|
7of7 posted:I'm curious what the west's ultimate goal in Syria is. If it's truly to minimize civilian casualties or contribute to regional stability why would they be making Assad's ouster their primary focus? Is anyone considering that Assad staying in power and the rebels being crushed would result in fewer civilian casualties and greater stability in the long run than the alternatives? What are the alternatives? Assad hates Israel just like his father. Assad also is Russia ally. The western goal in the Middle East have always been to curb the power of Middle East warlords to stop fanatics, to ensure the well-being of the sole reliable western ally in the region that have similar interests and goals and lastly, to ensure stability for oil-related interests. To put it simply, despite how the media show the western concern in Syria, there's simply no interest nor benefits in western (a.k.a. NATO) forces to intervene. Rather, it is actually beneficial to the western interest that Syria civil war turn into a full-blown sectarian war. They (western forces) lose nothing and ensure most of the Middle East terrorist resources and attention are spend on the Syrian front, giving room for Israel and other western interests there to maneuver. To clarify, full-scale Sunni vs Shiite muslims war is a good thing in NATO eyes. This shows just how weak Turkey position is in the alliance. Therefore, resolution of the Syria issue should not be expected from the NATO forces. There is simply no benefit for them.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Randarkman posted:How about Turkey? NATO and not Arab League though, but I think Turkey has built up some credibility in the Middle East in past few years, mostly in the interest of securing markets for Turkish business. Not that I think Turkey would actually do it. I mean I can't see any reason why anyone would actually want to do it. The Turks going into Syria runs the risk of splintering the opposition into Kurdish and Arab factions more so than has already occurred. I know the Turks have been trying to make some progress towards solving their Kurdish problem in the last few months, but I don't think those efforts would overcome the very deep-seated suspicion that most Syrian Kurds hold towards Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
7of7 posted:I'm not saying that I think Assad winning and then subsequently oppressing all those he believes to be responsible would be a good outcome, but compared to the other options it seems to be one worth considering if you are actually concerned with Syrian civilians and regional stability. If the Assad ends up regaining full control of the country and crushing all hints of unrest, an outcome I find highly unlikely, then the civillian casualities are going to be massive. This conflict has been going on for so long and has become so heated there's on chance that the areas with strong rebel ties are ever just going to give up. Assad is going to have to purge significant portions of the population in any kind of stable scenario. It'll be a sectarian slaughter, just with Allawites and other minorities on the giving end instead of the recieving end. Maybe it would end up being less lethal then a prolonged sectarian conflict, but so many people would die it's a solution as distasteful as any of the others. All with the added benefit of having a country remain in the grasp of a brutal, murdering dictator. Sethmaster posted:To put it simply, despite how the media show the western concern in Syria, there's simply no interest nor benefits in western (a.k.a. NATO) forces to intervene. This is really misguided. Western politicians and military commands might see the cost of stablizing Syria as too high, but none of the rational people in power want it unstable. Terrorism and violent instability aren't a finite resources that some kind of unified foe to the West has to spread out and can be baited into applying in one area. It's by its own nature very fluid and organic and unstable countries are just breeding grounds for people made desperate enough by circumstance to engage in that kind of activity. A destablized Syria would give us more violent radical elements to deal with in the world, not less. Look at Pakistan, Yemen and Somolia. All destablized to one degree or another by violent struggles in their country and coincidentally enough all exporters of terror, not terror sinks. That's why America has backed dictators and continues to back them. It's one of the reasons we were in Afghanistan and Iraq far past the point anyone wanted to be there. American policy makers will do distasteful, horrid poo poo to maintain globabl stability, but almost never do they look to create instability. The few times they've had it was back in the Cold War when they wanted anyone but the communists and it always bit them in the rear end, specifically because unstable situations are no win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
cafel posted:
