking of just smashing Syria and Lebanon together for the sake of speed and practicality. Hezbollah's primary ideologies: Shia Islamism, Anti-imperialism, Anti-Zionism. They ar ethe leading party in Lebanon.

Iran is a big bite to chew but they have been prepped for some years now. Nuclear armament, threats, misinformation spewing from the corrupt media. It's funny how Israel made their own nukes and didn't ask the big 5 for permition, but when Iran does it suddenly we're talking full scale war.

See the pattern? Any country which:

1. Has valuable natural resources that can be exploited
2. Does not conform to the western banking elite's policy of slavery by debt and mindles consumption
3. Is close to and/or a threat to Israel

has to be either directly invaded or destabilized trough agents and paid mercenaries and "freedom protesters"

However, as the west becomes more and more greedy and obnoxious they will only stregthen the opposion in the face of Russia/China. Those two don't want to be colonized and we're possibly looking at WW3 if push comes to shove in the middle east.

Fragony
08-28-2013, 10:40
Afghanistan happened after the Talliban stopped all heroin production. Now, under US occupation and inlfuence, the heroin production is at an all-time high. Don't even get me started on 9/11, I think even the majority of US citizens nowadays feel there is something fishy about it. Only 1 in 4 beleive the talliban did it.


Little correction there, I don't know who made the polls but nobody ever said the Taliban did it. They supposedly fascilitated training camps. How much of that is true I don't know but the Taliban itself stands unaccused of actually having a hand in it

HopAlongBunny
08-28-2013, 10:55
I agree with Monty and The Wizard.
Syria is not interesting; not a hill to die on from a foreign policy perspective. But they have made it into one.
Will they double down on stupidity or lose face; history seems to point to doubling down.
The real foreign policy failure was painting themselves into the corner on an issue so trivial to interests.

Of course that might just be it.
The object may be to embarrass Russia.
Which is a powerful statement from the PoV of international dick-swinging; but is it worth the trouble.

ICantSpellDawg
08-28-2013, 13:09
What I am missing in this discussion is the subtle game of high diplomatic stakes being played here, IMO. That is, the U.S. (and France, and the UK, and Turkey, and the Arab League, all independently, as most of you seem to forget in this U.S.-centered discussion) are raising the stakes with regards to Russia (and China by extension) by threatening to attack Syria more and more. What I think Washington is doing is creating an international climate of Western intervention, from which it is becoming harder to back down from with each passing day. In other words, Obama, Hollande, Cameron, Erdogan and the Saudis are implying with increasing vehemence (backed up even by Germany now) that they'll even go around the UN if they have to. This puts immense pressure on Moscow to bend and allow the UNSC to pass a resolution authorizing a punitive attack. In so doing they're banking on the assumption that Moscow doesn't want a break with the West over this. With the U.S. alone, maybe, but not with the whole West, including Germany. So I think they're trying to create a climate where a "Libya lite" resolution can be passed, but with a much more hardball diplomatic game.

The problem, of course, is: what if Russia doesn't blink? Then France, England, USA etc. have maneuvered themselves into a position from which they can't realistically back down anymore, without losing a lot of face. They've created an international situation in which backing down will create exactly what they're warning for right now: a green light for the use of chemical weapons. A self-fulfilling prophecy, which nobody wants, and which would force the West's hand if Russia doesn't allow the UNSC sanction to go through.

Those are the high stakes. They flow from the international norm, shared among virtually all countries, proscribing the use of WMDs. Playing up this norm without defending it would damage it, which of course is highly undesirable, and which makes the "no intervention" option quite unlikely by now, I think. It is now a question of UN-sanctioned intervention or no, not intervention or no.

P.S. I wouldn't worry about any military role for Russia (or Iran) in opposing intervention. Nobody in Moscow is prepared to defend anything except their own borders. Russia won't stick its neck out to try and save Assad's hide, not with the full force of NATO coming down on him.

Astute read on the situation. I agree.

Papewaio
08-28-2013, 13:34
I do not think we should act without UN support. It will set a bad precedent with the ascending superpower.

Not only that right now China and Russia being forced to agree on something isn't a good idea.

HopAlongBunny
08-28-2013, 14:01
Except, acting through NATO we affirm the power of the Western Alliance => further rubbing Russia's nose in the dirt.
After all, where is the Warsaw Pact now?

Fisherking
08-28-2013, 14:06
This is a situation that could turn out the same as Austrian intervention in Serbia. Anyone recall that one?

The Wizard
08-28-2013, 15:04
I honestly and sincerely can see no possible way whatsoever for this to develop past anything other than a military conflict involving Syria pitted against the West and its hangers-on. As a political event it may have much more fallout -- an even more intransigent China and Russia, to name just one possible outcome in high politics -- but there is next to no chance of a Western punitive expedition leading to a larger conflict.


I agree with Monty and The Wizard.
Syria is not interesting; not a hill to die on from a foreign policy perspective. But they have made it into one.
Will they double down on stupidity or lose face; history seems to point to doubling down.
The real foreign policy failure was painting themselves into the corner on an issue so trivial to interests.

Of course that might just be it.
The object may be to embarrass Russia.
Which is a powerful statement from the PoV of international dick-swinging; but is it worth the trouble.

I beg to differ, actually. This goes much further than a narrow idea of "national interests." Syria has become a "hill to die on" because it has violated one of the central norms governing international relations: the proscription of the use of WMDs. Of course this intersects with various other interests and events (not least of which is taking it to Assad, an old ally of Iran and enemy of the West), but it has essentially taken Damascus beyond the pale. There is an interest here to intervene, and that is to prevent the norm against the use of WMDs from weakening. The process is dynamic as the norm is both a structure of the international system as an object of politics (as witnessed by how it's being played up by France, USA, etc), but it has still created an actual interest among various countries to intervene.


I do not think we should act without UN support. It will set a bad precedent with the ascending superpower.

Not only that right now China and Russia being forced to agree on something isn't a good idea.

I agree. I am worried about the Western powers moving before having exhausted the legal frameworks and institutions they have at their disposal to generate international (and domestic!) goodwill. Attacking Syria should be a new Kosovo rather than a new Iraq, if it has to be done without UNSC approval at all.

Sarmatian
08-28-2013, 20:03
Why do people refer to Kosovo as a successful example of western interventionism, especially when compared to Iraq?

It left the province in hands of drug lords/mobsters/butchers/thieves/religious fundamentalists and the pretext for war was no more true than WMD's in Iraq.

Fisherking
08-28-2013, 20:57
Why do people refer to Kosovo as a successful example of western interventionism, especially when compared to Iraq?

It left the province in hands of drug lords/mobsters/butchers/thieves/religious fundamentalists and the pretext for war was no more true than WMD's in Iraq.

No, I seriously though Kosovo was a mistake from the outset. The Serbian leader was demonized in the press, sensational charges were made of systematic rape and wanton killings, maybe in part because the American President needed to improve his image.

But surely, no one could draw comparisons between that wrong headed mess and this one, right?

Fisherking
08-28-2013, 21:26
sorry for two in a row but:

http://www.france24.com/en/

AFP

Intercepted call ‘proves Syria used chemical weapons’
An intercepted phone call between Syrian officials in the wake of the alleged chemical weapons attack on August 21 convinced Washington that the country’s government was behind the massacre, according to Foreign Policy magazine.

How very convenient. We will never hear a tape, never have real verification, other than the word of a government that has lost all credibility due to their repeated lies by and for the agency making the report.

It makes the NSA look good, the administration look good and is supposed to boost our confidence in them.

I am not about to buy this line any more than the claim by NSA that they stopped 50 terrorists by monitoring phones in the US. They never released any of those names or the things they prevented did they?

Just why should we believe proven liars this time?

Sarmatian
08-28-2013, 21:43
I'm as happy to believe the Assad regime did it as the next guy, but nobody with a respectable cynical streak would ever take the government's blind word on something like this.

I really don't see how the rebels could have done it though. Are we to assume they got their hands on nerve gas? If so, why are they using it in Syria? Al Nusra and the other terrorist-linked groups in Syria would high-tail that stuff out of the country faster than you could call down a drone strike if they ever got their hands on some.

Realy the only two options that make sense are that the Assad regime decided to gas its own people, or that the shelling hit some kind of chemical facility. I think the former is more likely.

Rebels, and quite possibly even government forces aren't a homogenous group and at this point many of the factions involved probably don't have a clear chain of command. It could possibly be an order from a single idiot, inept handling, or an accidental hit.


Because Iraq is still a warzone.

Indeed, Kosovo's in a better shape simply by virtue of not being involved in a ground war, but in the slightly longer run, Iraq is much better position to actually create something successful. I don't see Kosovo improving in the next 50 years.

HopAlongBunny
08-28-2013, 22:12
How could this possibly happen!???

10646
Cover Artist: Mark Frederickson

Fisherking
08-28-2013, 22:48
I'm as happy to believe the Assad regime did it as the next guy, but nobody with a respectable cynical streak would ever take the government's blind word on something like this.

I really don't see how the rebels could have done it though. Are we to assume they got their hands on nerve gas? If so, why are they using it in Syria? Al Nusra and the other terrorist-linked groups in Syria would high-tail that stuff out of the country faster than you could call down a drone strike if they ever got their hands on some.

Realy the only two options that make sense are that the Assad regime decided to gas its own people, or that the shelling hit some kind of chemical facility. I think the former is more likely.

I found that piece while looking on the site for a report filed in Dec 2012 of possible use of chemicals by the rebel forces after they captured a chlorine factory and a couple of similar warnings, more recently, but those are gone.

There are pictures of reported rebel chemical munitions captured and what they used to make them in the Russian press and others but there are problems with both sides IMO.

You can have a look at these and make up your mind if you believe them any more than the rest.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

http://www.infowars.com/syrian-rebels-behind-sniper-attack-on-un-inspectors/

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syria-assad-denies-use-of-chemical-weapons-20130826,0,1287208.story

ICantSpellDawg
08-28-2013, 23:23
Obama is probably going to spike the ball on this one and ignore it. Go ahead, it isn't hard to do nothing and just move along.

Montmorency
08-28-2013, 23:37
Obama is probably going to spike the ball on this one and ignore it. Go ahead, it isn't hard to do nothing and just move along.


We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

While it's very equivocal, if Obama just goes, 'Pshaw! I was just bluffing, is all', he and the United States will take a credibility hit.

We can't just be seen to be making idle statements about NBC.

Papewaio
08-29-2013, 00:58
Chlorine probably has such a small size that it can penetrate any normal air filter. It would require a sealed air supply. Even then chlorine oxidizes (rusts) a lot of materials.

Otherwise chlorine is a great cleaning agent, plenty of ways to neutralize it, biggest issue is not creating an acid as you clean it.

It is probably easier to make a fertilizer type bomb out of chlorine than a gas bomb.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2013, 01:36
While it's very equivocal, if Obama just goes, 'Pshaw! I was just bluffing, is all', he and the United States will take a credibility hit.

We can't just be seen to be making idle statements about NBC.


I dont know what they are planning, but the American consensus is to do nothing, because the American people are largely spineless cowards. You can see our critiques of the doves during the wind up to the last war. There is no action that could be taken which would cause them to vote for a police action. I was happy with the Obama decision regarding Libya And it went pretty well. What happened to that foreign policy advisor?

Papewaio
08-29-2013, 03:11
I don't think we are spineless. I just think first worlders have the attention span of a TV commerical.

Intervention done properly would not be a couple of air strikes for distracting news bites from the latest government polls.

It would be UN consensus for a full military intervention with the idea of implementing a Marshall plan level of long term thinking. It is going from a 25 minute mentality to a 25 year plus occupation with full martial law in effect.

You would need to rewrite the Syrian Consitution, remove all weapons from the populace. Provide education and training to make sure it gets a nice fat middle class over a twenty to thirty year period.

If you want democracy you need to take it slowly. Start with local council and mayors, work up to regions. Only to for state wide elections in year twenty+.

Military. Disband. Total disband. Start again from adults who are born post occupation start. Who have been well educated etc.

Essentially strip out every insitution. Flush it away and rebuild with the intent it can walk on its own two feet in at least a generation or two.

Until we in the west are prepared to station a miltary presence in the order of 10% of the local population, kiss the idea of any intervention being anything more then a distraction from local issues at home.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2013, 04:01
I don't think we are spineless. I just think first worlders have the attention span of a TV commerical.

Intervention done properly would not be a couple of air strikes for distracting news bites from the latest government polls.

It would be UN consensus for a full military intervention with the idea of implementing a Marshall plan level of long term thinking. It is going from a 25 minute mentality to a 25 year plus occupation with full martial law in effect.

You would need to rewrite the Syrian Consitution, remove all weapons from the populace. Provide education and training to make sure it gets a nice fat middle class over a twenty to thirty year period.

If you want democracy you need to take it slowly. Start with local council and mayors, work up to regions. Only to for state wide elections in year twenty+.

Military. Disband. Total disband. Start again from adults who are born post occupation start. Who have been well educated etc.

Essentially strip out every insitution. Flush it away and rebuild with the intent it can walk on its own two feet in at least a generation or two.

Until we in the west are prepared to station a miltary presence in the order of 10% of the local population, kiss the idea of any intervention being anything more then a distraction from local issues at home.

The same guy used strategic bombings in Libya to a favorable result. Why can't we do the same here; a situation with around 70k civilian deaths with 2 instances of chemical weapons use? The one thing that the Syrian people need is something that we have in abundance: force - and we wont give it to them. Unconscionable. A western hand is needed in conflicts like these - the smaller the better, but a handicap is better for our partners within Syria than negligence.

Fragony
08-29-2013, 06:46
The other chemical attacks http://rt.com/news/syria-investigate-un-chemical-116/

9% of the Americans support Dronebama in this, talk about a democratic deficit. I don't know how it is for France (hellowww you are broke, no money, nada) and England

Ah. Dronebama, the messias of european leftist intellectuals, change they can believe in, knows, for a fact, that it was Assad who did it. Why, I dunno.

Fragony
08-29-2013, 07:45
I know that, and they know it as well trust me on that one. Emperialism and zionism, the favorite words of gutmenschen, best spoken when rubbing the beard and lighting a pipe, goes great with moral and intellectual superiority

Gutmensch is kinda confused at the moment, even a weak nose needs half a fart to smell bullshit. But it's Obama. But Obama.. isn't... him

Fragony
08-29-2013, 08:05
I have no idea what Gutmensch means. It sounds edible. :book2:

It's a word we have here for leftist intellectuloco's. You know the type, beard, pipe, social study. Morally and intellectually superior, he's right, you are wrong. By default. Always wrong in the end though. Has respect.

Papewaio
08-29-2013, 08:08
The same guy used strategic bombings in Libya to a favorable result. Why can't we do the same here; a situation with around 70k civilian deaths with 2 instances of chemical weapons use? The one thing that the Syrian people need is something that we have in abundance: force - and we wont give it to them. Unconscionable. A western hand is needed in conflicts like these - the smaller the better, but a handicap is better for our partners within Syria than negligence.

Benghazi was not a favourable result.

Ironside
08-29-2013, 09:45
Chlorine probably has such a small size that it can penetrate any normal air filter. It would require a sealed air supply. Even then chlorine oxidizes (rusts) a lot of materials.

You can do it with an extra filter. But I suspect the gas mask starts to be too clumpsy at that point.

Anyway back to my question. The theory was that it's the rebels who used gas and why the US is then jumping on Assad instead of the rebels. I do get feeling that this is a big mess and the US is trying to get something half decent out of it long term.

Using chemical weapons is a big no no (the NBC list is there for a reason), so that it's forcing a severe response is not surprising.

Fragony
08-29-2013, 09:56
You can do it with an extra filter. But I suspect the gas mask starts to be too clumpsy at that point.

Anyway back to my question. The theory was that it's the rebels who used gas and why the US is then jumping on Assad instead of the rebels. I do get feeling that this is a big mess and the US is trying to get something half decent out of it long term.

Using chemical weapons is a big no no (the NBC list is there for a reason), so that it's forcing a severe response is not surprising.

A lot of the rebels are ex-army, they could have exactly the same stuff. Obama really spoke before his turn. Who are the rebels anyway, group of rebels just stole weapons from other rebels, American guy was captured and tortured by rebels, escaped, and other rebels patched him up and handed him over to the American embassy. Who is who I doubt anyone really knows

Fragony
08-29-2013, 10:56
Dead children miraculously comming back to live only to be killed again , it doesn't just happen in Palistinia

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a9_1377562800

Or they breed very fast of course. Which they do, would shame rabbits enough to CO2 teh planet that badly

Fisherking
08-29-2013, 11:35
Obama’s support seems to be dropping but that could just speed up the process.



http://www.jpost.com/International/US-willing-to-strike-Syria-without-UN-approval-but-UKs-Cameron-faces-parliament-opposition-324604

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/report-syria-chemical-attack-evidence-not-slam-dunk/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/state-department-prepares-to-bypass-un-on-syria-response/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/administration-drums-up-congressional-support-for-syrian-strike-as-lawmakers-demand-consultation/

Fragony
08-29-2013, 15:27
Awesome, Kurdish whole female Syrian militia says: screw both the regime and the rebels. I'm in love with every one of them.

rvg
08-29-2013, 22:38
I would like to thank the British parliamentarians for voting "nay" on the military action. Your vote might be just enough to tip the scales here in the states firmly against any intervention. Cheers to torpedoing a pointless war before it had a chance to start. Well done.

rvg
08-29-2013, 22:43
Wait a minute... You're willing to drag America into a needless war just to settle scores with the GOP? :rolleyes3:

Rhyfelwyr
08-29-2013, 22:57
I really hope these war plans get shut down, I can only wonder what is motivating Cameron right now.

Papewaio
08-29-2013, 23:16
I hope GC that Obama doesn't go through with this.

Otherwise you might get a chance to update that profile pic in another forum wearing a gas mask in a tank... You need to finish that polish campaign in space.

Beskar
08-29-2013, 23:37
Britain voted a definite 'No' to involvement with Syria. Looks like the pet-dog ran off from the masters leash.

HopAlongBunny
08-30-2013, 00:18
We apparently will be sending every single Cruise Missile (0) and drone (0) we possess!:canada:

ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2013, 00:59
Benghazi was not a favourable result.


Give me a break with the Benghazi garbage. 4 American foreign service officials were killed. They were stationed in a heavily targeted area during a civil war. They were combat diplomats, sometimes it doesn't go well. This does not change the fact that Libya is stabilized now that the government has been destroyed. That means massive quantities of civilians are not being steamrolled by government; it means real innocent lives that can go on learning, working, experiencing life and dragging the country out of the middle ages. The GOP attacks on the Obama admin for Benghazi are absurd, the Libya involvement was one of the only parts of this Presidency that I have been proud of.

I, quite simply, don't value American lives more highly than the lives of people from anywhere else. People suffering anywhere can be assisted by our troops and technology

Papewaio
08-30-2013, 04:53
Dude keep this up and I will have to travel to the US, eat humbe pie and buy you a beer.

PanzerJaeger
08-30-2013, 05:01
People suffering anywhere can be assisted by our troops and technology

You seem to be under the impression that such people want to be assisted by our troops and technology and that such assistance leads to positive outcomes. I don't know where you're getting your information on Libya, but the intervention has not been successful for Libyans (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/08/libya-wave-political-assassinations) or western interests (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579040711999886326.html). The deteriorating situation is not as heavily reported on as Iraq and Afghanistan because western troops are not on the ground, but the nation is just as chaotic and violent.

Fragony
08-30-2013, 06:29
I would like to thank the British parliamentarians for voting "nay" on the military action. Your vote might be just enough to tip the scales here in the states firmly against any intervention. Cheers to torpedoing a pointless war before it had a chance to start. Well done.

Ya, as if the senseless intervention in Libya wasn't stupid enough. Piss off I don't want war

a completely inoffensive name
08-30-2013, 07:20
Once again the UK shows it is more in control of its country than Americans.

Fragony
08-30-2013, 07:40
Once again the UK shows it is more in control of its country than Americans.

Looks like it. Obama wants to go to war even without it's allies concent. Americans don't want this war, nobody does

big LOL at the nobel-price for peace though, can I have some cornflakes with that

This is serious though, Russia is sending fleet to the Mediterians. Hey Dutch government, where are our submarines at the moment, happily scanning?

Ironside
08-30-2013, 09:07
I hope GC that Obama doesn't go through with this.

Otherwise you might get a chance to update that profile pic in another forum wearing a gas mask in a tank... You need to finish that polish campaign in space.

I'll be very surprised if it goes down to ground troops. It's "Obama has lost it" grade and would quite likely force a resignation.

Papewaio
08-30-2013, 09:46
Chemical weapons used. Probably.
Which side used them? Not sure.
UN resolution. None.
Allies ready to go. Not really.
Russia actively engaged to defend Syria. Probably as it has more face to lose if it doesn't stick up for one of its last allies.

Even bombing a country on the suspicion it used chemical weapons on its own people in a civil war is an act of war. Pretty stupid to do so considering the balance of facts and ROI.

ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2013, 11:47
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and assistance in Libya) were an attempt to start a cascade in the region resulting in the overthrow of dictators and organizations hostile to US and the body of their own people's interests. The thrust has succeeded and caused the intended destabilization, which is a nice consolation for the years and treasure exhausted. Now, we need to guide the momentum further down the intended road.

Assassinations are relatively common in post collapse society. Reprisal attacks against former security forces are to be expected. A hit to the economy is also to be expected. These post-governments are tenuously in power, but few are now outright Islamist. We need to support the healthiest parts of their new economy and slam those components which are malignant. The goal is to spread this beyond the near east eventually in order to expand individual rights, consent of the governed, and economic opportunity worldwide. American interests expand beyond the realpolitikal, we are a revolutionary government with revolutionary beliefs in the rights of man. Our foreign policy must reflect that.

ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2013, 11:55
Dude keep this up and I will have to travel to the US, eat humbe pie and buy you a beer.
Invite is always open.

HopAlongBunny
08-30-2013, 14:52
The only thing accomplished so far is to highlight the increasing isolation of the USA.

Fragony
08-30-2013, 16:34
The only thing accomplished so far is to highlight the increasing isolation of the USA.

Not really, but certainly the credibility of the Obama administration. When it comes to diplomacy Russia still looks more isolated, I don't know why, but they rolled over after making a point out of wanting to block an UN-investigation of that attack, that happened anyway.

Brenus
08-30-2013, 19:06
“I don't know why” Perhaps because each time they agreed on a “limited and/or Humanitarian” intervention, 2 years after, they find a US base?

Fragony
08-30-2013, 19:35
“I don't know why” Perhaps because each time they agreed on a “limited and/or Humanitarian” intervention, 2 years after, they find a US base?

What do you mean? This isn’t something I know anything about,and yes I am ignorant.

ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2013, 20:04
The fact that Assad has developed chemical weapons and it is being touted by some as a reason why the US wants him to stay in power in order to keep the Salafists from accessing them; this is the best rationale I've ever heard for every tin-pot dictator to ramp up chemical and nuclear weapons production. It is ultimate insurance against US intervention. What a joke the new foreign policy is. Where is Tom Donilon and Robert Gates when you need them? Susan Rice, huh. It must have been fun making her Nat Sec advisor in order to rub in the GOP's face, until you realize that she sucks eggs.

Fragony
08-30-2013, 20:26
A lot of the deserters are army, they should have all the means to do such an attack. I don't know if this is true but it is supposed to be a jewish part. It makes Assad's involvement all the less believable if so

ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2013, 20:38
Absurd conspiracy nonsense. Assad is getting away with multiple chemical attacks on civilians and rebels.

rvg
08-30-2013, 21:28
Looks like Assad is gonna get his mandatory slap on the wrist after all. The good news is that it's not likely to be anything more than a slap, with Al-Nusra possibly getting a complementary smackdown in the process.

ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2013, 21:54
Looks like Assad is gonna get his mandatory slap on the wrist after all. The good news is that it's not likely to be anything more than a slap, with Al-Nusra possibly getting a complementary smackdown in the process.

Yes, what wonderful news. We strike them with an expected and customary multi-billion dollar technical foul for killing 70 thousand civilians and another 1500 using Chem weapons, which does nothing to alter the course of the civil war or diminish his capability to use the weapons again. Success.

Fisherking
08-30-2013, 22:38
I can tell you that all I see from here is arrogance and a holeyer than thou attitude on the part of the US Administration. At least as it is portrayed in the media.

They make claims of knowing everything but claims are not proof. Another report on WMDs? Riiiighhht.

They say it doesn’t matter what the UN inspectors find because they know all that is necessary, even though the intelligence community admit that there is plenty of room for doubt.

rvg
08-30-2013, 23:32
I can tell you that all I see from here is arrogance and a holeyer than thou attitude on the part of the US Administration. At least as it is portrayed in the media.

Pretty much. That'll teach Odumbo not to draw red lines without good reason.

ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2013, 23:38
We have proof that Assad has chemical weapons and proof that they were used to kill over 1,000 civilians. What more do you want? In Iraq, we didn't even have proof that Saddam had chemical weapons and we fought a 10 year war. These things are not equivalent and we have more than enough causus belli, from a humanitarian and/or National Security perspective. I want boots on the ground and the establishment of a new, legitimate police action, not an invasion. Boots on the ground is off of the table, but it shouldn't be.

Idaho
08-30-2013, 23:48
1,429 victims apparently. Amazingly precise figures. I wonder if we can get the same team working on the civilian casualty figures from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

This time it's different apparently.

It's like the endless lies of an abusive partner.

HopAlongBunny
08-31-2013, 01:48
When it is in our interests to be accurate, however...

Perhaps, but recent history puts "Because I say so" cred at (O). Without a source that can be verified, no one is buying it at face.

ICantSpellDawg
08-31-2013, 02:03
The President should decide to cease answering questions on Syria for a time. Deliberations should be made directly with potential coalition partners without the use of corrupting interlocutors, in order to protect Op Sec. This is one example of a government decision that will, implicity, mean the loss of lives and we are getting a babbling brook of info which serves to do nothing other than prepare Assad to withstand a minor intervention. If ever there was a time for Top Secret discretion, this is it.

Montmorency
08-31-2013, 02:25
You know, one possibility I haven't seen mentioned here is that elements of the Assad military or security apparatus contravened the big man and made a local decision to use the stuff.

Stretching things a bit, it might even amount to an internal coup-attempt.

To be honest, I'd even believe that it's a ploy by the foreign jihadis to lure the West into another damaging ground war, as more likely than a false-flag by actual rebels.

Montmorency
08-31-2013, 02:35
The first two just mean that autocrats with NBC will have more to worry about.

It will set a precedent for subordinates screwing over their masters in this particular manner, and it will make the West more likely to intervene in some way to destroy or secure the weapons of future stumbling regimes.

The last one, that's a bigger one.

Montmorency
08-31-2013, 03:52
To make a long post short, I'll just post some thoughts on the nuclear states we might conceivably have cause to jump into. Nuclear weapons are much bigger fish than toxic gases anyway.

On a case-by-case basis:

*North Korea would be the most probable candidate for American intervention, if only because most promising of success. Direct and massive intervention by the US would be almost certain at some point given the proximity to South Korea and Japan. On the other hand, China's disapproval would stall the US for at least a while, and the Chinese might even decide on their own that the North Korean monarchy had run its course and so take care of the situation themselves quickly and quietly, not least to pre-empt the US.

