Originally posted by Supra
And why the fck don't we have a weapon to destroy those Chen weapons from the air....
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 SupraSo 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?
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.
Those are called nuclear weapons, the U.S. already has those.
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.
Originally posted by Omega VisionForeign 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.
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.
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. 😛
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 Northam 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?
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.
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 jacksThat'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.
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 Oliver Northi 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.
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 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.
Originally posted by Omega VisionNo. Not unless you pay for a cup of coffee that is.
Think she'll put out?
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.
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.