Do note that I did not imply anywhere that the western powers have any hand in destabilizing the conflict even further. However, if the situation destabilizes further, what I mean is that they won't be interfere much about the situation. While I note your reasoning, understand all violent radical elements need targets and aside from Syria, as you said, there are plenty of these groups from Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, besides all other nations. Despite the media focus, much of these groups primary target are NOT the western people, but factions in their own country and neighbors. Which is why attacks in other part of the world happens daily while terrorism happen once in a blue moon in the first world. Just because the mainstream newspaper doesn't show it does not imply it did not happen. Try to tabulate the amount of terrorism suffered, let's say by the philipines, and compared it by the amount suffered by the USA in just the past year and you can see the difference. To put it simply, there are already plenty of violent ideological people who need targets and require people willing to fund them. Having a convenient one that is not them, do not count on the western powers to resolve Syria mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Does anyone know if coalition forces actually bombed known chemical weapons sites in Iraq during the Gulf War? I'm talking places that had fully ready to use WMDs, or at the very least the binary agents (if Iraq used binary agents, I don't know) The reason I ask is because a while back on this forum I asked if it would be feasible for the US or NATO to just bomb the chemical weapons sites in Syria. The general consensus was that it would risk spreading the chemical weapons around and inadvertently killing a lot of civilians. But if the US has had experience in bombing chemical weapons sites in the past (like in the Gulf War) then we must know how to do it correctly or the proper munitions to use to prevent a chemical plume from getting out. Also, if Syrias chemical weapons are stored in a binary form, wouldn't that negate the risk as they would need to be mixed together first to be deadly? In my opinion, a bombing campaign limited to just the WMD sites would make the most sense for Obama. Arming the FSA is risky, as most likely that means arming some Al Quaeda elements. A no fly zone has a host of problems, from being somewhat pointless (artillery doesn't fly and can still fire shells loaded with chemicals) to potential mission creep. A "safe zone" like Mccain has been advocating basically means a small scale invasion with ground troops. There's no way that's happening. But destroying the WMDs from the air might just be the most logical solution. It would keep the weapons out of the hands of not only the Assad regime, but also prevent them from being possibly transferred to Hezbollah or captured by the more nefarious elements of the rebels like the Al Nusa Front. It would not be without risk though. The sites might be numerous and spread out, or just not known by the intel community. And of course, the aforementioned risk of creating a deadly chemical plume after a bombing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
The problem is that winning the war for the rebels doesn't do anything about the nature of the rebels themselves. They're still riven with political divisions, the SNC is near collapse, the secular units are weak and in no position to assert themselves, the most powerful units are islamist or outright jihadist, not to mention in the case of Al Nusra, openly Al Qaeda. And there is genuine (understandable though obviously not condonable) hatred against the Alawites if Assad goes. If you break it you own it - if Obama bombs Assad and the aftermath is a sectarian bloodbath with massive ethnic cleansing and islamist forces coming out on top (the muslim brotherhood is by far the strongest 'regular' political force in the Syrian opposition) and entrenched jihadist groups using Syria as a base to attack Lebanon/Jordan/Israel etc then, well, America owns that mess. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
CBRNe World has a good piece on the chemical weapon video from The Times, quote:A further video has come out this week(see below) with foaming mouthed victims, which increasingly hysterical commentators have pointed their shaking fingers towards, wiping their own spittle flecked mouths, as evidence that something is being used by someone against someone in Syria. At best they are adding nothing to the investigation, at worst they are endangering people. They aren't very impressed by the coverage to say the least. Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News also posted some questions he'd like answered on the chemical weapons claims that's worth a read too. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Does anyone know if coalition forces actually bombed known chemical weapons sites in Iraq during the Gulf War? I'm talking places that had fully ready to use WMDs, or at the very least the binary agents (if Iraq used binary agents, I don't know) Iraqi chemical weapons depots were systematically destroyed after the conclusion of the Gulf War by UN weapons inspectors, in cooperation with Iraq. There just isn't a way of bombing sites and guaranteeing the result. Beyond the obvious concerns for a release of poisonous gases, there are also security concerns at play; by destroying the site's defenses, third-parties would have uncontrolled access to the remnants of the bombing. But in a more unstable situation such as Syria, the policy might change - such as if chemical weapons were actively being used or transferred into the hands of terrorists - and the West could become more tolerant of the inherent risks of such an operation. If securing the sites with parachute infantry was not viable, then heavy and repeated bombing of the depot by high-heat weapons (and patrolling the areas with UAVs) would likely be the prefered method. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_09/Cleminson_09
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
mediadave posted:The problem is that winning the war for the rebels doesn't do anything about the nature of the rebels themselves. They're still riven with political divisions, the SNC is near collapse, the secular units are weak and in no position to assert themselves, the most powerful units are islamist or outright jihadist, not to mention in the case of Al Nusra, openly Al Qaeda. And there is genuine (understandable though obviously not condonable) hatred against the Alawites if Assad goes. If you break it you own it - if Obama bombs Assad and the aftermath is a sectarian bloodbath with massive ethnic cleansing and islamist forces coming out on top (the muslim brotherhood is by far the strongest 'regular' political force in the Syrian opposition) and entrenched jihadist groups using Syria as a base to attack Lebanon/Jordan/Israel etc then, well, America owns that mess. Sorry. Actually, the most likely target for jihadist groups after the fall of Assad is to move onto Iraq and try to overthrow Malaki's government. edit: Also, with regards to destroying Syria's chemical weapons via merely a bombing campaign: In addition to the aforementioned difficulties with destroying chemical munitions from the air, you also have to hope that you have near flawless intelligence in order to pull of such a campaign. Given the muddled results of past intelligence efforts in the Middle East, that's asking a hell of a lot. New Division fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
New Division posted:Actually, the most likely target for jihadist groups after the fall of Assad is to move onto Iraq and try to overthrow Malaki's government. That would be quite an irony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Using paratroopers to secure the chemical weapon sites sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. How would that even work? Are they supposed to parachute in, neutralize whoever is guarding it, secure the site and then what? Remove the WMDs and get them out of the country? What if there is literally tons of agents to remove? Syria is thought to have WMDS in those amounts so I don't see it being an easy task to get them out of the country. All the while in an extremely hostile enviroment. I just don't see how the paratrooper option would work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Using paratroopers to secure the chemical weapon sites sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. How would that even work? Are they supposed to parachute in, neutralize whoever is guarding it, secure the site and then what? Remove the WMDs and get them out of the country? What if there is literally tons of agents to remove? Syria is thought to have WMDS in those amounts so I don't see it being an easy task to get them out of the country. All the while in an extremely hostile enviroment. I just don't see how the paratrooper option would work. Using paratroopers would be the first step in a localized ground invasion. It would take months to destroy the depots (chemical weapons are destroyed on site, as they are too dangerous to move), so it would essentially require NATO forces to take over the area, seize or build an airstrip, and then fly in the technicians. It'd be doable if it's a small depot, or one that is in a remote area or in friendly but unsecured territory. Obviously this is an option with limited applicability, but one that could be preferable to poisoning a rebel-held city, or any number of alternative scenarios. Attacking a chemical stockpile makes us responsible for the outcome, so every possible action would need to be considered. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
The above would be a comically bad idea. Was referring to the paratroopers two posts up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
I doubt we'll see boots on the ground - but some will be loudly calling for a 'no fly zone' (aggressive air superiority) as in Libya - it could be done with drones and be some NATO/Israel mix. It would be a big 'gently caress off' to Iran, but Russia strongly opposes that kind of operation so close to their borders - with concerns that one day NATO could side with Chechens or some other separatist group (and China secondarily because of Tibet/Uighurs). It's a very unstable situation that is bringing the diplomacy of all the major countries into tension. An interesting history of how the Cold War affected Syria and the Middle East - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/the_baby_and_the_baath_water
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
How about a 'tit-for-tat' chemical weapon retaliation? Assad gasses civilians we use chemical weapons on army bases and government fortresses. Its like giving chemical weapons to the rebels without actually giving chemical weapons to the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:How about a 'tit-for-tat' chemical weapon retaliation? Assad gasses civilians we use chemical weapons on army bases and government fortresses. Its like giving chemical weapons to the rebels without actually giving chemical weapons to the rebels. I guess, under this idea, the US (or other forces allied with the rebels) would gas cities in retaliation for the Syrian government gassing cities? I can see absolutely no way that could turn into a second tragic massacre. Even if that wasn't a problem, the Chemical Weapons Convention, which the US has ratified, bans the use of all chemical weapons. There is no "it's OK in retaliation" clause. And even if that weren't the case, most of the US chemical weapons stockpile has been destroyed, and what's left is on old munitions and stockpiles that couldn't easily be used any more. And even if that wasn't an issue, chemical weapons are basically an annoyance to a modern military. Nerve gas would be horrifyingly deadly to civilians and lightly equipped rebels. To soldiers who have gas masks, protective gear, and training, it just means that they have to spend a lot of time in incredibly uncomfortable clothes, following lengthy decontamination procedures. So, no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Many of the targets you just described are in urban areas, and poisonous gases have notoriously poor IFF systems. And I can't imagine it'd go over very well with basically any other country, ally or not. Edit: Also what Space Gopher said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:How about a 'tit-for-tat' chemical weapon retaliation? Assad gasses civilians we use chemical weapons on army bases and government fortresses. Its like giving chemical weapons to the rebels without actually giving chemical weapons to the rebels. Maybe bomb them with conventional weaponry at best because this proposition is kind of a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:How about a 'tit-for-tat' chemical weapon retaliation? Assad gasses civilians we use chemical weapons on army bases and government fortresses. Its like giving chemical weapons to the rebels without actually giving chemical weapons to the rebels. Well I'm convinced you guys, let's break out the VX gas!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
I'm struggling to find a scenario in which the chemical weapons can stay secure/not be used further (if they have been used). I would think, unless the regime is entirely stupid, that such weapons have been spread out widely, even to the point of having some pretty much ready to mix and launch (maybe even keep a very small amount mixed and ready, taking the small hit to supplies when they expire). To hit them all reliably is going to be damned near impossible- the massive coalition prepared to invade Iraq in the first gulf war had serious issues hunting a few mobile scud launchers despite massive resources (special forces, airstrikes at will) in place. I have been thinking about the main options- Invasion by parachute troops/special forces. They would need the locations of every single depot/launch site and be able to take them quick enough to stop launches, in a co-ordinated attack on what is probably at least several dozen sites. Lots of troops required, and given that the attacks would need to achieve objectives very quickly (not to mention the chemical sites probably having reasonable defences) risk of casualties is high. The wrong building gets blown up, and you potentially contaminated/killed a lot of troops/civilians. Everything would have to go near-perfectly, with perfect intelligence and there are a lot of unknowns. Airstrikes. Again, you would need to know about every site, and hit them all pretty much simultaneously to avoid other sites being pre-warned and either raising defences or launching before they are destroyed. You would also need to hit dozens of site very heavily with high heat weapons, requiring a LOT of aircraft. As mentioned, Syria has some half decent mobile SAM systems which are probably going to manage to hit at least a few incoming craft. Again, everything would have to go near-perfectly, with perfect intelligence and there are a lot of unknowns. Arm the FSA (even more). Well, they have already been known to sell their weapons to fundamentalist groups, and they aren't really centralised themselves to begin with, so your advanced weapons (like portable SAM's) are going to end up in the hands of extremist groups with a hard-on for hitting western targets (hell, they probably already are). Even with a bunch of weaponry, they are going to need training to use it effectively, and the war will still probably drag on for a long time. Then, as the bases of the regime get over-run, you have to hope that reliable rebels seize all the depots/launch sites in pretty much same manner that your parachute troops/special forces would have to. Fundie groups seize those weapons, they are probably going to point them at Israel or sell them to other groups and a truck load of poo poo hits an industrial sized fan. No-Fly zone. Does pretty much gently caress all in terms of stopping chemical weapons use, unless you are flying around hitting anything that looks remotely capable of launching weapons, in which case you are doing airstrikes and run the associated risks. May shorten the ground campaign (meaning you run many of the same risks