*Iran is a much larger country than North Korea, but its position within the Middle East makes intervention a considerably-probable scenario. The Saudis and Israelis would lobby furiously,I think. Actually finding the weapons might be the most difficult here. Special forces alone could not possibly accomplish anything. On the other hand, Russia would make itself felt here the most out of the three, which might preclude any invasion without Russian approval or cooperation. The Russians might have their own plan for getting their hands on the nukes.

*Pakistan is the most troubling case, and has the highest potential in the world to become a state with a government prepared to use nuclear weapons against external enemies -think jihadi takeover. That or its looming specter would be an existential threat to India, so they would be the first to try something 'hands-on' to complement diplomatic pressure on the international community. Some possibility of a full-scale Indo-Pakistani war with at-least limited nuclear exchange.

But keep in mind that no one would be so hasty as to act at the first sign of trouble in these countries, or else we might as well just take them out this year, confiscate all the goodies, and save the future trouble.

I assure you that it would take an exceptional situation of instability or civil war within one of these countries before one of the scenarios I outlined would come into play. Korea is moderately likely, lowest difficulty. Iran is least likely, and would be the most difficult to pull off. In all these cases, if there is a ground invasion the hope would be that no one would dare use nukes on their own soil to thwart the invader. Otherwise, there's no basis for endangering the entire military, and tht raises the likelihood of preemptive nuclear strikes to simply devastate an entire nation, but then again would Russia or China (even assuming their private relief) tolerate that? At this point, there are too many factors and too many unknowns for me to process.

I do agree that the NSA would probably find a mandate to keep a close eye on Pakistan - and NATO to retain a larger force in Afghanistan - if my suggestion turns out to be the case.

Again: these are all still very unlikely scenarios, even if hackles are to be raised by such a revelation. I'm sure that the government recognizes that SF have surprisingly little capacity to secure and extract nuclear weapons. I suppose they could just destroy them, but you'd need to bring in quite a bit of explosive force with the SF, and isn't there a small chance that the explosion would detonate the nuke? Which is to say, decision-makers might come to believe that nothing short of a ground invasion would do, but a ground invasion is much more difficult to initiate and sustain, not least for reasons mentioned earlier in the post.

Would that ultimately mean that, due to international inaction, for the first time, terrorists or rogue states or rogue elements within states would just end up using nukes against their own people or (more likely) external enemies? Hmm...

So my ideas could entail some pretty serious consequences, I suppose, and they're all closely associated.

What's the best-case scenario here, that Assad miscalculated after all and America's coming to save the day?

Fragony
08-31-2013, 05:46
lol teh ressurection http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a9_1377562800

Don't be so sad your children are still alive man

Disclaimer: leftist people can't see this video

There are many video's like this, Palestinian kids also have that quality of dying again and again and again

Why, well quality media https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/cryingwoman.jpg

People who don't read quality media know better than that

Fisherking
08-31-2013, 07:23
We have proof that Assad has chemical weapons and proof that they were used to kill over 1,000 civilians. What more do you want? In Iraq, we didn't even have proof that Saddam had chemical weapons and we fought a 10 year war. These things are not equivalent and we have more than enough causus belli, from a humanitarian and/or National Security perspective. I want boots on the ground and the establishment of a new, legitimate police action, not an invasion. Boots on the ground is off of the table, but it shouldn't be.

Sure, if there is such concrete proof why not show some one?

The only thing offered is because they say they have proof.

Reports are just words on paper, rather like they treat the constitution.

We are supposed to be good drones and believe them because they say so, right?

I bet you can find people who have proof dragons exist and Tinkerbelle lives.

These people don’t just lie when it serves their purpose, they lie when the truth suits better, but we should believe them now?

Why? Odds are very strong they are just doing it again.

Xiahou
08-31-2013, 07:41
The news of this attack is coming from the same media/governmental collusion that brought us such classics as WMDs in Iraq and impending genocide in Libya. Using chemical weapons makes absolutely no sense considering Assad's favorable current position. Regardless, the pretext has been established, and no one is challenging it.
I'm not sure that pretext is sufficient to justify our involvement. Where's our national interest? It seems more like Obama went off his teleprompter (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/obamas-off-the-cuff-red-line-creates-syria-dilemma/) with his "red line" comment and has now painted himself into a corner.

The Syrian civil war is one that I wish both sides could lose.

Brenus
08-31-2013, 09:03
“I have not seen a dissenting opinion with any credibility to suggest that anyone but the Assad regime could have done that.” Report of Carla Del Ponte (UN): “ Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters.
“Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated”. Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.
This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” she added.” 06 May 2013.

“What do you mean? This isn’t something I know anything about, and yes I am ignorant.” Kosovo is now having one of the biggest USA base. And look at Iraq and Afghanistan: They will keep their US bases.

“Assad is getting away with multiple chemical attacks on civilians and rebels.” So did the Rebels…

“We have proof that Assad has chemical weapons and proof that they were used to kill over 1,000 civilians.” Do we: because Chemical weapons are unfortunately very easy the produce? Water and electricity for the most simple of them. And we had PROOF of the WMD in Iraq as well.

HoreTore
08-31-2013, 09:08
I highly doubt Médecins Sans Frontières would prioritize their limited options for moving medicines into Syria to stockpile nerve gas antidote if the chemical attack was a hoax.

They're not exactly an unreliable organization.

InsaneApache
08-31-2013, 09:15
The well-known comment made by the late Harold Macmillan, that the role of a post-World War Two Britain on the world stage would be to act as Greece to America’s Rome, could not have been less paid heed to by the Obama administration since the beginning of his first term in office.

A piece for The Telegraph by Niles Gardiner back in May highlighted the numerous insults that Obama has laid upon Britain in just over four years, ranging from suggesting that the people of the Falkland Islands should submit to Argentine rule, to giving as a gift to Gordon Brown a paltry collection of children’s DVD’s, unwatchable due to their incompatibility with British DVD players.

The list of gaffes doesn’t end at the time of the article’s publication, however, and within the last few months we have seen Obama make a fool of the British government again, referring to Chancellor George Osborne as ‘Jeffrey’, after the soul singer, at the G8 summit. Let’s not forget (however much some of you may wish to) that George Osborne is the most powerful man in the country after the Prime Minister.

However, what with the current crisis for many Western powers as to whether or not to intervene militarily in Syria, should the Obama administration have any sense about them at all, it would do well to attempt to renew the strength of the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ at great length.

The likely bedfellows have never before been so close to breaking up; gone are the days of Thatcher and Reagan, or even Blair and Bush (by the way, anyone who knows anything about that partnership should immediately see the fatuousness of the charge that Blair was ‘Bush’s poodle’; quite the contrary). But a little bit of initiative towards mending the relations between Britain and the US could go a long way for international affairs, both in peace and war time.

There are some signs that the US State Department is perhaps aware that their recent relations with Britain have made the Atlantic feel just that little bit wider. The Syrian situation, now at its worst stage since the beginning of the civil strife nearly two years ago, edges towards the inevitable ultimatum for the Western powers, of fight or flight; and if any progressive action is going to be taken, a strong alliance between the UK and the US will only work if both sides can see it as reliable. Ever faithful, the UK has not just shared the ethos of the United States towards the use of chemical weapons, but it has been David Cameron putting pressure on President Obama for a swift reaction, now likely to take the form of a missile strike on key military targets controlled by Assad’s regime. The UN is far more likely to honour a bid for a multilateral military intervention in Syria than it would be, were it just the United States who were pushing for it.

The way that the US can make amends for its past discourteous gestures towards Britain is simple; it treats Blighty with a little bit more respect. President Obama must recognise that Britain is one of the only dogs that shares his corner; a dog that knows the ropes, can offer more than anyone else in terms of trade, shared values and international expertise, and most importantly, a dog that can fight. All of the imperial connotations left aside from Macmillan’s original phrasing, the natural affinity between Britain and the United States, waning as it has been in recent years, will need to be refreshed for either power to be taken seriously on the world stage, particularly when other countries like Russia and China have agendas so averse to the vision of the world that many in the West desire. If Obama doesn’t recognise this necessity, then it will be to more than just his discredit; the loss of what could be the most natural alliance in international politics will no doubt be costly.

I know I am not alone amongst commentators and readers alike when I say that my opinions towards the current crisis in Syria and notions of military intervention are mixed, even if they are not in any way neutral. However, if the US really wishes to make as little mess as possible in trying to do something positive for both the Syrian people and indeed the world in attempting to disable Assad’s grip, they’ll need not just the help of the Blighty boys, but their respect.

http://www.trendingcentral.com/america-needs-to-regain-britains-respect/

Good article.

Fragony
08-31-2013, 09:17
I highly doubt Médecins Sans Frontières would prioritize their limited options for moving medicines into Syria to stockpile nerve gas antidote if the chemical attack was a hoax.

They're not exactly an unreliable organization.

They are, but a lot of the Rebels are ex-army so they should have exactly the same means at hand, the 'rebels' are even accusing eachother of using chemical weapons. They are also attacking eachother. Big mess over there.

Brenus
08-31-2013, 09:23
“I highly doubt Médecins Sans Frontières would prioritize their limited options for moving medicines into Syria to stockpile nerve gas antidote if the chemical attack was a hoax.” No body (I think) doubt it was an chemical attack. Some have doubt on who carried it out. And as much as I know, there is no antidote to nerve attack. We were never told if Atropine we were given in our Chemical Protection Kit (as much as I remember from the Infantry Combat School) was not to ease the pain and let us die painlessly or to cure us.

“They're not exactly an unreliable organization.” Worked for/with them, however, in the past, they made few mistakes of judgement in their assessment. That is the price of involvement to pay.

HoreTore
08-31-2013, 09:28
And as much as I know, there is no antidote to nerve attack. We were never told if Atropine we were given in our Chemical Protection Kit (as much as I remember from the Infantry Combat School) was not to ease the pain and let us die painlessly or to cure us.

Now, I have absolutely zero clue on medical stuff, but according to the interview with Erik Fosse(part of MSF) I heard yesterday, Atropine works as an antidote if it is administered within a short time after an attack. If you wait, it won't work.

He was also certain it was Assad, btw.

Fragony
08-31-2013, 09:40
Now, I have absolutely zero clue on medical stuff, but according to the interview with Erik Fosse(part of MSF) I heard yesterday, Atropine works as an antidote if it is administered within a short time after an attack. If you wait, it won't work.

He was also certain it was Assad, btw.

They are basing it on capacity. If you want pics of rebels having chemical weapons I will gladly provide you. No links to quality media of course so don't bother asking

Fragony
08-31-2013, 10:54
Stormfrontish? Excuse me/you? Do you know what Stormfront is, it's a site for neo-nazi's. Can I please have a little more credit than that, there kinda is an ocean between you so I can't punch you

Fragony
08-31-2013, 11:00
That's why I said -ish. You're obviously no racist (I don't think anyone on this forum is a racist, no matter how hard they try really), but some of the stuff you're spouting throws up lots of red flags. You should look into the funding and ownership of whatever special media outlet you prefer.

Just like advertisement isn't the lifeline of 'quality media'? Scuzi, give me the blogs that are WAY more reliable

Viking
08-31-2013, 11:19
lol teh ressurection http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a9_1377562800

Don't be so sad your children are still alive man

Two points:

1) What are you trying to achieve? Propaganda is common in war, and if the rebels use it, it shouldn't surprise anyone. You can find plenty of Assad propaganda too, if you want to, I am sure.
2) It is possible to have 5 daughters. My neighbour where I grew up had 4, and he was not even a Muslim from the Middle East. And the children: they're still dead; no matter who their real dad is.


Just like advertisement isn't the lifeline of 'quality media'? Scuzi, give me the blogs that are WAY more reliable

Only rich people could maintain blogs with investigative journalism without relying on funding from someone else. And that still does not automatically make them any more reliable.

HoreTore
08-31-2013, 11:23
Only rich people could maintain blogs with investigative journalism without relying on funding from someone else. And that still does not automatically make them any more reliable.

Now that's two words I never thought I'd see in the same sentence.

EDIT: Yeah I know it's three words....

HoreTore
08-31-2013, 11:43
Blogs are cheap to run, but you can bet your ass that any blog getting decent hits is going to going to get sponsorship. The far right has a long history of funding "grassroots" operations in the political underground, talk radio and blogs being two of the biggest methods of disseminating far-right propaganda today.

There's no reason you couldn't spread some far-left propaganda that way too, but nobody is spreading that stuff any more. Even the European left has a rightist bent. The ideology of the right won the war, but there is good money in convincing people there's more than one major school of international political and economic thought.

If you're going to do investigative journalism, you're going to have to send people abroad. Boots on the ground, etc.

What these blogs rely on is whatever disinformation echoing through their isolated chambers. They bring nothing actually new.

Fragony
08-31-2013, 11:51
Blogs are cheap to run, but you can bet your ass that any blog getting decent hits is going to going to get sponsorship. The far right has a long history of funding "grassroots" operations in the political underground, talk radio and blogs being two of the biggest methods of disseminating far-right propaganda today.

There's no reason you couldn't spread some far-left propaganda that way too, but nobody is spreading that stuff any more. Even the European left has a rightist bent. The ideology of the right won the war, but there is good money in convincing people there's more than one major school of international political and economic thought.

I am not interested in what the far-right says, I just find blogs much more reliable. Best is Geenstijl.nl, almost always right, with really fun writing on tops. I don't really understand why I am associated with the far right as I don't want to have anything in common with them

ICantSpellDawg
08-31-2013, 11:51
We've just seen a stream of threads suggesting that;
1)chemical weapons were not used, it is an elaborate hoax created by security services to create pretext for war
2)If they were used, it was by the opposition on the opposition
3)I'm a Republican, so if people are piling on the President, it is time to pile on the President.

I'm receptive to lines of argument suggesting that the war powers act runs counter to Article One, but I believe that the President should have the police action power in a nuclear/chemical age with small, unstable states. Call me a hypocrite if you'd like, at least I'm not attacking a President just because he sucks generally when I supported another President who sucked generally on weaker evidence.

