Printable View
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".
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?
It is the impression your post give.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
So, you just support Obama and hate the Syrian government? But that is not the same?
He is going to get shut down if he asks the House. Nothing will happen.
“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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
It may come down to defense interests again like the vote to stop the NSA. Two left and right coalitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Wouldn’t surprise me at all. The Senate may be more of a problem.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
My first thought was he'd learned from Cameron how to sound willing whilst giving himself a democratic pretext for backing out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
“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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Your fracking conspiracy theory is fracking obsolete due to fracking.
“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.
Really? And is that gas cose enough and in enough quantity to threaten Russia's resourse based economy? Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Assad is a dictator, and like all dictators, I want him dead and buried. Preferably dragged through the streets like ol' Gaffy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Both sides. Cannisters + mortars + not caring about pinpoint accuracy => functioning chemical weapons capability; equally cannisters + air force + not caring too much...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.Quote:
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.
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.
How did the government know that chemical weapons were used? Oh yeah.. Er.. We sold them to them.
Quote:
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...micals-2242520
Politicians are always great supporters of democratic process when they favour the likely outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Now that is kinda interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
And this method can probably used in several other countries in Europe.
Yes, it has the potential to cripple Gazprom.
Sodium fluoride is also used in toothpaste. Flouride is common compound in industrial uses and quite common. China is the world leading producer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
It's a mountain out of a molehill news.
Absoluitily nothing then.. Really bad journalism or should I just call it clientism (...)
“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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Assad is a fascist himself, so I can't really see much of a difference should the rebel fascists gain power.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
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.
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 thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Inaction will guarantee that the rebel group who saves the American will be eradicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg