Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Syrian government launched chemical weapons on its citizens.

I'm waiting to see what the President decides to do.

I would love to see how Dubya or Romney would handle this.

It's sounding pretty serious. You know shit hits the fan when the German foreign ministry (yeah, historical jokes aside--they're pretty dovish) starts talking about "consequences" and "punishment" in response to something.

Turkey, France, and the UK have more or less already signed on to join the US in a possible intervention. Turkey would be most important, they have the ability to invade and completely overwhelm Syria by land if provided with air support from NATO allies. Given how weak Syria's military has become and how it's been deployed to fight insurgents rather than defend borders, and given the size of the Turkish military, they could probably defeat the Syrian Army in a matter of weeks. The ensuing occupation and reconstruction would be less easy to say the least.

I don't really understand the argument that intervention at this point will make things worse. The hornet's nest has already been kicked over, now Russia and China are saying "don't use the wasp killer--that will make things worse!"

Russia and China are really dicking over the lives of many people just to spite the US. It's times like these that a one-world government doesn't sound bad at all.

It's not just about spiting the US. For Russia, Syria represents an opportunity to show that Russia still has a superpower's reach. For China it's an opportunity to show that China can't be bullied into acceding to the USA's foreign policy vision.

Russia is also terrified of a post-Assad Syria as a breeding ground for terrorists that might go on to attack Russia, but ironically Russia's hardline stance in support of Assad has prompted Islamists in Syria to vow that Russia is "next." In a sense, they now have their very own "Israel" that makes them a target.

It may not be just spiting the US, but they are still dicking over lives for their own selfish reasons.

You're talking about dictatorships. It's what they do.

I think the big question on everybody's mind is: What will Canada do about it?

Everyone knows maple syrup is the best cure for nerve gas exposure.

I accidentally used maple flavored bacon in my soup today.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I accidentally used maple flavored bacon in my soup today. Our national dish. Very good, very good.

Maple bacon isn't bad, although I could imagine that it wouldn't taste good in a soup.

Back on topic, what if Syria does turn into another chaotic mess like Libya or Iraq? Is it worth the risk in your opinion?

I don't often agree with Peter Hitchens but I did with this article.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/before-we-bomb-syria-shouldnt-we-seek-proof-of-guilt-.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I thought the US had undeniable proof. Am I mistaken about this? I would think after something like Iraq, we wouldn't attack a country regarding WMDs unless indisputably sure.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Maple bacon isn't bad, although I could imagine that it wouldn't taste good in a soup.

Back on topic, what if Syria does turn into another chaotic mess like Libya or Iraq? Is it worth the risk in your opinion? Not that I know specifics, but I'd say Syria's a more chaotic mess than Libya ever was.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I thought the US had undeniable proof. Am I mistaken about this? I would think after something like Iraq, we wouldn't attack a country regarding WMDs unless indisputably sure. lawl?

Originally posted by Lestov16
I thought the US had undeniable proof. Am I mistaken about this? I would think after something like Iraq, we wouldn't attack a country regarding WMDs unless indisputably sure.
Do get undeniable proof they'd have to have collected samples from the site of the attack and done autopsies on the victims. So far as I know they've been unable to do that.

Then there's this from earlier this year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

lawl?

lawl.

The US is acting like they have information that we don't but I agree with Hitchens and Moscow, I don't support retaliatory action until we have a clear picture of what happened.

I don't support retaliatory action at all. Until they actually attack us first.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't support retaliatory action at all. Until they actually attack us first.
The idea is to discourage future use of chemical weapons against civilians. Retaliatory is probably not the right word--"punitive" would be more apposite.

Oh boy, I sincerely hope this doesn't turn into a war... but if does come to that, I'd like to see Assad hang.

If it's just posturing to get Assad to... give up his stockpiles, then I get it. But if it's just to scare him in to not doing it then it makes no sense. Like telling him "You can do it this one time, but boy if there's a second... watch out."

And if it's to actually attack and stop him for good... why did they wait until nerve gas was used? The several hundred dead here matter more than the 100,000 before them? They already knew he had the supposed largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and they knew they might get used. Why wait until they're actually used to act against him using them? If the idea is to "save civilian lives" then the sentiment is two years and 10% of a million people too late. Future attacks later or not, ostensibly it's about stopping innocent deaths... so what was the holdup with all those other countless innocent deaths? Do they not get to count unless their death was by sarin?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If it's just posturing to get Assad to... give up his stockpiles, then I get it. But if it's just to scare him in to not doing it then it makes no sense. Like telling him "You can do it this one time, but boy if there's a second... watch out."

And if it's to actually attack and stop him for good... why did they wait until nerve gas was used? The several hundred dead here matter more than the 100,000 before them? They already knew he had the supposed largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and they knew they might get used. Why wait until they're actually used to act against him using them? If the idea is to "save civilian lives" then the sentiment is two years and 10% of a million people too late. Future attacks later or not, ostensibly it's about stopping innocent deaths... so what was the holdup with all those other countless innocent deaths? Do they not get to count unless their death was by sarin?

Jaden and Hitchens pointed this out as well. I suppose we simply find the use of chemical weapons to be especially odious. Hypocritical, I know.

^why did Britain and France wait until Hitler invaded Poland to declare war?

Originally posted by Master Han
^why did Britain and France wait until Hitler invaded Poland to declare war?

The feather that broke the camel's back. It's like "Ok, that bloody ****ing does it! We have got to do something about this shit before it really hits the fan and stains everything."

Originally posted by Master Han
^why did Britain and France wait until Hitler invaded Poland to declare war? I will smack you in the Godwin SO hard...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If it's just posturing to get Assad to... give up his stockpiles, then I get it. But if it's just to scare him in to not doing it then it makes no sense. Like telling him "You can do it this one time, but boy if there's a second... watch out."

And if it's to actually attack and stop him for good... why did they wait until nerve gas was used? The several hundred dead here matter more than the 100,000 before them? They already knew he had the supposed largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and they knew they might get used. Why wait until they're actually used to act against him using them? If the idea is to "save civilian lives" then the sentiment is two years and 10% of a million people too late. Future attacks later or not, ostensibly it's about stopping innocent deaths... so what was the holdup with all those other countless innocent deaths? Do they not get to count unless their death was by sarin?

Because people willing to use chemical weapons indiscriminately are a FAR greater potential menace, both practically and morally. Simple as that. That sort of thing has to be stopped pretty much immediately. Yes, it crosses a moral line. No, that is not in any way hypocritical.

This is not a cover or an excuse. There is no ulterior motive as, if anything, the US doesn't want the rebels to win and there is pretty much no good political angle for any western country to get involved (else we would have intervened a la Libya a while back). It's as straightforward as stopping the maniac regime using chemical weapons, something that causes broad agreement. Chemical weapons have the potential to cause mass death far beyond the current scale, and so anyone trying to make even the smallest use of them has to get stomped into the ground to make it clear that no-one is ever going to be allowed even to consider such things. So, yes, the use of chemical weapons completely changes the situation.

Those doubting the evidence are just squawking- particularly about forensics. The independent medical organisations there have confirmed they are treating people for chemical attacks and not even Russia and China are denying chemical weapons were used- that argument is over. The only detail to be confirmed now is who used them.

Wow. Rare to find a post with such outstanding contradictions.

If gibberish is all you have to add, don't bother posting.

We made it through yesterday without war..I hope today brings us the same fate.

Wen i saw this i cryed, its so sad and why is russia getting in the way? My biggest fear is tat they will attack america. Should we all buy gas masks?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If gibberish is all you have to add, don't bother posting.

Should maybe take your own advice given that your post was full of it.

Stamp on the 'maniac' regime to punish them for using chemical weapons which you then admit that there is doubt it was even them. And you also say forensic evidence is irrelevant despite the fact that it's forensic evidence that would be able to tell you who manufactured it and so who was likely to have supplied it and used it. It would tell you exactly where it was used and how it was delivered and provide yet more evidence of who may be responsible. But na. Videos of victims and doctors who can only say that chemical weapons were used but not by who and, of course, conveniently ignoring Carla Del Ponte's official UN report. That's enough to sanction another highly successful wester 'intervention' in an Arab/Muslim country like iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya etc.

LET'S GO!!!

Oh wait. Who's gonna stomp on these guys
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/the-u-s-and-israel-have-used-chemical-weapons-within-the-last-8-years.html

Nothing hypocritical though

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Those doubting the evidence are just squawking- particularly about forensics. The independent medical organisations there have confirmed they are treating people for chemical attacks and not even Russia and China are denying chemical weapons were used- that argument is over. The only detail to be confirmed now is who used them.

No one is doubting that chemical weapons were used. The little detail of "who used them" is a really big issue given that the international community plans to bomb the people who used them.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because people willing to use chemical weapons indiscriminately are a FAR greater potential menace, both practically and morally. Simple as that. That sort of thing has to be stopped pretty much immediately. Yes, it crosses a moral line. No, that is not in any way hypocritical.

This is not a cover or an excuse. There is no ulterior motive as, if anything, the US doesn't want the rebels to win and there is pretty much no good political angle for any western country to get involved (else we would have intervened a la Libya a while back). It's as straightforward as stopping the maniac regime using chemical weapons, something that causes broad agreement. Chemical weapons have the potential to cause mass death far beyond the current scale, and so anyone trying to make even the smallest use of them has to get stomped into the ground to make it clear that no-one is ever going to be allowed even to consider such things. So, yes, the use of chemical weapons completely changes the situation.

Those doubting the evidence are just squawking- particularly about forensics. The independent medical organisations there have confirmed they are treating people for chemical attacks and not even Russia and China are denying chemical weapons were used- that argument is over. The only detail to be confirmed now is who used them. What the other two said.


The very knowledge of Syria's chemical arsenal should have "changed the situation" long ago. Once it became clear that he was willing to fight and kill his own people, his regime should have been stamped down lest they ever used them. Iraq got an invasion based on the belief that there was WMDs--and they weren't in the midst of a civil war that had killed over 100,000. Libya got a no fly zone despite Gaddafi not having any chemicals or WMDs. So on a "moral" level, what is the justification being given for not stepping in over 2 years and far, far more deaths? Why did they have to wait for the actual use of the chemicals everyone knew was there before action was taken?

Lord Lucien, do you agree with jaden? Because he seems to disapprove of intervention, while you say it should have happened sooner.

I hope we do nothing, this is not our fight.

Originally posted by Master Han
^why did Britain and France wait until Hitler invaded Poland to declare war?

I see what you are trying to say, but the comparison isn't entirely apt. Maybe in the case of war-fatigue among the population the two situations are similar. In the case of WW2, its more that the allies didn't have a negative view of Hitler and saw his annexation of former German territories as sort of a natural fallout from the events of WW1. There was a period where, because of the power of the German economy in the face of worldwide economic depression, Hitler was highly regarded and fascism itself looked very appealing to people.

There are numerous reasons the west is dragging its feet in Syria (the Russia/Iran issue, the strength of Assad's military, no geopolitical or economic gain to be made, no groups to support that can be trusted if they gained power... etc), thinking Assad is a good guy who is leading the way for a new world economic system is not one of them.

/rambling

Originally posted by Oliver North
thinking Assad is a good guy who is leading the way for a new world economic system is not one of them.


Not one of the mainstream reasons anyways.

I first heard about it this Monday on NPR. A guy from there called and told them about it.

I think we need to eliminate Assad's entire operation in a series of well placed and well timed critical strikes. Than have a whole humanitarian team go in and compromise with him like psychologists with a lunatic. Offering him such a vast cornucopia of option that he'll happily settle for something, he'll have nothing else left.

I don't find one cliche dictator insurmountable as much as I find it frightening that we falsely accused Russia of wanting to go Cold War over our intervention, when they actually stated the contrary.

Either they're war mongering, or they're infighting with warmongers. In doing that they've put us in a difficult position.

I think we mainly just made that up to avoid arousing too much animosity from mr. third world anonymous ex-dictator affiliated terrorist who wants to come here and blow some helpless families apart and look at the limbs for I guess a few laughs.

Kinda like our own citizens did at last year's Marathon.

We're at war with neanderthals who are overpopulating this planet.

Russia is really beginning to piss me off. It, along with China, seems to be run by sociopaths of the highest order.

I feel like instead of granting Russia the Soviet Union's place on the UN Security Council the Western powers should have used the opportunity to let the seat be vacant. There would still have been an "alternate viewpoint" in China, and we wouldn't have to worry about Putin waving his dick around on a world forum.

Obama stated in an interview last night that after reviewing the evidence, they do not believe the rebels are responsible for any chemical weapons attacks, stating that the rebels do not have the delivery systems necessary to attack with them.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Lord Lucien, do you agree with jaden? Because he seems to disapprove of intervention, while you say it should have happened sooner. No I don't want anyone to intervene at all. I don't even like that the rebels are being given weapons. I just find it... confusing that everybody goes along with the "save innocent lives" line espoused by every politician and policy maker in every country. I get why they say it--people believe them for some reason--I just don't get why so many people believe them.

So you think Assad should just gas everybody until Syria's insurgency problem is solved? That is...kind of callous.

Pretty much. I'm all in favor of letting that country commit gradual suicide, so long as it's not assisted suicide. Ideally everyone would leave it alone and let it do its thang, but I get that some nations wouldn't want Russia or Iran openly jumping in to the fray. And I get that you wouldn't want them cozying up to whoever emerged the victor, so you beat them to the punch by jumping in yourself. It just seems with Syria that regardless who wins, they won't be Western friendly, so why get involved at all (empty rhetoric about "lives" notwithstanding)? I don't think Russia or Iran would ever get directly involved, and if anything it would be Turkey or Israel left to do the cleanup. I'd prefer that.

I hope to hell that Obama doesn't attack

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It just seems with Syria that regardless who wins, they won't be Western friendly, so why get involved at all (empty rhetoric about "lives" notwithstanding)?

You seem to be more concerned with the politics than the people dying in the street. "Phuck em all! They're not from my country!" Again, pretty callous thinking.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Pretty much. I'm all in favor of letting that country commit gradual suicide, so long as it's not assisted suicide. Ideally everyone would leave it alone and let it do its thang, but I get that some nations wouldn't want Russia or Iran openly jumping in to the fray. And I get that you wouldn't want them cozying up to whoever emerged the victor, so you beat them to the punch by jumping in yourself. It just seems with Syria that regardless who wins, they won't be Western friendly, so why get involved at all (empty rhetoric about "lives" notwithstanding)? I don't think Russia or Iran would ever get directly involved, and if anything it would be Turkey or Israel left to do the cleanup. I'd prefer that.