Too many conservatives seem like circling hyenas on this, foaming at the mouth, looking for a chance to pounce on a lame duck. I get the allure, but not when people are suffering and dying and the President is trying to do something about it.

Sarmatian
08-31-2013, 13:26
I'm talking specifically about this one event. Terrorists have used nerve gas in small quantities before (and not just in Syria, remember), but the one everyone is up in arms about was a military-grade strike with military-grade quantities and military-grade results. THAT is a far cry from anything thought currently possible by the rebel groups, or any terrorist group.

And who do you think makes up for most of the rebel force? If you try to persuade me that a bunch of untrained, poorly equipped and hastily assembled men has taken half of country from Assad's army, you really need to reexamine your position.

Myth
08-31-2013, 14:09
After Obama's explicit warning that Assad should not cross the red line of using WMDs, why do you think he would use chemical weapons? Syria is on everyone's radar at the moment, every move of the goverment is being closely watched. The regime's forces are pushing the rebels back, they are winning handily. Why would Assad use chemical weapons and give the USA pretext to bomb him into oblivion, thus turning the tables in favor of his enemies who are already losing.

Also, the USA's biggest problems are Russia and Iran. Let's leave N. Korea and China out for the time being. Obviously they can't go and drop democracy bombs on Russia because that'd mean WW3. But what they can do is disrupt the Russian dominance on Europe's energy market, and more specifically: Gazprom's #1 position on the natural gas market. How to do that? Using Quatar's very cheap to extract natural gas (Quatar is the #1 exporter of gas). That's why Quatar is being supported with high tech from the USA and why Quatar and the United Arab Emirates are behind the USA on this strike on Syria. That's why they virtually manufactured this armed opposition to Assad's regime.

Further more, Assad had already signed for the creation of a gas line from Russa, through Iran and to Greece. That would further secure Russia's positions and the USA can't have that. Not to mention that Syria is very friendly towards Iran and Iran gave them 10 million in aid a few years back. Anyone who talks of "good vs. evil" and is parroting the mainstream media's version of Assad the evil chemical weapons tyrant is a moron. It's all about money, geopolitical interests and a pissing contest between the superpowers (in the least).

HoreTore
08-31-2013, 15:27
People who believe Al-Q wasn't responsible for 9/11 also believe Assad wasn't responsible for chemical attacks.

That makes it more likely Assad was indeed responsible for the chemical attack.

Fisherking
08-31-2013, 15:41
People who believe Al-Q wasn't responsible for 9/11 also believe Assad wasn't responsible for chemical attacks.

That makes it more likely Assad was indeed responsible for the chemical attack.


:rolleyes: and just who is nuts? Is this new math? 1+1= shrimp.

HoreTore
08-31-2013, 15:52
Is this new math?

No, it's a kind of argument called "Ad Hominem".

Rhyfelwyr
08-31-2013, 16:32
People who believe Al-Q wasn't responsible for 9/11 also believe Assad wasn't responsible for chemical attacks.

That makes it more likely Assad was indeed responsible for the chemical attack.

That is some of the worst reasoning I have ever seen.

Anyway, I think it would be ridiculous for the USA to take military action before a definitive conclusion is reached. The timing is certainly odd - why would Assad prompt a US invasion by taking these measures when he has the upper hand? Now, that alone doesn't mean we should assume that something is amiss. It would be quite difficult for the Rebels to pull this off if it was a hoax. As always, the least fanciful scenario is the most likely. Right now, I suspect this was either A) a rebel-on-rebel atrocity, B) Hezbollah/rogue pro-Assad elements or C) Assad simply thought he could get away with it, and needed this to oust the last rebel strongholds.

Before we know for sure, nobody should be pondering military action.

HoreTore
08-31-2013, 16:38
Wars always get nastier the longer they go on. This may just as well be a natural result of the logic of war, the two sides are getting naturally more brutal each day.

Remember that the Syrian soldiers don't do "tours" like western soldiers do. They've been at it day and night for two years now, an escalation to chemical attacks don't seem so unnatural to me.

ICantSpellDawg
08-31-2013, 17:07
Before we know for sure, nobody should be pondering military action.

Nonsense. There is a likely outcome. Plans should be drafted and in place for in anticipation of that outcome.

Beskar
08-31-2013, 17:51
A lot of people still think that the US Government did 9/11, and these are the average Joes. They see Syria as the next step for Oil and Natural Resources.

ICantSpellDawg
08-31-2013, 17:53
Syria is a net importer of oil and is not a member of OPEC. The "average joe" is a verifiable moron.

People who suggest that al-nusra affiliated lunatics could be responsible are slightly more credible, but I look at which is more likely. I'm open to this possibility and believe that it would make intervention that much more important to secure the weapons

Fisherking
08-31-2013, 18:01
HoreTore

As someone who is opposed to killing, war, and the death penalty, what is your basis for thinking a strike necessary?

People are going to die. Likely people who had nothing to do with the deployment of chemical weapons.

The US also has a large credibility problem. Why is it a good idea to believe them on this issue?

We are also now being told by the US that analysis of the chemical compounds used will not tell us who made them or used them. That runs counter to what we have been told in the past.

What changes this for you, and why believe proven liars on this particular issue?

HoreTore
08-31-2013, 18:21
As someone who is opposed to killing, war, and the death penalty, what is your basis for thinking a strike necessary?

Ah, so now I'm in favour of an attack? What did you base that on, exactly?

Rhyfelwyr
08-31-2013, 18:55
Nonsense. There is a likely outcome. Plans should be drafted and in place for in anticipation of that outcome.

Of course we should have different plans ready for different scenarios. I meant we should not aim to launch an attack before we have some confirmation.

HopAlongBunny
08-31-2013, 19:01
It is ironic that the USA gets less support for this: punishment for transgression of a clear international norm; than they got for beating up on people they just didn't like.

It would seem to indicate a bit of "fatigue" on the part of the "Coalition of the Willing".

Ronin
08-31-2013, 19:24
Obama has just said he is ready to attack Syria but he will ask for congressional approval first.
Am I the only one that thinks that Obama is looking to take a dive on this?

Fisherking
08-31-2013, 19:35
Ah, so now I'm in favour of an attack? What did you base that on, exactly?

It is the impression your post give.

So, you just support Obama and hate the Syrian government? But that is not the same?

ICantSpellDawg
08-31-2013, 20:09
He is going to get shut down if he asks the House. Nothing will happen.

Brenus
08-31-2013, 21:58
“THAT is a far cry from anything thought currently possible by the rebel groups, or any terrorist group.” What? Using gas in buildings? THAT is possible for every student in Chemistry. Until we know what agent was used, you are just guessing.

“Three years creates real fighters” Do you see the contradiction with the above statement?

Sarmatian
08-31-2013, 22:09
It has happened all over the middle east. Three years creates real fighters.

Yes, when there's a proper military organization behind them. Not untrained civilians. You know what would happen if you gave me and my friends AK's and ask us to fight an army for three years? Nothing, we'd be dead after three hours.

A lot of rebels are ex-Syrian military, not to mention troops from from other countries. As I've said, this so reminds me of Yugoslavia conflict - lots of bad guys, few good guys, factions within factions within factions, local powerplay, regional powerplay, global powerplay. It's chaos in its purest form. And in all that mess, you're 100% certain that it was Assad who ordered it, at a moment when it's really, really bad for him. Can you imagine Assad thinking: "Hmm, it looks like we're finally getting the upper hand, it seemed like we're gonna lose at times, but now Americans are more and more vocal about intervention. Ok, let's use chemical weapons and give them a pretext. That's a great idea!", because I sure as hell can't.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying Assad didn't do it, but common sense says otherwise. He had ample opportunity to use chemical weapons earlier, when there were almost no talks of intervention and when it looked more likely he'd lose and he decided to use them just now? We can't really be sure either way, but, with the track record of western intelligence in the last decade or two, I'm putting my money on common sense.

Fisherking
08-31-2013, 22:10
He is going to get shut down if he asks the House. Nothing will happen.
It may come down to defense interests again like the vote to stop the NSA. Two left and right coalitions.

Wouldn’t surprise me at all. The Senate may be more of a problem.





Apparently I'm with Lindsey Graham on this issue. I feel dirty, but its true.

Don’t worry, I doubt he holds firm convictions, more likely the best convictions money can buy, but that is not a party thing, it is a politician thing.

Pannonian
08-31-2013, 22:21
Obama has just said he is ready to attack Syria but he will ask for congressional approval first.
Am I the only one that thinks that Obama is looking to take a dive on this?

My first thought was he'd learned from Cameron how to sound willing whilst giving himself a democratic pretext for backing out.

Brenus
09-01-2013, 10:18
“You were in the military Brenus, did you ever take an NBC course?” I was and I did. Mainly it consisted in Protection against NBC, so in Mechanised Unit, having you kit and how to use it, and pressurisation of APC.

“actual professional chemical corps soldiers.” Nope. Gas is easy to despatch by shelling (1 shell on 3 for the Red Army, so I was told), airplanes and even mines, depending of the nature of the product, of course. In fact, it is dealing with gas attack that needs specialists, not using them. You can just switch on a bottle. Like mines, it is a very easy weapon to use and a very complex one to get read of (persistent and per-cutaneous especially). The Chemical Warfare is the Nuclear Warfare for poor. It is easy and cheap to produce, easy to use and has to terror effect on soldiers, with a real power of slowing down movements and perception (part of the training is to move with the full protective equipment –including gas-mask and the protective suit-), this in July in the South of France.
You are trying to make your case in giving the impression that it is a very difficult weapon to produce and use when in fact it is one of the most simple to do both.

I don’t actually know who did it. But I saw before this rush to action by media and report and blame put on one side. I even would not contest it as a mean of war if after, Media and Politicians would come and openly recognised it was just lies. I am a small part of an entire nation who was called “Cheese Eater Surrounding Monkeys” because the lies of mainly 2 willing to intervene powers. You can still read the “funny” jokes about the result of these lies on Youtube. I saw the result of this kind of propaganda in others countries. So, now, I will contest any claim without proof made by Media and Governments when they agree.

Ironside
09-01-2013, 10:34
Also, the USA's biggest problems are Russia and Iran. Let's leave N. Korea and China out for the time being. Obviously they can't go and drop democracy bombs on Russia because that'd mean WW3. But what they can do is disrupt the Russian dominance on Europe's energy market, and more specifically: Gazprom's #1 position on the natural gas market. How to do that?

I have no fracking idea. It's not like the fracking US has fracking developed a method that creates fracking cheap gas and that's fracking already driving the fracking gas prices down below fracking Gazprom's prices.

Your fracking conspiracy theory is fracking obsolete due to fracking.

Brenus
09-01-2013, 10:36
“All the training is next to useless compared to one week of fighting experience”: Really? So you learn how to use a mortar or heavy machine guns during action? Or to calibrate a 20 mm Automatic Canon (or even a basic Assault Rifle)? Training will give you the learned reflex that will save your life in action as it will give the movement (as jumping in the ditch) without thinking.
I trained snipers: that goes not only how to shoot, but as well how to direct artillery or mortar fire, so implicates to know how to read a compass, a map, to give coordinates, and correction in milliemes (angle: size of 1 m at 1000 m, helping to estimate the distance of a target) you can see in your binoculars. Do you know how to calculate the speed of a vehicle, and how to adjust your sighting to fire on it: Because if you don’t know before to meet a tank or an APC, you won’t be able to learn.
And I even don’t want to speak about maintenance of weaponry and vehicles.

Myth
09-01-2013, 11:19
I have no fracking idea. It's not like the fracking US has fracking developed a method that creates fracking cheap gas and that's fracking already driving the fracking gas prices down below fracking Gazprom's prices.

Your fracking conspiracy theory is fracking obsolete due to fracking.

Really? And is that gas cose enough and in enough quantity to threaten Russia's resourse based economy? Lol.

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 11:27
It is the impression your post give.

So, you just support Obama and hate the Syrian government? But that is not the same?

Assad is a dictator, and like all dictators, I want him dead and buried. Preferably dragged through the streets like ol' Gaffy.

Obama is a conservative, and I'm a socialist. It should be pretty obvious whether I support him or not.

@GC and Brenus: You seem to be arguing about the abilities and required combat abilities of the individual soldier. I would think it to be more fruitful to switch your focus to the logistical capabilities and abilities of the respective armies. Who's got supply lines, who's got air ability, who's got safe positions, etc.

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 11:45
That's exactly what I am talking about. Chemical warfare is complex and utterly pointless on the battlefield without very specific logistical and technical capabilities.

I must admit I'm still working the red wine through my system, and your posts have been a little wordy... I haven't read them closely, just skimmed them, sorry :clown:

But yeah. In order to organize a chemical attack, you must have at least:
1. A (relatively) safe storage area.
2. Effective transportation lines.
3. A functioning means of communication.
4. A means of delivery.

Which side has that?

And to counter Sarmatian's post: just because Assad cannot flush out the rebels doesn't automatically mean they have the capabilities to enact complicated attacks. The US is incapable of flushing out the Taliban, yet I highly doubt they have the capability to orchestrate a chemical attack.

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 11:47
So, Obama has decided to spike the ball and avoid action in Syria. We had less of a pre-text for action in Libya, and I thought that the Libyan experience was a great example of the way these things should be conducted going forward. Alas. Honestly, there will likely be another attack in the coming months, 150k people will die and either Assad or Al Nusra will be in control. We have an opportunity to diminish the likelihood of either of those outcomes and strengthen a third way, but we believe that it is easier to do nothing. Our concept of a red line doesn't exist anymore and chemical weapons can be used as an effective hedge against western intervention.

Honestly, the only thing that the US military does to defend my interests is fight on the side of the oppressed worldwide. Actions "in the national interest" serve only those landed interests who would seek to oppress me at home. A government who fails to protect the interests of the everyman worldwide is a government who neglects my people.

