War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Most of that shit if it isn't stored correctly degrades pretty rapidly. Years of sanctions pretty well lead to conditions where that shit wasn't able to be stored correctly. Hussein abandoned or used up most of his viable chemical stock on his own citizens and the rest went to rot, effectively. The dumb ass probably buried them in a desert in the mid 90s to hide them from the UN and Clinton and forgot where they were buried.
added:
That or he sold them to someone else like China a decade and a half ago or more.
added:
That or he sold them to someone else like China a decade and a half ago or more.
Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,135
- 3,831
I think any military action taken by the U.S. without a clear indication from the U.N. that the Syrian government actually used chemical weapons would be a huge misstep. Russia is already leaving not so vague indications that U.S. involvement, without UN approval, is not going to work in anyone's interest.
I mean I understand why there is pressure to get involved in Syria. The defense contract gravy train from the last decade has almost made it's last stop. So we need a new theater like, yesterday.
However, simply making a red line statement about the use of chemical weapons, is essentially telling anyone out there that wants international intervention, "hey use some chemical weapons and we'll be sure to show up." I mean this gives the rebels a clear motive for using the weapons. The Syrian government would have to be batshit insane (which I think they are) to use them. So actually it's still a possibility either side could have employed them. Or even more out there, a third party that wishes for international involvement orchestrated the attack using local agents.
Anyways, the fact that the UN inspectors came under fire recently on their way to the site by unknown snipers indicates maybe someone is worried about what they might find. Although, they were being escorted by Syrian government forces while traveling in rebel controlled territory, so it could have just been another Monday.
I mean I understand why there is pressure to get involved in Syria. The defense contract gravy train from the last decade has almost made it's last stop. So we need a new theater like, yesterday.
However, simply making a red line statement about the use of chemical weapons, is essentially telling anyone out there that wants international intervention, "hey use some chemical weapons and we'll be sure to show up." I mean this gives the rebels a clear motive for using the weapons. The Syrian government would have to be batshit insane (which I think they are) to use them. So actually it's still a possibility either side could have employed them. Or even more out there, a third party that wishes for international involvement orchestrated the attack using local agents.
Anyways, the fact that the UN inspectors came under fire recently on their way to the site by unknown snipers indicates maybe someone is worried about what they might find. Although, they were being escorted by Syrian government forces while traveling in rebel controlled territory, so it could have just been another Monday.
Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,135
- 3,831
Because this did not start as an armed uprising. This started as a series of protests. The Syrian government's response? Start killing civilians. It took quite a while before a unified armed resistance evolved out of that. Slaughtering your own people is not something a sane administration engages in.
I think the rebels have a more obvious motive for using chemical weapons given the clear cut instructions about what would result if such weapons were utilized. However, the Syrian government has proven that they are not a rational entity when it comes to the use of force.
I think the rebels have a more obvious motive for using chemical weapons given the clear cut instructions about what would result if such weapons were utilized. However, the Syrian government has proven that they are not a rational entity when it comes to the use of force.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
Oh, I don't know. I can see plenty of sane reasons to slaughter your own people. Especially if they're protesting against you.
Despotic, Oppressive, Sadistic, Cruel, Draconian, Authoritarian... lots of rational words to describe that action. In retrospect, not thebestplan... but when they shot the students in tianamen we didn't say those red leaders were insane or irrational. It is rational after a fashion. It's just wrong.
Life is cheap, the life of your enemy is even cheaper I guess.
Despotic, Oppressive, Sadistic, Cruel, Draconian, Authoritarian... lots of rational words to describe that action. In retrospect, not thebestplan... but when they shot the students in tianamen we didn't say those red leaders were insane or irrational. It is rational after a fashion. It's just wrong.
Life is cheap, the life of your enemy is even cheaper I guess.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 81,792
- 163,566
Who's going to save those very same children from the American missiles and drones that have been launched at them for the past 12 years? You can't tug at my heart strings by pointing out how awful Assad is when I know that we killed and crippled more kids in last 10 years than he ever has. It's not even a fucking contest.
Sure it did. It stood idly by as jews and slavs were being slaughtered in the camps, or when Rwandan genocide claimed over a million of lives in 1994, or when Darfur conflict claimed tens of thousands of lives, and occasionally we we even orchestrated our very own atrocities: Trail of Tears, Native American genocide, etc. As a matter of fact, it seems that all we do is stand around. When we do get involved somewhere it's usually a place that wouldnt even place in the current top 20 of humanitarian crimes being committed because we are there to make a buck or keep our competitor from making one.
yup.
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,953
- 21,186
For those who are interested/care, unlike Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria does actually have a large stockpile of chemical (and possibly biological) WMDs. So the media/politicians aren't lying about that. But I would be willing to bet a good deal of money that Assad has not used them, and the weapons that have been used are rebel weapons for the reason I posted earlier. However, Assad has clearly stated that if his country is attacked from the outside he will retaliate with all that he has, and while I am strongly against WMDs in any shape and form, I do fear that he may use them, especially against Israel - if he is about to lose. In doing so Israel will most certainly retaliate with their own WMDs - i.e. nukes. So just with this in mind this could all go very badly for a large group of innocent civilians.
What is more worrying are the latest reports that it's not just the West who are sending ships and planes and godknowswhat to the Eastern Med, but the Russians too. Now, maybe this will be like the Cuba crisis where the two sides just show their muscles but nothing happens (hopefully), but what if Putin is serious about Syria being his "red line in the sand" and actively engages Western targets flying into Syria? How will the West respond to that? This potential war is far, FAR different than past wars such as Libya, Iraq, hell even Vietnam. We're talking about a hot war with Russia, and from all I have read, China is in on this too (you may laugh at China's military power but what happens if they dump their trillions of US Treasury toilet paper all at the same time, eh?).