The issue with not intervening, as I see it at least, is that this could potentially normalize the use of chemical weapons in warfare again. I guess other nations have used them (Iraq did in the Iran-Iraq war for instance) and it hasn't normalized the use, but there was never the type of media coverage and direct debate over it as there is now. In such a high profile case, if the West does nothing, it would severely undermine their ability to do something in the future if, say, Russia were to deploy them against Georgia or India in Kashmir.

I'm not trying to make the case for intervention, just saying there is a larger picture here than just one nation's civil war or regional conflict. The world is just paying too much attention at this point for there to be no large scale geopolitical ramifications.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The issue with not intervening, as I see it at least, is that this could potentially normalize the use of chemical weapons in warfare again. I guess other nations have used them (Iraq did in the Iran-Iraq war for instance) and it hasn't normalized the use, but there was never the type of media coverage and direct debate over it as there is now. In such a high profile case, if the West does nothing, it would severely undermine their ability to do something in the future if, say, Russia were to deploy them against Georgia or India in Kashmir.

I'm not trying to make the case for intervention, just saying there is a larger picture here than just one nation's civil war or regional conflict. The world is just paying too much attention at this point for there to be no large scale geopolitical ramifications. I see that issue, but personally it doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to get involved (though it is a more believable one than the "moral" points being espoused). If a country is already at war with the U.S. and the West, then they're going to use chemical weapons if they want to regardless of Syria. If it's smaller, non-ally nations fighting each other with chemical weapons, then I say the same thing now: let them do it to one another. Unless the U.S. (or whoever) is directly targeted, I don't want them directly targeting. Let the Syrians massacre each other with chemical weapons.


Originally posted by Lestov16
You seem to be more concerned with the politics than the people dying in the street. "Phuck em all! They're not from my country!" Again, pretty callous thinking. People die on the street all the time and in every country. I don't care about them, so why should Syria get special attention?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
People die on the street all the time and in every country. I don't care about them,

Whether or not you care, any competent government certainly does, hence why we have police officers and safety regulations. So there's no double standard.



It may be a matter of precedent more than anything else. I'm going to presume that there are international laws forbidding the employing of chemical weaponry on your own citizenry; if we let Syria off the hook, said international laws become quite meaningless, and the long term death toll would certainly not be trivial.

Originally posted by Master Han
Whether or not you care, any competent government certainly does, hence why we have police officers and safety regulations. So there's no double standard. What double standard? Lestov was calling out my callousness and I was confirming it.

??

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What double standard? Lestov was calling out my callousness and I was confirming it.

??

You suggested it would be irrational to care about casualties in Syria and not to care about everyday deaths. I pointed out that people certainly do care about everyday deaths...

Yeah, it doesn't fit perfectly with your personal position, but I was more concerned with the subject matter as a whole.

Most of you have never been to the middles east, never met a Syrian, will never go to the middle east or meet a Syrian. Ain't the media wonderful? huh?

Originally posted by Master Han
You suggested it would be irrational to care about casualties in Syria and not to care about everyday deaths. I pointed out that people certainly do care about everyday deaths...

Yeah, it doesn't fit perfectly with your personal position, but I was more concerned with the subject matter as a whole. I wasn't saying any of that.

Originally posted by Paul Calf
Most of you have never been to the middles east, never met a Syrian, will never go to the middle east or meet a Syrian. Ain't the media wonderful? huh? F*ck yeah!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I wasn't saying any of that.


I wasn't really addressing your personal, disturbing callousness. I was referencing the implication from your argument that Syrian matters aren't important in the grand scheme of things.

If you didn't intend to say that, then I bow down and grovel for your forgiveness. But my point stands. Just take it as my using your post to talk about something else.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I see that issue, but personally it doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to get involved (though it is a more believable one than the "moral" points being espoused). If a country is already at war with the U.S. and the West, then they're going to use chemical weapons if they want to regardless of Syria. If it's smaller, non-ally nations fighting each other with chemical weapons, then I say the same thing now: let them do it to one another. Unless the U.S. (or whoever) is directly targeted, I don't want them directly targeting. Let the Syrians massacre each other with chemical weapons.

I agree with you in terms of the moral politicking, and like I said, I'm not sure this sways me to support intervention, it is more the issue that makes me even consider intervention.

Would you extend this to nuclear or biological weapons? In the case of the latter, a nation using a biological agent in a civil or regional war could easily cause it to spread if it were infectious/contagious enough.

@ Lucien. I certainly wouldn't want your standard made into a universal law. If a military dictatorship in America was slaughtering people, I would hope that the European Union (or Hell even China if gets bad enough) would intervene to stop it.

I have no idea why the UK would push their vote before the UN even begins to bring in preliminary findings on the inspection. It's not as if they were going to act until after the US got the ball rolling anyway. It was a silly move on Cameron's part, and that's obvious whether you agree with his interventionist position or not.

There seems to be a lot of gross over simplification of the situation going on. At the moment it's not the Assad regime vs the rebels. It's the Assad regime vs some 40 different groups. Some are Syrian rebels but most are external groups with their own interests. Some are al-qaeda affiliated and other extremist groups whose purpose is either sectarian slaughter or getting their hands on Syrian weaponry to use elsewhere.

So what are the options to achieve what we're being told the western goal is. To stop further use of chemical weapons?

Can we bomb the weapon stockpiles? No short of nuclear attack all that will do is release the chemical weapons into the atmosphere and kill thousands more people.
Can we take out the other parts of the military? Yes. But then who's going to stop the extremist groups from then getting their hands on the chemical weapons if we kill the army defending them?
Can we take out the regime? Yes. Probably at the cost of a lot of civilian lives. But then what? We have those 40 different groups vying for power. This would lead to more civil unrest and sectarian slaughter that would make Iraq's ongoing sectarian war look like a nice day at the park.

So that leaves only the option of going in and sorting it out on the ground. Which will probably lead to another few thousand dead allied troops and another decade long insurgency/terrorist truck bomb massacres.

It's a nest of vipers that is best kept out of.

As for the moral argument about killing people to stop people getting killed. What absolute rubbish. Did we get involved in Liberia, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and countless other countries where genocide has been rife over the last 30 years?

I also find it very odd that people suddenly swallow the media perpetuated notion that Assad is some kind of Hitler style maniacal tyrant when all of 3 years ago Syria was lauded as a beacon of relatively secular, stable Arab state ideal. Granted he could've stepped aside when the will of some of his people moved peacefully against him. Then we could have Syria the same peaceful, prosperous and stable Arab country that Egypt has turned into where 1000+ people don't get openly slaughtered in front of the world's media in a single day.

Oh no wait.

Let's face facts. There's 2 reasons why the western allies are chomping at the bit to smash Syria. To protect Israel and to **** one over on Iran. They don't give a shit about saving Syrians. They blow more Syrians to pieces in 1 day of cruise missile and drone strikes than Assad or the rebels could even dream about.

Only other thing I can say is thank **** the UK parliament voted no to war any circumstances. It restored some of my faith so representative politics in the U.K.

Jaden: are you referring to anyone in this thread? because it seems like most of us at least realize the nuance in the situation, whether we support intervention or not.

Like, I agree with essentially everything you said, but I'm still conflicted internally about intervention...

Originally posted by jaden101
They don't give a shit about saving Syrians. They blow more Syrians to pieces in 1 day of cruise missile and drone strikes than Assad or the rebels could even dream about.
Did you mean to say Arabs? Because even then this would be incredible hyperbole. As it is, it's nonsense.