Tellos Athenaios
09-01-2013, 11:54
You were in the military Brenus, did you ever take an NBC course? It isn't easy to kill 1500 people with a chemical strike (in a warzone, I might add--there was shelling go on in the region at the time, so either they were regime shells carrying gas or the rebels pulled this off under fire!). It requires trained chemical professionals. Not just good fighters (which anyone can become through exposure) but actual professional chemical corps soldiers.



A lot of rebels are ex-Syrian military, not to mention troops from from other countries. As I've said, this so reminds me of Yugoslavia conflict - lots of bad guys, few good guys, factions within factions within factions, local powerplay, regional powerplay, global powerplay. It's chaos in its purest form. And in all that mess, you're 100% certain that it was Assad who ordered it, at a moment when it's really, really bad for him. Can you imagine Assad thinking: "Hmm, it looks like we're finally getting the upper hand, it seemed like we're gonna lose at times, but now Americans are more and more vocal about intervention. Ok, let's use chemical weapons and give them a pretext. That's a great idea!", because I sure as hell can't.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying Assad didn't do it, but common sense says otherwise. He had ample opportunity to use chemical weapons earlier, when there were almost no talks of intervention and when it looked more likely he'd lose and he decided to use them just now? We can't really be sure either way, but, with the track record of western intelligence in the last decade or two, I'm putting my money on common sense.

The real question is how much control does Assad have over his own military? And how much does either side know about the whereabouts of chemical weapons stocks? The Syrian military has been through a bit of a grinder for the past few years. Nominally they might still do his bidding but it is easy to imagine a fed up commander past caring deciding to take matters in his own hands.

Equally, it is easy to imagine that a stockpile of chemical weapons was accidentally shelled. Accidentally is not all that implausible (at least it seems to me) because Syria has never formally declared its inventory and local records (if any) are liable to be out of date (in promptu relocation of stockpiles as the borders fluctuate). So on the grounds it is probably impossible to know for certain where the weapons are, and the Syrian central government (what remains of it) probably doesn't have much of an overview either.

Tellos Athenaios
09-01-2013, 12:02
You were in the military Brenus, did you ever take an NBC course? It isn't easy to kill 1500 people with a chemical strike (in a warzone, I might add--there was shelling go on in the region at the time, so either they were regime shells carrying gas or the rebels pulled this off under fire!). It requires trained chemical professionals. Not just good fighters (which anyone can become through exposure) but actual professional chemical corps soldiers.

I think as the Europeans examine the samples brought back, I will be vindicated.


I must admit I'm still working the red wine through my system, and your posts have been a little wordy... I haven't read them closely, just skimmed them, sorry :clown:

But yeah. In order to organize a chemical attack, you must have at least:
1. A (relatively) safe storage area.
2. Effective transportation lines.
3. A functioning means of communication.
4. A means of delivery.

Which side has that?

Both sides. Cannisters + mortars + not caring about pinpoint accuracy => functioning chemical weapons capability; equally cannisters + air force + not caring too much...



And to counter Sarmatian's post: just because Assad cannot flush out the rebels doesn't automatically mean they have the capabilities to enact complicated attacks. The US is incapable of flushing out the Taliban, yet I highly doubt they have the capability to orchestrate a chemical attack.

Then again, the Taliban are faced with the primary obstacle of acquiring chemical weapons & containers without killing themselves in the process. The difficult bit in chemical warfare (assuming you don't bother with cleanup) is in the safe production, and designing containers which can be safely transported. Coincidentally that is exactly what the Assad regime has done, so all the rebels would have to do (after seizing a stockpile) is say "ta very much, we'll take it from here". Delivery is easy: strap a timed explosive to a cannister would do the trick; heck, probably dropping it from a 30 - 100m up might do (especially if it is internally pressured). So all in all your chemical warfare could be as simple as importing professional grade fireworks + "getting lucky" and stumbling upon an abandoned stockpile of funny looking cannisters.

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 12:19
I always find it funny that whenever there's talk of war, people bicker about the troops combat abilities.

Yet so many great defeats has been caused by logistical errors, not weaker combat abilities.... The German 6th, the Grand Armée, etc etc... Maybe I'm biased because I was in a support battalion.

Idaho
09-01-2013, 13:13
How did the government know that chemical weapons were used? Oh yeah.. Er.. We sold them to them.


BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

Idaho
09-01-2013, 13:15
My first thought was he'd learned from Cameron how to sound willing whilst giving himself a democratic pretext for backing out.

Politicians are always great supporters of democratic process when they favour the likely outcome.

classical_hero
09-01-2013, 13:24
Both sides. Cannisters + mortars + not caring about pinpoint accuracy => functioning chemical weapons capability; equally cannisters + air force + not caring too much...

We have sen in the Israeli-Gaza conflict a similar attitude. If the rocket hits it's target, then good, if it doesn't then good also and if by chance the rocket lands in our territory, then blame the opposition and core some points, even when it blatant that we fired the weapon.

Fragony
09-01-2013, 14:15
How did the government know that chemical weapons were used? Oh yeah.. Er.. We sold them to them.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

Now that is kinda interesting.

Any chemists here? 'Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.'

What else can you do with this?

Ironside
09-01-2013, 14:20
Really? And is that gas cose enough and in enough quantity to threaten Russia's resourse based economy? Lol.

The US is selling for 3-4$, with reserves estimated to last way past 2050. Russia dropped $14.8 per million British thermal units (mmBtu) to around $13.7 per mmBtu this year due to the increasing competition.The market really started to take off 2011.

And this method can probably used in several other countries in Europe.

Yes, it has the potential to cripple Gazprom.


How did the government know that chemical weapons were used? Oh yeah.. Er.. We sold them to them.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

Sodium fluoride is also used in toothpaste. Flouride is common compound in industrial uses and quite common. China is the world leading producer.

It's a mountain out of a molehill news.

Fragony
09-01-2013, 14:31
Absoluitily nothing then.. Really bad journalism or should I just call it clientism (...)

Brenus
09-01-2013, 14:37
“Chemical warfare is complex and utterly pointless on the battlefield without very specific logistical and technical capabilities.”: And this attack was what in term of military and political efficiency if not “utterly pointless”?

“That's exactly what I am talking about”: Nope. You are telling against evidences as the Rebels had used Chemicals Weapons before that they have no capacities to do so.

“Which side has that?” Err, both?

“You need accurate weather information.” We are in XXI century. Weapons are more efficient that in 1915.

“You need good intelligence on the where the enemy will be and when, down to the minute if possible because these weapons only persist for so long even under the best of conditions.”: Which in fact contradicts the use of these weapons in this occasion. By the way, you should refresh your knowledge of Chemical weapons. Persistence is a choice (as you don’t want your assault troops to suffocate on your own gas).

“You need a time-table of attack that is precise and detailed and would be an accomplishment for any middle-eastern Army, let alone some rag-tag militia group. This wasn't a little bit of gas released in a public space, this was fire for effect.” Absolute non-sense.
Do you know what “fire for effect” is? When using artillery or assimilated, first rounds (usual three) are for heating the tube and assess the dispersion (the Fork). Then you rectify, then you ask for effect (all rounds are in the air) and hopefully hit the target. When asked without the second step, it is when you are in big err, troubles, as there is a risk to be hit by your own strike.

“Logic, reason, and least importantly my own gut says Assad gassed his own people.” Logic and reason are against your guts. However logic and reason don’t always prevail in war.

“You're not gassing 1500 people”: In a building? Sorry, the gas-chambers did exactly this.

“What are you talking about? I was responding to Sarmatian saying that the Syrians wouldn't have the will to be fighters” Not really, you were telling that the Rebels hadn’t the knowledge in telling they were not professionals, and when Sarmatian answered to this, you told as they trained in practising, I quote “All the training is next to useless compared to one week of fighting experience” and “Three years creates real fighters”. That makes the Rebels very experienced soldiers.

“they have the advantage of numbers and a religious zeal”: As the Dervishes had in front of the Maxims.

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 15:03
If you were a dog, I would rap you nose.

The rebels are fascists. To be more clear, the only rebels with any organization are fascists and if they topple Assad the only thing we will get is more of that sweet, sweet Islamic fascism. If we had sent in "the UN" earlier you know what we would have? Better armed and better organized fascists. The Israelis know this and are simply destroying the means for whichever side eventually comes out on top.

There is an insane notion that these Arab spring rebels are running around singing the star spangled banner and shouting Liberté, égalité, fraternité. They are not. They are shouting for stoning and foot-length dresses. They have no notion of our western style of liberalism. It smacks of Western arrogance, the assumption that these rebels fight to be like us. I know the media tries to shove those lines down our throat but in the end it's just feel good bullshit because when you rise against a strongman you have to be fighting for democracy.

Are all of the Rebels fascists? The notion that fascist rule by one side or the other is the only outcome is the result of inaction by the west. When good men do nothing bad men take over. The west has decided to do nothing and we will pay for the negligence long term.

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 16:34
Are all of the Rebels fascists? The notion that fascist rule by one side or the other is the only outcome is the result of inaction by the west. When good men do nothing bad men take over. The west has decided to do nothing and we will pay for the negligence long term.

Assad is a fascist himself, so I can't really see much of a difference should the rebel fascists gain power.

You'll always get a massacre when a regime changes, but we've come to the point where we'll get a massacre if Assad stays in power as well, so I can't really see much of an issue.

Fragony
09-01-2013, 16:35
Are all of the Rebels fascists? The notion that fascist rule by one side or the other is the only outcome is the result of inaction by the west. When good men do nothing bad men take over. The west has decided to do nothing and we will pay for the negligence long term.

How do you see anything comming together that is a positive development? The rebels are even fighting eachother. The one group tortures an American guy, the other rebel group saves him and hands them over to the American embassy. The only thing you can be absolutily sure of is that chosing any side will mean more misery for the Assyrian people; bombs on top of it. No thanks

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 17:17
How do you see anything comming together that is a positive development? The rebels are even fighting eachother. The one group tortures an American guy, the other rebel group saves him and hands them over to the American embassy. The only thing you can be absolutily sure of is that chosing any side will mean more misery for the Assyrian people; bombs on top of it. No thanks

Inaction will guarantee that the rebel group who saves the American will be eradicated.

Fragony
09-01-2013, 18:10
Inaction will guarantee that the rebel group who saves the American will be eradicated.

A lot of the rebels are jihadi's, not all, but a lot. Even more radical ones from Europe, but also America and Canada. However you look at it, the Assyrians will lose whatever we do. Religious minorities are going to be killed by the rebels, they even say they will. That is sure to happen.

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 20:05
A lot of the rebels are jihadi's, not all, but a lot. Even more radical ones from Europe, but also America and Canada. However you look at it, the Assyrians will lose whatever we do. Religious minorities are going to be killed by the rebels, they even say they will. That is sure to happen.

So, all of these reasons somehow equate to a negligent policy; non-involvement? Wipe out jihadi's, and despots - arm those who agree with basic equal protections. Spend blood and treasure to constantly defeat insidious results around the world. The fact that anyone can be oppressed should rally the free into action, not create isolationism. If you will not protect the decent, no one will. No one will lift a finger to get the boot off of your neck when the time comes, and it will.

The American people should be ashamed of themselves if they allow this to go on without involvement. Western Europeans should be ashamed. Those who attack the President for purely political reasons should be ashamed (Rumsfeld, Bolton) - this does not include those with legitimate Constitutional or isolationist opposition (Amash, Paul, code pink congresspeople)

However you "look" at it - yes - disaster. Don't just watch.

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 20:18
BTW, my suspicion is that the President will hand it to the Congress where the idea of involvement will be defeated in the House but not the Senate. There will be another chemical attack and the President will make a unilateral action, blaming the Congress for inaction OR the situation will naturally resolve poorly and Democrats can blame the GOP for the results. I'm disturbed that the President does a bus tour to showboat how he will use every tool in the chest to get around Congress, then - while knowing how important this is and that the power is his, spikes the ball to the GOP. Call me a cynic, but the President is taking the low road here digging for cheap points.

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 20:21
Spend blood and treasure to constantly defeat insidious results around the world. The fact that anyone can be oppressed should rally the free into action, not create isolationism.

I absolutely agree with this.

No rest for the dictator - ever. I know we can't get them all, but doesn't mean we shouldn't get those we can.

Disband a couple of army divisions and start training assassins, I say.

Fisherking
09-01-2013, 20:22
So, all of these reasons somehow equate to a negligent policy; non-involvement? Wipe out jihadi's, and despots - arm those who agree with basic equal protections. Spend blood and treasure to constantly defeat insidious results around the world. The fact that anyone can be oppressed should rally the free into action, not create isolationism. If you will not protect the decent, no one will. No one will lift a finger to get the boot off of your neck when the time comes, and it will.

The American people should be ashamed of themselves if they allow this to go on without involvement. Western Europeans should be ashamed. Those who attack the President for purely political reasons should be ashamed (Rumsfeld, Bolton) - this does not include those with legitimate Constitutional or isolationist opposition (Amash, Paul, code pink congresspeople)

However you "look" at it - yes - disaster. Don't just watch.

The whole debate over arming the rebels has been stymied by not being able to arm only select factions.

It is difficult to tell one from another and there are complex alliance among various rebel groups. Many weapons sent to the rebels also show up at once on the black-market for sale. Some of the weapons earmarked for the rebels have also wound up in government hands or the hands of their allies.

You can say what you will about how it should be handled in theory, but in reality once you send the weapons across the border there is not telling who you are actually giving them to.

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 20:26
We spend almost 100 billion on intelligence per year in the US alone. We train infiltrators who speak arabic for clandestine action abroad. Get the intel - we can figure out which organizations are a better bet to arm and support. This shouldn't be rocket science. Infiltrate and watch the organizations. They do it to domestic groups (hutaree, 3%ers, oath keepers, Nation of Islam) How hard could it be to discern which groups are committing the least amount of war-crimes against civilians and minorities?

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 20:30
We spend almost 100 billion on intelligence per year in the US alone. We train infiltrators who speak arabic for clandestine action abroad. Get the intel - we can figure out which organizations are a better bet to arm and support. This shouldn't be rocket science.

Revolutionary logic also means foreign help decides which faction gains power. Those with outside aid will increase their standing, while those without will decrease. The stalinist faction was tiny at the start of the Spanish revolution, but because they were the only ones who got foreign help, they ended up dominating the revolution in the end.

Giving aid ensures that your chosen faction gains control, it doesn't make another faction gain it. And as we see in Syria, the only ones who get foreign help are the jihadis, and it's no surprises they seem to be dominating... Make contact with a couple of groups, establish channels to pour weapons and money into their hands, and watch them grow...

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 20:33
Revolutionary logic also decides which faction gains power. Those with outside aid will increase their standing, while those without will decrease. The stalinist faction was tiny at the start of the Spanish revolution, but because they were the only ones who got foreign help, they ended up dominating the revolution in the end.

Giving aid ensures that your chosen faction gains control, it doesn't make another faction gain it. And as we see in Syria, the only ones who get foreign help are the jihadis, and it's no surprises they seem to be dominating... Make contact with a couple of groups, establish channels to pour weapons and money into their hands, and watch them grow...

Agreed - it's a pretty basic concept. I don't know why people are throwing their hands in the air.

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 20:37
Regarding the "national interest" aspect of some arguments I'm hearing. The fact that there is very little in it for the US isn't a bad thing for our interests. We've been accused of acting under the banner of liberation, only to ingratiate ourselves with war spoils. This, to me, was a baseless accusation but had never been proven to be incorrect, as Rwanda was a moral failure on our part. This could help show nations and weary allies that we mean business and don't merely use a colonial rationale for our actions, but mean what we say.

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 20:40
Agreed - it's a pretty basic concept. I don't know why people are throwing their hands in the air.

Because they're preoccupied with NWO, Eurabia, Chemtrails and other such nonsense?

ICantSpellDawg
09-01-2013, 20:44
Because they're preoccupied with NWO, Eurabia, Chemtrails and other such nonsense?

In a way, it is good because it shows people to be declaring their independence from the pressures of government influence, but they shouldn't free themselves from the shackles of reason or accountability...

HopAlongBunny
09-01-2013, 21:12
Fine points aside, this seems a dead letter until Congress reconvenes and votes.
Of course they could cobble to together an emergency session, meet vote and have missiles in the air by tomorrow morning; in which case populations in Washington and Syria would likely have a collective heart-attack.

Sarmatian
09-01-2013, 21:39
I absolutely agree with this.

No rest for the dictator - ever. I know we can't get them all, but doesn't mean we shouldn't get those we can.

Disband a couple of army divisions and start training assassins, I say.

So, supporting a dictator against a dictator gets you where exactly?


Regarding the "national interest" aspect of some arguments I'm hearing. The fact that there is very little in it for the US isn't a bad thing for our interests. We've been accused of acting under the banner of liberation, only to ingratiate ourselves with war spoils. This, to me, was a baseless accusation but had never been proven to be incorrect, as Rwanda was a moral failure on our part. This could help show nations and weary allies that we mean business and don't merely use a colonial rationale for our actions, but mean what we say.

Invading Saudi Arabia would be a good start. Invading Russian ally would do little to convince.



No, you're spouting non-sense by trying to give me red herrings about technical procedures when I'm using figures of speech. By "Fire for Effect" I mean that the gas (according to the US government's vague reporting) was delivered by artillery. It was an intentional bombardment, not some guy with a bomb he dropped off. That's what I meant and you know it, so take your artillery-speak and shove it.


Ok, and this is where it becomes sketchy. Your basing your entire theory on a vague report gotten from the same intelligence that claimed Saddam had WMD. Based on that, you advocate intervention.

Your rationale is also quite weak:
1) Only trained army experts can use chemical weapons effectively - I might agree but these weren't used effectively. Anyone can throw gas among civilian population.
2) Rebels are a rag tag group with little or no military training - even if this was true, they still can use chemical weapons, if only ineffectively, but it isn't true, as the rebels have proven so far.
3) believing that Syrian army gassed civilians to deny refuge to rebels is quite far fetched, as potential losses far outweigh potential gains.

If we pretend this is a court of law, what you have is a proven liar for a witness and an unbelievable motive.

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 21:50
So, supporting a dictator against a dictator gets you where exactly?

Whack the first, whack the second.

Sarmatian
09-01-2013, 22:01
Whack the first, whack the second.

Bullet in the head - I agree. But helping one to fight the war against another over the backs of millions of people - that's where you lose me.

HoreTore
09-01-2013, 22:10
Bullet in the head - I agree. But helping one to fight the war against another over the backs of millions of people - that's where you lose me.

Where have I made any suggestions on the current situation in Syria, Sarmatian?

But as said above - giving arms to one faction makes them more powerful within the revolution. Not doing it means strenghtening the others. The reason why we have an Assad v Terrorist situation going is precisely because we - the democratic west - haven't thrown money at a faction, while several dictatorships have.

We have fallen into the exact same situation as in Spain in 1938 - the stalinists have defeated CNT because our fear of the stalinists have made CNT weak.

Sarmatian
09-01-2013, 22:27
Where have I made any suggestions on the current situation in Syria, Sarmatian?

But as said above - giving arms to one faction makes them more powerful within the revolution. Not doing it means strenghtening the others. The reason why we have an Assad v Terrorist situation going is precisely because we - the democratic west - haven't thrown money at a faction, while several dictatorships have.

We have fallen into the exact same situation as in Spain in 1938 - the stalinists have defeated CNT because our fear of the stalinists have made CNT weak.

Show me the good guys in Syria. It's not exactly clear.

After that, take a good look of western and Russian (and Chinese) picks in similar situations in the past. Doesn't really give hope, does it?

I agree in principle, I don't see it achievable in practice.

Papewaio
09-02-2013, 04:22
This is a civil war and some of the units have defected. Not sure if any of them have such equipment, but it isn't a hard line of civilians vs military.

Also could an IED use chemical artillery shells or does it need to be fired?

Tellos Athenaios
09-02-2013, 07:02
This is a civil war and some of the units have defected. Not sure if any of them have such equipment, but it isn't a hard line of civilians vs military.

Also could an IED use chemical artillery shells or does it need to be fired?

Theoretically you don't need the shelling. It's more of a safety precaution, especially in bad weather. See WW1.

Brenus
09-02-2013, 07:34
“For all any of us know, the civilians gassed were directly aiding the rebels or the regime thought they were.” You contradict yourself. If they were directly aiding the rebels, that make them a legitimate target. I don’t think civilians are legitimate targets, but you are free to have an opinion.

“What?” You were denying the Rebels capacity (against evidence given by the UN reporter Carla Del Ponte) to use Chemical Weapons. You now are admitting that they have, even in diminishing their capacities.

“Nope. Still an issue.” How? In a shelling, or mines, how it is an issue? Stop claiming things, give evidence. Only delivered by airplanes, the weather conditions can hampered the effect (area of dispersion). Same can be said for artillery and all weapons, as wind, rain and other elements have impact on use. In what aspect Chemical weapons are specific?

“I took an official tax-payer dollar-funded class on them was in 2008” Claim your money back.

“when I'm using figures of speech” I did know that, I just break the effect. No need of it.

“shove it.” Figure of speech again, I suppose.

“Gas chambers didn't kill 1500 people with small mortars” First, before UN reports you and I don’t know how the gas was delivered, second, you are right, few little pills of Zyklon B did the job (carried by one man) when dropped in the right place. Not really technically difficult, was it?

“one because one or both us of cannot read.” When do you intent to go back to school? Because you even don’t know to read what you wrote (not what you intent to write).

Fragony
09-02-2013, 07:47
I do not think anyone but a professional Army could have done it, and since I'm not a nutter I think that pretty much leaves Assad. Though if you ask him, he might blame other Armies. But I highly doubt any rebel group did it, and I think those saying they could have done it are coming from a politically motivated place. Which is fine, I guess, since we all are. But sometimes the big bad US Government gets it right.

Rebel groups are even thinking other rebel groups did it. Why would Assad, he's winning

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 08:27
Show me the good guys in Syria. It's not exactly clear.

Syria, like so many other nations, have a large diaspora. Several western nations are home to various "political parties in exile", and plenty of those are modelled on western democratic ideals. Pick one, pump it up.

Wether that's possible now is another matter though, this should've been done at the start. War brutalizes both people and their ideas.


But that's still no excuse for supporting Assad.

Sarmatian
09-02-2013, 09:15
Syria, like so many other nations, have a large diaspora. Several western nations are home to various "political parties in exile", and plenty of those are modelled on western democratic ideals. Pick one, pump it up.

Wether that's possible now is another matter though, this should've been done at the start. War brutalizes both people and their ideas.


But that's still no excuse for supporting Assad.

I'm supporting status quo until provided with a better option. Just because it's bad doesn't mean it can't get worse and just because someone appears nice, doesn't mean he is. In one dictatorship, after the dictator died, there were many extremists trying to get to power. One guy appeared calm and rational, talked about reform and modernization, abolished a single party system and instituted a parliamentary democracy. Great candidate, western governments even gave him support. And his name was Slobodan Milosevic.

And after they decided against him, they supported two other guys, one a religious fundamentalist with global Sharia as a wet dream and another a Hitler wannabe.

In the end, I'd take Tito over those three any time.

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 11:01
Nothing like dictatorial apologists.

"Yeah see, Stalin was a good guy after all, because Hitler was much worse, and the White army would ally with him." I've lost track of how many times I've heard that "argument"....

Fragony
09-02-2013, 11:32
Nothing like dictatorial apologists.

Wouldn't you agree that the Syrian folks were much better of under Assad than the nightmare they are in now? The war in Libya also has a sickening deathtoll. These were both pretty good countries to live.

Sarmatian
09-02-2013, 11:55
Nothing like dictatorial apologists.

"Yeah see, Stalin was a good guy after all, because Hitler was much worse, and the White army would ally with him." I've lost track of how many times I've heard that "argument"....

Nothing like living in a richest country in the world and parroting principles.

When you have to worry about keeping your kids alive, fed, warm and clothed, give me a call, we'll have a talk about principles.

ICantSpellDawg
09-02-2013, 13:20
Sarmatian believes in dictatorships. He has always defended whoever stood with Slobodan Milosevic against the American intervention. Dude loves Russia. The only way his positions could seem even remotely sensible is if you knew that he was a Serb.

He is the equivalent of a Ba'athist. Of course the wolf hates the shepherd.

Fragony
09-02-2013, 13:31
Sarmatian believes in dictatorships. He has always defended whoever stood with Slobodan Milosevic against the American intervention. Dude loves Russia. The only way his positions could seem even remotely sensible is if you knew that he was a Serb.

He is the equivalent of a Ba'athist. Of course the wolf hates the shepherd.

Never noticed that really. Are you from a war-torn country and have a deeper understanding to share? Do you know anything about the history of former yugoslavia, and the two Balkan wars that happened already before WW1? These very nasty ones?

Sarmatian
09-02-2013, 13:34
Nah, I'm a hedonist. I believe in tropical beaches and topless volleyball for women.

ICantSpellDawg
09-02-2013, 13:35
No, I'm from a safe country where people of all backgrounds can say what they'd like and find a job; where my leaders don't gas thousands of their own people. Follow Sarmatians way, one that defends xenophobia, genocide and suppression of dissent - at your peril.

Fragony
09-02-2013, 13:46
No, I'm from a safe country where people of all backgrounds can say what they'd like and find a job; where my leaders don't gas thousands of their own people. Follow Sarmatians way, one that defends xenophobia, genocide and suppression of dissent - at your peril.

And what is happening in Syria than. If you ask most people in former Yugoslavia they will tell you it was a paradise when Tito still called the shots. You know better than them? Then it was peace, and look what happened when the balance shifted. Yugoslavia was a blootbath in the first modern Balkan wars, WW1, and WW2, and all before all these of course

Fisherking
09-02-2013, 16:42
I don’t know how reliable this item is: http://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/cnn-caught-staging-news-segments-on-syria-with-actors/

It is not the first time CNN has been accused of manipulating the news using Crises Actors though.

Also a report in a different vane: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/20139110403930571.html

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 17:13
And what is happening in Syria than. If you ask most people in former Yugoslavia they will tell you it was a paradise when Tito still called the shots. You know better than them? Then it was peace, and look what happened when the balance shifted. Yugoslavia was a blootbath in the first modern Balkan wars, WW1, and WW2, and all before all these of course

Yeah, Communism was a blast.

BRING BACK THE SOVIETS

The reason why Yugoslavians and Syrians have to worry about keeping their children fed and warm while I don't isn't because we Norwegians are genetically superior, nor is it "western influence". It is because Yugoslavia was ruled by Tito and Syria was ruled by Assad. The dictatorship is the reason for poverty, and so keeping the dictators is not at all the way to ensure your kids are happy and fed.

And there is one single person responsible for the current bloodbath in Syria: Assad, and Assad alone. No-one else is responsible for it.

Fragony
09-02-2013, 17:52
I don’t know how reliable this item is: http://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/cnn-caught-staging-news-segments-on-syria-with-actors/

It is not the first time CNN has been accused of manipulating the news using Crises Actors though.

Also a report in a different vane: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/20139110403930571.html

Probably referring to this guy
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a9_1377562800

Sarmatian
09-02-2013, 18:08
Yeah, Communism was a blast.

BRING BACK THE SOVIETS

The reason why Yugoslavians and Syrians have to worry about keeping their children fed and warm while I don't isn't because we Norwegians are genetically superior, nor is it "western influence". It is because Yugoslavia was ruled by Tito and Syria was ruled by Assad. The dictatorship is the reason for poverty, and so keeping the dictators is not at all the way to ensure your kids are happy and fed.


