Syria

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

---

Whack the first, whack the second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

“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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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"....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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?

Nah, I'm a hedonist. I believe in tropical beaches and topless volleyball for women.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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