To sound like a neo-con, there's really no excuse for the US not to act here, both ethically and politically. We sign international laws and make proud speeches condemning the use of chemical weapons, and when a mad dictator uses it to kill thousands of his own people...can the most powerful military in history reasonably just sit there and twiddle its thumbs? It makes our notions of justice a bit of a joke. "Don't f*ck with the United States, or...we'll call you names!"

Originally posted by Oliver North
I agree with you in terms of the moral politicking, and like I said, I'm not sure this sways me to support intervention, it is more the issue that makes me even consider intervention.

Would you extend this to nuclear or biological weapons? In the case of the latter, a nation using a biological agent in a civil or regional war could easily cause it to spread if it were infectious/contagious enough. No, I'd make an exception then. Something that could spread beyond borders easily and indiscriminately (and invisibly) needs to be put a stop to ASAP. Anything involving deadly microbes is worrisome, and even small tactical nukes create a horrible and tantalizing precedent. Chemical attacks kill hundreds or thousands of people, biological warfare and nuclear arms can kill the planet. Species survival>>>everything else.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
@ Lucien. I certainly wouldn't want your standard made into a universal law. If a military dictatorship in America was slaughtering people, I would hope that the European Union (or Hell even China if gets bad enough) would intervene to stop it. Honestly, I wouldn't. If a nation has degenerated to the point that its government feels it necessary to enslave/oppress/intern/murder its own citizens apropos of nothing beyond rule through fear, then that's a country that needs to die. A constitutional democracy (no matter how flawed) would need an incredible amount of public support/ignorance/apathy to turn in to an oppressive, mass-murdering, dictatorial hell. If those conditions aren't enough to spur on the people of an educated, informed, well connected country of 300 million+ in to revolutionary action, then they frankly deserve no foreign savior.

And if it does spur them on, then it's a fight they need to experience themselves. They'd need to expend a great deal of blood and effort in order to fully realize what they allowed to happen, what they had lost, and what they stood to gain. Freedom from such a scenario mustn't be gifted, it needs to be fought and bled for. It's partially why I'm against intervening in Syria, as it currently stands. If the Syrian people really do want a change of government and collective attitude, then they to fight and die to achieve it. It's the only way it will stick long term, the only way they'll appreciate what they gained.

And as Jaden said, the rebel groups are disparate. It's not a nation fighting tyranny and inequity, it's a multitude of special interest groups jockying for a chance to get revenge/replace the current rulers. And there's plenty of Syrians who do support the regime, so change for them would be disastrous. It's an incredibly grey situation, morally and politically. And it's because of that I'd advocate sitting it out, so long as remains localized and conventional.

The US needs to sit this one out, had enough of the US running over to Arab countries to sort something out. Let Syria's neighbors deal with it or NATO. Ideally, let Syria sort Syria out.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did you mean to say Arabs? Because even then this would be incredible hyperbole. As it is, it's nonsense.

Yes. Meant to say Arabs in general. As it stands, the US are averaging a drone strike per day in Yemen. A country that the US hasn't declared war with and that most Americans probably don't even know they are attacking. Estimates for Pakistan drone strike victims, another country the US not only isn't at war with but considers an ally is over 3700. 90% of which are innocent civilians of which 10% were children. This is before a country they are actually still officially at war in. Namely Afghanistan. Where the drone strikes are nearly 500 per year and have killed civilians at 10x the rate of a similar number of manned strikes.

Then there's the other countries that drones have been deployed in. 145 drone strikes in a matter of 3 months in Libya during the revolution. Missions in Algeria, Mali, Niger.

Not to mention that in 3 years in Iraq up to 2011 they launched 17000 drone attacks.

So yeah. America. **** yeah!...tumbleweed.

But I guess I also meant they would kill more Syrians in 1 day of cruise nipple attacks if they were to intervene.

I don't know. It was late. I was yammering.

Stay out of Syria! We're in enough messes already.

Thanks Jim. Your contribution is as valued and insightful as ever.

Syria is merely the gateway to Iran for the U.S.

Seems Iraq would be easier to strike from.

Syria houses Russia's only naval base in the Mediteranian, and even Obama isn't talking about regieme change... no way US bases from which to strike Iran are going in.

Also, Israel, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE... etc

And Afghanistan. If only 1000 American servicemen are allowed to stay there you can bet they'll be composed of the following: embassy guards, pilots, ground crews, and air base guards.

Originally posted by Master Han
To sound like a neo-con, there's really no excuse for the US not to act here, both ethically and politically. We sign international laws and make proud speeches condemning the use of chemical weapons, and when a mad dictator uses it to kill thousands of his own people...can the most powerful military in history reasonably just sit there and twiddle its thumbs? It makes our notions of justice a bit of a joke. "Don't f*ck with the United States, or...we'll call you names!"

Why should the American taxpayer foot the bill for Syria's problems? Why should American lives be sacrificed? Everyone's screaming about a few hundred who were gassed. What about the tens of thousands who were shot and bombed. What about the thousands of Rawandans who were hacked to death? Then there's Sudan.

China wants to be the world's superpower, let them deal with it.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Why should the American taxpayer foot the bill for Syria's problems? Why should American lives be sacrificed?

I don't understand this "us vs. them, only American lives matter" mentality.



Who says I/we shouldn't care about those genocides either?



Yeah...that's, not a great idea.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
China wants to be the world's superpower, let them deal with it.

by that logic, as the world's only superpower, shouldn't America have to do it?

Originally posted by Master Han
I don't understand this "us vs. them, only American lives matter" mentality.

It's called Libertarianism.

So is it certain chemical weapons have been used?

UN spokesman says they still need to get results.

Originally posted by Mindset
So is it certain chemical weapons have been used?

UN spokesman says they still need to get results.

They know chemical weapons were used beyond all doubt, they want to know what the chemicals were.

K.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They know chemical weapons were used beyond all doubt, they want to know what the chemicals were.

Maybe it was copious amounts of dihydrogen monoxide.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's called Libertarianism.

That's more "no lifes matter", really.

Originally posted by jaden101
But I guess I also meant they would kill more Syrians in 1 day of cruise nipple attacks if they were to intervene.

I don't know. It was late. I was yammering.

Cruise Nipple Attacks....epic

Obama just said he wants to attack but is going to take it to congress.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Obama just said he wants to attack but is going to take it to congress.

Kudos to him for doing what he's ****ing legally required.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Obama just said he wants to attack but is going to take it to congress.

If he really does that it and stands by Congress's decision it will be the best political news in the US in the last decade.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Kudos to him for doing what he's ****ing legally required. Yea, but what's legally required doesn't stop politics.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Kudos to him for doing what he's ****ing legally required.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If he really does that it and stands by Congress's decision it will be the best political news in the US in the last decade.

sadly both of these are true

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's more "no lifes matter", really.



Cruise Nipple Attacks....epic

Gotta love auto correct. Always good for comedy gold.

So, one week before congress comes back into session, and even then it will probably be a few days before they vote.

Apparently right now Syria is experiencing something akin to what Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother experienced when Marshall got a free slap to be cashed in at any time.

^wtf

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, one week before congress comes back into session, and even then it will probably be a few days before they vote.

Apparently right now Syria is experiencing something akin to what Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother experienced when Marshall got a free slap to be cashed in at any time. iyo, is the impending slap congress approving or disapproving attacks?

Approving, obviously.