Yeah, right.

Tito took what was comparative to backwater 19th century Ottoman vilayet and in a few decades transformed it into a first world country. 33 years after his death, we have democrats who are still trying to figure out how to tie their shoe-laces (when they're not stealing, of course).

Give me back my dictator and take all my democrats. Actually, send them to Syria. That will hurt Syria more than an American invasion.

Brenus
09-02-2013, 18:18
“to tell you that a disciplined force is required to do what was done.” No. No weapon needs a disciplined force in order to be used. You rule out the Rebels without good reason, and this one is really not a good one. I was in the infantry, but with a technical book I could have use a chemical weapon.

“ You want to say Army units broke off and did it? Fine, but that's a game-changer. You want to say terrorists did it? Fine, but that's also a game-changer.” You misunderstood me. I am not an Assad’s supporter, we are probably few who know about his father and the repression lead by his Uncle long time ago. What I am against is the over-simplification. And what if the Rebels did used Chemical, or what if they will use these kinds of weapons? Will you agree to bomb them?

“Nothing like dictatorial apologists.” Ahh, great that Stalin and Hitler ever existed…

“Sarmatian believes in dictatorships. He has always defended whoever stood with Slobodan Milosevic against the American intervention. Dude loves Russia. The only way his positions could seem even remotely sensible is if you knew that he was a Serb. He is the equivalent of a Ba'athist. Of course the wolf hates the shepherd.” I can’t stop to admire plain ignorance when shown and shines like this…

“No, I'm from a safe country where people of all backgrounds can say what they'd like and find a job” I believed you were living in the USA.

Montmorency
09-02-2013, 18:22
Well, not all dictators are created equal. Some argue that without Stalin, the Soviet Union would not have been prepared for WW2, to which the counter is that Stalin's economic and military incompetence nearly cost the Soviets WW2.

Hey, maybe if Trotsky had won out in the 20s, he would have started WW2 himself to take over Central Europe, and today the Soviet Union would be the leading world-power. :shrug: :mellow:

ICantSpellDawg
09-02-2013, 18:23
Yeah, right.

Tito took what was comparative to backwater 19th century Ottoman vilayet and in a few decades transformed it into a first world country. 33 years after his death, we have democrats who are still trying to figure out how to tie their shoe-laces (when they're not stealing, of course).

Give me back my dictator and take all my democrats. Actually, send them to Syria. That will hurt Syria more than an American invasion.

You are a fascist. We all get it. Dictatorships are great, sure they are

Fragony
09-02-2013, 18:28
You are a fascist. We all get it.

I don't get it

You are being really unfair and inconsiderate imho

The Wizard
09-02-2013, 18:41
Just posting this in between the mud-flinging:

A former British Muslim extremist on the UK's decision to back off from Syria (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9d17790-10d7-11e3-b291-00144feabdc0.html)

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 19:25
Yeah, right.

Tito took what was comparative to backwater 19th century Ottoman vilayet and in a few decades transformed it into a first world country. 33 years after his death, we have democrats who are still trying to figure out how to tie their shoe-laces (when they're not stealing, of course).

Give me back my dictator and take all my democrats. Actually, send them to Syria. That will hurt Syria more than an American invasion.

First world country? luwat?

As backwater as it always has been. Tito was extremely good at torturing, killing and indoctrinating his subjects, what a delightful guy to bring back. But I suppose it doesn't really matter when you're not the one rotting in the torture dungeon, eh?

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 19:28
Well, not all dictators are created equal. Some argue that without Stalin, the Soviet Union would not have been prepared for WW2, to which the counter is that Stalin's economic and military incompetence nearly cost the Soviets WW2.

The USSR wasn't prepared for ww2.... At all.


Hey, maybe if Trotsky had won out in the 20s, he would have started WW2 himself to take over Central Europe, and today the Soviet Union would be the leading world-power. :shrug: :mellow:

Trotskij was a fanatic. I have little doubt he would've started ww2, but he would've lost it.

Brenus
09-02-2013, 19:44
"You are a fascist. We all get it." Apparently not as you obviously have no idea what fascism is...:book2:

ICantSpellDawg
09-02-2013, 20:31
I don't get it

You are being really unfair and inconsiderate imho

Sarmatian - "Give me back my dictator and take all my democrats."
He is serious. Sarmatian is a supporter of brutal authoritarian nationalism. After the fall of communism in Yugoslavia and the defeat of the Serbs in the civil war, calling the Serbian government anything other than Fascist wouldn't be doing it justice. My point is that I'm not surprised that he would be a supporter of the Ba'athists in Syria. It matches his worldview. I've never viewed fascism and communism as far apart in governmental style. I would challenge those who suggest that they are not similar to the point of confusion.

Not everyone who is against intervention is overtly in favor of Assad, but Sarmatian is. To be honest, Frag, over the years you've been drawn to radical fascism as well, albeit of a different hue.

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 20:34
"You are a fascist. We all get it." Apparently not as you obviously have no idea what fascism is...:book2:

Fascism, like so many other political terms, have been given a huge number of possible meanings. Keeping it "original" and only applying it to Mussolini's regime and those directly inspired by him isn't very helpful.

While I would personally add a certain level of desire for a revolutionary change before I called someone a fascist, I have no problems with people who refer to hard-line dictators as fascists.

Sarmatian
09-02-2013, 20:55
First world country? luwat?

As backwater as it always has been. Tito was extremely good at torturing, killing and indoctrinating his subjects, what a delightful guy to bring back. But I suppose it doesn't really matter when you're not the one rotting in the torture dungeon, eh?

You're speaking out of ignorance.

1970's and 80's Yugoslavia was a first world country by any standard. GDP per capita, life expectancy, literacy rate, infant mortality rate, industrial development, infrastructure, quality of education...

I'm not saying dictatorships are better than democracies, but I am saying that particular dictatorship was better than this democracy.


You are a fascist. We all get it.

No, no, no. I'm a commie-nazi.


Dictatorships are great, sure they are

Well, your system is closer to a dictatorship than mine. Actually, nowhere else in the developed world you have a position which combines the powers of the head of state and head of government.

Idaho
09-02-2013, 20:56
Fascism is anti-revolutionary. It's aim is to defend existing class interests and suppress worker organisation through violent action and co-opting of the military and police. It often uses a revolutionary style to appeal to the working class, but seeks to entrench existing power, not overthrow it.

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 21:01
You're speaking out of ignorance.

1970's and 80's Yugoslavia was a first world country by any standard. GDP per capita, life expectancy, literacy rate, infant mortality rate, industrial development, infrastructure, quality of education...

I'm not saying dictatorships are better than democracies, but I am saying that particular dictatorship was better than this democracy.

Ah yes, I forgot about those days back when the young brilliant minds of Britain ditched Oxbridge to go study at Vojzxzwzxzwch Academy in Yugoslavia....

I actually do have a few propaganda books on how brilliant the revolution in Yugoslavia(and Albania, of course) was, funny how none of those mentioned the torture dungeons, system of informers or police brutality....

But I guess that a first world quality country wouldn't need any torture dungeons to keep their populations from revolting, so obviously Yugoslavia didn't have any, right?

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 21:06
Fascism is anti-revolutionary. It's aim is to defend existing class interests and suppress worker organisation through violent action and co-opting of the military and police. It often uses a revolutionary style to appeal to the working class, but seeks to entrench existing power, not overthrow it.

Another common usage, but not one I agree with.

Hitler and Mussolini wanted a clean(meaning revolutionary) break with the current political climate in order to root out what they deemed as "decadent modernism"(best exemplified by Hitler's "Museum of Disgusting Art" or whatever he called it). They didn't want to overthrow the power structure as such, but they did want a complete break with the current system of their time in order to reshape it as they wanted.

To me, that component is vital in classifying the various right-wing groups today. Those who want a clean break with modernism(again, best exemplified by opposition to abstract art) and the "decadent west" earns the label "fascists", while those who just want extreme measures within the current culture gains the label "right-wing".

Sarmatian
09-02-2013, 21:20
Ah yes, I forgot about those days back when the young brilliant minds of Britain ditched Oxbridge to go study at Vojzxzwzxzwch Academy in Yugoslavia....

Well, I'm sure that brilliant minds of Britain aren't going to study in Norway. Does that disqualify Norway from first world country club? And, believe it or not, there were cases of people from western Europe studying in Yugoslavia.

No, there weren't super quality universities for super smart or super rich, your Harvards or Yales, it was all public education, but it was comparable or better than public education in the western world, depending on the country. Worse than some, also true, but on the whole, comparable.


I actually do have a few propaganda books on how brilliant the revolution in Yugoslavia(and Albania, of course) was, funny how none of those mentioned the torture dungeons, system of informers or police brutality....

Comparing communist Yugoslavia and communist Albania is like comparing South and North Korea.


But I guess that a first world quality country wouldn't need any torture dungeons to keep their populations from revolting, so obviously Yugoslavia didn't have any, right?

Like Guantanamo? Are you now excluding both USA and Norway from first world countries?

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 21:27
Well, I'm sure that brilliant minds of Britain aren't going to study in Norway. Does that disqualify Norway from first world country club? And, believe it or not, there were cases of people from western Europe studying in Yugoslavia.

No, there weren't super quality universities for super smart or super rich, your Harvards or Yales, it was all public education, but it was comparable or better than public education in the western world, depending on the country. Worse than some, also true, but on the whole, comparable.

That can be said of every single country in the Eastern Bloc, and there's still a reason why you're referred to as the "Second World"(or craphole, whatever you like).


Comparing communist Yugoslavia and communist Albania is like comparing South and North Korea.

I wasn't comparing. But when you pick up books from one, you tend to pick up books from the other as well. Well, I guess the Maoists stay clear of the Tito-stuff, but I was affiliated with the Stalinist party, so...


Like Guantanamo? Are you now excluding both USA and Norway from first world countries?

Ah yes, you can always rely on the supporters of brutal mass-murderers to point their finger at some (in comparison) minor bad stuff happening with the US...

For the record though, Gitmo is for non-US citizens. No wonder they're pissed, they're not allowed to take part in the glory that is the US! Tito, on the other hand, tortured his own people.... You know, that people who were so thankful for all the GLORIOUS ADVANCES OF THE REVOLUTION OF THE PROLETARIAT THAT NOBODY CAN QUESTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

Sarmatian
09-02-2013, 21:54
That can be said of every single country in the Eastern Bloc, and there's still a reason why you're referred to as the "Second World"(or craphole, whatever you like).

Yugoslavia wasn't in the Eastern Bloc (for the record) and was head and shoulders above any other communist countries in quality of life.


Ah yes, you can always rely on the supporters of brutal mass-murderers to point their finger at some (in comparison) minor bad stuff happening with the US...

For the record though, Gitmo is for non-US citizens. No wonder they're pissed, they're not allowed to take part in the glory that is the US! Tito, on the other hand, tortured his own people.... You know, that people who were so thankful for all the GLORIOUS ADVANCES OF THE REVOLUTION OF THE PROLETARIAT THAT NOBODY CAN QUESTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

What you're referring to happened immediately after the war and dealt mostly with organized resistance groups who also happened to be Nazi collaborators, Chetniks and Ustase. It stopped soon after and later was reserved for the very select few. Very similar to Gitmo actually, just with a different passport requirement. And imprisonment, not torture, btw. It was all fairly public, you get a trial, you go to jail and you get on with your life. And it only happened if the person in question was of some importance.

For the average population, that is 99,9% of the population, it was quite normal - you get up, you go to work, get home, give your teenage son some cash and worry about is he doing drugs at that rock concert...

HoreTore
09-02-2013, 21:59
Yes, of course, events like the Croatian Spring never happened.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE ALL HAIL THE GLORIOUS LEADER


By the way, China is also a wonderful place to live. Nothing bad happening in the glorious revolution.

Fisherking
09-02-2013, 21:59
In the matter of Syria:

The more I have looked into the use of chemical agents, the less likely I find that it was military.

Regardless of what the government says! The ingredients are not hard to come by. Fertilizer (Potassium), Chlorine, and Fluoride. Rebel groups captured a Chlorine factory some months ago and Fluoride is used in mining.

The poison gas used was Sarin. This is what was used twice in the Tokyo subway attacks in the 1990s. It is not a good military agent as it has a short shelf life.

It was used also by Iraqi insurgents in 2004 against US troops in that country.

It is a deadly nerve agent (nerve gas) but not one suited to military use, because of the need for long storage times.

The government has proven themselves to lie and do it frequently. The hearings on NSA spying on citizens being the latest example.

What better way to try to regain credibility than to say we found the information spying on Syrian Generals and that they had gassed their own people, when that government knew full well they were being spied on and use of chemical weapons would bring a quick response from the west.

Then, they put it on TV and everyone automatically believes it.

Also they said ahead of time they would ignore any UN findings. Does that sound right to anyone?

Sarmatian
09-02-2013, 22:05
Yes, of course, events like the Croatian Spring never happened.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE ALL HAIL THE GLORIOUS LEADER


By the way, China is also a wonderful place to live. Nothing bad happening in the glorious revolution.

What exactly do you know of Croatian Spring? Or are we excluding countries that had protests from first world countries? Your first world country list is getting smaller by the minute, HT.


In the matter of Syria:


Okay, we've strayed too far from the topic when people have to emphasize they're talking about what the thread is actually about.

I've made some comparisons to explain some of my points better but those comparisons took over. Sorry about that. To clarify my position:

I don't believe dictatorships are better than democracies. However, I do believe that some conditions need to be met before a country can become a democracy and unless those conditions are met, you can bomb a country until you throw it back to the stone age, it won't work, so sometimes it's better to allow a country to stabilize so that it can achieve a peaceful and painless, and most importantly, permanent transition to democracy, like Spain after Franco.