The chances are very good that this coming war is not going to be a News at 6 Shock and Awe comfy TV war.
Fuck do I hope I'm wrong, but of late I've been right too often
What is more worrying are the latest reports that it's not just the West who are sending ships and planes and godknowswhat to the Eastern Med, but the Russians too. Now, maybe this will be like the Cuba crisis where the two sides just show their muscles but nothing happens (hopefully), but what if Putin is serious about Syria being his "red line in the sand" and actively engages Western targets flying into Syria? How will the West respond to that? This potential war is far, FAR different than past wars such as Libya, Iraq, hell even Vietnam. We're talking about a hot war with Russia, and from all I have read, China is in on this too (you may laugh at China's military power but what happens if they dump their trillions of US Treasury toilet paper all at the same time, eh?).
The chances are very good that this coming war is not going to be a News at 6 Shock and Awe comfy TV war.
Fuck do I hope I'm wrong, but of late I've been right too often
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 81,792
- 163,566
Eh, same shit happened in late 90s in the Balkans. Matter of fact, Russians and NATO almost got into a firefight in Pristina.
There will be some dick waving, but in the end Assad will probably be replaced for US/NATO to save face and replaced with another puppet that is agreeable to Putin for Russia to save face.
There will be some dick waving, but in the end Assad will probably be replaced for US/NATO to save face and replaced with another puppet that is agreeable to Putin for Russia to save face.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 81,792
- 163,566
That was PNAC crap. While it was accurate for its time, i doubt that policy is still being carried out by a different administration 12 years later.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,074
- 139,004
I dunno i'm starting to hear this phrase more when I watch political shows across the spectrum of viewpoints some variant of "and even though obama has carried out most of the same foreign policy decisions as bush."
I honestly think obama is sometimes partly a bystander to events around him, he is one person, history often debates whether individuals change history or if they are a consequence of the trends and forces around them. Alexander could never conquer the Persians if Phillip of Macedon did not construct a large war machine and draw up the plans shortly before being assassinated, there is a chain of events that leads up to you and what choices you can make in life.
I honestly think obama is sometimes partly a bystander to events around him, he is one person, history often debates whether individuals change history or if they are a consequence of the trends and forces around them. Alexander could never conquer the Persians if Phillip of Macedon did not construct a large war machine and draw up the plans shortly before being assassinated, there is a chain of events that leads up to you and what choices you can make in life.
It is really disgusting to see how eager the warmongers in the US are to stomp on yet another sovereign nation that poses NO THREAT to the homeland.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 48,066
- 83,049
Yeah fuck that 'following bush' thinking. Bush was out of office for this entire Arab spring. It's a unique circumstance and Pres. Obama is fully responsible for the choices he makes. He can choose to push to go to Syria or he can choose to hang back. If he chooses to go into Syria and things end up significantly worse than Libya it'd be the biggest mistake he's made. If he chooses to stay out of it it'd be a good choice and would set a precedent for non-involvement of shitty situations we shouldn't be involved in.
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,953
- 21,186
Whoever is president of the US, or prime minister of the UK, or president of France at any given time has become largely irrelevant. Obama came in on a wave of "change", yet he kept most of the same financial "advisers" (read: bank lobbyists) that Bush had. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has also kept up the meddling in the Middle East, though the flavour (read: Muslim Brotherhood) may have changed, even if the method hasn't. Same can be said for the UK, doesn't matter if it is Labour Party Tony Blair and Iraq or Conservative David Cameron and Libya/Syria, or right wing Sarkozy or left wing Hollande. "Change" was the name of the campaign, but as is said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
We here in the West have long since given up on democracy. Sure, our democratically elected leaders can change small stuff, focus on this that or the other, but when it comes to big things, in all these countries we've seen supposedly majour shifts in policy. But have the powers of the bankers been curtailed? Have any been arrested? Have they stopped their warmongering? Or their assaults on our liberties, both in real life and on-line? The spying?
Back when the USSR fell, and with it the "Evil empire" that worked as a benchmark in tyranny that the West could focus on then I started to wonder. If we lose that yardstick with which to compare our nations to "evil" ones, how will we know if we start to slide towards such tyranny ourselves? For a long time now I have feared that we have gone far, far down a road that would have been impossible had we still had such a benchmark with which to compare ourselves. And honestly, I do not see a way to backtrack anymore.
We here in the West have long since given up on democracy. Sure, our democratically elected leaders can change small stuff, focus on this that or the other, but when it comes to big things, in all these countries we've seen supposedly majour shifts in policy. But have the powers of the bankers been curtailed? Have any been arrested? Have they stopped their warmongering? Or their assaults on our liberties, both in real life and on-line? The spying?
Back when the USSR fell, and with it the "Evil empire" that worked as a benchmark in tyranny that the West could focus on then I started to wonder. If we lose that yardstick with which to compare our nations to "evil" ones, how will we know if we start to slide towards such tyranny ourselves? For a long time now I have feared that we have gone far, far down a road that would have been impossible had we still had such a benchmark with which to compare ourselves. And honestly, I do not see a way to backtrack anymore.
- 17,781
- 25,897
Braveheart already told us the answer to the whole 'boots on the ground' thing, imho:
-Beg your pardon sir, but won't we hit our own troops?
-Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. Arrows cost money. The dead cost nothing. Attack.
-Beg your pardon sir, but won't we hit our own troops?
-Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. Arrows cost money. The dead cost nothing. Attack.