I'd be surprised if congress didn't approve it. Most of the democrats are on board with Obama, and as for the Republicans, only Rand Paul's libertarian wing (which isn't very large) are outright against striking at Assad, while the two biggest Republican senators, McCain and Graham, are both hawkish supporters of greater involvement in Syria. One commentator put it this way: for many Republicans tempted to vote against the strikes just out of spite, they must remember that in the eyes of many a vote against Obama will be a vote for Assad and for Iran.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
^wtf
No really. The jihadists have gone into partial hiding because they're afraid that America will attack them as well, Syrian government forces are evacuating their bases and moving their weapons into schools and mosques, and civilians are living in a state of constant apprehension, not knowing when a cruise missile might strike.

Originally posted by Lestov16
It may not be just spiting the US, but they are still dicking over lives for their own selfish reasons. oh please... No need for this righteous bs. As if US isnt in it for selfish reasons. Truth is noone gives a crap about the Syrian people, it's always about the selfish reasons. Russia will keep backing Asad as long as it suits their interest. Similarly US would look the other way if it suits theirs no matter how many people die in the process, won't be the first time. Still no definite proof of Asad using chemical weapons and I personally find it hard to believe he'd do it with UN inspectors snooping around, dumbest decision he could possibly make and he's no idiot. Of all time why wait till now to give the world an excuse to start a war agiants him? If anything it benefits the so called opposition, rushing in to help the mercenaries won't solve the problem in Syria.

Originally posted by SamZED
As if US isnt in it for selfish reasons. Truth is noone gives a crap about the Syrian people, it's always about the selfish reasons.

Why the false dilemma? That the United States may have an interest in toppling the Asaad regime doesn't mean there aren't legitimate humanitarian concerns for the Syrian people. Putin, on the other hand, is a pure socipath, as he's demonstrated...throughout his entire life.



Isn't it mightily inconvenient that Russia's interests always happen to involve condoning the world's most repressive governments? Like...its own?

Send the drones, **** it. We can help with zero American Casualties..

And why the fck don't we have a weapon to destroy those Chen weapons from the air....

Originally posted by Master Han
Why the false dilemma? That the United States may have an interest in toppling the Asaad regime doesn't mean there aren't legitimate humanitarian concerns for the Syrian people. Putin, on the other hand, is a pure socipath, as he's demonstrated...throughout his entire life.



Isn't it mightily inconvenient that Russia's interests always happen to involve condoning the world's most repressive governments? Like...its own? Putin is just another power greedy ruler who cares about whats good for him. Whether he's a sociopath or not.. dont see what diference does it make when it comes to big politics. Dont see US showing legitimite humanitarian concerns towards the Saudi people, the same Saudi Arabia where women arent even allowed to drive and people get opressed worse than in Syria. But hey US and SA are buds so who cares? Or when it vetos UN resolutions condemning Israeli settlement expancion no matter how many people get killed in the process etc etc etc Russia condones Syria because its an ally. Simple as that. US would do the same as long as it suits their interest. Not would, it did and does.

Also Russian is far from being one of the most repressive governments.

Originally posted by SamZED
Dont see US showing legitimite humanitarian concerns towards the Saudi people,

Sure it does. Perhaps the argument could be made that it doesn't show enough humanitarian sentiment, but one can easily gauge from popular opinion that the United States is simply more socially conscious, in a positive manner, than Russia. Or China. And it sort of gets ridiculous when a supporter of either government comes around to ***** about America's comparatively petty deficiencies. Yes, America has supported or condoned its fair share of questionable allies and behavior, but at the moment you really can't compare it to Russia with a straight face. There's a difference between the inevitably imperfect adherence to moral principles, and simply having no moral principles whatsoever.



"one of" is quite the broad term, but it's certainly worse than any Western nation I can think of.

Han: you... didn't follow the events in Bahrain too closely, eh?

I went to a Walmart near Sunny Isles today...I think one of Sam's cousins was there. She was hot. peaches

(Seriously though, so many hot Russian girls in Sunny Isles Beach)
Originally posted by SamZED
oh please... No need for this righteous bs. As if US isnt in it for selfish reasons. Truth is noone gives a crap about the Syrian people, it's always about the selfish reasons. Russia will keep backing Asad as long as it suits their interest. Similarly US would look the other way if it suits theirs no matter how many people die in the process, won't be the first time. Still no definite proof of Asad using chemical weapons and I personally find it hard to believe he'd do it with UN inspectors snooping around, dumbest decision he could possibly make and he's no idiot. Of all time why wait till now to give the world an excuse to start a war agiants him? If anything it benefits the so called opposition, rushing in to help the mercenaries won't solve the problem in Syria.
According to an American military analyst on NPR, the area where chemical weapons were used (at this point there's little argument about whether they were released or not) was a rebel stronghold just outside of Damascus. The rebels there were well dug in, to the point that regime artillery, tanks, and infantry were insufficient to dislodge them. Airpower had some success, but then the rebels received a shipment of Russian-made anti-aircraft weapons, probably from Croatia, and these were so successful that the regime abandoned air assaults on the area and tried using chemical weapons.

And again, we're not talking about a supergenius, we're talking about a glorified warlord with a war cabinet and general staff comprised of his dad's buddies (in a sense, an Arabic George W. Bush, only more ruthless and less funny). We're also talking about someone who needed Hezbollah's help to reverse the rebel momentum, and someone who's economy would have completely collapsed were it not for Iranian money. He's a desperate, incompetent leader who would have been toppled if not for foreign help. I don't think we necessarily need to ascribe sense and wisdom to him.

As for the notion of rebels using chemical weapons, that's A LOT harder to prove than the government using them. Occam's razor tells us that it's almost certainly the government that's responsible, unless you want to delve into conspiracy theories.

In the long run, Russia is hurting itself by backing Al-Assad. It may make friends with Iran and Hezbollah, but the longer the war goes on the more enemies it will make in the Sunni world. As soon as the civil war ends, I can see most of the jihadists like Al-Nusra moving on to Chechnya.

Originally posted by Master Han
Sure it does. Perhaps the argument could be made that it doesn't show enough humanitarian sentiment, but one can easily gauge from popular opinion that the United States is simply more socially conscious, in a positive manner, than Russia. Or China. And it sort of gets ridiculous when a supporter of either government comes around to ***** about America's comparatively petty deficiencies. Yes, America has supported or condoned its fair share of questionable allies and behavior, but at the moment you really can't compare it to Russia with a straight face. There's a difference between the inevitably imperfect adherence to moral principles, and simply having no moral principles whatsoever.



"one of" is quite the broad term, but it's certainly worse than any Western nation I can think of. It really does not. It's borderline moronic that Saudi government backs up US in its fight against Asad's regime when it's own make Asad Sr. look like spoiled brat. And US is perfectly fine with that because its an ally, unlike Syria who they concider a threat to Israel. It has nothing to do with "poor suffering people of Syria". I agree US is more socially conscious in general, it has to be considering its the only real superpower in the world. But when it comes to pursuing ones interest at best you could argue that it's decisions are slightly less fcuked up but that's as far as you could possible take it. There's no place for humanitarian concerns when it comes to politics and in this regard US is no different than anyone else and nothing in its history suggests otherwise. It's demonstrated similar sociopathy on many MANY occasions to the point that it becomes hypocritical when US politics speak about other countries not caring for the casualties.