as arming the FSA), and it also puts aircraft at risk. Do gently caress all. Either the rebels win, in which case you run many of the same risks as arming the FSA more, or the regime kills a fuckload of people in order to win, and keeps their chemical weapons, only now they have even more of a paranoia about other states trying to gently caress them over and are far more twitchy about using the only weapon that other countries fear. I think the reason the west is doing comparatively little compared with Libya is that there is no winning solution, there isn't even really a workable or desirable option with a hope of success. The red line will probably mean nothing but harsh words and sanctions. DesperateDan fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:How about a 'tit-for-tat' chemical weapon retaliation? Assad gasses civilians we use chemical weapons on army bases and government fortresses. Its like giving chemical weapons to the rebels without actually giving chemical weapons to the rebels. The army has better anti-chemical warfare equipment than rebels so it wouldn't be true tit-for-tat. Eg. BMP-1 and T-55 may be ancient vehicles but they were designed for usability in the worst case scenario, so the crew compartments are overpressured and the air is filtered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
I dunno. If I were Obama, I'd rope-a-dope. Appear to do nothing. This will make the Republicans howl like mad. Then do something exceptionally effective. Say, giving the rebels weapons that can't be scattered about. Why? Because they're attached to _very large vehicles_. I'm not saying Obama _can_ give 'em Abrams, but something of that level of 'okay, we're committing to you people, and now you can just run the hell over the opposition'. This is blue sky thinking, of course, but the Republicans are starting to howl about the poor Syrians. As opposed to when they were howling about when we helped Libya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Yes, that will look good on Obama, seeing Bradleys being used by Al Nusra.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I dunno. If I were Obama, I'd rope-a-dope. Appear to do nothing. This will make the Republicans howl like mad. Then do something exceptionally effective. Say, giving the rebels weapons that can't be scattered about. Why? Because they're attached to _very large vehicles_. You're talking about people who routinely remove heavy weapons from vehicles and mount them on Hiluxes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I dunno. If I were Obama, I'd rope-a-dope. Appear to do nothing. This will make the Republicans howl like mad. Then do something exceptionally effective. Say, giving the rebels weapons that can't be scattered about. Why? Because they're attached to _very large vehicles_. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Mans posted:Yes, that will look good on Obama, seeing Bradleys being used by Al Nusra. Not only that, the heavy hitters all have a hilariously large logistics footprint. You'll have to constantly resupply them as well as move logistics assets with them, since I doubt the FSA has a bunch of people who know a lot about western weapon systems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Not only that, the heavy hitters all have a hilariously large logistics footprint. We have a hard enough time getting spare parts - I can't imagine what it'd be like there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
The Romney/Ryan Position: Assad is killing his own people with Russian weapons. We have to arm the opposition heavily and now. Obama/Biden: We have disagreements with Russia over Syria. Assad needs to go. One was 100% for war at the drop of a hat, the other risks looking like a paper tiger if things go beyond a certain point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Ashmole posted:We have a hard enough time getting spare parts - I can't imagine what it'd be like there. That was kind of the point, actually. Same with the logistics thing. That's why I was saying they'd be essentially useless to the Jihadi sorts. Approved and resupplied personnel only. (Trust me, you're not cranking the main gun out of an Abrams and attaching it to a Hilux.) I am _not_ saying it would be wise to do this. I'm saying that's the kind of thing I'd expect. Except possibly more clever and effective. Our boys in the military have known this might be coming for a while, _someone_'s got to have been tasked with a plan. I hope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:That was kind of the point, actually. Same with the logistics thing. That's why I was saying they'd be essentially useless to the Jihadi sorts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:(Trust me, you're not cranking the main gun out of an Abrams and attaching it to a Hilux.) No, but you might crank the CROWS station off one and put it on a Hilux when you no longer have the imported ammunition to use the main gun or fuel to run the engine, which doesn't exactly obviate proliferation concerns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:No, but you might crank the CROWS station off one and put it on a Hilux when you no longer have the imported ammunition to use the main gun or fuel to run the engine, which doesn't exactly obviate proliferation concerns. Nobody is going to give anything to the rebels that would be worth selling, because they'd sell it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Good point, good point. As I said, the idea wasn't the 'right answer', but I was trying to describe the shape of what could be a 'right answer'. Well, we'll see. I'm hoping the pro-Syria republicans get nice and loud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Wow, this thread really took a turn towards weird hypotheticals and  .Brown Moses posted:They aren't very impressed by the coverage to say the least. Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News also posted some questions he'd like answered on the chemical weapons claims that's worth a read too. Most of these questions are worth asking, but Alex Thomson sounds insufferable. Even if there was no chemical attack, there's still somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k dead as a result of this conflict. It's not like intervention is completely unjustifiable if chemical weapons attacks didn't happen, and is justifiable if there was. If you're going to write an article about an alleged "war crime" in Syria, keep it in context with the fact that you can find verifiable instances of 20 others before lunch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Wow, this thread really took a turn towards weird hypotheticals and I dunno, I disagree. If you're going to get involved in someone else's war where there are no realistically good forseeable outcomes, you drat better be sure you're not being led up the garden path.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
mediadave posted:I dunno, I disagree. If you're going to get involved in someone else's war where there are no realistically good forseeable outcomes, you drat better be sure you're not being led up the garden path. The posters point was whether or not the chemical weapon attacks happened doesn't matter because Assad was already committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civillians and vital infrastructure and mercy related places like hospitals, all of which go against the international treaties that say 'No chemical weapons' and we have hours and hours of footage with indisputable proof of that. Debating about whether chemical weapons were actually used with a lot of skepticism and scrutiny is being pendantic when we know for a fact worse war crimes are occuring on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
IMO there hasn't been enough push for a negotiated settlement. For all their bluster the regime must be willing to go for a face-saving settlement, certainly their Russian backers would go for that if their interests were met. They could push Assad to the table, and the West could push what remains of the SNC to the table. So have a highly chaperoned process where the boundaries are largely set beforehand. Guarantee the Russians their navy base etc. Guarantee a secular, democratic system. That'll give the regime their out. Sure, the more religious of the opposition won't like that, but frankly, gently caress those particular guys. Ten thousand people a month or more are dying. Sure, it's an unreasonable interference in another countries affairs, but it's an interference that will save a lot of lives and give the best chance for a sustainable future than any other sort of interference I can see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
cafel posted:The posters point was whether or not the chemical weapon attacks happened doesn't matter because Assad was already committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civillians and vital infrastructure and mercy related places like hospitals, all of which go against the international treaties that say 'No chemical weapons' and we have hours and hours of footage with indisputable proof of that. Debating about whether chemical weapons were actually used with a lot of skepticism and scrutiny is being pendantic when we know for a fact worse war crimes are occuring on a daily basis. Can't really elaborate on it, because cafel covered it well, but yes. This was my point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
cafel posted:The posters point was whether or not the chemical weapon attacks happened doesn't matter because Assad was already committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civillians and vital infrastructure and mercy related places like hospitals, all of which go against the international treaties that say 'No chemical weapons' and we have hours and hours of footage with indisputable proof of that. Debating about whether chemical weapons were actually used with a lot of skepticism and scrutiny is being pendantic when we know for a fact worse war crimes are occuring on a daily basis. Obama didn't establish nebulous "war crimes" as his red-line that would change his calculus regarding Assad. And the only war crimes accusation that means a thing is when the Hague says it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Warcabbit posted:(Trust me, you're not cranking the main gun out of an Abrams and attaching it to a Hilux.) I'd bet you a sizable amount of money that given enough time and an abandoned Abrams, the FSA will find a way to get it out and use it in a role it wasn't intended for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 01:49
|
|