I do not believe removing Assad will make Syria into a democracy in anything but in name maybe. I do not think we need another democracy like Afghanistan. I also do not see a proper candidate to pull it off among current factions involved and I'm not convinced they won't do considerably worse.

When talking about this, I'm only taking into account the population and how it affects them. I don't care about Assad or rebel leaders or other involved factions.

HT, we can continue over PM, or open a new thread. I won't respond further in this one.

Brenus
09-02-2013, 22:08
“I have no problems with people who refer to hard-line dictators as fascists.”
I have as it confuses things. We had the Nazi, the Fascists, the Religiously Fanatics and the Communists. The ideologies are different. To say that Milosevic was the equivalent of Franco, and Franco the equivalent of Hitler is at least a diffraction of the reality. What was the term employed the, ah yes, National Communist. The Media were so happy with this. This and the “Ethnic Cleansing” of course, term they always failed to remember it was used first by the Serbs… Anyway, why to brush all dictators under a generic term as fascist? Dictatorship exists to qualify repression and torture etc.

Not starting a debate on the Wars in Yugoslavia…

Montmorency
09-02-2013, 22:55
Interesting article. (http://atlanticsentinel.com/2013/09/syrian-rebels-suspected-of-deploying-chemical-weapon/)


Turkey’s Zaman newspaper reported earlier this year that security forces had seized two kilograms of sarin gas in the city of Adana in southern Turkey. “The chemical weapons were in the possession of Al Nusra terrorists believed to have been heading for Syria,” it said. Obviously, they didn’t manage to smuggle the gas across the border but others may well have been successful.

So the terrorists - or some terrorists somewhere - have their hands on industrially-produced chem agents for sure.


Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

The Saudi angle is not one I had considered. Would SA really be willing to part with chemical weapons in Syria, though?

Does the US know about it, if this was the case, and did they greenlight the operation? I feel like we'd be hesitant to permit any ally to supply anyone in Syria with anything NBC.

All I can tell from this thread, is that there are many, many possible scenarios with many factors in play, and no one knows what they're talking about anyway, so beware definitive statements on anyone's part.

If anyone could weigh in on a technical matter: how many artillery pieces of what caliber firing how many units of sarin-dispersion do you need to kill 1500 people in a short time?

Pannonian
09-03-2013, 01:19
Just posting this in between the mud-flinging:

A former British Muslim extremist on the UK's decision to back off from Syria (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9d17790-10d7-11e3-b291-00144feabdc0.html)

Maybe if the jihadi :daisy:s hadn't kicked up such a stink in the past, then we could have cared more about this. They made their isolationist bed, now they can lie in it.

Fragony
09-03-2013, 01:37
To be honest, Frag, over the years you've been drawn to radical fascism as well, albeit of a different hue.

Oh, is that so

HopAlongBunny
09-03-2013, 05:37
Yea, let he who is without sin cast the first stone:

http://www.gasandoil.com/oilaround/2013/08/CIA%20Files%20Prove%20America%20Helped%20Saddam%20as%20He%20Gassed%20Irangas_and_oil_oil_around_arti cle.2013-08-29.0003656869


~;)

Brenus
09-03-2013, 07:26
“But I guess that a first world quality country wouldn't need any torture dungeons to keep their populations from revolting, so obviously Yugoslavia didn't have any, right?” Just to add a little bit of oil on the fire, then add water: Can you remind me the position in the 50’s of the blacks in the US Democracy, and in what was engaged the Democratic France (in term of Repression, not bad) or the slaughter of the Indonesian Communists? I add Wounded Knees, in 1974, about the situation in the Indian Reserves, or the Natives in Australia.

Papewaio
09-03-2013, 09:17
There are such things as benevolent dictatorships. Singapore springs to mind.

Democracies can and are subverted all the time.

The thing that makes a functioning democracy is also probably why most democracies out perform other government types and it isn't the form of government it is the prerequisite for it.

You need a functioning, educated and engaged citizenship who want to work hard and see the fruits of their labour for themselves and their society. A functioning democracy normally allows social mobility and a fair chance at it. The greater the disparity between the richest and poorest the less the social cohesion and the more likely a violent revolution will occur.

Fragony
09-03-2013, 15:34
“But I guess that a first world quality country wouldn't need any torture dungeons to keep their populations from revolting, so obviously Yugoslavia didn't have any, right?” Just to add a little bit of oil on the fire, then add water: Can you remind me the position in the 50’s of the blacks in the US Democracy, and in what was engaged the Democratic France (in term of Repression, not bad) or the slaughter of the Indonesian Communists? I add Wounded Knees, in 1974, about the situation in the Indian Reserves, or the Natives in Australia.

'Slaughter of Indonesian communists' do you have any more on that, new to me at least

Lemur
09-03-2013, 15:37
'Slaughter of Indonesian communists' do you have any more on that, new to me at least
There's a new documentary coming out right now about it, looks amazing. Note that the genocide was also about ethnic Chinese as well as commies.


http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU

Fragony
09-03-2013, 15:57
There's a new documentary coming out right now about it, looks amazing. Note that the genocide was also about ethnic Chinese as well as commies.


http://youtu.be/tQhIRBxbchU

Just about everyone, pretty bloody affair. Almost all caribians and whites and mollucs where killed. But that Chinese and Communists also got targetted is new to me

Edit, allright you got me. That looks awesome.

ICantSpellDawg
09-04-2013, 00:06
As an update, The GOP Speaker (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/us/politics/obama-administration-presses-case-on-syria.html) and House Majority Leader (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cantor-i-intend-vote-provide-president-united-states-option-use-military-force-syria_752676.html) are a green light for intervention. The Democratic President (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10283758/First-Syria-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-CIA-on-way-to-battlefield.html) has also announced that CIA trained Syrian rebels are currently being deployed.

Papewaio
09-04-2013, 00:22
Great so how many years before the Syrian rebels become Al Qaeda Part Deux?

Because if you train them and then don't support then to the hilt they will hunt you down like a lover scorned. Just remember who Oliver North was worried about.

ICantSpellDawg
09-04-2013, 00:30
Great so how many years before the Syrian rebels become Al Qaeda Part Deux?

Because if you train them and then don't support then to the hilt they will hunt you down like a lover scorned. Just remember who Oliver North was worried about.

This absolutely needs to be considered. I believe that it is being considered - heavily. I am in favor of using force where force is needed. I believe that a developing world where people don't have to have an active an present fear that they are going to be killed by government or private parties is in our best interests, both short and long term. I more broadly define U.S. interests than you seem to. As I have stated, multi-national oil companies don't present the same interests that I have, but a newly married college graduate in Syria does. I am more interested in making the Syrian safe than expanding the oil monopoly. I believe that the former action will do more to secure my own interests.

Papewaio
09-04-2013, 01:02
I concur and Australian interests are also broadly the same.

Xiahou
09-04-2013, 04:08
Kerry says if the regime becomes destabilized to the point that their chemical weapons are unsecured, we'd have to put boots on the ground (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria)....

This kind of seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy if the current plans are carried out doesn't it? :no:

Alexander the Pretty Good
09-04-2013, 04:14
Kerry says if the regime becomes destabilized to the point that their chemical weapons are unsecured, we'd have to put boots on the ground (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria)....

This kind of seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy if the current plans are carried out doesn't it? :no:

AIPAC is waggin' the dog again...

PanzerJaeger
09-04-2013, 05:27
More good news from Libya re:western intervention (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html).


Yet now Libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia fighters.

Mutinying security men have taken over oil ports on the Mediterranean and are seeking to sell crude oil on the black market. Ali Zeidan, Libya’s Prime Minister, has threatened to “bomb from the air and the sea” any oil tanker trying to pick up the illicit oil from the oil terminal guards, who are mostly former rebels who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and have been on strike over low pay and alleged government corruption since July.

As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

In an escalating crisis little regarded hitherto outside the oil markets, output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. Despite threats to use military force to retake the oil ports, the government in Tripoli has been unable to move effectively against striking guards and mutinous military units that are linked to secessionist forces in the east of the country.

Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.

Though the Nato intervention against Gaddafi was justified as a humanitarian response to the threat that Gaddafi’s tanks would slaughter dissidents in Benghazi, the international community has ignored the escalating violence. The foreign media, which once filled the hotels of Benghazi and Tripoli, have likewise paid little attention to the near collapse of the central government.


We cannot help these people, but we can leave them alone.

Fragony
09-04-2013, 06:48
People who are wrong as usual are mentally blocking the existance of Libya, Syria must be a godsend for those who knew, for a fact, that we had to aid the Libyan opposition. Real experts who know something warned against it, and as usual people who are wrong as usual are united in silence

Fisherking
09-04-2013, 07:41
As an update, The GOP Speaker (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/us/politics/obama-administration-presses-case-on-syria.html) and House Majority Leader (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cantor-i-intend-vote-provide-president-united-states-option-use-military-force-syria_752676.html) are a green light for intervention. The Democratic President (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10283758/First-Syria-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-CIA-on-way-to-battlefield.html) has also announced that CIA trained Syrian rebels are currently being deployed.

Such great news! Now the arms industry doesn’t need to worry about beget cuts. There will be lots of money for campaign contributions. Hooray! Of course gas and oil prices will go up too, after all, there is a war within 6,000 miles of an oil field. So they thank you too.




I wish they would rule out ground-troops. My support for intervention is absolutely not shared by my friends who are still in the service.

Right! Can’t you think of why that might be? Hazard pay is to be cut, Their yearly pay raise is capped at 1%. Everyone E-6 and below is eligible for food stamps. They see how valuable they are to society and how much putting their lives on the line for these people matters.




Kerry says if the regime becomes destabilized to the point that their chemical weapons are unsecured, we'd have to put boots on the ground (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria)....

This kind of seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy if the current plans are carried out doesn't it? :no:

The idea of yet another war, and one where our friends are as much or more of a threat than the enemy is not very appealing.



Great so how many years before the Syrian rebels become Al Qaeda Part Deux?

Because if you train them and then don't support then to the hilt they will hunt you down like a lover scorned. Just remember who Oliver North was worried about.


Quite so!


I am so glad some of you have a such a high minded goal in mind, to stop the suffering of others.

Just remember that when the bodies pile up, and how much good you have done.

Fisherking
09-04-2013, 09:18
Sorry, Republicans may throw them a bone now and again and verbally support them to keep up moral but this is not new.

Big budgets go for big toys. Tanks are a bargain at $4.35 million. A Blackhawk is over $5 million. Apaches are $61 million and fighter jets are $150 million and the ammo would buy a couple of hummers per round. People are cheap. Intensive air missions cost more than deploying troops. Putting troops on the ground is a great opportunity for defense contractors. More broken stuff means more money too. Everyone makes money. Except Snuffy that is getting shot at.

Military pay has not kept up with inflation. An E-7 makes about what a McDonald’s manager does. A 3 star pulls down about 100k. Not great by civilian standards for what they do. Want to figure what that would be per hour if they punched a time clock?

Fragony
09-04-2013, 10:13
Kewl. Russia claims it has evidence the rebels used gas. Which of course makes a lot more sense.

Tough spot for Dronebame, still want to attack Dronebama if it turns out that everybody with some common sense were right.

Drones -> rebels

Assad :sweetheart:

Beskar
09-04-2013, 11:07
“But I guess that a first world quality country wouldn't need any torture dungeons to keep their populations from revolting, so obviously Yugoslavia didn't have any, right?” Just to add a little bit of oil on the fire, then add water: Can you remind me the position in the 50’s of the blacks in the US Democracy, and in what was engaged the Democratic France (in term of Repression, not bad) or the slaughter of the Indonesian Communists? I add Wounded Knees, in 1974, about the situation in the Indian Reserves, or the Natives in Australia.

Wouldn't putting oil on the fire correcting the poster (whoever it is as I cannot find it) that Yugoslavia was a second world country and not the first?

First was defined as the West, Second was defined as the USSR and friends, Third is developing economies and Fourth being basket cases.

Fisherking
09-04-2013, 11:11
No, the US Administration has already said they will IGNORE anyone else’s findings. They have already jumped to the conclusion they find most beneficial.

The Congressional Leaderships is all fawning over the idea of spending a Billion or so to blast the hell out of Syria and send in trained proxies to “secure” the chemical weapons. Read secure as blow up, because they won’t have a fleet of trucks and a controlled disposal site.

Just tell me how blowing up chemical stockpiles is ever so much safer and humane and going to protect the civilian population?

We have a poison gas problem. Most of the poisonous gasses are coming from politicians.

ICantSpellDawg
09-04-2013, 11:57
Boots on the ground doesn't just mean Iraq/afghan style occupation. It can also mean targeted exfiltrations, assassinations, and sabotage by special forces. This approach coupled with strategic bombings over the course of 6 months to 1 year is my strategy and it is the one which they will likely use.

The Army is a waste of money full stop, at this point in American history. Their use is related to large scale symmetrical warfare (Russia, China), or in occupational restructuring (and they've proven themselves to be largely inept at that in Afghanistan and Iraq). I would imagine that, given the failure of the Army to produce favorable results over the past 12, that it will be relegated to status similar to a reserve or national guard. The functional US military at this stage is the Navy, Air force, Marines, and Army Special Forces. US army is an occupation and engineering security force built for a different time and dramatically different style of warfare.

Beskar
09-04-2013, 12:02
Assad :sweetheart:

One of the more disturbing things you have said.

Assad needs to step down, even if power is handed over to one of his cronies. It would have allowed peace talks and settling the issue. However, Assad is a tyrant and there is only a handful of solutions to what Plato describes as the opposite of a good and "true king".

Before you make up stories on how I love the rebels, I will put it in this way. Just because you oppose Stalin, doesn't mean you should get into bed with Hitler. There are alternatives to both.

Fragony
09-04-2013, 13:12
One of the more disturbing things you have said.

Ha, but that is really what Obama will have to do after banging the wardrums over the chemical attacks, and if it turns out it were the rebels who actually did it. Peculiar situation don't mind me mocking it