It is a broad term, and Russian government pales in comparison to many. Is it comparable to western type democracy? Not really. Do people get oppressed on daily basis and lack basic freedoms? Also no. Youd have to try really really hard and personally piss off many powerful people in order to have your freedom taken away from you under some made up accusation. And that happens all over the world.

Originally posted by Supra
And why the fck don't we have a weapon to destroy those Chen weapons from the air....
The American military has pretty much every major weapon that has been developed around the clock. You don't get any more advanced that the US military-industrial complex.

The reason they don't is lack of interest, domestic economic problems, along with the fact that the US of A has already engaged in enough pointless wars in the last decade.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
The American military has pretty much every major weapon that has been developed around the clock. You don't get any more advanced that the US military-industrial complex.

The reason they don't is lack of interest, domestic economic problems, along with the fact that the US of A has already engaged in enough pointless wars in the last decade.

Pretty sad if you ask me..we could the power to create such a weapon yet the lack of interest ruins perfect opportunities like now to use such one to end this war with the swipe of our blade.

There's a difference between the repression in Saudi Arabia and in Syria. In Saudi Arabia, the Saudis are very open about their strict adherence to Sharia law, and make no attempt to disguise that it is an authoritarian state.

In Syria you had an apartheid state masquerading as an enlightened, soon-to-be-first-world nation, and once the oppressed Sunnis began to organize into a large protest movement the facade shattered. You might argue that Saudi Arabia is more oppressive and brutal (I don't really agree, but whatever), but I think the fact that Al-Assad went through such pains to hide the brutality and callousness of his regime to the rest of the world (and to his own people, many Alawites still don't seem to understand that Sunnis were/are second class citizens in Syria) makes Syria more insidious.

Originally posted by Supra
Pretty sad if you ask me..we could the power to create such a weapon yet the lack of interest ruins perfect opportunities like now to use such one to end this war with the swipe of our blade. So you want the American military to have weapons capable of swift, large scale destruction so vast that it cripples a nation's ability to engage in war immediately?


Those are called nuclear weapons, the U.S. already has those.

No, we need an orbital ion cannon.

"Rebel ships are coming in to our sector."

"Good. Our first catch of the day."

Originally posted by Supra
Pretty sad if you ask me..we could the power to create such a weapon yet the lack of interest ruins perfect opportunities like now to use such one to end this war with the swipe of our blade.
The US military already has quite a big arsenal and a rich variety of such weapons, and no, they aren't limited to simply being of the nuclear kind, Lucien.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
The US military already has quite a big arsenal and a rich variety of such weapons, and no, they aren't limited to simply being of the nuclear kind, Lucien. O rly?

^Yaa rly.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I went to a Walmart near Sunny Isles today...I think one of Sam's cousins was there. She was hot. peaches

(Seriously though, so many hot Russian girls in Sunny Isles Beach)

According to an American military analyst on NPR, the area where chemical weapons were used (at this point there's little argument about whether they were released or not) was a rebel stronghold just outside of Damascus. The rebels there were well dug in, to the point that regime artillery, tanks, and infantry were insufficient to dislodge them. Airpower had some success, but then the rebels received a shipment of Russian-made anti-aircraft weapons, probably from Croatia, and these were so successful that the regime abandoned air assaults on the area and tried using chemical weapons.

And again, we're not talking about a supergenius, we're talking about a glorified warlord with a war cabinet and general staff comprised of his dad's buddies (in a sense, an Arabic George W. Bush, only more ruthless and less funny). We're also talking about someone who needed Hezbollah's help to reverse the rebel momentum, and someone who's economy would have completely collapsed were it not for Iranian money. He's a desperate, incompetent leader who would have been toppled if not for foreign help. I don't think we necessarily need to ascribe sense and wisdom to him.

As for the notion of rebels using chemical weapons, that's A LOT harder to prove than the government using them. Occam's razor tells us that it's almost certainly the government that's responsible, unless you want to delve into conspiracy theories.

In the long run, Russia is hurting itself by backing Al-Assad. It may make friends with Iran and Hezbollah, but the longer the war goes on the more enemies it will make in the Sunni world. As soon as the civil war ends, I can see most of the jihadists like Al-Nusra moving on to Chechnya. Foreign help is the only reason this "opposition" even exists. I did mention I have a lot of friends all over Syria and internet still works there. Its not rebels fighting for freedom, not any more anyway. At this point it's a number of mercenary groups earning money and shooting in a direction they're pointed at. In a situation like this a chemical attack works in their advantage. Asad may not be a genius but choosing the one path that guarantees to make things a lot worse for him... There's just no way he didnt see it coming. IMO its worth to further investigate before bombing the crap outta the country, don't feel like making the obvious "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" analogy, it's being mentioned all the time any way.

Russia has only few allies left, it just can't afford to lose more. And my cousin works at Starbucks.

Think she'll put out?
Originally posted by SamZED
Foreign help is the only reason this "opposition" even exists. I did mention I have a lot of friends all over Syria and internet still works there. Its not rebels fighting for freedom, not any more anyway. At this point it's a number of mercenary groups earning money and shooting in a direction they're pointed at. In a situation like this a chemical attack works in their advantage. Asad may not be a genius but choosing the one path that guarantees to make things a lot worse for him... There's just no way he didnt see it coming. IMO its worth to further investigate before bombing the crap outta the country, don't feel like making the obvious "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" analogy, it's being mentioned all the time any way.

Russia has only few allies left, it just can't afford to lose more. And my cousin works at Starbucks.
Okay just stop. The whole "Syrian uprising is a foreign conspiracy" is beyond ridiculous. Is there foreign intervention for the rebels? Definitely. But to say that it began for any other reason other than the government's marginalization of the Sunni majority is nonsense. And did the wicked West and those awful Saudis force the Syrian Army to slaughter unarmed people at funerals for the unarmed protesters they'd slaughtered the day before? Let's not forget that the first large scale killing of Syrian soldiers was perpetrated by other Syrian soldiers while the murdered ones were attempting to defect because they refused to be complicit in any more massacres.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
"Rebel ships are coming in to our sector."

"Good. Our first catch of the day."

LMAO

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
The American military has pretty much every major weapon that has been developed around the clock. You don't get any more advanced that the US military-industrial complex.

The reason they don't is lack of interest, domestic economic problems, along with the fact that the US of A has already engaged in enough pointless wars in the last decade.

the only military option that America has, which doesn't directly risk American lives, is to use the navy for tomahawk missile strikes, or something similar. The fact that the Syrian military is basing most of its munitions in schools and mosques in some ways neutralizes that type of indirect action.

This isn't a conflict that superior technology is going to win, unless America wants a direct conflict with the Syrian military, which even Obama says they don't. There might be some obvious targets that the regime couldn't relocate easily, but they aren't going to neutralize chemical weapon stocks from afar. Obama just doesn't want to set a precedence for doing nothing in the face of chemical weapons, especially when he said that was a red line. If there were an easy option at this point, you can rest assured Obama would have taken it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Obama just doesn't want to set a precedence for doing nothing in the face of chemical weapons, especially when he said that was a red line. am i wrong for thinking this has as much to do with obama not appearing weak/making america appear weak after seemingly having been caught bluffing as it has to do with actually hoping to deter future chemical attacks?

Originally posted by red g jacks
am i wrong for thinking this has as much to do with obama not appearing weak/making america appear weak after seemingly having been caught bluffing as it has to do with actually hoping to deter future chemical attacks?

I'd agree with you entirely, and honestly, I don't know which is a greater motivator for Obama. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I personally see some value to upholding those laws, so I don't feel the need to be entirely cynical.

Certainly, I don't think the attack would serve any other national purpose for America aside from them looking strong/not backing down.

There have been a few reports discussing how "one does not simply bomb chemical weapons." They aren't conventional munitions, blowing them up doesn't neutralize them.

Originally posted by red g jacks
am i wrong for thinking this has as much to do with obama not appearing weak/making america appear weak after seemingly having been caught bluffing as it has to do with actually hoping to deter future chemical attacks? That's probably most of it. He doesn't want a legacy of backing down to and ignoring dictators. He nailed bin Laden, helped oust Gaddafi, and now he wants some credit for weakening Assad and looking tough on ne'er do wells. He may not have led two invasions, but even next to Bush, he's quite a militaristic president.

Originally posted by Oliver North
However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I personally see some value to upholding those laws, so I don't feel the need to be entirely cynical.
i can understand that. the thing about striking that worries me is a) a few strikes escalating into something more and b) possibly seeding future blowback.

i guess i'm just weary of the whole idea of intervening in other countries affairs in general and in that region in particular. i get that chemical weapons are bad though i do sort of think we are very selective in deciding when red lines have been crossed. we sat back while genocide went down in sudan, we let nukes proliferate in countries which aren't allowed to have them, and we aren't motivated to strike by thousands of innocent syrians slaughtered by conventional means.

i've heard that the ban of the use of chemical weapons is one of the few successful international norms... but since we're apparently so hit or miss at enforcing these norms i'm tempted to think that the success is incidental and not particularly dependent on our actions.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd agree with you entirely, and honestly, I don't know which is a greater motivator for Obama. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I personally see some value to upholding those laws, so I don't feel the need to be entirely cynical.

Certainly, I don't think the attack would serve any other national purpose for America aside from them looking strong/not backing down.
We'll call it Operation Face-Save

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Think she'll put out? No. Not unless you pay for a cup of coffee that is.

Never claimed it started as a foreign conspiracy, i know it didn't. That why I said "not any more" because that's exactly what is right now. Its Asad's forces vs mercenaries, rebels play a minor role at this point. Personally know families who joined the revolution, most of them say "fcuk it, not worth it" want it to stop and are more affraid of the mercanries than they are of Asad. Will go as far as say it would've been all over by now if it wasnt for mercenaries from Jordan, Turkey etc adding fuel to the fire.

I remember you saying the exact same things about Libya.

My hunch is that embedded into these so called Syrian rebels would ne the CIA or some hired guns like Blackwater, Haliburton types that are among those who died in the chemical attacks and that is why D.C. is so up in arms. Big whoop. All is fair in war and if we are arming rebels and helping them out, what is the difference between chemical attacks and bullets when the current regime is being protective of its turf?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i can understand that. the thing about striking that worries me is a) a few strikes escalating into something more and b) possibly seeding future blowback.

The problem with enforcing any law, be it international or not, is that it may escalate if the criminal resists, and you may get blowback from the people you are criminalizing. I can't say I've ever seen someone say we shouldn't arrest murderers because their gangs might fight back.

The issue is, do chemical weapons pose enough of an international threat to justify taking those risks, those risks will exist no matter what.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i guess i'm just weary of the whole idea of intervening in other countries affairs in general and in that region in particular. i get that chemical weapons are bad though i do sort of think we are very selective in deciding when red lines have been crossed. we sat back while genocide went down in sudan, we let nukes proliferate in countries which aren't allowed to have them, and we aren't motivated to strike by thousands of innocent syrians slaughtered by conventional means.

well, sure, but it isn't a humanitarian intervention. At some point, people decided that chemical weapons were a thing different from other weapons, and their use must be stopped.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i've heard that the ban of the use of chemical weapons is one of the few successful international norms... but since we're apparently so hit or miss at enforcing these norms i'm tempted to think that the success is incidental and not particularly dependent on our actions.

yes and no. I mean, Saddam used them in the Iran-Iraq war, the Israelis use white phosphorous, the USSR used them in Afghanistan, there are even accusations of the American military using napalm as recently as the first Gulf War.

I mean, yes, it is successful, there are no armies who have standard chemical units as part of their main combat forces, but that doesn't mean it isn't used. However, this lack of standardization of the weapons I can only attribute to the international ban. Why else wouldn't America have a standard chemical weapons unit? Sure, compared with modern artillery the argument can be made that they aren't the most effective, but there are still situations where chemical agents would be far more useful, yet the most powerful armies in the world refuse to use them as standard practice. I don't feel this is "coincidental" to them being banned, and I'd offer the example of depleted uranium to show this: not banned, has long term toxic effects, kills and disfigures generations of civilians, still in common use. The military isn't known to tie its own hands for moral reasons, as can be seen with the American refusal to join a ban on landmines or cluster bombs.

Originally posted by Sheldon
what is the difference between chemical attacks and bullets

srsly?

Originally posted by SamZED
No. Not unless you pay for a cup of coffee that is.

Never claimed it started as a foreign conspiracy, i know it didn't. That why I said "not any more" because that's exactly what is right now. Its Asad's forces vs mercenaries, rebels play a minor role at this point. Personally know families who joined the revolution, most of them say "fcuk it, not worth it" want it to stop and are more affraid of the mercanries than they are of Asad. Will go as far as say it would've been all over by now if it wasnt for mercenaries from Jordan, Turkey etc adding fuel to the fire.
The secular (or if you object to that term, non-jihadist) rebels do still play a major part in the uprising. That the jihadists are better equipped and more daring doesn't completely remove the FSA from existence and doesn't change the fact that the FSA has control or shares control with Jihadists over about a third of Syria, or if we're not counting uninhabited land, about half.

From what I've seen, jihadists spearhead the attacks and are often the deciding factor in many rebel victories, but the majority of the actual troops taking part in the fighting are from the FSA or affiliated groups. What complicates the matter is that a lot of non-jihadist rebels realize that Qatar and Saudi Arabia give priority to Salafists when giving out money and equipment, so you have entire brigades of secular or non-jihadist rebels who start waving black flags, growing their beards long, and making half-hearted promises to impose strict sharia. Similar things happened in China and Yugoslavia during WW2, where in both cases the non-Communist forces were actually shouldering the greatest burden, but through a combination of clever propaganda, ideological zeal, and (though I'm not drawing connection to the present situation) lots of support from Soviet Russia, the Communists came out looking more effective and got the lion's share of material support from the Allies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/rockets-in-syrian-attack-carried-large-payload-of-gas-experts-say.html?ref=middleeast



Very interesting. One of the experts seems to think that both the opposition and the government would be capable of this, while another says that such a feat would be "beyond the opposition in its wildest dreams."

I think the easiest group to rule out would be the Islamists, for the simple reason that if they had access to that much nerve gas and had the technical skill to load it onto rockets they'd already be engaged in a full on offensive against the government forces, Hezbollah, and (most likely) Israel. There's still the chance that this is a false flag perpetrated by the secular rebels, but for me that strains credibility.

I still stand by my position that this was Al-Assad testing the resolve of his international critics and seeing how much he could get away with when he thinks he's winning anyway.

Originally posted by Supra
And why the fck don't we have a weapon to destroy those Chen weapons from the air....

We don't....but France does. Ballistic missile equipped with a low yield ERW warhead.

They want this more than anyone, they have a large army, and they not only invented but have gone the further with ERW's than any other country. When France has a weapon so frightening in concept that the US, USSR, and China abandoned it in the middle of the Cold War, maybe France should swing its nuts around when the US may not particularly want to?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
We don't....but France does. Ballistic missile equipped with a low yield ERW warhead.

They want this more than anyone, they have a large army, and they not only invented but have gone the further with ERW's than any other country. When France has a weapon so frightening in concept that the US, USSR, and China abandoned it in the middle of the Cold War, maybe France should swing its nuts around when the US may not particularly want to? I got some French in me! In with the Irish and Sicilian.

BACK ON TOPIC: I agree wholeheartedly with the tact Eric errr Supra proposes. We eliminate his army's ability to function, and then rationally negotiate reasonable terms of surrender.

Did I say that? I mean, I kind of agree on some level, but I don't think I said that in this thread.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did I say that? I mean, I kind of agree on some level, but I don't think I said that in this thread. I meant Supra, not you.

But I'm glad you agree, too. I really don't see another option.

See, I don't know if I agree that it's America's responsibility. If there's going to be a full scale military intervention to force Al-Assad to the table, it would be better for Jordan and Turkey to do it, seeing as they have an actual direct interest in ending the war with Assad out of power in addition to humanitarian concerns.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
See, I don't know if I agree that it's America's responsibility. If there's going to be a full scale military intervention to force Al-Assad to the table, it would be better for Jordan and Turkey to do it, seeing as they have an actual direct interest in ending the war with Assad out of power in addition to humanitarian concerns. That makes sense as well. And France is more well-equipped than us, apparently. The real issue of the modern world is the lack of international collaboration, and national or even communitarian collaboration for that matter.

Reason being: Humans only act on the precipice. We will most likely only cooperate and change when we're forced to, when we've no options left. If we weren't the kinds of beings who put things off, we wouldn't have so much to catch up on.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The problem with enforcing any law, be it international or not, is that it may escalate if the criminal resists, and you may get blowback from the people you are criminalizing. I can't say I've ever seen someone say we shouldn't arrest murderers because their gangs might fight back.

The issue is, do chemical weapons pose enough of an international threat to justify taking those risks, those risks will exist no matter what.good point. i guess the answer for me would be dependent on the efficacy of our intervention in preventing future chemical attacks. if the efficacy is relatively high, maybe it's worth the risk. if it's simply a matter of principle which might not in the end be that effective, then i'd say not.
didn't they ultimately decide that based on humanitarian considerations? and didn't the world ultimately also decide those other things i listed are unacceptable and must be stopped? maybe i don't actually get why it's so different.
well to be honest i didn't mean to suggest that the lack of chemical weapons use wasn't based on the international ban. more that maybe it isn't dependent on us attacking regimes that break the norm. i mean the only example i can think of is saddam who we did eventually go after, though not for his use of chemical weapons.

Originally posted by Dolos
That makes sense as well. And France is more well-equipped than us, apparently.
Not at all.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not at all. I was referring to the counter air-strike capabilities of the French missile Darth Jello spoke of.

Of course the United States military is Numero Ono. If the issue here was more about delivering the most hurt than we win be default, but for certain things, like beefing the rebel's defenses, you need to install the best tech. Of course, now that I think about it, it's silly to waste time defending when the most efficient way to take Assad out is to just lay the smack down on his resources.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/04/what-each-of-the-allies-intelligence-says-about-the-syrian-chemical-attacks/

It is a good article in general, but I've highlighted a couple of points:

- It seems claims of rebels using chemical weapons were created by the American government as a way to delay or avoid military action
- America has 16 intelligence agencies?
- It appears the only argument left suggesting the Syrian military didn't use CW is to say "why would they?"

just to be "balanced", a ~30min interview with a reporter from McClatchy, Mark Seibel, who does his best to question each part of the government's story. It is 24 hours old, so I'm not sure how outdated it is (today is sept 5th), as a lot of this stuff moves quickly. He does a good job of casting doubt on the "facts" being presented, but in most cases, such as suggesting the rebels might have used the CW, he isn't presenting an alternative story, rather, just suggesting why the case from the American government isn't 100% absolute. Anyways, really good interview:

part 1
nqM8fzh1yfk

part 2
3usjusL-F8M

idk, my thoughts are, unless the American, British, Israeli and French governments are all bold face lying about their intelligence (which is something I would absolutely believe, though just think is less likely), it seems like the attack was part of (though clearly the largest of) many such CW strikes made by the Syrian forces, with or without Assad's explicit consent/orders. That there are inconsistencies in the stories or that the governments may be lying in order to garner support for their policy goals is both expected and unfortunate, however, unlike Iraq, I think there is some kernel of truth to the idea that Assad's forces are using WMDs, regardless of how that message is being put forth to the people of America/etc.

Actually, I think it is really unfortunate (I'll probably cover this more in a proper reply to red g) that the main arguments being made for intervention are still cloaked in the idea of humanitarianism rather than international law and order. Agree or disagree about intervention, I think it is much harder to be cynical about a politician saying "we are only intervening to end the CW attacks and have no other interests", rather than trying to explain why it is only now, after 100 000 deaths, we choose to do something, and hey, ignore all those other times we did nothing (Rwanda, Bahrain, Burma, Congo, etc, etc, etc). Calculated realpolitik has to resonate with some people, no?

BKrTrTaZ8N8

Also this...

I wont post any more, not trying to spam, just think there is a meaningful issue addressed in the video that might be germane for conversation.

Putin might be checking Obama

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Turkey, France, and the UK have more or less already signed on to join the US in a possible intervention.

Not one country has actually signed anything with the US including and most importantly UK..

UK said no.

Originally posted by Supra
Putin might be checking Obama

Putin is a dictator. Why did he win the election 1 year ago?? I think it was longer than that though.

He was in the secret police (KGB) in East Germany and he had a good start of his dictatorship

Originally posted by Supra
Not one country has actually signed anything with the US including and most importantly UK..

UK said no.
Check when I said that, I said that before the parliamentary vote, (before that point, it seemed fairly likely given historical precedent that the UK was going to pitch its lot with America) also note that there's a difference between "sign on" and "signed an agreement"

This is why you shouldn't answer week old posts as if they're new, especially on a current events topic.

Obamagolfcounter.com

When I find things out like this I want to punch things.

Originally posted by Supra
Obamagolfcounter.com

When I find things out like this I want to punch things. Obama's just rehearsing for his role in the new Tiger Woods film.

Though I do like how many times he "will not rest". He must be so f*cking sleepy by now.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Obama's just rehearsing for his role in the new Tiger Woods film.

Though I do like how many times he "will not rest". He must be so f*cking sleepy by now. Sounds like me. I don't get a lot of sleep because of my condition, I only get homework done in hyperactive mode throughout night. Don't know why, darkness and cool air stimulate me.

Is that condition insomnia?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Is that condition insomnia? Only when there's something I have to get done.

Call it nighttime motivation. I'm also more responsive and athletically capable when I'm starving. Weird, right?

Wouldn't starving prompt the brain to make you more responsive and capable? You know to like, get food.

Are you mistaking "pulling an all nighter" for "insomnia", Dolos?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you mistaking "pulling an all nighter" for "insomnia", Dolos?

Technically if you have Insomnia aren't you always pulling "all nighters"?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Technically if you have Insomnia aren't you always pulling "all nighters"?

I'll let this stand, cause it's funny-ish enough.

must... resist... pedantic... urges...